Posted on 02/23/2007 5:31:04 PM PST by blam
American armada prepares to take on Iran
By Damien McElroy aboard USS Eisenhower
Last Updated: 1:09am GMT 24/02/2007
It is four and a half acres of US power in the middle of the Arabian Sea but the influence of USS Dwight D Eisenhower stretches hundreds of miles.
The aircraft carrier, backed by its sister vessel, a handful of destroyers and a shoal of support ships, has placed a ring of steel around an increasingly unstable region.
While the Eisenhower is ostensibly assisting US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is increasingly occupied by the looming threat of Iran.
Recent tensions between the US and Iran over Teheran's meddling in Iraq and attempts to build a nuclear bomb have raised the prospect of its third regional war in a decade.
The addition of a second aircraft carrier to its strike groups has fuelled the belief that the US is gearing up for a fight with Iran. Not since the Iraq war in 2003 has America amassed so much fire power around the Persian Gulf.
As flagship of the Fifth Fleet, the Eisenhower welcomed the arrival of the second Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS John C Stennis, and its accompanying destroyers on Tuesday.
Captain Dan Cloyd, the Eisenhower's commanding officer, compared the situation with the international tension of the Cold War.
"There was a time when we had two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean," he told The Daily Telegraph. "The world changes and we adapt."
The quietly spoken Capt Cloyd embraced the suggestion that the dual deployment is at the forefront of efforts to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb, pointing out that his maritime assets have been tasked to quash any challenge to global security.
"Our presence here is an affirmation of our resolve to engage with the nations of the region either where we share common goals or where we face challenges."
The Eisenhower has more than 5,000 people on board and its range of missions is virtually limitless.
As it patrols the shipping lanes of the Strait of Hormuz, the Eisenhower ensures the safe passage of oil tankers. It also prevents the trading routes being used to transport materials that would help rogue nations build a nuclear weapon.
Capt Cloyd said: "Our maritime security mission is about denying the use of the seas to any potential spread of weapons of mass destruction."
Iran's belligerent posture has increased the challenges facing the Eisenhower since it was deployed to the Middle East last October. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the Fifth Fleet, issued a stark warning that Iran risks triggering an "accidental war" during aggressive military manoeuvres.
During the Great Prophet 2 missile test in November, the Islamic Republic fired a Shabab missile into the six-mile corridor of shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. In such a constricted corridor, the results could have been disastrous.
With Teheran's real strategic intentions unclear, the US takes the threats made very seriously. "They threaten to use oil as a weapon. They threaten to close the Straits of Hormuz," Adml Walsh said. "It is the combination of the rhetoric, the tone, and the aggressive exercises in very constrained waters that gives us concern."
US commanders ascribe the increase in instability to increasingly deliberate aggressive actions by Teheran. For that reason the deployment of the carriers is designed to intensify pressure on Iran to step back from the brink.
So we'll have no boots on the ground, do you think?
That was a very interesting program, wasn't it? How the techs sabotaged the planes gave me a chuckle.
The English paper picked ARMADA specifically with intent.
This is shades of Nelson vs the Spanish Armada.
They want to encourage the enemy by the reference.
Go here to see the worlds oceans reduced in depth by about 320 feet. The Persian Gulf was completely dry during the Ice Age. It's not very deep.
Nothing more than some special forces...if that.
I predict Israel will strike the blow, we are there for backup. If Iran attacks the U.S. forces, Bush has all the excuse he needs.
Israel has gone quite, anyone else notice?
Take a walk, coward.
Last night it was either the History or the Military Channel that had three hours back to back that I'm sure the White House hopes al Jazeera picks up. It couldn't have been a clearer warning to Iran - "mess with us and this is what you get"!
Hr.1: Capabilities of the Abrams A1-M2 tank.
Hr.2: Capabilities of F-117 and B-2 stealth technology.
Hr.3: Split between Trident missile sub and CV Stennis aircraft carrier capabilities.
There was some great footage, some which I hadn't seen before. Any potential adversary looking at those three hours would, if they had a functioning brain cell in their heads, blink twice and think hard.
I think that was Effingham, Hawkins and Drake on the Britich side. As I recall, Nelson was over 200 years later at Trafalgar.
After the Lebanon screw-up...I'm not as confident they will as I once was.
I HAVE piloted United States aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. So I will consult myself.
And you?
I HAVE piloted United States aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. So I will consult myself.
And you?
It's one of the first things we will do. Any conflict with Iran has as a co-primary goal keeping Iran from interrupting the flow oil through the Straits of Hormuz....the other being Natanz and other nuclear sites.
The carriers don't need to enter the Gulf to accomplish this. I doubt they would even go into the Gulf if (when) the Iranian Navy no longer exists.
Really? I thought you are originally from France.
I'm not a military guy. Just trying to get a feel for the reaction should the nutballs decide to launch a strike.
The (spice) oil must flow...
No, the carriers don't need to go into the Gulf to take out the various sites at the Straits, that is true. That you can do standing off in the Indian Ocean.
But if you're going to strike inland any farther than the Eastern end of the country, the carriers need to be in the Gulf to be able to maintain high sortie rates. Operating off Oman is just too damned far to be effective if you're hitting central Iran.
The danger to the carriers, or rather, to A (single) carrier, isn't that we're going to try and "run the gauntlet" when at war with Iran. It's that the tensions with Iran will seem normal, as now, we'll be threading a carrier through the straights, and the bastards will hit us with a Silkworm/Sunburn attack by surprise. It it would be all out war, of course, and they'd lose, but we'd have grievous damage done to a carrier (*unless the close-in weapons systems work better than expected), and if they hit right, we might lose one and have a wrecked carrier blocking the channel.
It would be the beginning of the end of the Iranian regime, but if they were going to go out in a blaze of glory, in a sort of uber-suicide attack, that would be how we could easily see them doing it. It wouldn't be very hard for them to do. And it's why the transit through the Straits of Hormuz is always the most tense part of a trip over there.
Yes, it would be suicide for Iran to do such a thing, but the Middle East IS the land of the suicide bomber, self-immolating for Allah, and this is by no means something outside of their capacity. It's well within their capacity if they do it out of the blue. Which they COULD do.
But it's still better to risk it and get the carriers into the Gulf, so you have coverage over all of Iran.
So do you think that's why they named Admiral Fallon to head up the effort?
Im sure there are a few boomers as well :o)
Agree 100%. It is insane for some regimes in this world that they have not learned yet that when America unleashes it incredible military might, the consequences will be more damaging to them than anything they would have imagined. But that is why these terrorists regimes are insane, they cannot comprehend how incredibly powerful is the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
