GrogHeads Forum

see graphic of March 14 courtesty of Stratfor

http://www.stratfor.com/image/us-naval-update-map-march-14-2012 (http://www.stratfor.com/image/us-naval-update-map-march-14-2012)

Well this could get interesting. 

I voted for a massive tailgate party.

Quote from: LongBlade on March 16, 2012, 07:59:08 AM
I voted for a massive tailgate party.

They don't do tailgate partys....

Da squids call it a 'Steel Beach' party.

Honestly, I don't see too much of a difference between deployments now and during the 90's.

Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 16, 2012, 08:42:40 AM

Quote from: LongBlade on March 16, 2012, 07:59:08 AM
I voted for a massive tailgate party.

They don't do tailgate partys....

Da squids call it a 'Steel Beach' party.

Honestly, I don't see too much of a difference between deployments now and during the 90's.

These deployments seem to put some teeth behind Obama's message to the Iranians that our patience is wearing thin with regard to diplomacy.

Obama has proven he will use a small level of force to achieve results. The question is whether he'll pull the trigger on a large scale use of force.

I think he'll be reluctant to do so because it will trigger $5/gallon gas at a minimum.

But the real reason he won't do it is because I don't think he wants to make the case for yet another war. Surgical strikes he likes. But I don't see him standing before the Congress telling them we need to go to war with Iran. I just don't.

I hope I'm wrong, because only the credible threat of war will give diplomacy the slightest chance of success. But I don't believe the Iranians will give up their designs for a moment - making war the only option.

Much more likely is an Israeli strike on Iran.

Now the question becomes are those carriers there to intimidate Iran? Or perhaps to complicate an Israeli strike?

I guess that time will tell.

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2012/03/inaccurate-debate-about-iran.html

Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 16, 2012, 08:42:40 AM
Honestly, I don't see too much of a difference between deployments now and during the 90's.

During the 90's wouldn't US carriers have been on station over Iraq to enforce the no-fly zone over Saddam's Iraq.  Since he's and the no-fly zone restrictions are no longer there, why the carriers?

The Stratfor naval deployment maps showed a VERY different picture during the Arab spring.  Most of the CV's on station were hanging out much closer to Egypt, or were in the Mediterranean proper.   Point being...the USN appears to send its carriers closer to where there may be some flare-ups.

Most humble regards,

Jack Nastyface

Quote from: Jack Nastyface on March 16, 2012, 01:36:32 PM

Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 16, 2012, 08:42:40 AM
Honestly, I don't see too much of a difference between deployments now and during the 90's.

During the 90's wouldn't US carriers have been on station over Iraq to enforce the no-fly zone over Saddam's Iraq.  Since he's and the no-fly zone restrictions are no longer there, why the carriers?

The Stratfor naval deployment maps showed a VERY different picture during the Arab spring.  Most of the CV's on station were hanging out much closer to Egypt, or were in the Mediterranean proper.   Point being...the USN appears to send its carriers closer to where there may be some flare-ups.

Most humble regards,

Jack Nastyface

I could be mistaken, but in my latest chapter of ESP For Dummies I tried a new technique and I think I know what Smuck is thinking.

Wasn't there a bit of a dust-up in the 90's with the Iranians where they shut down the Straight for about 12 hours?

Quote from: LongBlade on March 16, 2012, 02:03:00 PM
Wasn't there a bit of a dust-up in the 90's with the Iranians where they shut down the Straight for about 12 hours?

@ Jack, you are correct...and for the 90's we no longer had the traditional West Pac...we would finish certifications in Hawaii & Okinawa...visit Singapore, Panang, and a few other places and then hang out in the Gulf for the rest of the deployment.

@ LB, without using my goole-fu...I remember our workups for Oman in 88. We started to convoy ships out of the gulf in the 87-88 time frame. They did attempt to close the Straits...we took down some Iranian  go-plats and they resorted to mines but after it was all done and over with...the Straits stayed open for business.

Its about Syria....


oh waitaminute that wouldn't be about oil - only ethical and moral reasons.

Quote from: Windigo on March 16, 2012, 04:08:11 PM
Its about Syria....


oh waitaminute that wouldn't be about oil - only ethical and moral reasons.

If ya gotta pick yer battles which ones are ya gonna choose: ones where you benefit or ones where ya don't?

Oh, wait. Canada can't project any force because they spend all their cash on health care.

I have to rebut with the best line in the article linked by Brant.


"And while we're on the subject of Iranian "rationality," it is perhaps worth noting that its leaders weren't goofy enough to invade Iraq on a pretext and then spend trillions of dollars fighting an unnecessary war there."
[/size]
[/size]lol, I didnt read the rest of the article, it would only go down hill from that.
[/size]
[/size]So yeah, our taxes suck but there is a good chance we will actually get some benefit from paying in. Your benefit is you get to say how cool some hardware other people get to play with is. Wow, I really do understand why our neighbours are always bitching about paying for government! ;D
[/size]
[/size]

Quote from: LongBlade on March 16, 2012, 04:53:37 PM
Oh, wait. Canada can't project any force because they spend all their cash on health care.

heh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDdlHmzIdn8&feature=related

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-persian-gulf/

Now, it's written by Ackerman, so take it with a grain of salt, b/c he's a but of a hyperbole-prone hack.  But the facts are reasonably in line

QuoteIn the next few months, the Navy will double its minesweeper craft stationed in Bahrain, near Iran, from four to eight. Those ships will be crucial if Iran takes the drastic step of mining the Strait of Hormuz, one of the global energy supply's most crucial waterways. Four more MH-53 "Sea Stallion" helicopters, another minesweeping tool, are also getting ready for Bahrain, to give the U.S. Fifth Fleet early warning for any strait mining.

Then the Navy will prepare to get closer to Iranian shores. Much closer. It's got five close-action patrol boats in the Gulf right now. Once the Coast Guard returns three that the Navy loaned out, the Navy will have five other patrol craft in the United States. All those boats are getting retrofitted. With Gatling guns. And missiles.

Sure, the guns aboard the two aircraft carriers currently near Iran are the seapower equivalent of high-powered, long-range rifles. "But maybe what you need is like a sawed-off shotgun," capable of doing massive damage from a closer distance, said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy's senior officer. All 10 of those patrol boats, Greenert told reporters at a Friday breakfast in Washington, will get strapped with the Mk-38 Gatling Gun and should make it to the Gulf next year. (Though, alas, they won't have the Gatling/laser gun mashup BAE Systems is working on.) They'll also get close-range missiles that can hit Iranian shores from four miles away — the same kinds Navy SEALs use.


Consider it Teddy Roosevelt's gunboat diplomacy for the 21st century. Over plates of greasy eggs and bacon, Greenert outlined a plan to give the U.S. what is almost certainly the biggest stick the Navy has ever had in the Gulf. The idea, which he didn't make explicit, is to convince Iran to think long and hard before ever messing with either the U.S.'s Arab allies across the Gulf or disrupting a narrow transit point through which a fifth of the world's energy supplies flow.

Add up the aircraft carriers, the Gatling-packing patrol craft, the Orions, the Sea Stallions and the minesweepers, and Greenert still isn't finished with the surge. Then come the new, advanced torpedoes that can compensate for the "turpidity [and] particulate" drags of the Gulf waters. And the drone subs — or, as Greenert put it, "some underwater unmanned neutralization autonomous units" to help hunt mines. And every Navy ship that sails through the strait will come equipped with new, modular "infrared and electro-optical" visibility systems that clarify the foggy Gulf even at night. Extra spare parts and contractor crews will sustain the surge.

And if all that wasn't enough, Greenert disclosed that he and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon ask themselves if the Navy needs to rotate more aircraft carriers to the Gulf. That decision, so important that it's Panetta's to make, will come "in the next few months."

"I looked in every domain, undersea, surface and air," Greenert said, "to make sure that we're doing our best for the guys that are over there."

Quote from: Windigo on March 17, 2012, 02:53:52 AM

Quote from: LongBlade on March 16, 2012, 04:53:37 PM
Oh, wait. Canada can't project any force because they spend all their cash on health care.

heh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDdlHmzIdn8&feature=related

You forgot to mention that Canada is going broke providing a nanny state - just not as rapidly.

Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 17, 2012, 08:11:32 AM
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-persian-gulf/

Now, it's written by Ackerman, so take it with a grain of salt, b/c he's a but of a hyperbole-prone hack.  But the facts are reasonably in line

QuoteIn the next few months, the Navy will double its minesweeper craft stationed in Bahrain, near Iran, from four to eight. Those ships will be crucial if Iran takes the drastic step of mining the Strait of Hormuz, one of the global energy supply's most crucial waterways. Four more MH-53 "Sea Stallion" helicopters, another minesweeping tool, are also getting ready for Bahrain, to give the U.S. Fifth Fleet early warning for any strait mining.

Then the Navy will prepare to get closer to Iranian shores. Much closer. It's got five close-action patrol boats in the Gulf right now. Once the Coast Guard returns three that the Navy loaned out, the Navy will have five other patrol craft in the United States. All those boats are getting retrofitted. With Gatling guns. And missiles.

Sure, the guns aboard the two aircraft carriers currently near Iran are the seapower equivalent of high-powered, long-range rifles. "But maybe what you need is like a sawed-off shotgun," capable of doing massive damage from a closer distance, said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy's senior officer. All 10 of those patrol boats, Greenert told reporters at a Friday breakfast in Washington, will get strapped with the Mk-38 Gatling Gun and should make it to the Gulf next year. (Though, alas, they won't have the Gatling/laser gun mashup BAE Systems is working on.) They'll also get close-range missiles that can hit Iranian shores from four miles away — the same kinds Navy SEALs use.


Consider it Teddy Roosevelt's gunboat diplomacy for the 21st century. Over plates of greasy eggs and bacon, Greenert outlined a plan to give the U.S. what is almost certainly the biggest stick the Navy has ever had in the Gulf. The idea, which he didn't make explicit, is to convince Iran to think long and hard before ever messing with either the U.S.'s Arab allies across the Gulf or disrupting a narrow transit point through which a fifth of the world's energy supplies flow.

Add up the aircraft carriers, the Gatling-packing patrol craft, the Orions, the Sea Stallions and the minesweepers, and Greenert still isn't finished with the surge. Then come the new, advanced torpedoes that can compensate for the "turpidity [and] particulate" drags of the Gulf waters. And the drone subs — or, as Greenert put it, "some underwater unmanned neutralization autonomous units" to help hunt mines. And every Navy ship that sails through the strait will come equipped with new, modular "infrared and electro-optical" visibility systems that clarify the foggy Gulf even at night. Extra spare parts and contractor crews will sustain the surge.

And if all that wasn't enough, Greenert disclosed that he and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon ask themselves if the Navy needs to rotate more aircraft carriers to the Gulf. That decision, so important that it's Panetta's to make, will come "in the next few months."

"I looked in every domain, undersea, surface and air," Greenert said, "to make sure that we're doing our best for the guys that are over there."

Hmmm.

Why do I get the sense we're trying too hard here?

Quote from: LongBlade on March 17, 2012, 10:01:14 AM

Quote from: Windigo on March 17, 2012, 02:53:52 AM

Quote from: LongBlade on March 16, 2012, 04:53:37 PM
Oh, wait. Canada can't project any force because they spend all their cash on health care.

heh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDdlHmzIdn8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDdlHmzIdn8&feature=related)

You forgot to mention that Canada is going broke providing a nanny state - just not as rapidly.

Actually our finances are ok, we took the smallest hit of the G8 in the downturn mostly due to good banking oversight. Hahem.


I think windy was looking for this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKz1phnuCc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIKz1phnuCc)  :o


:-* :P

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 18, 2012, 01:52:30 AM
Actually our finances are ok, we took the smallest hit of the G8 in the downturn mostly due to good banking oversight. Hahem.

My mistake. I thought Windy mentioned Canada's debt was something like $16k/person.

Quote from: LongBlade on March 18, 2012, 11:40:45 AM

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 18, 2012, 01:52:30 AM
Actually our finances are ok, we took the smallest hit of the G8 in the downturn mostly due to good banking oversight. Hahem.

My mistake. I thought Windy mentioned Canada's debt was something like $16k/person.

Compare that to to almost $45-50K for the average American citizen, depending on your source.

Quote from: Staggerwing on March 18, 2012, 12:14:19 PM

Quote from: LongBlade on March 18, 2012, 11:40:45 AM

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 18, 2012, 01:52:30 AM
Actually our finances are ok, we took the smallest hit of the G8 in the downturn mostly due to good banking oversight. Hahem.

My mistake. I thought Windy mentioned Canada's debt was something like $16k/person.

Compare that to to almost $45-50K for the average American citizen, depending on your source.

Understood. My point being that it's still not a surplus, nor particularly close to one.

Quote from: LongBlade on March 18, 2012, 11:40:45 AM

Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on March 18, 2012, 01:52:30 AM
Actually our finances are ok, we took the smallest hit of the G8 in the downturn mostly due to good banking oversight. Hahem.

My mistake. I thought Windy mentioned Canada's debt was something like $16k/person.

it is.... provincial (state) debt is a pretty hefty portion of that number too

Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 17, 2012, 08:11:32 AM
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-persian-gulf/

Now, it's written by Ackerman, so take it with a grain of salt, b/c he's a but of a hyperbole-prone hack.  But the facts are reasonably in line

QuoteIn the next few months, the Navy will double its minesweeper craft stationed in Bahrain, near Iran, from four to eight. Those ships will be crucial if Iran takes the drastic step of mining the Strait of Hormuz, one of the global energy supply's most crucial waterways. Four more MH-53 "Sea Stallion" helicopters, another minesweeping tool, are also getting ready for Bahrain, to give the U.S. Fifth Fleet early warning for any strait mining.

Then the Navy will prepare to get closer to Iranian shores. Much closer. It's got five close-action patrol boats in the Gulf right now. Once the Coast Guard returns three that the Navy loaned out, the Navy will have five other patrol craft in the United States. All those boats are getting retrofitted. With Gatling guns. And missiles.

Sure, the guns aboard the two aircraft carriers currently near Iran are the seapower equivalent of high-powered, long-range rifles. "But maybe what you need is like a sawed-off shotgun," capable of doing massive damage from a closer distance, said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy's senior officer. All 10 of those patrol boats, Greenert told reporters at a Friday breakfast in Washington, will get strapped with the Mk-38 Gatling Gun and should make it to the Gulf next year. (Though, alas, they won't have the Gatling/laser gun mashup BAE Systems is working on.) They'll also get close-range missiles that can hit Iranian shores from four miles away — the same kinds Navy SEALs use.


Consider it Teddy Roosevelt's gunboat diplomacy for the 21st century. Over plates of greasy eggs and bacon, Greenert outlined a plan to give the U.S. what is almost certainly the biggest stick the Navy has ever had in the Gulf. The idea, which he didn't make explicit, is to convince Iran to think long and hard before ever messing with either the U.S.'s Arab allies across the Gulf or disrupting a narrow transit point through which a fifth of the world's energy supplies flow.

Add up the aircraft carriers, the Gatling-packing patrol craft, the Orions, the Sea Stallions and the minesweepers, and Greenert still isn't finished with the surge. Then come the new, advanced torpedoes that can compensate for the "turpidity [and] particulate" drags of the Gulf waters. And the drone subs — or, as Greenert put it, "some underwater unmanned neutralization autonomous units" to help hunt mines. And every Navy ship that sails through the strait will come equipped with new, modular "infrared and electro-optical" visibility systems that clarify the foggy Gulf even at night. Extra spare parts and contractor crews will sustain the surge.

And if all that wasn't enough, Greenert disclosed that he and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon ask themselves if the Navy needs to rotate more aircraft carriers to the Gulf. That decision, so important that it's Panetta's to make, will come "in the next few months."

"I looked in every domain, undersea, surface and air," Greenert said, "to make sure that we're doing our best for the guys that are over there."

Considering the most damage Iran did in the gulf was using mines during the Iran Iraq war its good to see more emphasis is bieng placed on minesweeping. However, the Iranian capabilities are today also not those of that conflict. I suspect the Iranians IF it comes to war will have a much more robust package of options then they did then.