View Full Version : US Carrier Group off Korea
Heathrow Harry
13th Nov 2017, 10:23
US displays military might near Korea - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-41968321/us-displays-military-might-near-korea)
some nice footage
BEagle
13th Nov 2017, 11:30
One hopes that the megalomaniac dictator won't do anything stupid after one of his daft petulant tantrumps.
It is to be hoped that the Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and supreme leader of North Korea won't react to this provocation either.
Trim Stab
13th Nov 2017, 11:49
US displays military might near Korea - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-41968321/us-displays-military-might-near-korea)
some nice footage
Hopefully there is somebody awake on the bridge amongst that lot...
Cazalet33
13th Nov 2017, 12:59
It's OK.
The opposition is short and fat. Not much vertical footage
Not a dotard.
Nothing for the bridge crew to look out for.
recceguy
13th Nov 2017, 13:14
US displays military might near Korea - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-41968321/us-displays-military-might-near-korea)
some nice footage
Well, looking at the crew, I'm not sure they are from the same side as me.
Truely, it had been some time those pictures had not been broadcasted around. It usually happens every 5-6 years - always the same footage, basically.
Reminds me of the Fall of Saigon, by the way. Let's wait and see.
Anyway, I'm not for one side in particular, being from the other part of the world. Just would enjoy one side getting a bloody nose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHLKFSWzImk
Cazalet33
13th Nov 2017, 13:17
the Fall of Saigon
Buggah!
Buggah Buggah Buggah!
West Coast
13th Nov 2017, 14:12
When are you lads going to get real ships like those?
Heathrow Harry
13th Nov 2017, 14:35
at the Greek Calends...................
Davef68
13th Nov 2017, 15:10
What's the little carrier in the middle?
Heathrow Harry
13th Nov 2017, 15:26
Possibly the JS Ise, a 13,950-ton Hyūga-class helicopter "destroyer"
Wensleydale
13th Nov 2017, 16:43
Why am I minded of this from u-tube?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePi4dieDS8Y
fltlt
13th Nov 2017, 17:57
Why am I minded of this from u-tube?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePi4dieDS8Y
With that much combined power they can move the lighthouse, permanently.
West Coast
13th Nov 2017, 19:16
It’s an Irish lighthouse now, used to be French.
It was funny when people actually believed the story.
Davef68
13th Nov 2017, 19:41
Possibly the JS Ise, a 13,950-ton Hyūga-class helicopter "destroyer"
From the deck markings, looks like you are right. I'd wondered if it wa sone of the Korean Dokdo class LPHs, although they are assauly ships rather than the AS role the Japanee carrier, sorry, destroyer has!
jolihokistix
14th Nov 2017, 00:04
No, the Koreans refused to take part at the same time as the Japanese. They did a similar joint sailing separately with the US, and when asked why no US/J/K they said it was to mollify the Chinese at a time of delicate negotiations.
One hopes that the megalomaniac dictator won't do anything stupid after one of his daft petulant tantrumps.
It is to be hoped that the Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea and supreme leader of North Korea won't react to this provocation either.
Get real.
Try it the other way round.
Trump despite his undoubted failings does not come close to the little fat psychopathic NK ‘God’ for unmitigated evil.
N Korea is a failed state that complies with no universally accepted norms of acceptable behaviour, and presents a very real and present danger to world stability at the present time.
In spite of all the above mirth merriment and general jokes it should perhaps also be realised that with 7 carrier strike groups presently deployed the USN has at sea more ships and power than many country's Navies combined.
They also have about a century of carrier operations under their belt, and, at the present time just happen to be keeping the UK’s seedcorn carrier personnel trained and with the ability to man QE and the Prince of Wales in due course.
Heathrow Harry
15th Nov 2017, 13:21
Last time I looked Brat the USN was bigger than the next 10 navies combined...................
In spite of all the above mirth merriment and general jokes it should perhaps also be realised that with 7 carrier strike groups presently deployed the USN has at sea more ships and power than many country's Navies combined.
What's going to be interesting is what happens in 6 months or so time when all those carriers will be at the end of their deployment cycle with only 3 to replace them.
West Coast
15th Nov 2017, 14:28
What makes you think there won’t be anything to replace them? Normal cruises have been greatly extended in times of need.
What's going to be interesting is what happens in 6 months or so time when all those carriers will be at the end of their deployment cycle with only 3 to replace them.Who knows how long they'll be deployed together off Korea? Even if it's for an extended period, the carriers can be relieved one at time within the normal rotation cycle of the carriers. And if things get hot, the deployment periods for one or more carriers can be extended as needed. That's what happened in both Gulf War 1 and 2.
Kobus Dune
16th Nov 2017, 11:35
... the deployment periods for one or more carriers can be extended as needed..
At significant costs for crew retention.
Even if it's for an extended period, the carriers can be relieved one at time within the normal rotation cycle of the carriers.
I'm sure they can, but with 7 of 10 deployed, at some point you're going to run out of carriers to cycle through the rotation even if you extend deployments. Not to mention the current issues within the USN* regarding the sustainability of their Op Tempo.
Put it another way, if they could keep 7 out of 10 carriers at sea without any impact, why don't the USN do it all the time?
*Not that other navies don't have that problem either.
...why don't the USN do it all the time?
Because we don’t have the extreme instability that exists at the present time?
Or had that completely past you by?
Not at all, but as with most navies the USN appears to work on a 3 for 1 ratio of hulls, i.e. you need 3 to have 1 at sea. So one in refit, one in work-up, and one deployed. Unless there's a ridiculous amount of slack in that system I can't see how 7 from 10 works for anything longer than about 9 months, at which point you've run the sailors, ships, and aircraft ragged.
Still easy way to find out, wait until this time next year and see how many carriers are deployed.
Icare9
16th Nov 2017, 15:09
wait until this time next year and see how many carriers are deployed
.... maybe that's the NK plan, over extend the US capabilities by ramping up pressure continually....?
Really.. the only country able to put together a proper global enforcement task force.. and the best put down is can they keep it up for than afew months.. well I’m guessing if they needed to the yanks could.. more importantly they would..
Good to see at least one country on the planet is maintaining a decent navy..
Not at all...
...but as with most navies the USN appears to work on a 3 for 1 ratio of hulls, i.e. you need 3 to have 1 at sea. So one in refit, one in work-up, and one deployed. Unless there's a ridiculous amount of slack in that system I can't see how 7 from 10 works for anything longer than about 9 months, at which point you've run the sailors, ships, and aircraft ragged.
Still easy way to find out, wait until this time next year and see how many carriers are deployed.
Hmm you made sense with the not at all.
All after that however indicated that it had.
London Eye
17th Nov 2017, 04:34
Get real.
Try it the other way round.
Trump despite his undoubted failings does not come close to the little fat psychopathic NK ‘God’ for unmitigated evil.
N Korea is a failed state that complies with no universally accepted norms of acceptable behaviour, and presents a very real and present danger to world stability at the present time.
In spite of all the above mirth merriment and general jokes it should perhaps also be realised that with 7 carrier strike groups presently deployed the USN has at sea more ships and power than many country's Navies combined.
They also have about a century of carrier operations under their belt, and, at the present time just happen to be keeping the UK’s seedcorn carrier personnel trained and with the ability to man QE and the Prince of Wales in due course.
A joke: Leads the listener to expect a certain outcome, and at the last minute, another outcome is substituted. :hmm:
A joke: Leads the listener to expect a certain outcome, and at the last minute, another outcome is substituted. :hmm:
Aah, one worthy of the BBC. :hmm::hmm:
FODPlod
17th Nov 2017, 23:24
Not at all, but as with most navies the USN appears to work on a 3 for 1 ratio of hulls, i.e. you need 3 to have 1 at sea. So one in refit, one in work-up, and one deployed. Unless there's a ridiculous amount of slack in that system I can't see how 7 from 10 works for anything longer than about 9 months, at which point you've run the sailors, ships, and aircraft ragged.
Still easy way to find out, wait until this time next year and see how many carriers are deployed.
For 10 hulls, your ratio implies 3 in refit, 3 on work-up, 3 deployed and 1 somewhere in between. How is this significantly different from the status quo with 3 in refit (BUSH, VINSON, WASHINGTON), 4 on post-refit trials/work-up (STENNIS, TRUMAN, EISENHOWER, LINCOLN) and 3 deployed (REAGAN, NIMITZ, ROOSEVELT), not to mention FORD on acceptance trials and the new KENNEDY in build (link (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm)).
Don't confuse 'at sea' with 'deployed'. USS ROOSEVELT holds the record for the longest continuous period at sea by a nuclear-powered carrier (159 days) eclipsed only by the conventionally-powered HMS INVINCIBLE (166 days). However, foreign deployments can last up to 10 months overall and this doesn't include time away from the wall for post-refit trials & pre-deployment work-up.Carrier deployments will be less often but longer (https://pilotonline.com/news/military/carrier-deployments-will-be-less-often-but-longer/article_121d52de-52ed-55d8-97d4-f34d4b739ae0.html)
...Under current operations, aircraft carriers depart once every 32 months on deployments that are billed to last six to seven months. But global demands often stretch those tours to nine or 10 months, straining sailors, their families and maintenance schedules. Starting in November, Gortney said Wednesday at a Navy symposium in Washington, carrier strike groups will deploy once every 36 months on cruises that will be scheduled to last eight months. The longer maintenance cycle should allow for more consistency at home, Gortney said...
Last fall, the aircraft carrier Nimitz was ordered to extend its deployment and remain on station in the Red Sea as President Barack Obama contemplated a possible missile strike in Syria. That deployment ended up lasting nearly 10 months. Those sorts of extensions will probably still happen under the new deployment cycle, but they should be less common, said retired Vice Adm. Pete Daly, director of the U.S. Naval Institute and former Fleet Forces deputy commander and chief of staff.