Donald Trump hopes Iran commits a terrorist attack on US soil

[RhodeIslandOne]

Let’s be honest, right?

[atreides1]

1. They don't have to

There are more then enough American targets in their part of the world...why waste the time and effort to come to the US, when it'll be so much easier to strike American targets in Africa and the Middle East.

[tanyev]

2. I'm sure a sociopathic narcissist would only consider the political capital

he could accrue from such an attack. Unless, of course, something closely associated with him was attacked.

[pecosbob]

3. Iran undoubtedly will realize how such an attack would work against their interests

by empowering rectionary elements here in the U.S. They will likely be more creative in their response and could present problems for Trump's re-election efforts should they play their cards correctly. They has proven they aren't going to be proxy of the U.S. or the Russians and taking a high road at this point could make the U.S and Trump look pretty bad.

[Zolorp]

4. I seriously believe the leaders of Iran will not be so stupid.

The bigger threat would be to Americans in the region. I think that the U.S.S Harry Truman would be the biggest target as it is sitting outside the the Gulf of Oman in the Arabian Sea at last report. The Iranians have submarines and an Aircraft carrier is a tasty target in a war between two naval powers. Yes, I said war. Assassinating a state official is an overt act of war. Donald Trump has declared war unilaterally without consulting Congress and the Senate will refuse to hold him accountable for such a breach of the constitution.

[marble falls]

5. The US takes very good care of its carriers. We have about three times ...

the carriers active as the rest of the world does put together. And then we have another 10 or so that that could be recommissioned in months.

There is NO way an Iranian sub is getting close enough to have a go at one of our carriers. The task force attached to this carrier group has at least one or two fast attack subs with it and a bunch of antisub warfare ships and aircraft wings.

I'm more concerned about satchel charges in a mall. Or at US facilities, 1000's of them all over the planet.

[Zolorp]

6. The United States has not been at war with a naval power that has submarines since WWII

There's no way to really tell what will happen with the CVN 75 Naval Group.

[ooky]

7. That's why we have anti-submarine warfare squadrons protecting our

carrier task groups. Iran has plenty of targets easier to breach than our aircraft carriers.

[marble falls]

8. Really? The North Korean and Chinease didn't have submarines during the Korean ...

war? They weren't used because sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

You have no idea how big and how powerful the USN is. I'd verry, verymuch rather be on the Truman than than on the Irianian diesel boat that decides to take on a carrier group to get to the Truman.

And I'm an exNavy bubblehead.

About the Truman's strike group:


https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/12/02/USS-Harry-S-Truman-carrier-strike-group-join-6th-Fleet-in-Atlantic-Ocean/3871575308223/

"Ships in the strike group include the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers USS Lassen, USS Farragut and USS Forrest Sherman as well as the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy. Together with smaller ships, they escort the aircraft carrier and its squadrons of fighter planes.

The Harry S. Truman CSG last operated in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations, surrounding Europe from the "High North" to the East Mediterranean Sea, in 2018.

In September, the Truman spent several months at Carrier Station Norfolk, Va., sidelined with electrical problems. Its escort ships nonetheless began deployment from their East Coast home ports for training exercise. Traveling without its lead vessel was regarded as unprecedented for a carrier strike group."


There's two SSN, an early warning antisub aerial group, NO sub is getting close to this carrier.

[Zolorp]

11. At the time of the Korean war, they had no submarines.

Check your facts.

[backscatter712]

17. Iran's submarines aren't a match for Truman's defenses.

I seriously doubt they'd be able to pose much of a threat to the Truman.

Reason #1 - US Navy ships are fast, especially carriers. A Nimitz class like the Truman can do 30 knots easily. A diesel-electric sub of the kind Iran has probably can't do half of that when submerged. No carrier commander worth their salt will allow their carrier to simply be a sitting duck. An Iranian sub is going to struggle to keep up with the carrier strike group, and it absolutely can't run its engines at full power - it'd make too much noise and get caught.

Reason #2 - the other ships in the Carrier Strike Group - Destroyers, cruisers, nuclear attack subs, aircraft & choppers with anti-submarine weapons & sensors. And they know perfectly well about Iran's submarine fleet.

Maybe some of Russia's newer subs might pose a threat, but not Iran's.

[keithbvadu2]

12. "another 10 or so"? - Which ones?

"And then we have another 10 or so that that could be recommissioned in months. "

MANY, MANY months.

"another 10 or so"?

You would probably have to go get the ones that are now museums.

[backscatter712]

18. I think they have a few carriers in mothballs.

The Enterprise wouldn't be able to be reactivated - its nuclear reactors are being dismantled, and the ship itself was in the process of being scrapped, last time I heard.

There are what, four or five carriers in mothballs right now IIRC? Like the Kitty Hawk, the Ranger, and the old John F. Kennedy (not the new Ford class JFK).

It would take quite a bit of work to bring them back to combat-ready status though, and given that we already have more aircraft carriers than every other nation in the world combined, I don't think the Navy would think they're in a tight enough pinch to start reviving mothballed ships.

[keithbvadu2]

19. Yep. That's why I doubt the claim of 10 or so.

Yep. That's why I doubt the claim of 10 or so.

[marble falls]

20. Does the US Navy have 10 or 19 Aircraft Carriers?

Does the US Navy have 10 or 19 Aircraft Carriers?

https://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-us-navy-have-10-or-19-aircraft-carriers/

The U.S. Navy operates 19 ships that could be called aircraft carriers, but only considers 10 to be actual carriers.
Robert Farley
By Robert Farley
April 17, 2014
Does the US Navy have 10 or 19 Aircraft Carriers?
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Last week the U.S. Navy accepted USS America, first of the America-class amphibious assault ships, into service. Unlike most recent amphibious assault ships, USS America and her sister USS Tripoli lack well-decks, instead focusing on aviation facilities. When fully operational, America and Tripoli will operate as many as 20 F-35Bs, potentially playing a critical role in what the Navy projects as the future of air superiority.

Inevitably, the delivery of USS America rekindles the ongoing conversation over what, precisely, constitutes an aircraft carrier. In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

As an educator, I can attest to some frustration in relating to students that the United States operates ten aircraft carriers, plus another nine ships that we would refer to as aircraft carriers if they served in any other navy. And while I appreciate the desire of analysts to differently categorize the capabilities of Wasp and Nimitz-class carriers, I wish that people had a firmer grasp on the abject silliness of claiming that a 45,000 ton flat-decked aircraft-carrying warship is not, in fact, an aircraft carrier. Think of the children.

The distinction between aircraft carrier and amphibious assault ship began when the typology of USN flattops was considerably more complex than today. The Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ships entered service in 1961, sharing the sea with Forrestal-class supercarriers, Midway class semi-supercarriers, and a variety of configurations of Essex-class carriers. Unfortunately, the name stuck even as amphibs gained the capacity for launching VSTOL fighters, and as the number of carrier variants dwindled.

But today, no one benefits from an accurate characterization of the Navy’s amphibious flat-top fleet. The USN prefers to fight its budgetary battles on the basis of the 11 carrier fleet, not the much more impressive sounding 19 carrier fleet. Naval aviation advocates are surely correct when they point out that the America and Wasp-class carriers fall far short of their Nimitz-class counterparts, even if they sometimes grudgingly grant that the smaller ships can carry out many of the same roles as their nuclear cousins.

And so what’s the problem? Who cares if the United States effectively disguises nearly half of its carrier fleet? The deception may not hold forever. At some point, skeptical legislators may choose to acknowledge the existence of the USN’s other nine carriers, and consequently the overwhelming superiority of USN aviation over any potential foe. It would be better to get ahead of this game, and develop a more appropriate way of talking about the USN’s light carrier fleet. The best choice might be to skip “light carrier” or “sea control ship” and go straight to “assault carrier,” a term that is sometimes used in British naval circles to describe HMS Ocean and her predecessors. Such a designation would make for a considerably more intelligible naval vocabulary.



The carrier Kitty Hawk, second from left, alongside Independence, Constellation and Ranger at NISMF Bremerton

https://maritime-executive.com/article/navy-considers-reactivating-mothballed-warships


For a graphic look at who's got aircrat carrier in 2019 see this:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-aircraft-carriers.asp

[keithbvadu2]

21. Give our older nuke carriers to other countries ???

Give our older nuke carriers to other countries ???
.
.
This guy is a real moron! He calls 5 out of 11 (2014) carriers "a handful" as in 'minor amount'.
That's 45%, Leaving six carriers for America to do its missions.
He expects these other countries to keep up and maintain older carriers which need more overhauls?
He might have covered intelligence but none of it rubbed off on him.
.
=======================================
.
http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x360405293/Instead-of-mothballing-Navy-ships-give-them-to-our-allies
.
April 18, 2014
Instead of mothballing Navy ships, give them to our allies
.
Michael Moran Los Angeles Times
.
LOS ANGELES — A bitter debate has raged in the Pentagon for several months about the wisdom of taking the nuclear aircraft carrier George Washington out of service to save money. The Washington, at 24 years old a relatively young vessel, is due for a costly refit, a routine procedure that all of the 11 large carriers in service undergo regularly.
.
The Navy fought hard against mothballing the giant ship. But Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has warned that when the two-year reprieve Congress granted from sequester cuts expires in 2016, the George Washington will be back on the chopping block. Moreover, the chief of naval operations said last month that the Navy plans to remove 11 of its 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers from active duty to save on operating costs, as well as removing from service early the last frigates in the fleet.
.
But the critics are right. This hardly seems the moment to be scrapping them, with China expanding its fleet and acting aggressively in the South and East China seas and the ongoing need to keep a significant carrier force near the Persian Gulf.
.
Instead, what about taking a page from history and transferring surplus warships to allied navies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (more)

[keithbvadu2]

22. Yep. As your article shows, amphibious assault ships have limited carrier capabilities.

Yep. As your article shows, amphibious assault ships have limited carrier capabilities.

But using them as a full time carrier takes away from their amphib capabilities.

Carrier? - The definition of 'is' is...

[jpak]

14. That is why he carrier is far away from the Strait of Hormuz

Where the shallow water and coastal wave action produce a near-perfect acoustic environment for the nearly 2 dozen mini-subs that Iran has there - to operate.

[marble falls]

9. I think that's true.

[Renew Deal]

13. I expect an eye for an eye attack

Some general, somewhere is going to be targeted.

[MerryBlooms]

15. Our embassy was attacked, but I think it will be obliterated in short time.

We have lots of targets in the region they can attack first, but I agree, there will be something here at home to make a big show for their people. Guess we're at war with Iran, I know I saw DU discuss what trump would pull before the election, most agreed it would have something to do with Iran.

[Midnight Writer]

16. Wasn't it our last Republican President who crowed "Bring it on!"?

[Mc Mike]

23. So does his master, Putin.