The US Navy attack AUG led by the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) entered the Persian Gulf

A US Navy carrier strike group led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) entered the waters of the Persian Gulf on Sunday, passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This was reported by the press service of the US Central Command (CENTCOM).

The second American carrier group, led by the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), will be in the waters of the Persian Gulf to “ensure the safety of navigation.” So announced at CENTCOM. In parallel, the AUG will continue to monitor the situation in the Middle East, acting as a kind of “scarecrow” for those who want to speak out against Israel, which, under the cover of the United States, continues to destroy the Gaza Strip.

On November 26, Carrier Strike Group Eisenhower completed passage through the Strait of Hormuz to enter Persian Gulf waters (...) While in the Persian Gulf, the group patrols to ensure freedom of navigation in key international waterways

- said in a statement.

Israel is confident that in the event of a threat to the Jewish state from third countries, the United States will immediately use both aircraft carrier groups to neutralize the threat that has arisen. This was stated by IDF spokesman Peter Lerner. According to him, the United States never “flexes its muscles” without doing anything.

Let us recall that at the moment there are two aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy, an amphibious assault ship with a Marine Expeditionary Force and a strategic nuclear submarine in the Middle East. Washington declares that they do not intend to interfere in the conflict, and the task of the assembled forces is to prevent interference in the conflict by “third countries.”

Comments

[Curt]

Are there any mines left there from WWII? Bottom mines with an acoustic fuse and a charge of 2 kg of TNT?

[Lev_Russia]

And now a very large target for “daggers” and “zircons” has entered the Persian Gulf... If only we could practice, but we can’t... The Third World War will begin... Or maybe we’ll try the “Poseidon”, and then blame the Ukrainian divers for everything, those that the joint venture blew up... They say they confused the direction there under water... Well, what...??? Why can they lie like that, but we can’t...??? Let them prove that this is not so...

[FoBoss_VM]

Why is it not possible? The Americans sank Moscow, the Third World War did not begin. So we can too

[Tatyana]

In Washington they say that they do not intend to interfere in the conflict, but the task of the assembled forces is to prevent interference in the conflict by “third countries”.

They can say whatever they want in Washington, but they definitely can’t be trusted!

Washington must definitely add something else politically-strategically and tactically to this approach of the American squadron! (For example, in relation to Russia and Ukroreich,)
Otherwise, the United States, as the world's gendarmes, will not be the world's gendarmes!

According to Washington, blood should flow like a river around the world! And it really has flowed and continues to flow like a river everywhere with the help of the USA.

[Team]

So we can too

Tongue..
There are already three who were able to do it higher..))

[spirit]

There are already three who were able to do it higher..))

These are iPhone troops) He is their supreme commander in chief. London has already been sunk 5 times. And (AUG USA) for them to sink and spit it out, it’s like going to the toilet, no problem

[Sevastiec]

Let's be objective: the farmers drowned it with the help of Western weapons. Therefore, it seems to me that the Houthis should certainly have a certain (large) number of good modern missiles.

[opuonmed]

nuclear missile with hypersound and no aug)

[Gomunkul]

Israel is confident that in the event of a threat to the Jewish state from third countries, the United States will immediately use both aircraft carrier groups to neutralize the threat that has arisen. This was stated by IDF spokesman Peter Lerner. According to him, the United States never “flexes its muscles” without doing anything.

It would be interesting to know the opinion of experts, how many anti-ship missiles and drones need to be used against an attack AUG in order to destroy it completely? And how long will it take?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Gomunkul

how many anti-ship missiles and drones need to be used against an attack AUG

In the USSR they thought like this - first, additional reconnaissance of the location, then - 8 cruise missiles with special warheads (about 500 Kt) there to suppress EMP electronics, then - an attack by 60 anti-ship missiles by two regiments of naval missile-carrying aviation... But the complete destruction of the AUG was not intended, there was a task was - destruction or guaranteed disabling of the aircraft carrier.

[Lptsk]

Three regiments. 8-9 x 22 is guaranteed to be displayed or destroyed. Or one x 22 with a self-propelled warhead in the body of an aircraft carrier.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Lptsk

8-9 x 22 is guaranteed to be displayed or destroyed.

Well, to support them, the launch of 60 anti-ship missiles is needed

[Gomunkul]

Well, to support them, the launch of 60 anti-ship missiles is needed

Why did you actually ask the question about the number of missiles?
An AUG in the Persian Gulf, if Iran has a sufficient number of ground-based anti-ship missile carriers, can “neutralize” the threat posed by this AUG.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Gomunkul

An AUG in the Persian Gulf, if Iran has a sufficient number of ground-based anti-ship missile carriers, can “neutralize” the threat posed by this AUG.

Yes and no - Iran, as far as I remember, does not fly further than 300 km of anti-ship missiles, and the AUG does not necessarily have to go into the Persian or Oman Gulf in the event of a threat from Iran.

[Gomunkul]

Yes and no - Iran, as far as I remember, does not fly further than 300 km of anti-ship missiles, and the AUG does not necessarily have to go into the Persian or Oman Gulf in the event of a threat from Iran.

Iran, as far as I understand, is in no hurry to reveal all its secrets. I assume that they were nevertheless prepared for such a development of events, if at one time they announced that they could close the Strait of Hormuz.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Gomunkul

I assume that they were nevertheless prepared for such a development of events, if at one time they announced that they could block the Strait of Hormuz.

:)))) It is clear that they can, the Strait of Hormuz just connects the Persian and Oman Gulfs :)))) Both gulfs are about 300 km wide at their widest part, and the Hormuz Gulf is generally narrow.
Therefore, Iran can (at least theoretically) control these two gulfs - the traffic there is monstrous, it is possible to install a certain number of disguised reconnaissance officers (some ships under a non-Iranian flag that will make voyages imitating normal traffic) + numerous Iranian aviation, which may well try to further reconnoiter the position of the AUS with some chances of success even in wartime.

[Sevastiec]

Ehm... isn’t just 8 warheads enough for “incomplete destruction” and complete “removal”? Or should they have detonated at a distance without breaking through the missile defense?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Sevastiec

Ehm... isn’t just 8 warheads enough for “incomplete destruction” and complete “removal”?

Alas. In any case, the location of the AUg is known only approximately, part of the missile launcher will be shot down, but the chances that 1-2 warheads will rush somewhere nearby and suppress the radar and other air defense equipment for some time are very good

[2 Level Advisor]

If you think about it this way, then an aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield with a reinforced air regiment based on it... why should an air regiment simply attract so much attention and as many as 3 regiments of missile carriers (which are not guaranteed to return) and even allocate nuclear weapons to it? Are the capabilities of the AB against the same Russian Federation, in the media sphere, exaggerated? after all, an air regiment can fly out for a strike from the ground (if we take the Russian Federation), from wherever you want (EU Japan Turkey) and this is much easier and closer than adjusting and protecting an aircraft carrier.. in fact, they are more suitable against weak small countries..

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

if you think about it like that, then an aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield with a reinforced air regiment based on it..

The US one consists of two reinforced air regiments.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

Why should an air regiment simply attract so much attention and as many as 3 regiments of missile carriers (which are not guaranteed to return) and even allocate nuclear weapons to it?

In the USSR this was considered mandatory, and the reasons for this are clear. The presence of AUG off our coasts means:
1. Dominance of the enemy’s basic anti-aircraft aircraft, that is, if the conflict has not yet escalated into a nuclear one, our SSBNs are under threat. And enemy nuclear submarines are near our shores, firing at us with Tomahawks (non-nuclear or nuclear, depending on the intensity of the conflict). Taking into account the limited range of Tomahawks, the expansion of their affected area is more than enough.
2. Qualitative strengthening of the NATO Air Force in the conflict. Simply put, an aircraft carrier is not just a hangar for aircraft. This is an aircraft hangar + full maintenance with the ability to repair part of the battle damage + aviation fuel reserves + aircraft ammunition reserves.
Therefore, for example, during the years of the USSR, the United States planned to move 2 ABs to Norway like this - they are crammed to the very tonsils with airplanes in overload, upon arrival at the place, most of them fly to jump airfields in Norway, and operate from there, returning to maintenance on the AB. And if the Northern Fleet makes a breakthrough into the Atlantic, then the air groups will be replenished to full capacity and enter the battle with our ships.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

let the air regiment fly out for a strike from the ground (if you take the Russian Federation), from where you want

The question is that it will be needed where it is needed, and building giant air bases for 2+ aircraft regiments with premises and equipment for technical personnel and supplies around the world will cost more than AB

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

in fact, they are more suitable against weak small countries..

common misconception. No, they are suitable against any country, including the Russian Federation, it’s just that in a global conflict the air force will be in the wings of the US Air Force. But this is a very useful "catch-up"

[2 Level Advisor]

I agree, thank you - I learned a lot of interesting things, Andrey.. I didn’t think about PLO..

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

You are always welcome, I was glad to help!

[knn54]

Andrey, a small addition - unfortunately, during the attack on the AUG, the loss of one regiment of TU-95 was expected.
- these are two reinforced air regiments.
According to the Yankee classification, there are two wings.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: knn54

Andrey, a small addition, unfortunately, during the attack on the AUG, the loss of one TU-95 regiment was expected.

With your permission - still a Tu-22, and losses in general could reach 80% of the forces participating in the attack

[opuonmed]

nuclear landmine with hypersound and no aug

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: opuonmed

nuclear landmine with hypersound and no aug

For what? A hat with earflaps is more than enough

[opuonmed]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Quote: opuonmed

nuclear landmine with hypersound and no aug

For what? A hat with earflaps is more than enough

to destroy the US Navy carrier strike group! even a balalaika will do for you)

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Gomunkul

How many anti-ship missiles and drones need to be used against an attack AUG in order to destroy it completely? And how long will it take?

Dear NEMO. I'm no expert, but I served in the Navy for 43 years. And I had good teachers. The topic of AUG and how to deal with it has been discussed on the site for exactly 10 years. In order not to pound the input in a mortar, I will copy and paste for you my posts from 10 years ago on the questions you asked:

15/11/2013 - “... VMA (Department of Tactics and Olympic Games) calculated for its time (1982) that from a salvo of 80 anti-ship missiles to goals will be reached 8-10, which was enough to knock out the AVM under warranty. Everything was taken into account, down to the percentage of anti-ship missiles that were not combat-ready for technical reasons.”
«In the operation to defeat the AUG The most difficult thing is precisely organizing the interaction of heterogeneous fleet forces located at different distances, in different environments: in the air, under water, on the shore, in the sea “from above.” The essence of the organization of the air defense is not to simultaneously press the "Start" button, but to track the target, discretely receiving the EDC and its location, to achieve the simultaneous approach of the anti-ship missiles to the AUG, launched from different distances, bearings and positions of the carriers (from under water, from the air, NK, shore). Believe me: it is incredibly difficult! And for this to happen, you need to train, preferably at sea, from the position of tracking a real target with a weapon.”

Best regards,

[Gomunkul]

Boa KAA (Alexander)

Dear Alexander, thank you for your detailed answer. Any war is first and foremost a battle of the economies of the opposing sides, whose economy will be able to establish production of cheaper and more effective means of destruction of the enemy, that side will win. That is what my question was connected with, i.e. can Iran, say, having at the moment a diverse fleet of drones and missiles, be guaranteed to destroy the US AUG and how many missiles and drones will it need for this. If this is possible, then the presence of the US AUG in the Persian Gulf will no longer represent the formidable force that it was during the Cold War.

[APASUS]

Considering Beadon’s cognitive abilities, it’s no wonder that they will now start blaming Iran for everything. Why did they bring in the AUG to start the third world war?

[Essex62]

And what, the erasure of Iran will necessarily lead to WWI? Why is that? Without Russia and China, what kind of WWI is this? Only if the first one doesn't get involved, God forbid, they'll draw it with a felt-tip pen, and the second one, out of profiteering interests and natural cowardice, won't knock on the hegemon.

[APASUS]

Quote: Essex62

Will erasing Iran necessarily lead to TMB? Why?

Look at Iran's trade balance and who the main partner is.

[tralflot1832]

The AUG is not there (with their manic desire to ensure the safety of navigation), the Houthis have already arrested the third steamship with Jewish roots. Even turning off the AIS at the exit from the Suez Canal does not help. The Houthis are definitely on the right steamship, lightning-fast landing and welcome to Yemen, with Arab hospitality. Looks like a game of cat and mouse. For those interested - the analytical company Ambrey is showing up with physical security. Lawlessness in the Red Sea is not good for us either, but I suspect it will be fun.

[Essex62]

Does this mean the warriors of Islam are piracy on the sly?

[tralflot1832]

Not everything is for the Americans to pirate with the English - in relation to Iran. So far the score is 6 - 2, the USA is winning. With the English and Iran 1-1. But the idiot Greeks suffered the most - they had to fill our tanker to the brim, to replenish the oil that the Americans pumped out of our tanker in Greek waters. Piracy can be done collectively.

[Heel]

Iran has captured 4 tankers this year alone, and the Houthis have only captured one and a half tankers so far, that is, one bulk carrier, and yesterday they tried to seize the Central Park tanker, but it was freed by an American ship, 5 pirpts were captured by the Americans

[Boniface]

Quite compact and functional!

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Reminds me of a hippopotamus in a bathtub; very big target.

[Team]

Reminds me of a hippopotamus in a bathtub; very big target.

Well, would you risk throwing a stone at a hippopotamus??

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Scuderia

Well, would you risk throwing a stone at a hippopotamus??

If a hippopotamus in a zoo is in a cage, and a stone is made of foam rubber (there is no point in offending the animal), then you can throw it... In the wild... no, I don’t want to apply for a Darwin Award :)))

[Kmon]

The hippopotamus, by the way, is one of the most dangerous animals; more people die from hippopotamuses than from lions and crocodiles combined. And killing him is not at all easy.

[opuonmed]

a big target if someone uses a nuclear landmine with hypersound, no one will be shot down by hypersound, but the nuclear charge will demolish ships! )

[AdAstra]

How interesting... They continue to give hints to the Persians and other Hezbollah?

[Vasyan1971]

Shock AUG US Navy

Shock A. aircraft carrier U. attack G. group. What illiteracy...
Although, I know another similar cadaver - AvtoVAZ (Auto V.Olzhsky A.Avtomobilny Zavod)

[A17ttt]

What's next?
US Navy in the Mediterranean and Persian.
All that remains is to establish as an axiom (wave a test tube) that an Indian citizen in the USA was killed by Muslim groups - and a new focus has been opened to help Israel.
Direct clash between India and Muslims (Afghanistan or Pakistan).
I don't want to play! A holiday of the soul for the sale of weapons and pumping out all kinds of resources from the Arabian Peninsula and other territories.
If you hit the grain, everything goes wrong.

[opuonmed]

and all their tails were pressed as it entered))) a nuclear landmine with hypersound and no aug))))

[TermNachTer]

To drive such a huge barn into such a small water area, which is shot right through - is this from a great mind?)))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: TermNachTER

To drive such a huge barn into such a small water area, which is shot right through - is this from a great mind?)))

Essentially - yes. Because this is a projection of power: with its presence, the AUG tells Iran “we saw your attempts to establish dominance in the Persian Gulf in a coffin, in white sneakers. And if you try to do something there that we don’t like, then...” .
But whether such US optimism is justified or not can only be shown by a real military clash

[Kmon]

This is a deliberate show of force; “We swim wherever we want, and you won’t do anything to us.”

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Kmon

This is a deliberate show of force

By itself:)

[fiv]

The bay is shallow, there’s a lot of stuff everywhere, if it’s flooded, it’ll stick out. You can make a fabulous attraction, it’s a pity, it will be radioactive... that’s probably why the Arabs don’t drown it.

[Vlad4345745]

Uncle Sam came to snitch on someone