Satellite images confirm US aircraft carriers are being deployed away from Iran.

The damaged American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is located off the coast of Oman in the Arabian Sea, according to Chinese satellite imagery. A second carrier group, led by the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), has stopped in the Red Sea.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) has attempted to deny Iranian reports that two US Navy carrier battle groups are out of Iranian range. missilesAccording to the American statement, both aircraft carriers are on patrol in the Arabian Sea. However, Chinese satellite images show that only the damaged USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is off the coast of Oman. It is moored near Salalah, protected from Iran by the coastal ridge, and 1100 km away.

A second nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), is in the Red Sea off the coast of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, also out of range of Iranian missiles.

Trump previously stated that the US Navy, including carrier battle groups, would participate in the "opening" of the Strait of Hormuz. But this was part of the coalition the US was trying to assemble. However, judging by recent statements from its allies, the US will have to deal with Iran on its own. Time will tell what role nuclear-powered aircraft carriers will play in this. For now, they are far from the Iranian coast.

Comments

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

❝ Satellite images confirm the deployment of US aircraft carriers away from Iran ❞ —

— But closer to the Houthis...
("And luck is a reward for courage")

[ZovSailor]

Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov
Today, 09: 31
But closer to the Houthis...
("And luck is a reward for courage")

It just makes one want to give the satellites gifts containing viruses and chemicals to be dropped on the decks of the AVIKs with the aim of causing bear disease to the arrogant Yankees.

[Fedor 5755]

What was that old Trump saying about Russia, like, a paper tiger and all that? But now he's getting a good beating from the Persians.

[dementor873]

So why do the Backers continue to blow up ships and run riot in the Black Sea? Is it because they're wunderwaffes, or is it something else entirely?

[ASSAD1]

How can an aircraft carrier "stand still"? It's constantly moving, averaging 60 km/h. And the author could somehow confirm the failure of this trough.

[Zoer]

Quote: ASSAD1

How can an aircraft carrier "stand"?

For example, at anchor, they have that.

Quote: ASSAD1

It is constantly on the move, averaging 60 km/h.

STRONG, very STRONG!!! 60 km/h is 33,3 knots. The aircraft's maximum speed is 31 knots. HOW did you get that AVERAGE of 33,3 knots?

[Zoer]

Quote: dementor873

Why then do the Beki continue to blow up ships and run the show in the Black Sea?

Why are Ukrainian tankers burning at the World Cup? What's going on?

[Huarabey]

Baren is wisely being cautious and protecting his fleet. Russia, meanwhile, is "pissed" and "lost its Black Sea Fleet." Be careful not to get confused.

[the same doctor]

They don't expose them to slaughter. Unlike our cruiser.

[Vladimir Nizhegorodsky]

China is showing images from its satellites just as new trade talks between China and the US are underway.
The negotiations will most likely end in nothing, since China is in a favorable position from the start and there is no point in giving in to the US in anything.
The Houthis are not attacking only because there was no order from Iran.
Yemen certainly has missiles, rockets and drones.

[tralflot1832]

The US believes that their aircraft carriers are visible only to them, and not to everyone else. All that remains is to establish online target designation.

[bayard]

The Houthis have already announced they will enter the war as soon as the order is given. Their anti-ship missiles will likely be generated spontaneously in Ali Baba's magical caves, and they will have sufficient range. But... if the French Charles de Gaulle had appeared in the Red Sea, I'm sure there would have been no delay whatsoever. And even more so if British submarines had appeared there. However, the Ford and Abram won't have long to wait for more. They (the more) will definitely arrive.
And why aren't Euro-NATO's Chip and Dale rushing to Uncle Scrooge's aid? SS@t?? They don't want to support Israel and its peace-loving policies? Are they Judeophobes? Anti-Semites? Don't they like the US and Trump's "Peace Council"?
And why ?
Maybe they are Nazis and fascists (damned ones)?
Maybe they don’t want Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates?
And oil at 200 euros per barrel??
Maybe they secretly support China against the USA???
Well, Trump might even leave NATO.
And it will be painful to beat the disobedient ones.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: tralflot1832

The US believes that only they can see their aircraft carriers.

It's not just the US that thinks this way, but also the AUG fans, who, in every thread about aircraft carriers, argue that it's completely impossible to detect a huge ship with a powerful radar in the ocean, with aircraft constantly circling above it, especially if it's accompanied by other rather large ships, also with working radars, missile launches, and other unmasking factors.

[Boa kaa]

Quote from: nik-mazur

AUG fans,

To achieve a defeat (at least one hit!) in AVMA, all you need is:
- break through the 500 km air defense zone of the AUG... And this is after you have passed the 1000 km detection line. (The pair of IA with AVMA and the spacecraft from orbit are witnesses to this!);
- to reveal the composition and combat formation of the ships of the order, excluding from this the “false group with the AVMA”, the group of demonstrative actions and other “decoys”;
- having found the true AUG, determine the MAIN TARGET, that is, where the AVMA itself is located... And it is far from always located in the center of the air defense formation...
- organize (!!!) an anti-ship missile salvo combined with a nuclear-powered missile strike and air power (aircraft). At the same time, very wisely distribute the anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles across the waves and the time of approach to the main target...including weapons with a self-propelled anti-ship missile system...
- determine the order of withdrawal of forces, redeployment for a second strike, engagement of the enemy in battle, etc.
It's all so simple: "press the buttons" and you'll have HAPPINESS in both hands! Don't spoil yourself, well, to be sure – the tomatoes will wilt...
Anyone who raves about how they can do AVMA with one hand is a descendant of Sharikov on our website.
But this is only my personal opinion, which I do not impose on anyone.
AHA.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

To achieve a defeat (at least one hit!) in AVMA, all you need is:
- break through the 500 km air defense zone of the AUG

The current war in Ukraine, as well as the mutual missile exchanges between Iran, Israel, and even the United States, not to mention Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, show that breaking through the air defense zone is not impossible.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

This is after you've passed the 1000 km detection limit. (The pairs of IA with AVMA and the spacecraft from orbit are evidence of this!)

1,500 km (1000 km detection zone and 500 km air defense zone) – isn't that a lot? It seems to me that the reality is more modest.
Again, these "aircraft duty pairs"—are they invisible and indestructible? Just like the air force responsible for the long-range air defense zone that will respond to a call?
In general, the proponents of the carrier strike group always manage to make a dozen massive ships, emitting radars and launching missiles, completely undetectable by aircraft, satellites, submarines, or passing trawlers. The air wing is also invisible, invincible, and fundamentally unkillable. But any adversaries of the carrier strike group can be detected from 1,500 kilometers away and eliminated in a jiffy.
Even in World War II, when reconnaissance, targeting and destruction capabilities were not comparable to today's, aircraft carriers were still quite detectable and sunk.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

determine the MAIN GOAL, that is, where the AVMA itself is located

Actually, it’s not necessary – you can start with the retinue, and simultaneously extinguish the deck aviation.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

It's very simple: "press the buttons" and you will have HAPPINESS.

Actually, we were talking about detection; I didn’t say anything about the destruction of the AUG.

[Boa kaa]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Breaking through the air defense zone is not something impossible.

No one has ever claimed this. Especially for the 3M22 type GZPKR... But the Yankees' air defense is layered and includes IA, Aegis-type SAMs with SM-3/6, with

Quote from: nik-mazur

One and a half thousand km (1000 detection zone and 500 air defense zone) - isn't that too much?

Cut down the sturgeon! The 500 km zone is inside the 1000 km zone! First they spot it, then they shoot it down!

Quote from: nik-mazur

This is how it always works out for the AUG adherents,

Quote from: nik-mazur

This is how it always works out for the AUG adherents,

So we're explaining how it really works, because we did it in the navy. You're referring to peacetime situations, while we're at least referring to exercises and projecting the situation (based on field manuals and regulations, combat employment instructions, and exercise legends) onto combat operations. You're still stuck in the last century. Meanwhile, naval warfare has migrated to multi-domain combat areas, eliminating active assets and utilizing space-based targeting, passive (IR/UV) detection systems, covert radio communications via SBD and Link-16, and so on. Network-centric warfare is on the horizon, and you're still talking about radars in high-sounding terms! One Hawkeye or a pair of F-35s will cover the entire area for hundreds of miles! What do shipborne radars have to do with this?

Quote from: nik-mazur

You can start with the retinue, and at the same time extinguish the deck aviation.

We can shoot some sailors, too. Who's against it? But the weakening of the carrier strike group is assigned to support operations, not to the combat groups and submarine-launched ships. If the main strike doesn't disable the carrier, it will carry out the mission of delivering missiles to the targets. The operation will be a failure on our part, and it's unlikely we'll have the forces left to repeat it. And the carrier carries 104 (108) nuclear warheads. And that's very serious.

Quote from: nik-mazur

We were talking about detection; I didn’t say anything about the destruction of the AUG.

Let me remind you: at the beginning of the military action, the first to be destroyed are reconnaissance and control systems, including the ISZ-R...
And secondly, are they discovering them out of curiosity or for destruction? Well, then what's the point!?

[nik-mazur]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Aegis-class air defense missile systems

Aegis in the navy is not an air defense system, but a combat information and control system.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

What do ship radars have to do with this?

For example, in a command and control center on an aircraft carrier. Or in air defense systems on escort ships. And despite all the multi-domain combat systems, space-based targeting, infrared/ultraviolet (IR/UV), radars, and Link-16 radars are still used. This, incidentally, still serves as a giveaway factor. This also applies to aviation.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

If the main strike does not disable the AVMA, it will carry out the task of delivering a BSHU to the targets of the strike.

By a completely invisible and absolutely invulnerable air wing, I suppose? And from equally invisible and invulnerable destroyers, which shouldn't be touched because they merely launch Tomahawks and are responsible for air defense and missile defense?
By the way, a couple of the aircraft sent against Iran have been hanging around there for two weeks now. Something's probably not working out with their combat command and control system.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

AVMA carries 104 (108) nuclear weapons

If it comes down to nuclear warheads, then where the AVMA will be floating and for what purpose will hardly matter anymore – even after a successful mission there will still be nowhere to return to.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

With the beginning of the combat operations, the first to be destroyed are reconnaissance and control systems, including the ISZ-R

Mutually and whenever possible, or, as is usual with AUG fans, one-sided?

Incidentally, no one has ever been able to explain what combat missions aircraft carriers could perform in the event of a conflict with Russia. Usually, all discussions revolve around a battle between our lone cruiser and an aircraft carrier group in the middle of a spherical ocean in a vacuum.
Another scenario involves the action of a strike group against a theoretical, coastal, weak and incompetent Russia, which has just enough aviation, air defense, missiles and submarine fleet that carrier-based aviation could withstand all of this without much effort.
Oh, and there's always the mention of two strategic aviation regiments, which, theoretically, with a little luck, could do more than scratch the paint on an aircraft carrier before being destroyed almost entirely. I also never managed to find a reference to these calculations from the early 1970s—everyone knows they exist, but for some reason, they can't show it.

[kig]

Why didn't they show the Chinese satellite images? The Iranians say they hit the deck, and that should be visible.

[tlauicol]

Quote: kig

Why didn't they show the Chinese satellite images? The Iranians say they hit the deck, and that should be visible.

Because there were no hits

[Micha1981]

Maybe not on the deck, but they could have hit the sides. Anyway, why didn't the photos show that?

[tlauicol]

Quote: Micha1981

Maybe not on the deck, but they could have hit the sides. Anyway, why didn't the photos show that?

That's what the Iranians should show. But they don't.
"The proof lies with him who asserts" (Latin: Onus probandi) is a fundamental logical and legal principle, meaning that the burden of substantiating the truth of a statement lies with the one who makes it, not the one who denies it. If there is no evidence, the statement is considered unfounded.

[Micha1981]

They don't have the ability to take a visual image. Despite all the talk about the radar in Qatar, images have finally surfaced.

[Arkady007]

You have an answer to this statement from the six-fingered, toothless Netanyahu.

[kig]

there were no hits

What are you talking about? It's clearly written there: "damaged aircraft carrier." There was even a movie where it was ablaze from bow to stern, with thick, greasy black smoke. So you don't trust our press? Aye-aye.

[tlauicol]

Oh, if only minuses could sink aircraft carriers and shoot down drones... Minus-users would have conquered the whole world by now.

[Dmitry Smirnov_2]

This trough should be de-energized, cutting off all the electrics, and let the Americans tow it home.

[Konnick]

Quote: Dmitry Smirnov_2

This trough should be de-energized, cutting off all the electrics, and let the Americans tow it home.

How's that possible? Mice? Like how mice ate the insulation off the wires in the Wehrmacht's 22nd Panzer Division at Stalingrad?

[tralmaster]

There are no mice in the sea, but there are rats, and in large numbers. It's a shame they don't chew on armor.

[TermNachTer]

1100 km is the maximum range, if you have three drop tanks. This means kerosene consumption and engine life are at their maximum, while the combat load is minimal. Such flights are of little use.

[tlauicol]

Quote: TermNachTER

1100 km is the maximum range, if you have three drop tanks. This means kerosene consumption and engine life are at their maximum, while the combat load is minimal. Such flights are of little use.

They will pour in kerosene, load the bombs, and come closer again.
As for threats... American planes are already shooting at targets on the coast with cannons.

[TermNachTer]

When and on which coast?

[tlauicol]

Quote: TermNachTER

When and on which coast?

Gulf of Oran. Yesterday and today.

[tlauicol]

Quote: Tlauicol

Quote: TermNachTER

When and on which coast?

Gulf of Oran. Yesterday and today.

Omani

[TermNachTer]

I saw this video. What makes you think this is the coast of Iran, not Yemen or Saudi Arabia?

[Zoer]

Quote: TermNachTER

1100 km is the maximum range, if you have three drop tanks. This means kerosene consumption and engine life are at their maximum, while the combat load is minimal. Such flights are of little use.

What's so strange about that? Iranian missiles have a range of 1000 km... And no American carrier-based aircraft has a combat radius of 1000 km without in-flight refueling. That's why they fly only with refueling.

[TermNachTer]

In that case, the very purpose of an aircraft carrier is lost. An aircraft carrier is needed to get as close as possible and deliver strikes with maximum intensity. If we hide an aircraft carrier 1100 km from the target, then it's better to let the bombers fly from England—they have a greater bomb load.

[Mobik]

An aircraft carrier in today's reality is more about "no point in sailing here," and the concept of "delivering maximum-intensity strikes" died with propeller-driven aircraft; the price per ton of bombs dropped from an aircraft carrier forces even the planet's leading printing press owners to economize.

[Zoer]

Quote: Mobik

An aircraft carrier in today's reality is more about "no point in sailing here," and the concept of "delivering maximum-intensity strikes" died with propeller-driven aircraft; the price per ton of bombs dropped from an aircraft carrier forces even the planet's leading printing press owners to economize.

Nonsense! Even now, the Americans are ready to push carrier-based aircraft with expensive bombs as hard as possible, simply because the cost is even higher. They're up to their ears in this stinking mess this time. And even with Iraq, they repeatedly repulsed all those "expensive tons of bombs from an aircraft carrier." So your arithmetic is incorrect.

[Zoer]

Quote: TermNachTER

In this case, the very purpose of an aircraft carrier is lost.

Well, when faced with the dilemma of losing the purpose of an aircraft carrier or losing the aircraft carrier itself, the choice is more than obvious)))

[TermNachTer]

Well, that's exactly what "Abram" does - imitating vigorous activity)))

[Boa kaa]

Quote: TermNachTER

An aircraft carrier is needed in order to bring it to the closest possible distance and strike with maximum intensity. If we hide an aircraft carrier 1100 km from the target, then,

Colleague!
If you allow me, a small remark to your correct post.
Anyone who talks about 1100 km obviously knows very little about the tactics of using anti-aircraft missiles. For maneuvering and reloading aircraft, an area safe from enemy air strikes, submarines, and other naval forces is selected. This has become increasingly difficult recently due to the advent of anti-aircraft missiles (such as the DF-26) with a range of up to 2000 km (1800 km). Iran does not yet have such systems.
Having rearmed its attack aircraft, the carrier deploys at full speed to the combat maneuvering area and reaches the aircraft recovery zone. After recovery (approximately 30 minutes), the carrier deploys to remain within range of enemy air defenses and anti-ship missiles. The aircraft must be re-acquired after they complete their combat missions (another couple of hours). This is the most dangerous period of carrier combat operations. Encounters with enemy submarines and other unpleasantries are possible.
And constant presence within the range of enemy air defense systems and anti-ship missiles is “contraindicated for the patient’s health.”
So, it's possible to avoid refueling the AV, but this increases the risk of AV damage, which is strictly not recommended.
AHA.

[TermNachTer]

I completely agree with you, but I'd like to add a bit. During the Gulf War, with intensive carrier-based air operations, aircraft carriers had to refuel their aircraft and ASPs every three days. Currently, the carriers don't have that many universal supply ships. The Abram is accompanied by one. During intensive combat sorties, it can refuel its fuel and ASPs three times and twice. After that, it itself must refuel. Currently, the carriers have four such ships.

[rytik32]

Quote: TermNachTER

1100 km is the limit

This is the point of Iran's attacks on US bases in Arab countries. If Iran's neighbors neutralize US bases and close their airspace, the US will have no place to launch strikes. Only missiles from strategic aircraft or naval forces will do much, and those won't accomplish much.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Yes, but the Iranians have found a weak spot. Due to the aircraft carriers' great distances, they require aerial refueling or staging areas, and they've already been thoroughly targeted. The tankers were damaged directly at the airfield, and two in the air.

[tlauicol]

It is unlikely that these tankers were refueling the navy.

[nik-mazur]

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln... is located near Salalah, protected from Iran by the coastal ridge, and also 1100 km away

The F-35 carrier-based fighter, without external fuel tanks, has a combat radius of exactly 1100 km. So, it's like the Hobbit "There and Back Again," preferably without incident.
And the F-18 has a range of 700 km? So, you either fly empty or with tankers.

[TermNachTer]

1100 km is a theoretically calculated figure, possibly tested under ideal conditions, since Lockheed wants good publicity, not bad. Much depends on the flight profile, flight mode, and headwind. This is an emergency reserve for combat, at least for 10 minutes. Therefore, this figure is purely theoretical; in reality, I think it's about 100 kilometers less.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: TermNachTER

1100 km is a theoretically calculated figure... the actual range, I think, is about 100 kilometers less.

I don't know about aviation, but for ground vehicles there's a maneuver coefficient that, simply put, is used to calculate the actual range of a vehicle under combat conditions relative to a straight-line advancement on the map. It can even reach 3, but the minimum is 1,5.
This maximum combat radius most likely indicates how far the aircraft can fly in a perfect straight line there and back. Flying along an optimally safe route, using afterburners, or using anti-missile maneuvers can significantly reduce this figure. It's suspected to be much more than 100 km.

[TermNachTer]

It is quite possible, since we do not know the real performance characteristics of the “penguins” and are unlikely to find out in the near future.

[tralflot1832]

Quote from: nik-mazur

Quote: tralflot1832

The US believes that only they can see their aircraft carriers.

It's not just the US that thinks this way, but also the AUG fans, who, in every thread about aircraft carriers, argue that it's completely impossible to detect a huge ship with a powerful radar in the ocean, with aircraft constantly circling above it, especially if it's accompanied by other rather large ships, also with working radars, missile launches, and other unmasking factors.

In the Arabian Sea, Iran is covered from the south by a Chinese fishing flotilla of 200-300 trawlers, occupying a huge area in perhaps the most convenient place for the deployment of a strike group.

[TermNachTer]

Good afternoon, Andrey. Well, the fishermen have always worked for the good of their country and their beloved Navy. Especially since the equipment installed on board, the "Sargan" fishing sonar, allowed them to mask the operation of their not-so-fishing equipment.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: tralflot1832

In the Arabian Sea, Iran is covered from the south by a Chinese fishing fleet of 200-300 trawlers.

What a surprise. I suppose they gathered there completely by accident?

[TermNachTer]

What's wrong with that? They're fishing in international waters, most likely outside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone of Iran and Pakistan, meaning they don't need any permits. Or perhaps they have permission from Iran, or perhaps even from Pakistan, in which case they could fish anywhere, from the Strait of Hormuz to the Indian subcontinent.

[nik-mazur]

Quote: TermNachTER

They can fish anywhere, from the Strait of Hormuz to Hindustan

And right there, the carp, beloved by the Chinese, was going to spawn – so they came running.

[Pavel57]

If Lincoln is standing and its coordinates are known, hit it with a ballistic missile with a cluster warhead.

[Micha1981]

If the Chinese don't lead. But here's the most interesting thing: an aircraft carrier must be constantly on the move.

[kig]

This is the most interesting thing,

Whether it moves or not is unknown. You can write anything, and in today's conditions, you can draw anything.

[a vacuum cleaner]

As usual, the US is stirring up trouble somewhere, and always asking its protégés to fork out money, military (in all areas), and even lives; everything is done so that as little money and human lives as possible are lost on the American side.

[Mapping]

Where are the satellite images of the aircraft carriers being destroyed?