US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups Toward Korean Peninsula: Media.....

CnC Trump made it very clear unlike the former administration the new administration will no longer be telling the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Obama's "JV-Team" (ISIS), Taliban, Russia, Chi-Coms, North Korea and the fake news MSM every move our military is making. Let them guess and catch them with their pants down.

Yesterday (Apr. 19th) the U.S. Navy's website "CV Locations" was updated showing that the USS Carl Vinson transited the "Sunda Strait" on April 15th and entered the Indian Ocean ( Apr.16 / Apr-17 ) still with in the 7th Fleet AOR.

But is the U.S. Navy still continuing to tell the world every day where our Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Ready Groups are ?

Also the MSM reported that the USS Ronald Reagan that according to the Navy was in Yokosuka, Japan it's home port has been in Selected Restricted Availability (SRA) status since January 10th and would remain in SRA status until late May. But the MSM is reporting that the USS Reagan has put to sea ??? The U.S. Navy as this morning still shows the Reagan at Yokosuka, Japan.

Holly Crap !!! The U.S. Navy has been attacked by bed bugs at Pearl Harbor !!! -> http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=99588

But I digress.

http://www.navy.mil/local/cvn76/

https://www.facebook.com/ussronaldreagan/

Who knows where our carriers are today ???

That's the way it's suppose to be.

 

Fake News.
Abe said nothing about deployments or having any intention of deploying. Anyone who thinks Japan is willing to deploy troops is attempting to misrepresent them. In short, they lied.
What they will do is man their anti-missile defences. (For all the good that will do them).

 

Here was STRATFOR and what they had to say.


The effectiveness of the B-2 first wave would enable the 24 F-22 fighters — and the wave of 600 or so cruise missiles sharing the skies — to focus on destroying North Korea's delivery vehicles. A single good hit from a JDAM or cruise missile is enough to knock out the nascent sea-based leg of North Korea's defensive triad. Hammering the Uiju and Changjin-up air bases, where North Korean H-5 bombers are based, would further reduce Pyongyang's most likely air delivery force for a nuclear weapon.

The most difficult target to eliminate when it comes to delivery vehicles is the missile forces. North Korea has a fleet of approximately 200 transporter erector launchers (TEL) of varying size and type spread out across the country, so the intelligence picture would have to be very accurate. With enough information, however, the United States still has more than enough firepower in a single strike to severely reduce North Korea's TEL inventory.....snip~


https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/wh...ke-north-korea

 

The country’s law over security threats is classified into three categories — the possibility of military aggression, obvious threat of military aggression and military aggression. At a time of mounting nuclear and missile threat from North Korea, the Japanese government wants to recognize Pyongyang’s missile fall in Japan’s territorial waters as an obvious threat of military aggression, in which the deployment of troops is allowed, Sputnik reported citing the Japanese language Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper.....snip~


According to Mainichi Times, the Japanese prime minister would bring talks about stepping up its Self-Defense Forces coordination with the U.S. military during his meeting with Pence.....snip~


https://www.yahoo.com/news/japan-planning-deploy-troops-amid-040714774.html

 

Deployment of troops may be "allowed" under your impressions of Japanese law, but it isn't intended.
Nor has any statement been made to that effect.

Japan planning to deploy troops my arse. When Japan decides to break their 70 year track record on pacifism... we will all know about it. There will be more little Japanese women in parliament publicly beating the crap out of the men live on TV for the whole world to see, just like they did when an unarmed deployment was proposed to Iraq.
Shinzo Abe will be got rid of the same day.

Understand Japans cultural identity. They are pacifists.

When some tells you Japan is going to join in a war. That person is a liar.
They aren't and we all know it. Might as well tell us that Hare Krishna will be leading the charge.

When a tree falls in the woods, if no one hears it does it make a sound?
When a missile falls in the China sea....
There was splash in the sea that no one saw or heard. Really?
It was missile you say? From North Korea you say? OK.

That unseen unheard splash happened to be in seas claimed by Japan?
Who else claims those seas? Russia, China?
Where did it land. 20 metres off a busy port or 20 miles off of a remote coral reef claimed by lots of different countries, hundreds of miles from the nearest human being.
I don't know the answer to that. Do you?

North Korea kills South Koreans.
It doesn't shoot into the sea near them. It shoots into people. If they wish to test their missiles over deserted oceans. No problem.
If they wish to shell villages and torpedo ships again however... I'll take issue.

 

I don't know why people keep talking about Trump in relation to these events. The buffoon has given his generals carte blanche. Trump himself is too busy making unethical business deals and golfing to direct what's happening around North Korea.

 

To be fair, I disagree with Mandelus a lot but I have respect for him and his posts in general.

They cannot be considered along the lines of the various far left/putin & russia lovers here, who claim ludicrous nonsense like russian troops never entered Ukraine, assad never used sarin gas, etc. You might not agree with much of his posts, but he is FAR more rational and reasonable than the pro-putin crew here that relies upon garbage like RT as a legitimate "news" source.

 

The Serbs had AA more recent than 1970 and was just flooding the skies with bursts, so it was a lucky shot that hit a stealth figher. IIRC the serbs said as much as they had no way to track that type of plane. The US had so many aircraft flying - in a war I was fervently against - that it was almost inevitable something would get hit. It could have been just as likely as any other warplane.

That said, the NK AA is not as bad as "bigfella" mentions, but won't be as effective as I think you might believe.

 

I have a strong feeling that the Israelis have already counter-measured the S300 and S400 systems with positive EW, one of the reasons they have had little trouble traveling across syria at will, and russia fears they might have sold/given that know-how to the US and others.

I remember reading that Darpa and the DIA are working on swarm technologies which will obliterate the S400-type systems rather quickly. Once those become operational, which will probably be in the next 10 years, the russian AA will be practically useless. Tracking 100 large-scale aircraft is one thing, tracking 25,000 small drones launched in waves is another.

http://www.popsci.com/pentagon-drone-swarm-autonomous-war-machines

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a24675/pentagon-autonomous-swarming-drones/

 

Jimmy , Nigeria with snow has nothing to be "counter-measured" , they have only buttafuoria (Mockups) , i posted pictures what they have, when you last time use something high-tech made in Muscovy, like, never , right?

 

I like it. The Protoss approach..

 

Similar to this one:

 

What, they want to have drones that tiny? I'd much sooner expect the Protoss version, with drones like we have now operating in large numbers with some kind of ranged weaponry.

 

An air campaign could be expected to decimate enemy forces like it did in Iraq.
However Korea is not desert. Not as vulnerable to air attack. Just like Serbia wasn't.

In Iraq, the air campaign failed to get rid of Saddam's heavy equipment. A decimation took place but nothing more.
In Serbia where they have more cover, more over cast skies and newer equipment... well almost nothing got destroyed.
Something like one old T34 tank and a TV studio. Their air force flew every day of the war. Their SAM defences claimed victims of US planes and Stealth bombers.
Tiny little Serbia.

It should noted however that even in the desert of Iraq with clear skies and air domination, they never found the SCUDS they were hunting.

Korea is a hard target. Make no mistake. But a nuclear facility is by nature both large and static.
Also costly to replace if you know you can't keep it. Syria and Iraq abandoned their nuclear programs after successful air strikes on them.

 

Admiral Stavridis says damn near the same thing as Stratfor.



Admiral James Stavridis (USN, Ret) On The North Korean Crisis

JS: No. They could take a try or two. They have some long range missiles that conceivably could come out far enough, but those carriers are going to operate a couple of hundred miles out at sea. That’s routine operations. And all of those destroyers that shoot the long range Tomahawk missiles, Hugh, also have a very sophisticated air defense system that is called the Aegis system, which could defend the carrier. And then finally, the other threat would be submarines. The North Koreans have some primitive diesel boats. I don’t think they would pose a significant threat. So if we choose to go the military route, we have the capability to execute that.


HH: Before I go back to diplomacy, just a couple more points on the military route. I’ve seen that there are more than 40 facilities connected with the North Koreans’ nuclear programs, both uranium and plutonium. Is it possible to effectively destroy their capacity to produce additional munitions and ICBM’s in a series of strikes over a period of weeks? Or is that just, you know, shooting in the dark because of the nature of the deeply-buried tunnel system they have?


JS: The latter. It’s deeply buried, and it’s highly-hardened. So you’d have to use a whole series of super high end ordinance, including that massive air-delivered bomb that we saw in Afghanistan also over the weekend. You could do it, but A) it would take weeks to get at all those targets, if not a month or two, and then secondly, we’re not sure that we have everything correctly mapped and identified. Look at our experience in Iraq searching for WMD there. So it’s hard to find it all. So the military option really ought to be last resort.



HH: In the meantime, they have this massive array of artillery at the DMZ which can reach Seoul. In your strategic thinking, is that the first set of targets so as to reduce the threat to South Korea and Americans there? Or do you actually go after and hope that the regime does not react in total war way?


JS: I think you take out that artillery if you’re going to go in on a strike. You have to make the presumption that the North Koreans would use that if they were attacked in a massive way going after their facilities. So if you want to game this thing out, the first thing you’d take out is air defenses so your aircraft could operate wherever they wanted to over the norther part of the peninsula, and almost simultaneously, you’d be taking out those artillery batteries. Right behind that, you’d go into strike mode going after the facilities.


HH: I’ve got a lot of friends in that F-18 community, Admiral. What kind of risk do they face from North Korean defenses if they operate over North Korea?


JS: Fairly significant. This is a regime that has put, you know, choice guns-butter. All the money went into guns. And they have a fairly sophisticated air defense system, probably in the nature of what Syria has today, which would pose some significant problems for our friends in Hornets. And you’d want to again take those out early on. You’d probably use stealth aircraft, F-22, to go in and take them out along with Tomahawks, which of course are unmanned, so that our Hornet pilots in the F-18’s would have a clear path as they come off the deck of that carrier.......snip~


http://www.hughhewitt.com/admiral-ja...korean-crisis/

 

Not yet, those tiny drones in that movie are a bit ahead of us, perhaps 40-50 years, but even a few thousand autonomous, 1-foot long drones with small amounts of explosives each - easily capable using today's technology - could overwehelm any AA system. And I am pretty certain that DARPA is hard at work miniaturizing them rapidly, so my forecast of decades away might be, well, overstating the reality. The US navy has an operational direct-fire laser on board one of its ships currently, so one should never be surprised at what almost a trillion US$ can buy you in terms of advancements.

 

Ah, Kamikaze or smart missile style.. Makes sense. Actually, why not just swarm missiles in that case?

 

At the time of the serbian and iraq wars the US military was dependent on targeting systems that had trouble in bad weather (infrared) but in 2017, with GPS and laser-guided munitions, its a very different story.

 

It depends on the size and AI of the missile. A large missile that flies straight and high is a relatively easier target than an autonomous swarm of thousands of independent, tiny drones. There's no defensive capability currently against that type of applied attack, even EMPs wouldn't work as the drones are laced with materials and protection that renders them wholly shielded against such measures.

What weapons even exist that can fire and strike 5,000 low-flying drones with course-corrective capabilities?

 

Lasers are weather dependent guidance systems and were used in both Iraq and Serbia as were GPS guided bombs.
GPS requires you to know the map reference of the target. Lasers need you to visually spot it too.

The Serbian TV station was bombed with a GPS guided bomb. Tomahawks are GPS guided also.
Russians have GPs guidance on some of their artillery munitions. GPS can be and has been jammed by our enemies. Can't remember off hand which ones.

Different story my arse.

You can't find it, you can't kill it.

FLIR didn't work out so good in Serbia. They used decoys. Inflatable tanks blown up by diesel engined generators for example. Or a big pile of boxes covered in tinfoil with a cooking stove underneath would work as well.

NATO pilots recorded hundreds of ground kills, but when ground troops arrived, nothing had been killed. Except perhaps that T34 outside the museum.

In Iraq, they did better but again the 2/3's destruction of Saddam's forces that the pilots had claimed was not in any way born out by the results they found on the ground. Saddam used decoys too. He set diesel fires on his tanks so they looked destroyed from the air. Made giant smogs to disrupt the lasers and Mark One eyeballs.

Targetting advances since then have been in high resolution radar scanning.
But again, radar is easy to decoy. A metal frame of scaffold poles looks like a tank on radar and a tank in a shed still just looks like a shed.

 

this is what Muscovites promised to the world. of cos before trump´s attack

 

If these things could nullify nuclear warheads as well... Oh my. We'd be looking at something really new, a real shifter of the balance of power. They would be much easier for every country to obtain or develop independently.

 

Agreed, the day of the impregnable, multi-warhead-tipped ICBMs might be nearing an end. Their primary advantage is speed which the drones cannot come close to matching for the moment.

 

Lots of claims come out of putin's russia, few are to be believed.

 

A lone Ohio-class sub could do it and have Tridents to spare...