Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Destroyer are the "smaller ships" in a navy strike group hack89 Apr 2013 #1
I was starting to wonder. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #4
thanks for the info, very helpful. I learned a lot from your short post. KittyWampus Apr 2013 #11
The question is always, "Where Are The Carriers?" Sherman A1 Apr 2013 #18
The answer to that question is always, "just over the horizon". MindPilot Apr 2013 #63
From that link, it seems that three carriers are in the Western Pacific. stevenleser Apr 2013 #69
how is Obama mishandling Korea? nt maryellen99 Apr 2013 #2
I only know what she said....and think that she would be upset know matter who. I have no opinion Ninga Apr 2013 #10
I understand nt maryellen99 Apr 2013 #12
Does this Navy wife not know why her husband enlisted? Aristus Apr 2013 #16
I wouldn't be surprised if she was anti Obama to begin with nt maryellen99 Apr 2013 #21
I can tell you I was upset about my husband nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #28
I agree. Until "COUNTDOWN TO CONFRONTATION!" runs on every 24-hour cable news show Aristus Apr 2013 #32
Exactly. Flora Apr 2013 #36
i'm so sorry for your loss nt maryellen99 Apr 2013 #39
My sympathies nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #40
Thank you both Flora Apr 2013 #49
Thank you for sharing your experience. And just plain ole Thank You.. Ninga Apr 2013 #75
OK now. Do you really think she doesn't know? And do you really think the folks on Ninga Apr 2013 #34
More information... YvonneCa Apr 2013 #73
It doesn't make it any less scary Marrah_G Apr 2013 #43
Or telling Kim Jong Un, "Bring it on". nt Ilsa Apr 2013 #52
appropriate dburner1 Apr 2013 #68
Each destroyer has 30 ships with it? PearliePoo2 Apr 2013 #3
I'm not buying that "fact". backscatter712 Apr 2013 #7
that's what I was thinking. PearliePoo2 Apr 2013 #15
No, Destroyers don't have escorts, premium Apr 2013 #17
Per Janes Defense Weekly go west young man Apr 2013 #71
Better info sorry. go west young man Apr 2013 #72
Watch last night's Daily Show Duer 157099 Apr 2013 #5
Sorry, but you lost me at "Each destroyer is accompanied by 30 smaller ships". nt. OldDem2012 Apr 2013 #6
30 Canoes. octothorpe Apr 2013 #33
just for a second there... i flashed on the Gulf of Tonkin oldhippydude Apr 2013 #8
We don't have 90 ships smaller than destroyers... bluedigger Apr 2013 #9
Good grief, maybe I did not hear correctly...I thought she said destroyer....but she sure did say 30 Ninga Apr 2013 #19
That would be a Carrier Task Force. premium Apr 2013 #27
Even a carrier strike group only has around 10 major vessels. bluedigger Apr 2013 #30
excellent information, thank you. nt. PearliePoo2 Apr 2013 #66
possibly her husband is on a destroyer accompanying an aircraft carrier? magical thyme Apr 2013 #70
13 mine countermeasure ships sgsmith Apr 2013 #76
Good call. bluedigger Apr 2013 #77
Drop food on the NK army at lunch and they'll defect South by dinner time NightWatcher Apr 2013 #13
Sadly they would probably die before eating it Marrah_G Apr 2013 #44
As ex Navy.. Admiral's Staff 2nd fleet my tense response is ...zzzzz Let me know when we have a Katashi_itto Apr 2013 #14
Does this mean you are not worried? Ninga Apr 2013 #22
Give it a moment. Breathe deep. Wariness yes. But outright worried? No. Katashi_itto Apr 2013 #47
This is exactly the way I see it too. premium Apr 2013 #53
A very good estimation, yes I agree. Economics is far more important. Katashi_itto Apr 2013 #59
Well, the Mexican Media showed an image, which apparently was not file, nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #20
Gulp, battlegroup....re war; what we want and want we get.........horses of different colors....nt Ninga Apr 2013 #23
If they were not there I would be really shocked nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #25
Thanks, I am starting to understand a bit. Really out of my league with this stuff. Ninga Apr 2013 #35
America has a carrier battle group permanently stationed in Japan hack89 Apr 2013 #37
battlegroup, not file, so up to date image? PearliePoo2 Apr 2013 #26
Current, according to my brother in law who served his navy carrier nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #31
Thanks for the info...I just sent an e-mail to my nephew. PearliePoo2 Apr 2013 #48
We have been thinking the same nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #57
Is the Seventh Fleet usually Pacific? Is there any way to find out where they are now? PearliePoo2 Apr 2013 #64
Yup, the seventh fleet is PAC FLEET nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #65
Please define what a battle group is. longship Apr 2013 #38
A carrier, yes, and all the ships that go with it nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #42
But this is an unconfirmed report, I take it. longship Apr 2013 #50
Well one thing I have learned is that the US Media nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #51
Yup. Thx. longship Apr 2013 #54
If I remember right, one of our carriers is based in Japan. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #55
A battle group usually includes a Carrier. premium Apr 2013 #45
The pissing, blustering, and strutting contest continues. Give everybody medals and close the show. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #24
Destroyers make perfect sense. Rex Apr 2013 #29
Shit. Aircraft carriers only carry a compliment of ten or so ships. talkingmime Apr 2013 #41
Along with a very potent Air Force. nt. premium Apr 2013 #46
Very true. The carrier strike force is equipped with a huge amount of whoop-ass. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #56
Um, yeah, there is that. talkingmime Apr 2013 #58
More Here: WillyT Apr 2013 #60
Nothing Like 4Q2u2 Apr 2013 #61
I have a poster in my cube of a carrier with the bow pointed right at you. MindPilot Apr 2013 #62
Nice 4Q2u2 Apr 2013 #67
It could be worse, her husband could be ashling Apr 2013 #74
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Korea...just learned that...»Reply #11