| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Debka: US Navy At High Concentration Near Iran - 4 Carrier Groups |
| 2006-11-01 |
| The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower, and its accompanying carrier strike group, passed through the Suez Canal on Monday, Oct. 30, and arrived in the Red Sea on Tuesday, Oct. 31. DEBKAfileÂ’s military sources report that the USS Eisenhower is at sea off the Saudi Arabian coast, together with another aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise. The presence of the two US aircraft carriers, and their accompanying strike groups, in a body of water as small as the Red Sea is an extraordinary development. So far there have been no indications that the USS Eisenhower arrived to replace the USS Enterprise. US Intelligence director John Negroponte also is in the region. He was in Saudi Arabia over the weekend and in Cairo on Tuesday, and is due to arrive in Israel on Wednesday, Nov. 1. With the arrival of the USS Eisenhower in the region, there are now three US aircraft carriers in the Persion Gulf and surrounding waters, including the USS Iwo Jima. Accompanying the USS Eisenhower are the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, the guided-missile destroyers USS Ramage and USS Mason and the nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine USS Newport. DEBKAfileÂ’s military sources report that a fourth US aircraft carrier, the USS Boxer, will arrive on the scene by the beginning of next week, together with its carrier strike group. The USS Boxer is currently taking part in joint US-Indian naval maneuvers, dubbed Malabar Â’06, which include the landing of marines on beaches. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #70 Impeach my Bush! |
| Posted by: Chineck Snaing5260 2006-11-01 22:35 |
| #69 figured it was |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-01 20:49 |
| #68 I think you look quite fetching, twisting in the wind like that... |
| Posted by: .funnyman 2006-11-01 20:41 |
| #67 I've been accused of being a dirtbag, but a sock puppet, no. Someone posted and showed my NoSpam email addy :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-01 20:35 |
| #66 I had the pleasure to spend a little time on the Boxer. The Marines there are incredible. As for the soon to be extinct Iranian sub fleet, adios!!! They will very quickly and quietly rest on the bottom of the sea. No press, no fanfafe, just sunk. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-01 20:34 |
| #65 I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I'll do an EFL on it for tomorrow. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-01 20:33 |
| #64 Does that mean you're a sock puppet, Frank G? I've a bit of difficulty with the concept, mixing it up with our dear SPoD and condoms, y'see. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-01 20:33 |
| #63 lol - but I didn't do Hu - I 'spect one of the regular's are funning |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-01 20:28 |
| #62 "So is this in preparation for next Wednesday, when we know who's in control of Congress?" How about Tuesday night at about 8 p.m. EST? I started at the bottom of the thread and worked my way backwards. Here in Ohio they already have an unprecendented number of mailed in ballots, because this year we can ask for one without cause... and they can't be run through until the polls open on Tuesday. It's already been announced that as a result, results will take a while to tally after the polls close Tuesday evening, perhaps days to enter the things into the new, computerized machines. I may stick around Tuesday for a bit to witness unofficially, for my own satisfaction, although I know and trust at least some of the people who work the place where I vote. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-01 20:26 |
| #61 *snicker* Y'all only think you're so clever because you are! ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-01 20:10 |
| #60 Be nice or I'll cancel the Hennesey train. |
| Posted by: Hu Man Chu 2006-11-01 19:50 |
| #59 we noticed, funnyman |
| Posted by: Kim Jong Il 2006-11-01 19:42 |
| #58 That was just setup for the Axis of Evil thingy, but then nobody noticed. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 19:30 |
| #57 Won't all that Navy stuff being so close together cause the Earth's axis to shift? Maybe not, but magnetometers in Siberia are twitching from this accumulation of hardware. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-01 19:28 |
| #56 Nothing says "Season's Greetings" like a couple million tons of American heavy metal. |
| Posted by: Chuper Elmoper6565 2006-11-01 19:04 |
| #55 Redneck Jim, I think they're counting the Iwo Jima expeditionary group as a carrier group. Not to be sneezed at, but not the same thing in our terms. NS, I agree two carriers on station together are a big deal. I expect the Marines and their strike groups will be there a bit longer though. Al Q's playing as is Iran. Uncle Sam's Misguided Children may get some time on the oil terminals and elsewhere ... we'll see. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 18:51 |
| #54 Yup, Barbara. And in this case, 2 expeditionary strike groups keeps 6000 or so Marines off the streets. 6000 Marines who've been training a lot lately. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 18:47 |
| #53 That won't last long. My understanding of the rule of thumb is 1/3 on station, 1/3 at port and 1/3 in transit. To have 3 on station at one place is definitely a strain that can't last. May just be a one or two week overlap for turnover, or could be something worthy of popcorn. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-01 18:41 |
| #52 The window for preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons is closing fast. Bush has said that it is unacceptable that they do so. The Boxer and her expeditionary strike group will arrive 'early next week' in the Gulf area. Sure does suggest a trend. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 18:40 |
| #51 "US Navy At High Concentration Near Iran - 4 Carrier Groups" Everybody's gotta be someplace.... :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-11-01 18:39 |
| #50 With the arrival of the USS Eisenhower in the region, there are now three US aircraft carriers in the Persion Gulf and surrounding waters, This is a HUGE and most definate OH SHIT. You simply do NOT shift this much floating Firepower to such a small area without definate plans to use it. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-11-01 18:34 |
| #49 Hmmmm .... I wonder who is in charge of the "false flag" provocation attack on some isolated rig by "Geraniums" - that will serve to justify our obliteration of the Persian mullocracy. Surely Iran's Sunni neighbors won't be making too big a fuss if we bitch-slap Iran. How does November 8th look - the day AFTER US mid-term elections? Yeah, that date looks good ............ |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2006-11-01 18:31 |
| #48 The LPHs were built on Essex hulls. BTW, they have all been mothballed. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-01 18:21 |
| #47 Most of the world that criticizes us for throwing our weight around haven't a CLUE what our military could and can do if we decide it is warranted. And we may (or may not) need that capability against a resurgent China in the next 1-2 decades. We'll see. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 18:19 |
| #46 USS Boxer (LHD-4) & USS Tarawa (LHA-1) |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-11-01 18:14 |
| #45 As a prime example of what I said above, look up the specs on the USS Enterprise built in 1938 and compare it to the LPH : the LPH is the better carrier. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-11-01 17:40 |
| #44 It is so funny : the US has so much experience with carriers, and so many of them, that we can classify a carrier type as a non-carrier - the Wasp class of LPH. Compare the LPH to any of the WWII carriers and which would you rather have? In any navy other than the US {and maybe British}, the LPH is a carrier, and a damned big and fine one at that. Look at what the Red Chinese are getting as their carrier and compare it to the LPH. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-11-01 17:35 |
| #43 Don't forget the 5 LHAs of the Tarawa class (40K tons full load). |
| Posted by: ed 2006-11-01 17:15 |
| #42 In defense of Debka a little, LHDs are sometimes referred to (not by us) as small carriers as they are much bigger than the older LADs as I recall. General Characteristics, Wasp Class Builder: Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Ingalls Operations, Pascagoula, MS. Date Deployed: July 29, 1989 (USS Wasp) Propulsion: (LHDs 1–7) two boilers, two geared steam turbines, two shafts, 70,000 total shaft horsepower; (LHD 8) two gas turbines, two shafts; 70,000 total shaft horsepower, two 5,000 horsepower auxiliary propulsion motors. Length: 844 feet (253.2 meters). Beam: 106 feet (31.8 meters). Displacement: LHDs 1-4: 40,650 tons full load (41,302.3 metric tons) LHDs 5-7: 40,358 tons full load (41,005.6 metric tons) LHD 8: 41,772 tons full load (42,442.3 metric tons). Speed: 20+ knots (23.5+ miles per hour). Crew: Ships Company: 104 officers, 1,004 enlisted Marine Detachment: 1,894. Armament: Two RAM launchers; two NATO Sea Sparrow launchers; three 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts (two on LHD 5-7); four .50 cal. machine guns; four 25 mm Mk 38 machine guns (LHD 5-7 have three 25 mm Mk 38 machine guns). Aircraft: 12 CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters; 4 CH-53E Sea Stallion helicopters; 6 AV-8B Harrier attack aircraft; 3 UH-1N Huey helicopters; 4 AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters. (planned capability to embark MV-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotors). Ships: USS Wasp (LHD 1), Norfolk, VA USS Essex (LHD 2), Sasebo, Japan USS Kearsarge (LHD 3), Norfolk, VA USS Boxer (LHD 4), San Diego, CA USS Bataan (LHD 5), Norfolk, VA USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6), San Diego, CA USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), Norfolk, VA Makin Island (LHD 8) - under construction vs. AVNs: General Characteristics, Nimitz Class Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, VA. Date Deployed: May 3, 1975 (USS Nimitz). Unit Cost: About $4.5 billion each. Propulsion: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts. Length: 1,092 feet (332.85 meters). Beam: 134 feet (40.84 meters); Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters). Displacement: Approximately 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load. Speed: 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour). Crew: Ship's Company: 3,200 - Air Wing: 2,480. Armament: Two or three (depending on modification) NATO Sea Sparrow launchers, 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts: (3 on Nimitz and Dwight D. Eisenhower and 4 on Vinson and later ships of the class.). Aircraft: 85. Ships: USS Nimitz (CVN 68), San Diego, CA USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), Norfolk, VA USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Newport News, VA USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Norfolk, VA USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Everett, WA USS George Washington (CVN 73), Norfolk, VA USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), Bremerton, WA USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Norfolk, VA USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), San Diego, CA George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) - (keel laying 6 Sept 2003) |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 16:59 |
| #41 Then they might have a chance to get away from a MK 48. Does that qualify as a design defect? |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-11-01 16:51 |
| #40 Somebody did preipherally mention it...but BOXER and IWA JIMA are not CVNs; they are LHDs. Thus they lead an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), not a Carrier Strike Group (CSG). EISENHOWER/ENTERPRISE are big deck nukes with F/A18s of various flavors and EA6s. LHD's are chopper (Marine) heavy to support amphib ops, etc. Two different, though complimentary concepts. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2006-11-01 16:44 |
| #39 I'm just hoping that a single stray Iranian round chips one flake of paint off a US boat so we hit "The Big Red Button". |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-01 15:57 |
| #38 So, in response, the Mad Mullahs and Immadinnerjacket are going to put their boats into the Gulf tomorrow to stage their own practice sessions. Hmmmm, hope one of their boats doesn't sink prematurely. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-11-01 15:36 |
| #37 Lol, 'Moose! Excellamentiente, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 15:24 |
| #36 http://tinyurl.com/exmta This is the MK 48 torpedo. The Seawolf class carries of mix of 50 of them and missiles. If a MK 48 has been fired at you, you have less chance of survival than if a Hungarian assassin is after you to settle a blood feud. The optimal chance is if the crew of the Iranian ship or submarine beach their vessel, come onshore, assume new identities and disguises and fan out over the country. Then they might have a chance to get away from a MK 48. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-11-01 15:20 |
| #35 Danielle, yes I think we do have the assets to defend here. One of Rumsfeld's most important actions was to create the US Northern command and begin to staff it for real. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 15:15 |
| #34 Danielle: Excellent question. Believe we had a similar occurrence back in Oct of 1962 in Cuba. History does seem to repeat itself from time to time, especially in that part of the world. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-11-01 14:54 |
| #33 Question: Besides all the US assets in the region, there are all the Europeans and Australians, with even the Russians assisting India. What if NK or Iran have already shipped missiles or technology to Brazil or Venezuela or the West Coast for an attack on the US Mainland? Do we have enough defensive protection for our own shores? |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-11-01 14:50 |
| #32 "So is this in preparation for next Wednesday, when we know who's in control of Congress?" How about Tuesday night at about 8 p.m. EST? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-11-01 14:45 |
| #31 Do they come lubricated? Not that I actually care, just wondering... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 14:42 |
| #30 Never fear Zenster, I'm certain that somehow the Navy will figure out a way to get at least one cruise missile in there if they need to. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2006-11-01 14:39 |
| #29 We're gonna practice anti-ship Alpha strikes, lots of Alpha strikes. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2006-11-01 14:20 |
| #28 The USS Jimmah Cahtah was last reported rounding the cape with swinning rabbits in pursuit. The rabbits are considered non-lethal, but problematic nontheless. The source of the rabbits is unknown. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-01 14:19 |
| #27 I'd LOVE to see eLarson's quote in #3 photoshopped onto a deck photo of the USS Reagan (I know, the USS Jimmuh Carter would bail out, it is Tehran after all) and posted at drudge or some other "right wing" website. Watch 'em squirm. So is this in preparation for next Wednesday, when we know who's in control of Congress? |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-01 14:12 |
| #26 Does anyone else get the feeling that the pucker factor in Tehran is rapidly approaching infinity? I'll bet that right about now you couldn't get a round toothpick up an Iranian mullah's asshole. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-01 13:48 |
| #25 think there's no subs involved? Sounds like a minimum of two are there (at least) :-) Altho my experience is slightly out of date, maybe one will travel with the moving combat group and more will hand off responsiblity along the way with the one or more sub patrolling the Persian Gulf/Red Sea area. They'll try to be flexible as possible. |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2006-11-01 13:43 |
| #24 An Ohio-class is never out of range, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 13:11 |
| #23 Did we say we were having a big naval exercise? We were misunderstood. Again. We meant we were having a big navel exercise. We will all be looking at our bellybuttons until we think we're out of range again, then it will be back to the same old rhetoric. Sorry for the confusion. For now. |
| Posted by: The MMs 2006-11-01 13:09 |
| #22 I thought this was all about reacting to AQ threat against Ras Tanura? Lots of luck there - you'd have to have been a UOP engineer for 30 years just to figure out where to start. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2006-11-01 13:06 |
| #21 think there's no subs involved? Sounds like a minimum of two are there (at least) :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-01 13:04 |
| #20 Sheesh, what overkill. One Ohio-class could take care of the whole thing. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 13:01 |
| #19 ...Sadly, one of those carriers is most assuredly not ready to fight a war, though in extremis she could be sent in. Mind you, she might have to be towed there... Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-11-01 12:48 |
| #18 Connection, our warhead up their keelhole. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-01 12:40 |
| #17 Iran is having a Big as a, er, breadbasket? |
| Posted by: Evil Elvis 2006-11-01 12:13 |
| #16 Let's hope so. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-01 12:09 |
| #15 Iran is having a big naval exercise now or very soon. I wonder if there is a connection? |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-01 11:53 |
| #14 CV-63 USS Kitty Hawk - commissioned 1961, active CVN-65 USS Enterprise - commissioned 1961, active CV-67 USS John F. Kennedy - commissioned 1968, active, "Big John" CVN-68 USS Nimitz - commissioned 1975, active CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower - commissioned 1977, active, "Ike" CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson - commissioned 1982, active, "Gold Eagle" CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt - commissioned 1986, active, "TR" CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln - commissioned 1989, active, "Abe" CVN-73 USS George Washington - commissioned 1992, active CVN-74 USS John C. Stennis - commissioned 1995, active CVN-75 USS Harry S. Truman - commissioned 1998, active CVN-76 USS Ronald Reagan - commissioned 2003, active CVN-77 USS George H. W. Bush - construction begun 2001, scheduled to be commissioned 2008 CVN-88 USS Slick Willie Clinton - Coming soon "Big Cigar" |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2006-11-01 11:42 |
| #13 damn - my cookie's been eaten |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-01 11:41 |
| #12 last I noticed from my office window - two were in SD port at North Island (it can berth three). They do slip out to do offcoast training though... |
| Posted by: FBI guy 2006-11-01 11:41 |
| #11 The Navy's having a party and the Army aint invited?? I feel snubbed. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-11-01 11:37 |
| #10 Is the Reagan still in training? IIRC she was listed as deployed in the Pacific up until a couple days ago. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 11:32 |
| #9 Oh, and 2 expeditionary strike groups means a fair number of Marines prepared for sea to land / sea to oil terminal operations. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 11:31 |
| #8 Probably a couple in refit. Reagan in training? |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2006-11-01 11:25 |
| #7 I don't know if this kind of concentration is unusual, though. It is. Original reason given was joint naval exercises. But then there was acknowledgement of intel re: a pending al Qaida attack on major Saudi, Kuwaiti and Bahraini oil terminals. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 11:25 |
| #6 50% of fleet under way. 12 CVs Active. 4 under way. Hmmm. Where could the rest be hiding? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-01 11:21 |
| #5 Ships Underway Carriers: USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - East China Sea USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Mediterranean Sea USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - Pacific Ocean USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Red Sea |
| Posted by: Slaviter Claiter8372 2006-11-01 11:15 |
| #4 One can hope. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-11-01 11:12 |
| #3 "And they are all waving and saying 'See you Wednesday'." |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-11-01 11:07 |
| #2 Won't all that Navy stuff being so close together cause the Earth's axis to shift? Or just Evil's? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-01 10:43 |
| #1 Boxer and Iwo Jima are LHDs, not carriers. I don't know if this kind of concentration is unusual, though. |
| Posted by: Jonathan 2006-11-01 10:35 |