You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Southeast Asia
Aircraft carrier Reagan to deploy again just 6 months after return
2007-01-13

sayyyyy that's another asset freed up in the region...hmmm
Barely six months after returning from its maiden deployment, the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan will leave its Coronado pier within weeks for a cruise in the western Pacific Ocean. Two Navy spokesmen said the Reagan probably will spend several months filling in for the Kitty Hawk, the Japan-based carrier that is unavailable because it's undergoing routine maintenance. The sources requested anonymity because Pentagon policy forbids them from providing such information before an official announcement.
Said source should be court-martialed.
The Reagan's unexpected deployment is an indirect result of President Bush's new decision to station a second carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf, the spokesmen said. The Reagan will fulfill patrol duties in the western Pacific in place of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, which Bush sent to the Persian Gulf as added muscle to supplement the strike group of the Virginia-based carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The Stennis strike group – which includes three aviation squadrons from San Diego as well as the San Diego-based cruiser Antietam, destroyer Preble and frigate Rentz – was scheduled for a routine cruise in the western Pacific.

The date of the Reagan's departure hasn't been set, but its crew is expected to receive deployment orders within a week, the spokesmen said. The tour is expected to last a few months. The ship likely will deploy without its carrier air wing or escort ships, relying for support instead on vessels and aircraft already stationed in Japan.

The Reagan, commissioned in 2003, arrived in San Diego the following year and completed its maiden deployment in July. Its crew members aren't the only locally stationed sailors affected by Bush's planned military buildup in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. On Friday, the Navy confirmed that possibly all ships in the San Diego-based Boxer Strike Group will remain in the gulf for up to 60 additional days.

The amphibious assault ship Boxer and its five escorts – the amphibious ships Dubuque and Comstock, the destroyers Benfold and Howard, and the cruiser Bunker Hill – left San Diego on Sept. 13. Those vessels carried about 6,000 troops, including 2,200 Marines of the Camp Pendleton-based 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

The contingent was supposed to return to San Diego in March. On Thursday, the Pentagon ordered the 15th MEU to stay an extra 45 days in Iraq. Navy officials said the Boxer, Dubuque and Comstock definitely will be extended to bring the Marines home, while the Benfold, Howard and Bunker Hill will likely stay longer as well.
Posted by:Frank G

#10  if the flag does go up lets keep our fingers crossed [& say a prayer] for our men and women.
Posted by: RD   2007-01-13 22:48  

#9  Couple of clarifications may be in order:
"The Stennis strike group – which includes three aviation squadrons from San Diego" There are moer than 3 squadrons aboard any CV; in addition to the attack and fighter guys ( now all lumped into the Hornet) there are the S-3, E-2C, EA-6B and SH-60 outfits, all tasked with vital functions. They mey not be dropping bombs or firing cannons, but they are providing services to keep the Lane Darts and the CV safe (not counting that little Chinese sub / Kitty Hawk thing the other day)
Second: a 6 month turn around is unusual: in addition to all the CV-based stuff posted earlier, there is an enormous amount of work for the squadrons: personnel and aircraft transfers, training, in depth maintenance on the birds that couldn't be done underway. That's not to say it is impossible, because this article clearly speaks to the event happening, but the reality is, while do-able in a short-term or surge mode, long term there will be a cost.
Sorry to be so long winded.
Personal opinion: AA5839, I don't think anybody is crying, but you make no mention of all the perks you bubbleheads get that are not availalble to the rest of the Navy. I got to spend about 3 weeks in Bangor and I was truly impressed with the professionalism and support your side of the Nav gets compared to the Airedales. But all that aside, watching a bird that you spent 6 months reasembling from a basket case make its fist flight and come back gripe free gave me and my crew a huge amount of satisfaction. Can't put a price tag on that.
Posted by: USN, ret.   2007-01-13 21:01  

#8  I would think that this one of those 'officially authorized' leaks. Like, we want someone to know something. It can keep peace on the seas.
Posted by: Free Radical   2007-01-13 18:54  

#7  LOL - the point in posting this is that the Stennis will be in the gulf a LOT longer than a two week show of flag....wonder why?
Posted by: Frank G   2007-01-13 13:33  

#6  So what! I don't remember anybody getting in a tizzy about the boat I was on making a couple of back-to-back northern "Hydrographic Surveys". For a total time submerged (SUBMERGED!!)
of 182 days! So cry me a river, wussy boys.
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839   2007-01-13 13:17  

#5  That wasn't her "shakedown" cruise, that was done long ago. This is 6 months after her first full deployment.
Posted by: crosspatch   2007-01-13 13:14  

#4  6 months is a very short time after a shakedown cruise. After a shakedown, you have to assume tens of thousands of problems will be discovered, most of which are small, but all of which you want fixed.

It covers the gamut, from glitches and improper installation, to manufacturing faults buried deep within the hull under 500 pounds of wiring. Every exposed weld has to be inspected and any stress fractures, corrosion and metal fatigue reported.

It is a gawdawful amount of work.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-01-13 12:32  

#3  I'm confused. The headline implies that 6 months is an unusually short time for a carrier to wait between deployments. But that doesn't make sense; 6 months would give you a 50% duty cycle, and that makes sense to me.

Heck, I vaguely remember that subs have two crews that go out in rotation. I'm sure that's just not possible with carriers -- too many people -- but I'm still struck that the headline is frankly alarmist when I don't think it needs to be.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2007-01-13 12:12  

#2  Next. Not best. D'oh!
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-13 11:07  

#1  "... But its crew is likely to get deployment orders with the best week."

Whoever leaked this should be looking for a new job. These men and they're families should not have to read about this before they get they're orders.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-13 11:05  

00:00