Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 11/01/2006 View Tue 10/31/2006 View Mon 10/30/2006 View Sun 10/29/2006 View Sat 10/28/2006 View Fri 10/27/2006 View Thu 10/26/2006
1
2006-11-01 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Debka: US Navy At High Concentration Near Iran - 4 Carrier Groups
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-01 10:20|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Boxer and Iwo Jima are LHDs, not carriers. I don't know if this kind of concentration is unusual, though.
Posted by Jonathan">Jonathan  2006-11-01 10:35||   2006-11-01 10:35|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 10:43|| Front Page Top

#3 "And they are all waving and saying 'See you Wednesday'."
Posted by eLarson 2006-11-01 11:07|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2006-11-01 11:07|| Front Page Top

#4 One can hope.
Posted by lotp 2006-11-01 11:12||   2006-11-01 11:12|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 11:15|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 11:21|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 11:25|| Front Page Top

#8 Probably a couple in refit. Reagan in training?
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2006-11-01 11:25||   2006-11-01 11:25|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 11:31|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 11:32|| Front Page Top

#11 The Navy's having a party and the Army aint invited?? I feel snubbed.
Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan  2006-11-01 11:37||   2006-11-01 11:37|| Front Page Top

#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">FBI guy  2006-11-01 11:41||   2006-11-01 11:41|| Front Page Top

#13 damn - my cookie's been eaten
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-11-01 11:41||   2006-11-01 11:41|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 11:42|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 11:53|| Front Page Top

#16 Let's hope so.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-01 12:09||   2006-11-01 12:09|| Front Page Top

#17 Iran is having a big naval exercise now or very soon. I wonder if there is a connection?

Big as a, er, breadbasket?

Posted by Evil Elvis 2006-11-01 12:13||   2006-11-01 12:13|| Front Page Top

#18 Connection, our warhead up their keelhole.
Posted by wxjames 2006-11-01 12:40||   2006-11-01 12:40|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 12:48|| Front Page Top

#20 Sheesh, what overkill. One Ohio-class could take care of the whole thing.
Posted by .com 2006-11-01 13:01||   2006-11-01 13:01|| Front Page Top

#21 think there's no subs involved? Sounds like a minimum of two are there (at least) :-)
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-11-01 13:04||   2006-11-01 13:04|| Front Page Top

#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!">Jack is Back!  2006-11-01 13:06||   2006-11-01 13:06|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 13:09|| Front Page Top

#24 An Ohio-class is never out of range, lol.
Posted by .com 2006-11-01 13:11||   2006-11-01 13:11|| Front Page Top

#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">AlmostAnonymous5839  2006-11-01 13:43||   2006-11-01 13:43|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster  2006-11-01 13:48||   2006-11-01 13:48|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 14:12|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 14:19|| Front Page Top

#29 We're gonna practice anti-ship Alpha strikes, lots of Alpha strikes.
Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins  2006-11-01 14:20|| http://northshorejournal.org]">[http://northshorejournal.org]  2006-11-01 14:20|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 14:39|| Front Page Top

#31 Do they come lubricated? Not that I actually care, just wondering...
Posted by .com 2006-11-01 14:42||   2006-11-01 14:42|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 14:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 14:50|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 14:54|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 15:15|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 15:20|| Front Page Top

#37 Lol, 'Moose! Excellamentiente, lol.
Posted by .com 2006-11-01 15:24||   2006-11-01 15:24|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 15:36|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster  2006-11-01 15:57||   2006-11-01 15:57|| Front Page Top

#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">anymouse  2006-11-01 16:44||   2006-11-01 16:44|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 16:51|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 16:59|| Front Page Top

#43 Don't forget the 5 LHAs of the Tarawa class (40K tons full load).
Posted by ed 2006-11-01 17:15||   2006-11-01 17:15|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 17:35|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 17:40|| Front Page Top

#46 USS Boxer (LHD-4) & USS Tarawa (LHA-1)
Posted by Parabellum 2006-11-01 18:14||   2006-11-01 18:14|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 18:19|| Front Page Top

#48 The LPHs were built on Essex hulls. BTW, they have all been mothballed.
Posted by ed 2006-11-01 18:21||   2006-11-01 18:21|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 18:31|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 18:34|| Front Page Top

#51 "US Navy At High Concentration Near Iran - 4 Carrier Groups"

Everybody's gotta be someplace.... :-D
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2006-11-01 18:39|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]  2006-11-01 18:39|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 18:40|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 18:41|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 18:47|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 18:51|| Front Page Top

#56 Nothing says "Season's Greetings" like a couple million tons of American heavy metal.
Posted by Chuper Elmoper6565 2006-11-01 19:04||   2006-11-01 19:04|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster  2006-11-01 19:28||   2006-11-01 19:28|| Front Page Top

#58 That was just setup for the Axis of Evil thingy, but then nobody noticed.
Posted by .com 2006-11-01 19:30||   2006-11-01 19:30|| Front Page Top

#59 we noticed, funnyman
Posted by Kim Jong Il">Kim Jong Il  2006-11-01 19:42||   2006-11-01 19:42|| Front Page Top

#60 Be nice or I'll cancel the Hennesey train.
Posted by Hu Man Chu">Hu Man Chu  2006-11-01 19:50||   2006-11-01 19:50|| Front Page Top

#61 *snicker* Y'all only think you're so clever because you are! ;-)
Posted by trailing wife 2006-11-01 20:10||   2006-11-01 20:10|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 20:26|| Front Page Top

#63 lol - but I didn't do Hu - I 'spect one of the regular's are funning
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-11-01 20:28||   2006-11-01 20:28|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 20:33|| Front Page Top

#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||   2006-11-01 20:33|| Front Page Top

#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">49 Pan  2006-11-01 20:34||   2006-11-01 20:34|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G  2006-11-01 20:35||   2006-11-01 20:35|| Front Page Top

#68 I think you look quite fetching, twisting in the wind like that...
Posted by .funnyman 2006-11-01 20:41||   2006-11-01 20:41|| Front Page Top

#69 figured it was hu you
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2006-11-01 20:49||   2006-11-01 20:49|| Front Page Top

#70 Impeach my Bush!
Posted by Chineck Snaing5260 2006-11-01 22:35||   2006-11-01 22:35|| Front Page Top

12:45 bk
23:53 Hyper
23:48 Hyper
23:37 Zenster
23:26 Zenster
23:26 Shath Hupumble6441
23:24 Grunter
23:20 Zenster
23:11 .com
23:08 Old Patriot
23:06 Jan
23:04 mcsegeek1
23:01 Pappy
22:54 FOTSGreg
22:53 Frank G
22:53 OldSpook
22:48 DanNY
22:45 Mike
22:42 Pappy
22:36 Eric Jablow
22:35 Chineck Snaing5260
22:32 .com
22:29 Frank G
22:26 phil_b









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com