Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 05/29/2004 View Fri 05/28/2004 View Thu 05/27/2004 View Wed 05/26/2004 View Tue 05/25/2004 View Mon 05/24/2004 View Sun 05/23/2004
1
2004-05-29 Home Front: WoT
Navy to Deploy Carrier Groups to Test Rapid Readiness
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 Mark O 2004-05-29 12:00:00 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6488 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 ...No, no, no. Two carriers are an exercise. Seven is a campaign.

Or a warning.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-05-29 1:01:03 AM||   2004-05-29 1:01:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Seven carrier groups is a hell of a lot of firepower. Glad it's just an exercise.

Nothing to see here, move along...
Posted by mojo  2004-05-29 1:36:59 AM||   2004-05-29 1:36:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Holy Mother of God!

SEVEN carrier battle groups?

Thats the 4th largest airforce in the world, rolling to who knows where.

Not to mention the cruise missles, etc, on board the cruisers and other ships, the Aegis ships, and the usual 688-boats (and their cruise missles) that are part of each of the groups.

Park this off the coast of Korea...

Or France.
Posted by OldSpook 2004-05-29 1:56:08 AM||   2004-05-29 1:56:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 OS: the NKors would have more spine.
Posted by Steve White  2004-05-29 2:09:27 AM||   2004-05-29 2:09:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 So many good targets. Decisions, decisions...
Posted by PBMcL 2004-05-29 2:36:12 AM||   2004-05-29 2:36:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Would like to see all the carriers lining up like the picture of "murderer's row" in Ulithi anchorge in WW2. Seven battle groups, what a sight to see!
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-05-29 2:45:43 AM||   2004-05-29 2:45:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Maybe the pre-Iran festivities. One could hope.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-05-29 2:46:18 AM||   2004-05-29 2:46:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Sounds very interesting, note the video report showed Kitty Hawk leaving port too - isn't that a Japanese based carrier,wonder if they'll be all heading out to run simulated attack runs on the Norks perhaps using ranges and other simulated targets in America to play the Norks, have too see what the airforce is up too as well in the pacific theatre.Something tells me this is a big drill for a big old strike,maybe practicing cluster bombing and attacking fake Nork armoured colums etc.wonder how many sorties and how much ordance 7 fresh carrier groups could deliver over say 2 or 3 days,must be a fair few thousand tonns,couple that to USAF B1's B2's and B-52s zapping stratigic targets and airfeilds and it all adds up to stomping from above.Maybe i'm just being wishfull in my thinking but you never do know... :)
Posted by Shep UK 2004-05-29 4:45:00 AM||   2004-05-29 4:45:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Thats the 4th largest airforce in the world, rolling to who knows where.

4th largest but the most powerful. I would suspect the carriers are deploying for Rapid-response in case of an attack on Bush during his European trip. The exercise is more a cover than an actual test of our capabilities.
Posted by Charles  2004-05-29 6:12:45 AM||   2004-05-29 6:12:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Another interpretation is to avoid a terrorist attack on docked ships. Far and away the safest place for a naval vessel is the high seas. As I have pointed out before a large ship travelling at speed has enormous kinetic energy. A hit by 100,000 ton ship traveling at 20 KPH would release more energy (and far more directed energy) than the biggest anti-ship missile the Russians or anyone else makes.
Posted by Phil B  2004-05-29 6:23:23 AM||   2004-05-29 6:23:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Stennis left North Island this week for a four month deployment - not the Persian Gulf, but supposedly some exercises off Alasks, then...? NK sounds about right
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-29 8:44:14 AM||   2004-05-29 8:44:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Cuba?
Posted by Anonymous5040 2004-05-29 11:29:39 AM||   2004-05-29 11:29:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Seems like this kind of thing would have caused panic in the Kremlin 20 years ago.

Might be as simple as exercises, like they say, but with the added benefit of making jerks around the world freak out.
Posted by Laurence of the Rats  2004-05-29 11:37:45 AM|| [http://punictreachery.com/]  2004-05-29 11:37:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 I got a funny feeling a reactor in Iran is going boom and we got them out there just in case anybodyelse wants to start something.
Posted by djohn66 2004-05-29 11:43:16 AM||   2004-05-29 11:43:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Actually, Navy's been nearly a complete non-player in Iraq since late last spring, and has changed its deployment structure from regularly scheduled deployments to "surge" for contingency and crisis. They got lucky the Iraq war ended soon enough (for them) to let them try it, the Navy was damn near as broke then as the Army is now. Now for the limitations--REAGAN has no air wing, yet, and the Navy just killed one squadron of its reserve air wing, so there isn't even a full up spare anymore. Boats from the east coast can reach the Med, Red Sea, NAG or PG in less than a month, but boats from the left coast need about two months to reach the fun zone. In all likelihood, this is an exercise we're talking about, not an operation.

However, Phil B. hits on something I can't overstress--a moving carrier is nearly invincible, but a parked carrier is a big fat target. We know AQ wants a big, theatrical target, and nothing is as emblematic of America's power to project power abroad than an aircraft carrier. Given that white shipping is closely monitored these days, I would look for either an airborne attack, or sabotage. Either way, underway is the best defense.
Posted by longtime lurker 2004-05-29 12:04:31 PM||   2004-05-29 12:04:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 the Reagan's to be homeported in SD at North Island, I'll bet the air wing is a rotating one from whichever of the 3 carriers is berthed/being refitted
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-29 12:35:15 PM||   2004-05-29 12:35:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Frank, actually, REAGAN's enroute right now, and it's probably not a full up round till it's spent some time getting systems installed on the left coast. All the wings are in constant flux with the Super Hornet and its flawed transition (they bought the planes, but to be cheap they didn't buy the spare parts and yellow gear needed to deploy--I told you the Navy is nearly broke). They'll cobble together something when the time comes. At any rate, there's one less air wing than there are decks, and you don't want to know how many wings and boats can deploy with a full complement of parts, planes and bombs. Hard to believe we're at war.
Posted by longtime lurker 2004-05-29 12:59:01 PM||   2004-05-29 12:59:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I saw a clip of it enroute on Fox yesterday. Beautiful! Will the '22 be produced fast enough for the replenishment that you note is needed?
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-29 1:06:20 PM||   2004-05-29 1:06:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 My understanding is that USN plans to have CBG's deployed on station full time with crews being rotated in and out by air. This would allow several CVs to be taken out of active duty reducing cost without reducing capability. This surge could be more like some sort of logistic drill as opposed to a combat drill. If anyone gets the wrong idea...well, let's hope they take away the right message.
Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-29 1:07:26 PM||   2004-05-29 1:07:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Frank, the F-22 is the USAF's tarbaby, not the Navy's. The F-18E/F is the stopgap for the Navy, but they're gambling on the JSF down the line, a single engine jet--not a great plan. Tomcats go away in 2006, so the Navy's putting itself into a hurt locker, no pods, no heavies.
The old lingo of CVBG is now CSG, carrier strike group, meant to allow greater flexibility of response. Crews can rotate, but carriers take such a beating underway that the blue/gold concept probably won't be tested.
Posted by longtime lurker 2004-05-29 2:00:14 PM||   2004-05-29 2:00:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 thanks LL - maybe they need flotation devices on the JSF? I thought the F-22 would have a carrier capability (dunno where I picked that up though...)
Posted by Frank G  2004-05-29 2:13:35 PM||   2004-05-29 2:13:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 X-45 could also be a future attack platform. Anyway seing as you seem to know alot about the US military lurker can you tell me anything about the lockheed Darkstar,yeah i know they cancelled it years ago but i read a fair few reports during main stage of the Iraq invasion and apparently it or a very similar varient of it was working directly over Baghdad for the whole war and infact months before apparently for up to 36 hours on station at a time too. U-2 pilots are said to have seen it on similar flight tracks as close as a couple of miles in horizontal seperation. Even they didn't know whose or what it was at first which is why i thought perhaps the system was now under Navy control or part Air Force part Navy flying off a carrier,Not sure if the under carrage and design in general could have been adapted but its certainly a posabilaty.
Posted by Shep UK 2004-05-29 2:21:40 PM||   2004-05-29 2:21:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Shep, you are probably thinking of the Global Hawk UAV, which flies at U2 altitudes.. The DarkStar is an old Stealth UAV tech demonstrator, not large enough for 36 hour endurance.

The F22 would need a major (read expensive) structural redesign to take the stresses of a carrier landing. So not likely to ever happen.
Posted by ed 2004-05-29 2:37:25 PM||   2004-05-29 2:37:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Didn't realize Norfolk had seven carriers, hope they let Mayport in on this.
Posted by Shipman 2004-05-29 3:50:59 PM||   2004-05-29 3:50:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 No absolutly definatly a darkstar derivative, not the big and very public Global Hawk which is also very nice,no this was defibnatly a Darkstar derivative.i@m gonna go googling for it now. :)
Posted by Shep UK 2004-05-29 4:34:52 PM||   2004-05-29 4:34:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/2003-July/009009.html its from aviation weekly
Posted by Shep UK 2004-05-29 4:37:45 PM||   2004-05-29 4:37:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 That's possible. The track record has been that when a stealth test program is revealed, a newer platform has already replaced it. Iraq was a target rich environment to test it's capabilities and no opposing air to shoot it down.
Posted by ed 2004-05-29 5:04:10 PM||   2004-05-29 5:04:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 
Posted by gromky 2004-05-29 7:27:08 PM||   2004-05-29 7:27:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Well, just to answer your question Shep, Darkstar was "officially" cancelled in further funding, Lockheed continued it under a semi-black project and further developed a new avionics and sensor package (its able to hold a whole of systems from synthetic aperature radar to some extremely precise infrared systems) for it. What flew in Iraq (and was actually based outta Qatar it seems) was Darkstar II, the upgraded variant of the stealthy sucker. Also I don't know if you can still find this on the web but theres also a super-sized version of Darkstar proposed called Strikestar which is a UCAV with intercontinental ranges and long loiter times. The requirements and specifications for this latter one seems very close to Darpa's FALCON project.
Posted by Valentine 2004-05-30 1:41:11 AM||   2004-05-30 1:41:11 AM|| Front Page Top

03:54 Dog Bites Trolls
10:37 Anonymous5037
10:27 Anonymous5037
10:25 Anonymous5037
03:18 Dog Bites Trolls
02:40 Dog Bites Trolls
01:00 Outraged
01:02 Outraged
01:02 Outraged
02:32 God...your Ultimate Holyness
03:12 Anon1
05:58 Mike Sylwester
03:38 Mike Sylwester
02:13 Phil Fraering
01:41 Valentine
01:12 Jen
01:06 Phil_B
01:03 gromky
00:19 .com
00:14 Stephen
00:04 Quana
23:53 Phil_B
23:50 Edward Yee
23:44 .com
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com