rickusn

The USN has assets that provide options most other nations dont have or have a difficult time providing. Lets hope these assets are used wisely.:

Second U.S. carrier sets sail for the Gulf



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, December 22, 2006
WASHINGTON ? The U.S. Navy is moving two aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf in an effort to counter Iran's growing military might.



On Dec. 11, the U.S. Navy moved the Eisenhower Strike Group into the Gulf. The group contains three escort ships and an attack submarine, Middle East Newsline reported.
Officials said a second carrier would patrol near the Iranian coast in early 2007. The second carrier, the Stennis, has already begun sailing for the Gulf. Each carrier contains about 80 warplanes.

"The ships are coming from the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea," an official said. "It's a show of force and will be conducted in a steady and calm manner."

Officials said the Bush administration has approved deployment of a range of warships to the Gulf over the next few months. They said the effort was meant to address concerns by Gulf Cooperation Council states of Iran's nuclear program and military buildup.

Washington has also won agreement from Britain to deploy naval assets in the Gulf, officials said. They said the Royal British Navy would send two mine-hunters to the region.

The U.S. and British naval deployment was not meant to spark a military confrontation with Iran, officials said. They said the increasing Western presence was meant to encourage Gulf Arab allies to focus on regional defense and conduct exercises in 2007.

"They need reassurances that we expect to be part of the effort here for the long term, that we will not run away from intimidation and that we will be part of the effort here for security and stability at sea for the long term," Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, commander of naval forces for U.S. Central Command, told the New York Times. "Our position must be visible and it must have muscle in order to be credible. That requires sustained presence."

Rookie Snipe

Well.......I wonder does this mean if Enterprise will also head back to the gulf anytime soon.......she just got back!

Master Chief

The navy must have alot of faith in there 3 escorts, and single sub. Back in the day a carrier battle group had 10-15 ships. I am sure they can handle the issue at hand, but still seems like a small battle group.

rickusn

Master Chief the history behind how many escorts make-up a Carrier Battlegroup has an interesting history.

Ill throw out one of my short versions.

The nominal make-up promulgated in 1982-83 was this:

2 CG
2 DDG
2 DD
2 SSN

But a CVBG was still considered by many in the USN(official or not) to be those six ships plus 4-6 FF/FFGs.

In the mid-1990's another of the USN's periodic reorganizations made DESRONS four ship entities made up of DDG/DD/FFGs.

Shortly thereafter they were reorganised again into six ship organizations where possible:

2 DDG
2 DD
2 FFG

A CVBG particularly in the Atlantic Fleet deployed with those six ships and two CGs. The Pacific Fleet is a bit more complicated.

This too did not last long for all DESRONS as the Spruances were decommissioned and FFG's pulled out before adequate replacement DDGs could take their place.

A few years(2002/2003) ago the USN was reorganised to redistribute fire-power.

The USN conceptually created 33 strike groups which included surface combatants. None of which were to be FFGs but in the short term of course this is impossible.

12 Carrier Strike Groups
12 Expeditionary Strike Groups
9 Surface Strike Groups

An Expeditionary strike group took an existing Amphibious Ready Group(ARG) and added a CG, DDG, DD/FFG and an SSN.

This was done by taking ships from the CVBGs.

Having ARGs assigned surface combatants was nothing new but was done on an ad hoc(as needed) basis in the past.

Much the same way as Surface Action Groups were formed after the demise of the battleships.

The SSGs were at first to be two ship formations.

But consequently three was deemed more appropriate.

Of course there has not been enough ships to fill out all these formations. SSG's have not been formed as often as priority has been given to filling out the CSGs and ESG's.

An Expeditionary Strike Force brings the three groups together.

See "Sea Power 21" and others analysis of it for more in-depth explanations.

Hope this was helpful.

Dreadnought

The battlegroup is missing a Battleship and Ronald Reagans theory on "gun barrel diplomacy"

Send two BB's along with the group and make it "check mate"

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Galrahn

The Stennis has been scheduled to leave since last August. In its workups, it was fielded with 2 ABM DDGs, 3 total DDGs and a CG (plus the SSN), and the Gotland has been assigned to the CSG since August as well, including being involved in all the work ups. There is no information whether it will deploy with the force or not.

The request for air power isn't in response to Iran, it is in response to a CENTCOM request earlier this month for more airpower. If it happens it is more likely it will be an Atlantic Carrier, since if the Stennis leaves in January as scheduled, after drills off Hawaii, and transit time, it wouldn't make it to the Gulf until close to March, around the same time the Eisenhower is expected to come home.

Dreadnought

IMO The battlegroup will be deployed for various reasons.

1) Additional airpower to the Gulf in support of various forces already there serving the M.E. theatre including NATO.
2) Relief of forces that have been commited there for the last 6-8 months.
3) Escalation with N.K over Nukes.
4) Iran and the U.N. difiance.

In either case they deem it necessary to deploy another battlegroup to the MED.