rickusn

Galrahn:

"Attached SSG:

USS O'Kane (DDG 77)
USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60)"

Of course I thought of that but those two ships were part of the CSG from the start which I stated so no they were NOT programmed to be an SSG plus I doubt it as neither ship is a flight IIA.

And ALL SSG's to date have deployed with at least one and mostly two ships with embarked helos.

But of course they could be split off in such a manner.

The Rentz was a recent addition and did NOT work-up with the CSG. Which I also stated.

Nor has the Rentz deployed for anything but Counter-Narcotic Ops for a few years now.

Me miss the "OBVIOUS" not likely. LOL

But "Mr. Obvious" resides up in my neck of the woods so Ill check with him just in case. LOL

ROTFLMAO

rickusn

Surface Strike Groups (SSG) since inception:

Stout (DDG 55) and Nicholas (FFG 47) 6/03 (Experimental)
Cole (DDG 67) and Gonzalez (DDG 66), and Thorn (DD 988) 11/03
Ramage (DDG 61) ,Ross (DDG 71), and Elrod (FFG 55) 4/04
Taylor (FFG 50) ,O'Bannon (DD 987) and Carney (DDG 64) 12/04
Mahan (DDG 72) ,Mitscher (DDG 57), and Hawes (FFG 53), 5/05
Porter (DDG 78) and Carr (FFG 52) 11/05
Oak Hill (LSD 51), Roosevelt (DDG 80) and Vicksburg (CG 69) 1/06
Trenton (LPD 14) ,Hue City (CG 66) and James E. Williams (DDG 95) 4/06
Barry (DDG 52) and Elrod (FFG 55) 5/06
The Sullivans (DDG 68) and Kaufmann (FFG 59) 11/06

Note: Interestinly enough none of these are from the Pacific Fleet. Im looking into this apparent anomaly.

On LRS&T:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33745.pdf

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/363.pdf

USS Hopper Supports Ballistic Missile Defense in “Sky Hunter”

On Alert in the Pacific

"As part of the initial deployment of the BMDS, five Pacific Fleet Aegis destroyers, the McCain, Curtis Wilbur, Fitzgerald, Stethem and Paul Hamilton, will have operational LRS&T upgrades installed by the end of this year. There will be a total of 15 LRS&T Aegis destroyers and three Aegis BMD engagement cruisers by the end of 2006. Also in 2006, five Aegis LRS&T destroyers will be upgraded to include the Block 2004 engagement capability. Sea Power 21, the Navy’s strategic plan, envisions a future fleet containing nine missile defense Surface Action Groups."


Heres something new:

STANAVFORLANT - in January of 2005, this became Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group. (SNMG 1)

COMPOSITION OF THE FORCE as of 01 Jan 2007
USS Mahan Flagship 1 Jan - 15 May 2007 DDG 72
FGS Sachsen 1 Jan - 30 Jun 2007 F 219


The USN ship assigned has been rotated between the 11 non-CORT OHP FFG ships of the USN Atlantic Fleet for all of this decade.

Issue Date: October 27, 2003

‘Plug and play’
New ship formations emphasize flexibility

By David Brown
Times staff writer

Now that you’re used to carrier strike groups and expeditionary strike groups — and even if you’re not — the Navy’s got a new one for you.
Later this fall, when the destroyers Gonzalez, Cole and Thorn push off from Norfolk, Va., they’ll sail east as the Navy’s first surface strike group.

This troika of warships will deploy and operate on its own, but will stay under the operational control of the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group.

Formerly called Middle East Force deployers, late deployers or surface action groups, the new surface strike groups will do traditional destroyer duties: fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, conduct maritime interception operations and provide overall presence, said Capt. Dana Dervay, of the Norfolk-based Fleet Forces Command Future Operations section.

“You may bring them in first before you bring in a carrier strike group or an expeditionary strike group,” he said. “It depends on what type of threat you have.”

In his “Guidance for 2003,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark directed Navy leaders to start referring to carrier battle groups as carrier strike groups, effective last March. The name change reflected the slimmed-down composition of the groups, which until this summer deployed with a half-dozen warships, the carrier at the center of the group.

The Enterprise, which deployed Oct. 2 and can be considered the first “pure” carrier strike group, left with only two cruisers, a fast combat support ship and an Argentine frigate that — officially — is not considered part of the strike group. According to a breakdown of strike groups provided by Fleet Forces Command, carriers will deploy with three warships from now on.

Other warships that would have traveled with the carrier now are being assigned to either surface strike groups or expeditionary strike groups. The first ESG, led by the amphibious assault ship Peleliu, left San Diego on Aug. 22 and included six ships and one submarine.

Rear Adm. James Stavridis, Enterprise strike group commander, said his group will have the option of linking up with surface strike ships in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf areas, as well as with Pacific surface ships.

“Now we’re distributing our striking power more evenly,” he said. “When we go to 5th Fleet [in the Persian Gulf region], we’ll be able to plug and play with other surface ships from the West Coast.”

Should greater force be needed, the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group and Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group could link up and create an expeditionary strike force.

“The overarching term became expeditionary strike force,” Dervay said. “It’s the gold standard of naval forces. If a threat comes up and we need a fairly credible force with tactical aviation and putting boots on the ground, you could combine those two forces and get an ESF.”

Unlike carrier and expeditionary strike groups, surface strike groups will not be identified by a lead ship. Instead, their names will be based on which fleet they’re in and their order in the deployment lineup. The first surface strike group to deploy in the Pacific Fleet, for example, will be called Pac 04-01, followed by Pac 04-02, and so on, to denote the fleet, year and position in the batting order, Dervay said.

He said the surface strike group associated with the Enterprise group will set the bar for follow-on groups. “They’re truly the first of a new generation,” he said. “The ability of that surface strike group to flex and respond to the evolving requirement is unlimited.”

Dervay also understood there’s some head-scratching going on in the fleet as sailors try to match new terms to new concepts. “It doesn’t surprise me [that there’s confusion],” he said. “It’s a huge system and we’re bringing all these pieces together and transforming in a fairly rapid amount of time.”

Now that you’ve got a handle on the names, there’s been yet another change. The name of the Fleet Response Plan — the big initiative under which all ships will deploy — was changed mid-October. It’s now called the Fleet Readiness Plan.

Hey, at least the initials stayed the same.

David Brown covers naval weapons and warfare. Reach him at (703) 750-8633 or by e-mail at dbrown@navytimes.com.

rickusn

As regards the Pacific Fleet SSGs the Pacific fleet has carried out an excercise dubbed CARAT since 1996. While not designated as SSG's I find their composition interesting nonetheless.:

CARAT Excercises:

2006 The CARAT task group includes the dock landing ship USS Tortuga (LSD 46), the frigate USS Crommelin (FFG 37), destroyer USS Hopper (DDG 70), the cutter USCGC Sherman (WHEC 720), and rescue and salvage ship USS Salvor (ARS 52).

2005 The task group includes forward from Harpers Ferry(LSD 49), USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60), USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG 60).

2004 The CARAT Task Group, under the leadership of Commander, Destroyer Squadron One, is made up of the U.S. Coast Guard high endurance cutter Mellon (WHEC 717), the dock landing ship USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43), the guided missile destroyers - a CARAT first - USS Russell (DDG 59) and USS McCampbell (DDG 85), and the rescue and salvage ship USS Salvor (ARS 52).

2003 The CARAT task group is made up of the guided-missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG 49), dock landing ship USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49), guided-missile frigate USS Curts (FFG 38), rescue and salvage ship USS Safeguard (ARS 50).

Earlier CARAT Compositions:

Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT)

rickusn

Finally found what I was looking for on LRS&T and BMD launcher ships:

Missile Defense (MDAA)

Launcher ships now with 12 more by end of 2009.:

3 Aegis Cruisers (3 Aegis cruisers: USS Shiloh CG-67 JAPAN, USS Lake Erie CG-70, USS Port Royal CG-73; and 3 Destroyers by end of 2006: USS Stethem JAPAN DDG-63, USS Curtis Wilbur DDG-54 JAPAN, USS Decatur DDG-73)

10 other Destroyers with only LSr&T.:


DDG 53 John Paul Jones
DDG 56 John S. McCain JAPAN
DDG 59 Russel
DDG 60 Paul Hamilton
DDG 62 Fitzgerald JAPAN
DDG 65 Benfold
DDG 69 Milius
DDG 70 Hopper
DDG 76 Higgins
DDG 77 Okane
DDG 82 Lassen
DDG 89 Mustin JAPAN

The reason I included Mustin and Lassen is because I read that seven ships have the capability in Japan but cant verufy.

JPJ and Higgins may already have LRS&T equpiment installed but I cant verify it.

Interesting thing is that it only takes six weeks and a relatively modest $10.5 to do the upgrade per ship.

And this is also partly why the Okane and Paul Hamilton arent likely to be split off into an SSG along with the lack of organic Helos. No shooter for BMD. Neither them or the cruiser assigned USS Antietam.

Its also interesting that all these ships are Pacific fleet ships.

Not to mention it appears the Rentz has been split off to independent patrol in the Pacific. Im still verifying that new found info.

The Rentz apparently has already deployed and my info is that it was at Brunei on January 16th.

rickusn

Just found this. And again the # of surface combatants in the CSG has been increased.

IMHO this has everything to do with increased emphasis on a proper ASW screen but......

Navy Region Hawaii News

Nimitz Strike Group

USS Chafee returns from COMPTUEX

Release Date: 1/12/2007

By Ensign Matt Appleton, USS Chafee (DDG 90) Public Affairs Officer


U.S. Navy photo - The Pearl Harbor-based, guided missile destroyer USS Chafee (DDG 90) returned Dec. 23 from a nearly month long underway off the coast of southern California as a part of the Nimitz Strike Group.

The Pearl Harbor-based, guided missile destroyer USS Chafee (DDG 90) returned Dec. 23 from a nearly month long underway off the coast of southern California as a part of the Nimitz Strike Group.

Chafee, supported by an embarked detachment from the Kaneohe-based Helicopter Squadron Light 37, joined up with USS Nimitz (CVN 68) and USS Princeton(CG 59) and the Little Beavers of the historic Destroyer Squadron 23, comprised of USS Pinckney (DDG 91), USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), and USS Higgins (DDG 76), to participate in the Nimitz Strike Group Combined Unit Training Exercise (COMPTUEX). The exercise was conducted throughout the month of December.

MK1973

rickusn : the idea of a CSG for example of the EASt coast operating in the area of the 5th fleet with an esg of the west coast doesnt sounds bad if we consider the flexibility, but what could be the impact of the lack of a cooperative training as COMPUTEX or JTFEX on the overall performance of the group. Iwould like to know your opininon on that

thanks

Galrahn

Very nice find on the Nimitz CSG, I hadn't been able to find which ships were deploying. It would appear the CSG is scheduled to leave in February to relieve the Eisenhower CSG. That force is unquestionably designed for the Gulf with its 2 BMD AEGIS ships and the USS Pinckney (DDG 91) with its mine warfare UUVs. I think your assumption about the Chafee being for ASW duty is also right on, I remember seeing something from a FY05 budget spreadsheet about a high speed underwater communication system for the Chafee that allows it to communicate directly with submarines, to be used in its 2005 deployment with the Nimitz. I'll try to find that doc to identify the system.

I figured you caught it, but I didn't understand why you were talking about the Flight I/IIs in the Pacific when they are the only Flight I/IIs that appear to be put to good use with their BMD focus. To me it seems pretty clear the Stennis was going to the Gulf specifically for its BMD capability since Patriot deployment announcements came the same day. If it wasn't for the BMD integration, the Reagan or TR or Enterprise would have been better options.

For those AEGIS BMD, the shooters are the Patriots being deployed, shooters don't have to be other ships and in most cases wouldn't be anyway due to the difficulty of putting ships in position to engage a ballistic missile. The SM-3 lacks the range to make the engagement capability the focus of AEGIS BMD at this point, although it doesn't hurt it any!

Check out the DefenseNews article from 10/9/06 titled "U.S. Warships To Get Missile Defense Upgrades" which details all Flight I/II Pacific ships already with BMD, it will verify almost all of your assumptions and provide some details to fill in gaps in your information as of October 06. Mind this is before the late rush of activity that came in November and December, some of which was also reported.

In my observations of Pac Fleet deployments, ships deploying from the states operate alone but in the same area as allied forces, like Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, or Singapore. Only for exercises or in the region around Japan and South Korea, or when deploying into the Indian Ocean does it appear Pacific ships operate in groups, or at least via media reports that is what I am able to gather. This might be changing though, it does appear the rotation of DDGs to Japan and the addition of an extra DDG to the CSGs could have an effect, although it didn't stop last years deployments of the USS Halsey, USS Chung-Hoon, or USS Momsen which all deployed independently, attending multi-national exercises only to redeploy independently to their AOR in either the 7th or 3rd Fleet.

As of the end of 2006 the only two foreign ships officially reported to have AEGIS BMD was JDS Kirishima (DDG 174) or HNLMS Tromp (F 803), both of which have version 3.6.

After discussions and research this weekend I think the O'Kane and Hamilton are both running version 3.0, not 3.6 like I said. That would mean it is very unlikely they would operate independent the group as I implied, because 3.0 has the limitation of requiring an AEGIS system reboot to switch from normal AEGIS defense to BMD AEGIS defense.

From what I have read, it appears the USS Rentz is deploying to relieve the USS Taylor.

Question for Rick: What do you make of all this Pacific Fleet activity. The Lincoln pulled out of dry dock on Dec 26th ahead of schedule, but the Kitty Hawk is going into drydock. With the Reagan, Stennis, and Nimitz either deployed or deploying over the next 30 days it leaves little ready for surge, while the Atlantic Fleet has both the TR and Enterprise ready to go with the Truman beginning its workups for deployment this summer.

Do you still consider the FRP a success or is do you see it showing some limitations with the added strain surge deployments can add to the system?

rickusn

"it didn't stop last years deployments of the USS Halsey, USS Chung-Hoon, or USS Momsen which all deployed independently, "

Or the Pickneys in the last 1/2 of 2005 and beginning of 2006.

Notice though that those are all Flight IIA ships.

I havent kept up with the BMD program thus the actuality that I am struggling to catch up.

"Do you still consider the FRP a success or is do you see it showing some limitations with the added strain surge deployments can add to the system?

I consider it an adapted version (reversion?)("variation on a theme" if you will) from the 50's and 60's when most ships deployed for six months of every year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems from my point of view that the USN transitioned from a 1 in 3 to as much as a 1 in or five rotation over the years.

Sailors seem to like it although it ceratinly is stressful on families but then the Navy has always been hard on families.

When I was in submarines very long ago(mid/late 70's) it was often even tougher.
SSNs often spent many months at sea out of the year whether deployed or not and for SSBNs the ratio was roughly a hundred days at Rota /Holy Loch for refit and patrol then 90-100 days stateside and then back again.

rickusn

"MK1973"

I have lways held the view that you "train like you fight" and "you fight like you train".

While the USN has had a # of initiatives to bring the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets in to agreement on both training and deploying.

But Im not impressed. Yet.

There are so many variables to consider but I give the USN kudos for the attempt.

On another more important note for me. Im a bit concerned that Sea Swap, while by all accounts successful, is not likely to be continued.

However as I implied above if instead they plan on having ships spend more time at sea and available if neccessary for deployment Im probably more for that.

"Ownership" of a ships is an intangible that can be difficult to measure in all areas of operations.

SSBNs didnt solve the dilema but because of vast amounts of funding it was mitigated.

So it comes down to how you measure effectiveness and efficiency IMHO.

rickusn

Galrahn can you post the text of:

"U.S. Warships To Get Missile Defense Upgrades"

I cant access it.

Thanks Rick.

rickusn

I emailed the author and got a copy:

U.S. Warships To Get Missile Defense Upgrades

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS


The latest U.S. Navy Aegis ships fitted for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) program can now handle anti-air warfare roles as well, according to Navy and industry sources.
More Arleigh Burke-class destroyers may get the ballistic-missile modification, as well.
Ships used in early BMD tests have been unable to handle air-defense roles due to processing limitations on older military computers and the nature of the test program. But the latest Aegis BMD ship, the cruiser Shiloh, is fitted with Aegis BMD version 3.6, restoring the multimission capabilities of the Aegis system.
“We spiraled for the research and track mission and for search, track and engagement,” Jimmy Carter, Lockheed Martin’s director of sea-based missile defense systems, said Sept. 26. “Those were not certified loads, they were only for emergency capability. You’d have to reboot the system under anti-air warfare [AAW] or reboot under BMD.”
That’s no longer the case for the latest BMD upgrades.
“Everything before in engagement capability was done in special configuration for emergency activation,” Rear Adm. Brad Hicks, Aegis program director for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), told Defense News in late August. “This is our first capability that is a full-up, tactical capability that’s a normal fleet-issue software for the Aegis ships that ... returns the ship’s multimission capability. So when they load the Aegis BMD 3.6, they not only have a BMD capability — a tracking and engagement capability — they also get back their anti-air warfare capability. And will be able to conduct self-defense.”
The new system was tested June 22 near Hawaii when the Shiloh combined its 3.6 Aegis system with the new Standard SM-3 Block IA missile to intercept a separating target warhead in its terminal phase.
Three Aegis destroyers also took part in the June test. One ship, fitted with the 3.0 upgrade, linked with a land-based radar to evaluate the Shiloh’s ability to track the incoming warhead. Two other destroyers, including the Japanese Aegis destroyer Kirishima, performed long-range surveillance and tracking.
After returning to Japan, the Kirishima is the first Japanese Aegis ship to be upgraded with Aegis BMD software.
Eighteen U.S. Navy Aegis ships — three cruisers and 15 destroyers — are being modified for the BMD mission. Two ships already are fitted with Aegis 3.6, the Shiloh and destroyer Stethem, according to Lockheed Martin. The other two cruisers, Lake Erie and Port Royal, will have it by the end of the year, along with the destroyers Curtis Wilbur and Decatur. All the ships will be capable of launching the SM-3 missile, which designed to intercept a ballistic missile or warhead.
Ships already fitted with Aegis 3.0 include the destroyers John S. McCain, Fitzgerald, Russell, Milius, Paul Hamilton, John Paul Jones, Benfold, Hopper, O’Kane and Higgins. Those ships will be upgraded to the full 3.6 version by 2009, according to the Navy.
Some critics of the Navy BMD program have feared the ships would not be available for normal missions, such as escorting an aircraft carrier. But that won’t be the case, Hicks said.
“When those 18 ships are there, we’ll have to work out with the operational and combatant commanders … how we will deploy those ships as part of their normal battlegroup operations,” he said.
That’s a key element in allocating so many ships to the BMD role, one analyst said.
“It seems to me the Navy was reluctant to fully embrace the BMD missions for fear that more of the fleet would be dedicated to national missile defense,” said Bob Work, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. “This provides a much more flexible missile defense force.”
More BMD Ships?
The Navy also is considering adding the BMD upgrades to the DDG destroyer modernization program scheduled to begin in 2010, shortly before the last new DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is completed. That program currently is limited to hull, mechanical and electrical system improvements and some minor combat system upgrades.
But open architecture efforts and inclusion of more commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) elements into the Aegis system could make it easier and more affordable to add BMD functions to all the ships, the sources said, and the upgrades also could be applied to Aegis systems on non-U.S. ships.
Japan, Spain and Norway currently field the Aegis on naval vessels, and Australia and South Korea are building new Aegis destroyers. Saudi Arabia also has expressed serious interest in acquiring an Aegis version of the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship.
“That’s the beauty of having allies that have Aegis,” said a Pentagon source. “They can use it for this purpose.” •
E-mail: ccavas@defensenews.com.

Galrahn

np. The article covered the upgrade to version 3.6, making it so AEGIS BMD can work at the same time as normal AEGIS defense. No reboot.

Every one of the DDGs listed is also every one of the Flight I and Flight II DDGs in the Pacific Fleet. 16 total so far, with 2 more expected. I have no idea what the other two ships will be, and don't believe the Navy has named them yet.

I think it is interesting to compare the Atlantic Fleet and Pacific Fleet, because in many ways they really are different, both in the way they deploy and in their focus.

The Pacific Fleet is about projecting firepower, either in deployments or in forward bases. Whether it is the submarines in Hawaii or Guam, the Destroyers in Hawaii or Japan, or the Kitty Hawk/Essex forward deployments, the Pacific Fleet puts a lot of firepower deep into the Pacific, even when training. Exercises are typically enormous, usually with no fewer than 40 ships with some exercising numbering well over 100, and the inclusion of Australia, Canada (when they can), and Japan in every exercise possible is noteworthy. The Gotland adds additional training in ASW for every CSG working up on the West coast, there is a focus on humanitarian deployments focused around medical supplies and infrastructure construction in the Pacific, whether it is the hospital ship or L-class ships. Deployments of ESGs are always to the 5th Fleet AOR, while CSGs have traditionally focused on the 7th Fleet AOR. SSGs don't exist per se, instead Flight IIAs are deployed in independently while lower Flights are deployed for AEGIS BMD exercises, tests, and deployments to the Sea of Japan AOR. FFGs have traditionally been deployed in ESGs or deployed for narcotics operations to South America. The USS Rentz appears a first exception for a FFG to the Gulf outside a CSG.

The Atlantic Fleet on the other hand is quite different. CSG and ESG deployments are exclusively to the 5th Fleet AOR. SSGs are common, and almost always include a L-class ship that is testing one or several types of unmanned systems. It is not uncommon for CGs to deploy with SSGs in the Atlantic Fleet, something that never happens in the Pacific. Training almost always involves a NATO nation, including integration with French, Dutch, Canadian, Italian, Spanish, or British ships in Atlantic exercises, or or deploying ships from the East coast to Europe for exercises like Neptune Warrior, which included 1 CG, 2 DDGs, and 3 FFGs form the US in October 06. Deployments encourage partnership with other nations with integration of other nation warships into Strike Groups, whether Argentina, Spain, Britain, or French. Humanitarian missions are centered around the Horn of Africa, but also recently near Nigeria. It also appears there is an increase in attention in South America, which was highlighted with the deployment of the USS George Washington to the region last summer.

Compare the next two CSGs from either coast as a perfect example. That Nimitz CSG you listed earlier, with 4 DDGs, one of which has 4 UUVs for MIW, and 2 with AEGIS BMD, puts the Nimitz CSG in a class of its own in able to deal with wartime scenarios organically.

The Truman CSG on the other hand, the next Atlantic carrier out, will have the HMS Manchester in the CSG, and there is talk of a French submarine as well. Another example is the USS Barry expected to be integrated into the HMS Illustrious Strike Group later this year.

The Pacific Fleet is about projecting firepower, while the Atlantic Fleet is about projecting partnership.

rickusn

"I have no idea what the other two ships will be, and don't believe the Navy has named them yet."

I read that seven ships in Japan would have(actually stated did but they may have been jumping the gun) have the LRS&T capability.

Thats why included Lassen and Mustin but it seems we will have to wait and see for sure. Both ships ahve been in drydock for maintenance recently or ongoing. It would be a perfect time to fit the upgrades.

rickusn

"SSGs are common, and almost always include a L-class ship that is testing one or several types of unmanned systems. It is not uncommon for CGs to deploy with SSGs "

The inclusion of an L-class ship is a recent phenomenom.

I have not seen a CG deploy as part of an SSG.

See my list:

Stennis Strike Group

Although they have been included in the Neptune Warrior exercises of which there were three last year.

The Pacific Fleet was the first if I remember correctly to add a foreign warship to a CVBG a Canadian frigate.

And yes Atlantic Fleet ESGs and CSGs have been primariily in the Gulf and just transited the MED but have also spent some period in the MED at times but most Pacific Fleet CSGs and ESGs have primarilly transited the Pacific enroute to the Gulf but depending on a variety of variables have operated for longer at times in the Pacific for sure.

Galrahn

Your list includes 2 CGs in SSGs, and missed one in late 04 to early 05 Caribbean and South American Narcotics deployment of the USS Gettysburg (CG 64), USS DeWert (FFG 45), and USS Doyle (FFG 39). It also doesn't include the current deployment of the USS Monterey (GC 61) and USS Mahan (DDG 74) which were rotated into the NATO standing groups when the Canadian Navy was held in port this year due to Canadian domestic budget issues. They were to meet up with the USS Ashville but it went on without them when they were assigned to the Med.

Actually the L-class deployments started in May 2005 with the surge of the USS Saipan (LHA 2), USS Nicholas (FFG 47) and USS Nashville (LPD 13). It was followed in June with the surge of the USS Philippine Sea (CG 58) and USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) on May 25th, 2005. Both surges are a result of the reduction of ESG forces to the region, dropping from 3 ESGs in the region throughout 2004, to two in early 2005, to only 1 by mid May 2005. Since that time, there has been at least 1 ESG with at least 1 other L class warship, with the only exception being the evacuation of Lebanon by the USS Trenton last summer.