It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deploying for Iraq, GWOT, or Iran?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Has anyone noticed what is about to be in the Gulf?

The USS Enterprise deployed as scheduled on Tuesday, nothing noteworthy about it. In fact, the Enterprise CSG composed of the USS Leyte Gulf, USS McFaul, and USS Nicholas is not exactly the best armed CSG in the fleet. For a scheduled deployment, in terms of offensive firepower this might be the weakest CSG deployed in the Gulf in years. It is still a Carrier though, one of 4 Carriers currently deployed.

Lets look at the other three.

The Washington CSG is currently operating in the Carrabian/South Atlantic. This is also a fairly weak CSG by comparison to other CSGs over the past year. Consisting of the USS Monterey, USS Stout, and USS Underwood the Navy 'surged' assets that consist of the low end of each ship respective ship class. Within days of anywhere in South America, and the increasingly violent West African coast, it consist of plenty of firepower for any potential situation though.

The Reagan CSG is currently operating in the Gulf. Perhaps the most effective offensive force ever deployed to sea, the CEC enabled CSG consists of the USS Lake Champlain, USS Decatur, USS McCampbell, and the SSN USS Tucson. This is a powerful force, but not even the most impressive CSG currently deployed.

The most impressive CSG deployed today is the Lincoln CSG. Consisting of the USS Mobile Bay, USS Russell, and USS Shoup it should be noted that the Lincoln is obviously positioned exactly where it should be, in the Pacific. What is interesting is, the Mobile Bay and Shoup have both been configured for Ballistic Missle Defense, and the Russell, an older DDG-51 ship, was actually the test platform for missile defense and is the only older DDG-51 refit for TBMD. If you were designing a CSG to defend from ballistic missiles, this is the force in the Pacific you would assemble.

Four Carriers is impressive, but what is more impressive is 'the rest of the story.'

In January, the USS Vicksburg, USS Roosevelt, and USS Oak Hill surged to the Gulf. The Vicksburg and Roosevelt are CEC enabled ships, making them ideal for cruise missile defense. The Oak Hill is currently configured for unmanned vehicle deployment, the first Atlantic ship to deploy the Scan Eagle UAV.

Now in April, a second SSG deploys, coincidently, around the same time as the Enterprise CSG. Coincidence has nothing to do with it though. The USS Hue City, USS James E. Williams, and USS Trenton add two more CEC ships and another ship enabled to deploy the Scan Eagle UAV to the mix, and while it is interesting to notice, the USS John E Williams is the key.

The John E Williams didn't actually deploy last week with the Hue City and Trenton, instead it deployed Tuesday with the Enterprise. This a most curious development, because the John E Williams isn't your typical DDG-51 Flight IIA. It just so happens it has the Model 4B variant SPY-1D(V) radar, which is designed for littoral operations, and it is one of only 6 US DDGs with the AN/WLD-1 Remote Minehunting Vehicle, but the only one commissioned long enough to deploy.

All of this before the Navy is about to hold major summer carrier exercises in the Pacific, at a time the Navy is about to have 6 ESGs either deployed or prepared to deploy (6 ESGs = 1 MEB), and when the Europeans just happen to be at sea.

After all, the FS Charles De Gaulle is in the Gulf today. Escorted by the FS Montcalm,
HMS Lancaster, FS Somme, and FS Saphir.

Not to mention the UK assets in the area, which just happen to include the HMS Illustrious (Deployed with GR7s), HMS Gloucester, FS Surcoif, RFA Fort Victoria, HMS Bulwark, HMS St Albans, RFA Diligence, and HMS Sovereign.

This doesn't even address the other German, French, Dutch, and Australian ships in the region, nor the NATO exercises expected in the Med that includes 13 countries and over 25 ships, nor the multinational exercises in the Pacific near Hawaii expected to include over 30 ships, all deployed over the next 45 days.

Food for thought.




posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Despite gathering from other forums, here are the sources via media:

Enterprise CSG Deployment:
www.news.navy.mil...

Washington CSG Deployment:
www.news.navy.mil...

Reagan CSG Deployment:
www.news.navy.mil...

Lincoln CSG Deployment:
www.c3f.navy.mil...

Scan Eagle:
www.fmp.navy.mil
(.xls file)

defenseindustrydaily.com

SSG in January
www.news.navy.mil...

SSG in April
www.navy.mil...

James E Williams Extended Info including RMS
peoships.crane.navy.mil...

Charles De Gaulle in Action
www.mod.uk

HMS Illustrious in the Region
www.bymnews.com...

That's a lot of firepower for little ole Afgahnistan, or the pirate problem off East Africa.



mod edit to shorten links

[edit on 5-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This 'ballistic missile defense' you talk about, is that that machine gun thing that fires rapid rounds infront of the ship to try to knock down an incoming missile? or patriot type missile that tries to knock out a scun or cruise missile..the question is can either missile defense system counter the Russian Sunburn which the Iranians have.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Gasp! More Money Down The Tube?


Posted by Darksided: “Has anyone noticed what is about to be in the Gulf? The USS Enterprise deployed as scheduled on Tuesday . . In fact, the Enterprise CSG - carrier support group - includes the USS Leyte Gulf, USS McFaul, and USS Nicholas . . not the best armed CSG in the fleet . . this might be the weakest CSG deployed in the Gulf in years. It is still a Carrier though, one of 4 Carriers currently deployed. [Edited by Don W]


Look, D/S, I’m not deep into Pentagonese, and so a lot of what you are saying goes over my head or under my feet, so can you “translate” some of this jargon into ordinary English as you go along?



Lets look at the other three. The Washington CSG is currently operating in the Carribean and South Atlantic. This is also a fairly weak CSG by comparison to other CSGs . . Within days of anywhere in South America and the increasingly violent West African coast, it consist of plenty of firepower for any potential situation though.


Say also Cuba and Venezuela?



The Reagan CSG is currently operating in the Gulf. Perhaps the most effective offensive force ever deployed to sea, the CEC enabled CSG consists of the USS Lake Champlain, USS Decatur, USS McCampbell, and the SSN USS Tucson. This is a powerful force, but not even the most impressive CSG currently deployed.


But you also said “Perhaps the most effective offensive force ever deployed to sea . . “ What gives? Is it or isn’t it?



The most impressive CSG deployed today is the Lincoln CSG. Consisting of the USS Mobile Bay, USS Russell, and USS Shoup it should be noted that the Lincoln is obviously positioned exactly where it should be, in the Pacific.


Is that meant to do something to the Chinese? If it is, I’d say you might as well move the Lincoln CSG to the Gulf. You are not going to alter China’s plans on Taiwan. When it is time, it will be done. The ball will be in our court, so to speak. Just what value do we really put on Taiwan? Or, will we trade NYC and SF for Taipei and Beijing? Not a good scenario. When China plays for keeps, it is for keeps. Fortunately, Geo W will be just a bad memory when this confronts.



Four Carriers is impressive, but what is more impressive is 'the rest of the story.' In January, the USS Vicksburg, USS Roosevelt, and USS Oak Hill surged to the Gulf. The Vicksburg and Roosevelt are CEC enabled ships, making them ideal for cruise missile defense. The Oak Hill is currently configured for unmanned vehicle deployment, the first Atlantic ship to deploy the Scan Eagle UAV. Now in April, a second SSG deploys, coincidently, around the same time as the Enterprise CSG. Coincidence has nothing to do with it though. The USS Hue City, USS James E. Williams, and USS Trenton add two more CEC ships and another ship enabled to deploy the Scan Eagle UAV to the mix, and while it is interesting to notice, the USS John E Williams is the key.


Well, all this sea power can’t stop one on-the-ground insurgent nor catch Osama. I hope we are not misdirecting our resources.



All of this before the Navy is about to hold major summer carrier exercises in the Pacific, at a time the Navy is about to have 6 ESGs either deployed or prepared to deploy (6 ESGs = 1 MEB), and when the Europeans just happen to be at sea.

This doesn't even address the other German, French, Dutch, and Australian ships in the region, nor the NATO exercises expected in the Med that includes 13 countries and over 25 ships, nor the multinational exercises in the Pacific near Hawaii expected to include over 30 ships, all deployed over the next 45 days. Food for thought.


So will all this firepower bring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to his knees? Or just a half billion dollars blown another exercise?
Actually, training is essential. If we want any Armed Forces we owe them the best training.


posted by jajabinks
This 'ballistic missile defense' you talk about, is that machine gun thing that fires rapid rounds in front of the ship to try to knock down an incoming missile? Or a patriot type missile that tries to knock out a Scud or cruise missile . . the question is can either missile defense system counter the Russian Sunburn which the Iranians have. [Edited by Don W]


I am convinced all this SDI and ABM is pure crapola. It is the budgetary device whereby taxpayers are routinely separated from $15 billion a year, ad nauseam. Thank you Jack Abramoff.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Well, all this sea power can’t stop one on-the-ground insurgent nor catch Osama. I hope we are not misdirecting our resources.

But it can smash attempts to sink the fleet with rockets and underwater missiles, intercept missiles fired into iraq and israel, and monitor the coastlines of the persian gulf.

Imagine if the Iranians, with their recently unvailed super-fast underwater missiles, managed to at least get a big hit on a US carrier. It'd be a diplomatic victory, and it could result in, in the midst of an invasion, a rallying of the iranian people in defense of the government. So all precautions have to be made against that.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Look, D/S, I’m not deep into Pentagonese, and so a lot of what you are saying goes over my head or under my feet, so can you “translate” some of this jargon into ordinary English as you go along?


Which part exactly?



But you also said “Perhaps the most effective offensive force ever deployed to sea . . “ What gives? Is it or isn’t it?


In theory, it would be. This task force is based in the Pacific, consists of some of the most modern ships in the US Navy fleet, and has been programmed for all of the new weapons including the ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, a NATO standard, an advanced anti-air missile) and TACTOM (new version of the tomahawk cruise missile with major increase over the missiles used in Iraq). We don't know exactly what payload was deployed on the ships, but in theory it would be the most effective offensive force ever deployed.



Is that meant to do something to the Chinese?


Actually, I think it has more to do with North Korea, which is having an increase in serious problems with the increase in energy costs, but no one wants to talk about that with all eyes on the Middle East.



Well, all this sea power can’t stop one on-the-ground insurgent nor catch Osama. I hope we are not misdirecting our resources.


Exactly, so why do they call it GWOT operations?



I am convinced all this SDI and ABM is pure crapola. It is the budgetary device whereby taxpayers are routinely separated from $15 billion a year, ad nauseam. Thank you Jack Abramoff.


The ABM is two fold. First, tracking ballistic missiles that can reach extreamly high altitudes of over 200 miles up, or near orbit altitudes. That tracking system is built into all 3 of the warships escorting the USS Abraham Lincoln. The USS Russell is reported to also have the capability of fielding the SM-3 missile, which is a kenetic impact based missile designed to disable a ballistic missile at high altitude. With CEC (cooperative engagement capability), any ship in the group can track and perform guidence for the weapons of any other ship in the group, which expands the overall capability of the warships.

In the case of Ballistic missile tracking, since all of the Destroyers homeported in Japan have BMD capability, the USS Lincoln Task Force can track and guide anti-ballistic missiles from virtually any US Navy ship in the Pacific allowing it to cover more range in defense. No one really knows how effective it is, or isn't, but there have been successful tests, and the US Navy is currently the only nation in the world with that capability. In full, the 6 Destroyers in the Pacific today should be able to provide a 3600 mile long line in the water for BMD, which breaks down roughly 300 miles radius of the ship and up to 200 miles up from that zone. If the missile was intercepted at a lower altitude, the destroyer could be further away.

You would think BMD has had some kind of success though, because earlier this year Japan was given a firsthand demonstration of the US Navy BMD capability and bought into the system with several billion in investment.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Imagine if the Iranians, with their recently unvailed super-fast underwater missiles, managed to at least get a big hit on a US carrier.


Recently I have been looking at it like this.

Imagine if Israel attacks Iran using Israel's base in Oman as a refueling location, and does considerable damage to the high profile nuclear facilties. In retaliation, Iran sinks the USS Enterprise with 4000 people onboard, which results in 1) Iran doing what Japan couldn't do in WWII (sink the Enterprise), or 2) kills more people than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

You think Bush would have trouble getting a declaration of war from Congress?

Same scenario as above, but instead of the USS Enterprise, what if the ship that was sunk was the FS Charles De Gaulle, or the HMS Illustrious?

What would the French do? What about the Brits?

What is the UNs role, or would that be a NATO issue?

What would China do to protect their oil investment in Iran under that situation? Would they volunteer peacekeepers? Think about it, because honestly, threatened with the total loss of Iranian oil, I think they would. After all, if the UN was to get involved, who is historically the largest contributor of peacekeepers for the UN?

The answer is India, who would probably put boots on the ground for the UN to insure their energy supply from Iran. I can't imagine China would do nothing, in fact, I'd bet they would volunteer to lead the UN ground forces with 250,000 peacekeepers.

Then what, could Europe or the US tell China no?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided

Originally posted by Nygdan

Imagine if the Iranians, with their recently unvailed super-fast underwater missiles, managed to at least get a big hit on a US carrier.


Recently I have been looking at it like this.

Imagine if Israel attacks Iran using Israel's base in Oman as a refueling location, and does considerable damage to the high profile nuclear facilties. In retaliation, Iran sinks the USS Enterprise with 4000 people onboard, which results in 1) Iran doing what Japan couldn't do in WWII (sink the Enterprise), or 2) kills more people than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

You think Bush would have trouble getting a declaration of war from Congress?

No, but I don't think he needs that at this point anyway, its presented as part of the WOT.


What would the French do? What about the Brits?

That seems more likely, though still fairly unlikely. What does it matter what the French do? And the British will probably go along with the US anyway.




What would China do to protect their oil investment in Iran under that situation? Would they volunteer peacekeepers?

Under UN administration? Doubtful that the UN would be sending peacekeepers.


Think about it, because honestly, threatened with the total loss of Iranian oil, I think they would. After all, if the UN was to get involved, who is historically the largest contributor of peacekeepers for the UN?

I can't see the UN sending peackeepers to block the actions of a member of the security council.


The answer is India, who would probably put boots on the ground for the UN to insure their energy supply from Iran.

It'd be a strange world with India coming to the aid of Iran and pakistan allying with the US.

I can't imagine the UN actually sending in peackeepers, they haven't sent any into Iraq.

Also, consider that, if that process, sending in peacekeepers, starts when the US invasion starts, then by the time its approved, the Iranian militarty will already have been destroyed, by the time the peacekeepers arrive, the US will be in control of Tehran. They'd be able to serve as occupation forces though.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
My questions are serious. although it might not always look that way. You sound like a retired Navy type, O4 or O5? I met a retired Admiral recently, Tom Flueter. sp. He probably retired around 1990s. Is there a list on the internet? He was in charge of ship evaluations in the Atlantic. He offered that when I said I had visited the Saratoga when it was at Mayport, FL. I think the Saratoga was “jinxed” but I'm never to use that word.



posted by DarkSide: “Which part exactly? . . new weapons including the ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, a NATO standard, an advanced anti-air missile) and TACTOM (new version of the tomahawk cruise missile with major increase over the missiles used in Iraq). We don't know exactly what payload was deployed on the ships, but in theory it would be the most effective offensive force ever deployed.

Actually, I think it has more to do with North Korea, which is having an increase in serious problems with the increase in energy costs, but no one wants to talk about that with all eyes on the Middle East. [Edited by Don W]


Exactly. My impression is that NK is less likely to act rationally than almost any other country and now that our former Clinton ambassador says NK has 2 up to 6 going to 10 nuclear bombs, I just don’t know what to think. I am not worried about China. I think the only war we’ll see with China is in Wal-Mart and Taiwan. GWOT equals Gulf War Operating Theater?


“The ABM is two fold . . “


Thanks DarkSide, a great response to me.


“ . . Japan have BMD capability, the USS Lincoln Task Force can track and guide anti-ballistic missiles from virtually any US Navy ship in the Pacific allowing it to cover more range in defense. No one really knows how effective it is, or isn't, but there have been successful tests, and the US Navy is currently the only nation in the world with that capability.


Another excellent and very informative response.


“ . . earlier this year Japan was given a firsthand demonstration of the US Navy BMD capability and bought into the system with several billion in investment.


The Japanese are not well known for their charitable giving.

You have enlightened me today, D/S. Thank you.

[edit on 5/5/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
GWOT equals Gulf War Operating Theater?


GWOT = Global War on Terror

I'm not aware of a list of retired naval officers online, at least an official list, but Proceedings magazine did a nice article this month on most of the current high ranking officers in the fleet.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Others: “What if the Iranians with their super-fast underwater missiles, managed to get a big hit on a US carrier? Recently I have been looking at it like this. Imagine if Israel attacks Iran using Israel's base in Oman as a refueling location, and does considerable damage to the high profile nuclear facilities.


Don: “Hey, the US Oval Office is already in way over “its” collective head. This is worse than the missing WMDs.


Others: “In retaliation, Iran sinks the USS Enterprise with 4000 people onboard, which results in 1) Iran doing what Japan couldn't do in WWII (sink the Enterprise), or 2) kills more people than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Do you think Bush would have trouble getting a declaration of war from Congress? No, but I don't think he needs that at this point anyway, it is presented as part of the WOT.


Don: “War on Terror. As C-in-C he says he needs no other authority as he is the total authority himself. With AG Gonzales urging him on, Geo W sees no limit on the C-in-C job's inherent authority, even making legal after the fact declassifying documents or a part of a document. If he speaks it, it is then and there, declassified! Reminiscent of Xerxes of Persia. He can do no wrong as he is the law. What he does acting as C-in-C is lawful. If he says it is. Do you think this guy ever wants “peace?”


Others: “What would the French do? What about the Brits? That seems more likely, though still fairly unlikely. What does it matter what the French do? And the British will probably go along with the US anyway.


Don: “The Brits will not go that far. The French would never consent to that.


Others: “What would China do to protect their oil investment in Iran under that situation? Would they volunteer peacekeepers? Under UN administration? Doubtful that the UN would be sending peacekeepers.


Don: “China would not worry too much over that investment. It is trivial to the US bonds they hold. Our allies would be the Charles Taylors, late of Liberia, or Raja (King) Gyanendra of Nepal. Or Megawati Sukarnoputri, a daughter of former president Sukarno, the first woman to be president of Indonesia.


Others: “Think about it, because honestly, threatened with the total loss of Iranian oil, I think they would. After all, if the UN was to get involved, who is historically the largest contributor of peacekeepers for the UN? I can't see the UN sending peacekeepers to block the actions of a member of the security council.


Don: “Well the UN General Assembly may assert plenary power in such circumstances, then those that go along will be with them and as Geo W says those that don’t are agin him.


Others: “The answer is India, who would probably put boots on the ground for the UN to insure their energy supply from Iran. It'd be a strange world with India coming to the aid of Iran and Pakistan allying with the US. I can't imagine the UN actually sending in peacekeepers, they haven't sent any into Iraq.


Don: “Pakistan is only our ally as long as we keep lackey’s in power. 99.44% of Pakistanis want nothing to do with the US.


Others: “Also, consider that, if that process, the UN sending in peacekeepers, starts when the US invasion starts, then by the time its approved, the Iranian military will already have been destroyed, by the time the peacekeepers arrive, the US will be in control of Tehran. They'd be able to serve as occupation forces though.


Don: “And we would have insurgency #2 which is bankrupting the country money-wise, and Geo W has already bankrupted it moral-wise and we are running into the Vietnam syndrome blood-wise.

Those of you deep into prayer, please ask God to forestall this scenario until January 20, 2009. Others better vote on November 7.




[edit on 5/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Israel does not have a base in Oman!

Thats an Arab country that doesn't recongnize 'Israel'..The British have a base their and neither the British nor Oman will allow the base to be used in any offesive capacity toward Iran.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
Israel does not have a base in Oman!

Thats an Arab country that doesn't recongnize 'Israel'..The British have a base their and neither the British nor Oman will allow the base to be used in any offesive capacity toward Iran.


The U.S. has 3 air bases in Oman, Thumrait, Masirah and Musnanah. They've been used for air support against Iraq and Afghanistan. There are three equipment pre-positioning sites also.

A NATO air base is being built in Herat Afghanistan on Iran's eastern border, as well.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
Israel does not have a base in Oman!

Thats an Arab country that doesn't recongnize 'Israel'..The British have a base their and neither the British nor Oman will allow the base to be used in any offesive capacity toward Iran.


You are technically correct about Oman not recognizing Israel publically, although Israel does have good relations (believe it or not) with the governments of UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Tunisia, and Qatar. That doesn't include Jordan and Egypt which recognize Israel diplomatically.

You would be wrong about the base though, but you probably don't know much about Oman (which is fine, it is very under the radar). Oman is not the typical Arab country, strong religous speech is discouraged, the King was educated in India and is secular, and Oman has never spoken against the Iraq war, in fact they have always supported it.

Source: www.india-defence.com...

I don't know if I buy the SR-71 thing, SR-71s require very specialized hanger facilities, but Israeli tankers are known about by RAF and USAF personal who work at the Masariah Island RAF air facility.

Remember, Oman and the US have never officially admitted that US planes have been based in Oman, despite a RAF air station on Masirah Island. Oman doesn't admit many things though, they barely told their own population about the Israeli/Palestian peace talks that were held in Oman until the talks were completed.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

posted by jajabinks: “Israel does not have a base in Oman! That’s an Arab country. . the British have a base there but neither the British nor Oman will allow the base to be used in any offense.


It is 960 miles one way from Tel Aviv to Tehran. Israel is 20,700 sq km. (7,866 sq miles.) Out of a population of 6.2 million, 400,000 live in settlements located in the Occupied Territories, East Jerusalem and Golan. All of these are in violation of the UN Charter and dozens of General Assembly Resolutions. Its GDP per person is $22,300.

Iran is hugely big country. 1.65 million sq km. (627,000 sq miles.) In size, Iran is nearly equal to Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico and Arizona, combined. Its population is given as 68.6 million. Its GDP per person is $8,100.

Israel is in a real dilemma. Israel is estimated to have between 50 and 300 atom bombs. Israel does not accept that it should await the first blow before retaliation is taken. Preemptive strike is definitely an Israeli paradigm. Yet, as a practical matter, there is nothing Israel can do to Iran. There are 20-30 sites involved in making nuclear weapons in Iran. Israel might get away with one atom bomb. To drop 20 atom bombs on Iran preemptively would be the last act of a mad man turned into a rabid dog.

Old style raw power type thinking will not get Israel out of this spot. America is no help. We have not talked to Cuba since 1959. We have not talked to Iran since 1980. We won’t talk to North Korea ever. We are in a rut that is only getting deeper.

Cross your fingers everyone holds fast until January 20, 2009.




see: www.meridianworlddata.com/Distance-calculation-demo.asp?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join