Third US Aircraft Carrier Returning Unexpectedly To Mideast Ahead Of Schedule

Okay, we have all heard "they're moving an aircraft carrier into the middle east, must be war" rhetoric. Will things be different this time? Things are definitely heating up and it seems unusual that the Stennis is returning to the AOR so soon.

Source: Zero Hedge

The article makes three points:

1. The last time the US navy sent three aircraft carriers into the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf was just a few short weeks before WTI broke above $110, and aggressive military tensions, coupled with concerns of an imminent invasion of Iran by Israel and/or 'others', were running high.
   
   
2. Middle East veteran aircraft carrier, the CVN-74 Stennis, is going right back into Mordor, a few short months after it came back from its long stint in the Fifth Fleet, and will shortly complete the trio of aircraft carriers stationed within miles of Iran.
   
   
3. The ship came home to Naval Base Kitsap on March 2 after seven months of launching planes into Iraq and Afghanistan. Generally, it wouldn't go back to the Fifth Fleet area of responsibility for four to five years, after a deployment to the Western Pacific and a maintenance period. But with Iran making threats, crew members learned Saturday they'll be leaving again in late August for eight months."
   

Yeah we've heard all the rhetoric before.

I think the Carriers are going there just in case things take a turn for the worse.

Agreed seems like each month we have a further depolyment, a redeployment, more mine sweepers, F22's this and f-18's this. You's think with all the money just sitting in the gulf something was bound to happen.

Or just more posturing to keep the rhetoric flowing I just can't tell anymore. All the pieces to me seem in place for one heck of a flare up. Guess we just continue to wait and see what the rulers have in store for us.....

SaneThinking

Originally posted by SaneThinking
You's think with all the money just sitting in the gulf something was bound to happen.

Agreed. It seems like a lot of hardware and lives to be moving around "just in case" something happens.

How is this any different then the normal carrier rotations? I am not dismissing the possibility of something going on. I am just asking what is different this particular time.

Originally posted by Theunknownscaresme
How is this any different then the normal carrier rotations? I am not dismissing the possibility of something going on. I am just asking what is different this particular time.

It's the very short time that this particular carrier has been away from the gulf region. Typically it would return to its home base, be deployed to the Pacific (it home AOR), and undergo some form of routine maintenance.

But instead, it is returning to a hot spot after a very brief 5-6 month absence.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


Thanks

Wrong again. Thanks for playing. This thread is completely precitable. Nice rip off of the Strafor map, too. That's copyrighted. Maybe we should tell them about it.

The Stennis will head out in August. That's early only for the Stennis, which got back from the mideast in March,, but it's not early for a rotation. The Lincoln has been there since January. The Enterprise has been there since March. Both these ships are nearing the end of their deployments because they simply cannot hold enough Diet Coke on their supply ship. Deployments usually max out at six or seven months.

The Stennis will REPLACE one of these carriers. The Eisenhower is heading over there right now. My guess is:

Eisenhower replaces Lincoln
Stennis replaces Enterprise

In other words, this is completely normal in all respects. The Stennis families are whining about it, of course, because they feel entitled to more conjugal visit time. Meanwhile, here on ATS, we have the obligatory every-six-months thread:

Three carriers in the Gulf!
Three carriers in the Gulf!
Oh, my God there are
Three carriers in the Gulf!

Well if true, then this is something more than ship relief.

CVN-72 and CVN-65 with CVN-69 coming in for relief and if true that CVN-74 will be joining them soon.
If 2 or more LHD's get called to go and/or CVN-72 doesn't leave, then we will know something is up.

And if it was simple relief CVN-70 and 73 are missing the relief rotation for no reason..

Hope it isn't US getting ramped up to attack and is just US being cautious.

Sirric

Originally posted by sirric
Well if true, then this is something more than ship relief.

CVN-72 and CVN-65 with CVN-69 coming in for relief and if true that CVN-74 will be joining them soon.
If 2 or more LHD's get called to go and/or CVN-72 doesn't leave, then we will know something is up.

Alas, the CVN-72 is LEAVING!

And if it was simple relief CVN-70 and 73 are missing the relief rotation for no reason..

The CVN-70 is NOT deployable. It's only been back a month and it just entered a planned incremental availability mode which will take it out of the running unril 2012, as is stated here

The CVN-73 is assigned, permanently, to Sasebo, Japan. There is no reason whatsoever to invoke either one of these ships into some sort of scenario. This is what is happening:

1. The Lincoln will be on its way home soon. The Eisenhower will replace it. The Lincoln leaving was announced today, officially.
2. The Enterprise will be done in August. The Stennis will replace it. The Stennis deployment was announced today, unofficially.

As of today there is no evidence whatsoever that carrier and LHD deployments are in any way out of the ordinary. None. Move along. Nothing to see here. Again.

reply to post by schuyler

As of today there is no evidence whatsoever that carrier and LHD deployments are in any way out of the ordinary. None. Move along. Nothing to see here. Again.

Did you really just say that, or am I overdue for my medication?

I am going to hazard a guess that you have a serious need to feel that you are always correct about everything, going from the tone of your posts in this thread alone - though I guess there will be more evidence if we pop on over to your profile...

Or are you one of the sad folk who gets a buzz when people call you a shill/ disinfo agent??




@ OP - thanks for posting. It does seem odd that the vessel is heading out again so soon. You seem to know your stuff, and I appreciate the inclusion of the map.



PS - since when did we appoint schuyler as the official enforcer of Only A Tool Would Support This Shameful SOPA Nonsense...?

reply to post by sirric


Great post, thanks for contributing in a useful way, unlike some others.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by schuyler

 

As of today there is no evidence whatsoever that carrier and LHD deployments are in any way out of the ordinary. None. Move along. Nothing to see here. Again.

Did you really just say that, or am I overdue for my medication?

I am going to hazard a guess that you have a serious need to feel that you are always correct about everything, going from the tone of your posts in this thread alone - though I guess there will be more evidence if we pop on over to your profile...

Or are you one of the sad folk who gets a buzz when people call you a shill/ disinfo agent??

And what is your problem? Are you angry that I am, once again, correct in what I post? Most of the people who post here on ship movements quite obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Am I supposed to just let this go so you can wallow in your conspiracy fantasies and get a bunch of people all riled up over absolutely nothing? I thought this site was about, you know, "denying ignorance." Or do you come here for your daily dose of fiction?

How about trying to do that some time? Deny ignorance. How about checking your facts? How about citing your sources? How about demonstrating that you have some sort of knowledge in the matter rather than taking us on a whirlwind, "Oh, My God, WW III is upon is! False Flag! Yadda yadda yadda piece of nonsense?

Ever been on a navy ship? Ever been in the Navy? Ever lived in a Navy town? Ever welcomed a ship back from a six month deployment? No, no, no, and no would be my guess. I don't know much about a lot of stuff on ATS. I'm not ready to argue 9/11 or aliens and UFOs. I really have no idea. But I do know a little something about our ship deployments and when I see ignorant people spouting ignorant garbage it really angers me and I aim to set the record straight.

If you can't handle the truth, that's your problem, not mine, and insulting me with your ad hominem rhetoric doesn't change the truth of the matter one iota. You've not added anything substantive to the discussion.

Here's the real state of the Navy. If you can do better, by all means show us your stuff. But enough of the lies, abject speculation, "false flag" declarations, and other nonsense promulgated here every time a carrier dares to set sail.

US Navy Carrier Strike Group Deployments:

CVN-65 Enterprise is in the 5th fleet AOR: 3/11/12 set to come home 8/12
CVN-68 Nimitz is now underway in the Pacific for RIMPAC (7/4)
CVN-69 Eisenhower port visit in Spain. (7/4) headed to relieve Lincoln in 5th fleet
CVN-70 Vinson is in home port San Diego, CA for DPIA non deployable until 2/13
CVN-71 Roosevelt is at Newport News for RCOH & non-deployable, Avail: late 2012.
CVN-72 Lincoln is in the Arabian Sea, 5th Fleet AOR, arrived 1/12.—headed home for RCOH
CVN-73 Washington is underway 7th fleet AOR (7/4)
CVN-74 Stennis is now in the Pacific conducting carrier qualifications (7/4) Heads to 5th fleet 8/12
CVN-75 Truman is home at Norfolk for DPIA & non-deployable. Avail summer 2012.
CVN-76 Reagan is in Bremerton for DPIA & non-deployable until 2013.
CVN-77 Bush is in the Atlantic conducting carrier qualifications. (6/27)
-------
CVN-78 Ford construction at Newport News. 2015, replaces Enterprise.
CVN-79 Kennedy construction at Newport News. Avail 2018, replaces Nimitz
CVN-80 Unnamed, planned, Avail 2024, replaces Eisenhower.

4 of 11 in port. 4 of 11 non-deployable, 7 of 11 deployed.

RCOH=Refueling and Complex Overhaul, takes about four years
DPIA=Docked Planned Incremental Availability, takes six months to a year
RIMPAC= Rim of the Pacific. International exercise

The above are all Carrier Strike Groups that normally travel with about 7-8 support ships including one cruiser, several destroyers (usually a squadron of 4), a fast attack supply ship, some frigates ,and a fast attack submarine or maybe two. The support ships are designed to protect the carrier. A CVN is about 100,000 tons displacement and can carry approximately 85 aircraft. CVNs are nuclear powered and run 25 years between refueling, which takes three to four years to complete.

Explanation of Areas of Responsibility (AOR)

3rd Fleet AOR – Eastern & Northern Pacific, Alaska, Bering Sea
4th Fleet AOR – Central & South America
5th Fleet AOR - The Middle East, Arabian Gulf, East Africa
6th Fleet AOR – The Mediterranean Sea, Europe
7th Fleet AOR – Asian Pacific. Indian Ocean to International Date Line

Below are the Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units. The main ship here is a "baby" carrier that is about half the size or less of a CVN, about 40,000 tons displacement. It is designed to hold helicopters and Harrier VTOL jets. These guys can pull off a minor invasion, if necessary. They usually carry a handful of tanks. Marines, by and large, are light infantry. LHA is a “Landing Helicopter Assault.” LHD is a “Landing Helicopter Dock.”

LHA-5 Pelelieu is underway in the Pacific Ocean.
LHD-1 Wasp is on a port visit in Boston. (7/4)
LHD-2 Essex is underway in the Pacific for RIMPAC (7/4).
LHD-3 Kearsarge in home port, Norfolk, VA.
LHD-4 Boxer is in home port, San Diego. Non-deployable undergoing upgrades
LHD-5 Bataan is in home port Norfolk, VA.
LHD-6 Bonhomme Richard is in home port Sasebo, Japan.
LHD-7 Iwo Jima is in the 5th Fleet AOR.
LHD-8 Makin Island is in home port San Diego. 6/22
------
LHA-6 America, under construction, Avail. 2014, Northrop Grumann, Pascagoula.
LHA-7 Tripoli, contracted Avail. 2018, HII Ingalls, Pascagoula. $2.3B

Official Status of the Navy: www.navy.mil... (This is not always accurate.)
Carrier Locations: gonavy.jp... (Usually very accurate.)

Decommissioned carriers still floating (except one):

CV-59 Forrestal, com: 1955, decom 1993, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-60 Saratoga, com: 1956, decom 1994, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-61 Ranger, com: 1957, decom 1993. Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or museum
CV-62 Independence, com: 1959, decom 1998, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-63 Kitty Hawk, com 1961, decom 2009, Bremerton; WA, Fate: reserve until 2015
CV-64 Constellation, com 1961, decom 2003, Bremerton, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-66 America, com 1965, decom 1996, Fate: scuttled in live fire exercise, 2005
CV-67 John F Kennedy, com 1968, decom 2007, Philadelphia, Fate: donation hold

When you look at the possibilities above you can see that the choices are limited. Right now, today, we have four carriers that are effectively sidelined. In an emergency you could probably get the Vinson, which just went onto DPIA going pretty fast if they haven’t taken much apart. The Truman is just coming off DPIA and could probably be pushed into service, but it has yet to conduct sea trials, COMPUTEX, or field aircraft qualifications, so realistically it will be another few months before it is really ready.

The Enterprise, the Lincoln, the Eisenhower, and the Stennis are all spoken for. The first two are about to come off deployment. The second two are about to replace them. The Lincoln is out of fuel and will be sidelines for up to 4 years. This is the Enterprise’s last voyage, so the Big E is out of the picture.

The Washington is “forward deployed” to Tokyo. IT COULD be used, but its mission is to stick around China, really. The Nimitz and the Bush both could be used. These three ships are the only ones that could be “surged” (a Navy term) if needed. With the Enterprise out of the picture, we’ll be down to six deployable carriers with two always “up to bat” in the 5th fleet AOR and two getting ready to replace them.

Unless we return to a “one carrier in the Gulf” policy (which is in effect 25% of the time, normally,, that’s stretching the carriers a lot. We won’t be back up to eleven carriers until 2015. It’s going to be pretty slim pickings until 2013 until the non-deployed ships are sea-ready again.

The Washington represents a special case. It is stationed in Sasebo, Japan, and the reason it is there is because of its name. You can’t put just any old carrier there. The Nimitz is named after a WW II admiral. That won’t work. The Enterprise had a WW II namesake carrier that fought in the Pacific, so that won’t work. The Roosevelt is named for Teddy, not FDR, but still, it’s the same name and they were cousins, so that won’t work. Eisenhower? Supreme Allied Commander. That won’t work either. There are only a few carriers that we can put there and the Washington passes muster.

This thread started with an “unusual” deployment of the Stennis, which just got back from deployment in March. To send out a carrier to replace the Enterprise is not unusual at all, but sending out this particular carrier has a lot of Navy families flustered. Why would they do it? Why wouldn’t they send the Nimitz?

Well, the Nimitz is busy with RIMPAC for one thing. Second, it just recently changed its homeport to Everett after going though DPIA at Bremerton. The Reagan is also in Bremerton for DPIA, and the Lincoln, formerly home ported in Everett will wind up at Norfolk for refueling. Couple this with the long term strategy of putting 60% of US Naval forces in the Pacific. It’s really a musical chairs operation. Moving a carrier to a new home port means billions of dollars to the local economy and 7,000 people as new residents, including families.

My take on it is that they are sending the Stennis because it is the only ship available on the west coast. The Nimitz has not been on a deployment in almost two years. They are inexperienced and not settled into Everett. With the Vinson just into DPIA, there wasn’t any choice. Nimitz will go next time.

Yedp-i think we can all agrees this is muchado about nothing.

nice comments earlier by schuyler...

can a deployment of a carrier group be temporarily extended by resupplying at sea? What's the max deployment time?

If the Enterprise left port/base / arrived in March +/-...and 6-7 months is a given deployment....that means 7 months +/- later is October...which is in the "window of action" being bandied about...perhaps one carrier will be replaced by August, another will linger around?

won't know until we know...cloak & dagger...

SeaFox

www.globalpost.com...

what's interesting is what is being shipped into the area....lots of minesweepers, and these SeaFox drones ("rush order from Germany")...which MAY imply a pre-emptive defensive move based on an attack in October

everything is normal...until it isn't....

The Eisenhower is approaching the Suez canal at this time through the Mediterranean. It will be in the Persian gulf soon.

Oddly enough, they went to port first in Spain, then in Greece, the two countries hardest hit in the economic downturns in Europe.

Russia sends naval flotilla to Syrian port: Report

english.ahram.org.eg...

good work Comrade. (rubbing hands)

NOW, we will negotiate the foreign ownership laws. I say we give them 10 years to sell to a Syrian national, in lieu of the 1 year, foreign land inheritance prohibition.

That sounds fair to me.

Originally posted by dontneedaname
can a deployment of a carrier group be temporarily extended by resupplying at sea? What's the max deployment time?

It's complex. Every Carrier Strike Group has with it a supply ship. Many of them are now run by the Military Sealift Command. Here's an example, the USNS Supply. These are deep draft ships about half the displacement of a CVN. These ships carry all supplies for the entire Carrier Strike Group. At-sea replenishment takes place every few days.

Resupply is a highly choreographed operation. Those huge cranes come out from the supply ship and move toward the ship to be resupplied. These include hoses for liquids to be punped. At the same time helicopters move hard supplies, e.g. Diet Coke, from one deck to another. The carrier can also resupply the support ships with fuel oil. At the end of the series, both ships play a "break away song" on the ships' speakers as they disconnect from each other. This operation can be very dangerous. There have been a number of collisions doing this.

Bottom line is that a Strike Group can last about 7-8 months after which the supply ship itself is empty. I suppose they COULD sail in a new full supply ship, but I've never heard of that happening. There may be more to it than that.

The Lincoln has been at sea since January. The Eisenhower will be on station shortly. It has already been officially announced that the Lincoln has flown its "last sortie" and is ready to head to Norfolk, so official channels say they are done. In other words, Eisenhower replaces Lincoln.

If the Enterprise left port/base / arrived in March +/-...and 6-7 months is a given deployment....that means 7 months +/- later is October...which is in the "window of action" being bandied about...perhaps one carrier will be replaced by August, another will linger around?

And, indeed, it looks about right. The Navy has announced that the Stennis will deploy in August, meaning they'll get to the 5th fleet in September. That's about 7 months for the Enterprise. It's the oldest carrier. Lots of sailors maintain it's falling apart. Overlaps are usually not very long, a couple of weeks at most.

Right now everything is on schedule, but as you say, it's on schedule until it isn't.