Originally posted by schuyler
Excuse me. The USS Eisenhower is being set home from the Persian Gulf EARLY to have repairs done on its flight deck (it gets re-surfaced.) The Eisenhower was SUPPOSED to stay in the Gulf another couple of months, but problems with one of our other carriers now in home port forced the Eisenhower to come home early so that it can re-deploy in a couple of months. It was cited as "off the coast of Turkey" because it had the audacity to go through the Suez Canal on its way across the mediterranean and into the Atlantic, where it has been for several days. It will be home by Christmas. This was unplanned, but it is because one of our other carrier is broken.
The USS Iwo Jima, which is actually an LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), not a carrier like a CVN, was just relieved by the USS Pelelieu in the Persian Gulf and is ALSO headed home. It hung out off the coast of Israel for a few extra weeks when Hamas was throwing rockets at Israel in case it needed to be use for evacuation purposes. It was on the way home when this happened.
So, in actuality, the US presence in the Persian Gulf is down to one carrier, the USS Stennis, and one LHD, the USS Pelelieu, which is one CVN LESS than normal. There is now no appreciable presence in the Med save a few destroyers, which is normal. The 6th Fleet is headquartered in Naples.
No mystery at all. No build up. No draw down.
That is correct. Whomever wrote that article is a moron. They seem to forget the Navy said at the start of December the USS Eisenhower would be home. They do not know the Iwo is not a carrier. They seem to have forgotten the Iwo arrived in the region to evacuate US nationals if the conflict in Palestine heated up, and they seem to think that those ships had enough men for an invasion. The level of stupidity in that article is staggering.
