Lots of news and speculation on possible steps to mobilization by US forces to position for a strike on Iran.
They couldn't be that stupid, could they?
Old Speculation Updated.
So... in my humble and uninformed opinion, if the US were to launch a air strike on Iran, supported by Navy aircraft and possibly a Marine expeditionary force, some things would have to move into place first.
First you need a MEF in the gulf. Well, one group has been loitering in the Arabian Sea.
Then you need, I estimate, three aircraft carrier groups in place.
this japanese web site tracks the US Navy carriers (courtesy of Nuclear Mangos).
The USS Eisenhower is the carrier on station
The USS Kitty Hawk is in the east china sea, and could get there in a few days if ordered. It is, I believe, the smallest and oldest of the operational carriers.
JFK is decommissioning.
USS Nimitz has been (is?) at sea in the east pacific undergoing trials
USS Eisenhower is in the Atlantic
USS Vinson is in dock
USS Roosevelt is in the Atlantic
USS Lincoln is in port for maintenance after 6 months at sea
USS Washington is rotating into dock
USS Stennis was visiting Canada, should be in port in Washington
USS Truman is in dock
USS Reagan was in San Diego doing occasional excursion having just returned from a six month tour
USS Bush is not yet commissioned
So - there is a curious news story where a sailor mentions the USS Reagan will be dropping him off in Hawaii en route to Bahrain this fall. The Reagan just came back from there, it shouldn't be heading out again. Maybe a journalist error, or they've been told they're deploying again.
the Reagan web site has a curious comment
If any two of the Reagan, Stennis or Nimitz head west at high speed, I'd get worried. I think the Kitty Hawk will be left toodling around Japan/Taiwan/Korea for show.
Stennis is in fact underway in the Pacific and the Iwo Jima USMC group is in the Arabian Sea.
I think the US has missed the current new moon window for attacking, unless Bush is going to really surprise us tomorrow... so there is plenty of time to move into place for the next new moon.
Which is very close to the Congressional elections. I find it hard to believe a war would be started at that time, but if Bush is determined to pre-emptively attack Iran, it may be his last chance.
Well, the US would need its bombers in place.
There has been some movement there already, although the forward deployed B-2 just rotated back to the US, replaced by B-1s. They can scoot forward at relatively short notice.
Any hint would come from the ANG tanker units moving, possibly under guise of an exercise.
The USAF bases would close, maybe 2-3 days before.
My suspicion is that any changes in command in USAF bomber command have already been made.
I don't think they'd tell the UK, since the UK would probably leak the plan to try to scuttle it.
But, the USAF would probably need a couple of RAF bases to forward deploy B-52s, not sure how that'd be handled. Maybe Blair will go out in a blaze of glory here.
I don't understand what is going on - the US simply doesn't have the force in place to launch an attack, unless they've pulled off a serious misdirection and quietly moved a lot of assets without anyone noticing. But the political rhetoric is ratcheting up, on tempo for an attack in October.
Any deployment now will be obvious, reported and questioned, but unless the US seriously think they can bluff Iran into major concessions they're walking into a corner and are going come out seriously weakened if the bluff is empty.
If it is not a bluff, there is an even more serious problem.
There is a massive disconnect here, either I'm missing something, or this is the stupidest series of diplomatic and military moves in a very long time.
PS: Nation is apparently claiming the Eisenhower has orders for the gulf, timed to arrive around October new moon.
Eisenhower is an Atlantic carrier; be interesting if it really tries to transit the Suez in mid Oct, although it might have time to go around the Cape,
Stennis put into San Diego, but should be back out to sea soon, where it goes will be interesting.
I'd keep a sharper eye on Stennis and either Reagan or Nimitz. I think USS Reagan, they exercised for a three carrier strike and are familiar with the area and is well equipped. And there was the curious news story about them heading back to Bahrain soon.
So definitely a window for attack in late Oct. Politically risky, and militarily criminal. But it is there still.
Oh, another thing to keep an eye on is the Navy "underway" page - if more ships sortie, that means carrier escort groups are moving into place. They'd need another 30-40 ships.
I see a hospital ship (USS Mercy) is already heading thataway.
PPS: Expeditionary Strike Group 5 has left for the Persian Gulf.
They have a anti-mine unit with them, and two amphibious assault ship with a Marine Expeditionary Force unit.
It will be interesting to see if the Iwo Jima group, currently in that area, leaves, or if they both stay in the region.
Curious - the Iwo Jima group transited Suez in August, it is normally a Med/Atlantic ship.
It is not due back home until december.
- Log in to post comments
Please stop scaring me...
The thing is that these guys may have convinced themselves that Iran is going to launch a nuclear strike on Israel any time now, and if not that then if they don't do something now then they could lose political power soon and be unable to. Certainly, it may well be that the pro-israeli lobbies in the US are extremely spooked about the recent war in lebanon and want the Iranian leadership/nukes taken out at any cost.
Interesting theories. By the way, I've added a link to your blog from mine. Sorry I didn't do it earlier.
Well, most theories are either wrong or trivial.
Fortunately they are also mostly tested by data.
Speculation is fun, and this format permits less rigorous speculation than some others.
I'm figuring my blogroll update cycle is 3-6 months, I don't stress about others.
The Nation still hasn't gripped that the carriers have a six-month operating cycle. Enterprise sailed on the 2nd May. She took a month to reach the Arabian Sea via the Med. Ergo, she leaves her station in early October. Ergo, Eisenhower has to sail soon to relieve her.
Sadly, I remember a wave of blogospheric jitters about Enterprise sailing in May.
There are three main training procedures a CVN must do before deployment. These are Carrier Qualifications (flight safety), Joint Task Force Exercise, and Composite Training Unit Exercise. Abbreviations - CARQUALs, JTFEX, and COMPTUEX. Reagan has to do her JTFEX and COMPTUEX before she is operational. So far her training rota has got as far as CARQUALs. Stennis is doing COMPTUEX now but needs to JTFEX.
Well, Eisenhower is leaving port early, according to some accounts.
If you count the carriers available, then it is possible to get three carriers into the gulf
in october, partly by early rotation, and partly by diverting one of Stennis, Reagan or Nimitz. And, yes, that would mean taking them off peace time rotation and sending them off early. For various reasons either Reagan or Stennis look like they could do so.
I don't know what is going on with the Nimitz.
This presupposes that having three carriers is a prerequisite, but that is what the large exercises have focused on - three carriers in a joint strike force.
At the same time, ESG5 seems to be heading out early, so there could be two ESGs in place in late october.
That makes late oct a possible strike window, since the right combination of forces can be gathered relatively unobtrusively. After rotation you either have to turn someone back, or break another carrier out early in its rotation-home cycle, which is more in your face obvious.
Basically, barring furtive sudden sorties, there 2-3 times per year when it is easier to get the forces together. Late Oct is one such time, next one would probably be March/April 2007.
That leaves the political question of whether the administration intends an attack, and whether they intend to do it before the elections. My reading is that they intend an attack before 2008, barring miraculous changes in Iran - and there appears to be no leverage to affect such changes - and then the question is whether to take the political risk of attacking before the elections, or wait to see how they turn out and risk a different sort of political confrontation with Congress.
I certainly don't think Reagan is going anywhere. She's completed FRS Carqual and nothing else - i.e. no meaningful tactical training since coming out of dockyard hands. Better to divert Enterprise to Singapore or Australia to re-store, sortie Kittyhawk, and let Eisenhower sail on what is the current timetable. (I see no evidence that she is going early, unless you wilfully ignore the time it takes to sail from Norfolk, Virginia to the Arabian Sea and that they do not leave the station too long without a carrier.)
All the same timing considerations apply to the ESGs.
It still misses the election.
Could be. Hints that Reagan may leave early are - a local news story about someone mentioning the Reagan will drop him off at Pearl Harbour enroute to the gulf, this autumn - simplest explanation is journalist who got the timeline wrong of course.
Secondly Reagan exercised for a 3 carrier strike in the summer and is familiar with the gulf. Thirdly Reagan is not hosting public visits and hasn't for a number of weeks.
I honestly do not know if there is plan for a carrier strike in october - if I knew I wouldn't speculate. But the public sources hint at the possibility. It might even be a contingency option that is not exercised.
Kitty Hawk might move west after stopping in Japan, but I suspect she'll be kept in the China Sea.
Any idea what the Nimitz is doing?
I'm presuming that if the Eisenhower is going to the gulf the Roosevelt will be kept back for the Atlantic/Med.
The answer seems to be "not much". Her last known activity was a families day, and she is coming out of six months in dockyard hands.
BTW, the Royal Navy is just getting an amphibious task force ready...for an exercise in Sierra Leone. It's almost as if the admirals are trying to keep out of the way.
Hm, that is about as far from the Gulf in travel time as you can arrange to plausibly be.
Eisenhower is off to the Gulf.
The Nimitz, it turns out is just coming out of PIA (planned intermediate upgrade), and is requalifying for ops before replacing the Kitty Hawk as the Japan based carrier.
So it should be heading to the East Pacific sometime, don't know if it can realistically surge.
Stennis seems to be toodling around San Diego still and Reagan is sitting put.
They have ~ 1 week to steam west if something is up, one of them ought to go if a serious strike is an option this new moon.
If they were sailing, Reagan would be frantically working up, having to get through at least two week-long major exercises.
BTW - wanna know what Nimitz is doing? She's at Fleet Week in San Francisco.