here we go, here we go, here we go...

The USS Reagan Carrier Strike Group is surging - it will forward deploy to the western pacific next week.

That makes three.

Caveat...

...this is to backstop the Kitty Hawk which is going in for maintenance in harbour in Japan.
The Stennis was supposed to cover the Kitty Hawk, but was deployed early to the Persian Gulf, which puts two Carrier Strike Groups (Eisenhower and Stennis) and two Expeditionary Strike Groups (Boxer and Baatan) in or near the Persian Gulf starting early Feb or so.
Status of the Navy - dynamically updated web page

i-77b36a9e44b686277ba49a94b49d4c18-USSReagan.jpg

Now, you can't do anything silly with just two CSGs and two ESGs. With two carriers you can, I gather, sustain airstriked round the clock for a few days, but only if nothing goes wrong; you really want a third carrier there or nearby if you're going to carry out a sustained campaign of air strikes (the amphibious forces in the expeditionary strike groups could hit, or defend some ground targets but are not enough to invade a large nation).

I don't think anyone would be silly enough to leave Korea uncovered right now, so by my count that still leaves one carrier short, should anyone be planning anything silly.

Easiest way to achieve that would be to fake the Kitty Hawk maintenance, it sounds like fairly trivial deferable stuff; alternatives are to push the USS Nimitz out early, which I think would use up all available Pacific Fleet carriers if I counted right, or send an Atlantic carrier (Roosevelt?) out, which would have to be done within 2-3 weeks.

The other reassuring sign is that the submarine fleet seems to still be effectively in stand-down after the two accidents in recent months; any airstrike would be accompanied by sub launched cruise missiles and aggressive patrolling ahead of the carriers, which I think would imply 20-25 subs would have to be underway, significantly more than right now.

On the other hand, a B-52 squadron just completed anti shipping/mining exercises off Guam.
As always, the other indicator of anything strange happening would be USAF reserve and guard units with tankers and cargo aircraft deploying. Need not be any big announcement, but it'd be noticed locally. Wonder if Iran knows how to use Google News...

Additional thoughts, the Eisenhower and Stennis should be able to overlap for ~ 3 months, same with Boxer and Bataan. The one pair will be worn out and need some R&R, and with all the surging and pushing of deployment, the US Navy is running out of spare aircraft carriers (several are in dock and out of circulation for extended periods).
So, really, if you want to use aircraft carriers to do something macho and important, the window to do so centers on march, maybe mid-feb if they push it. Much later, and you start not having enough assets without really pushing the navy deployment schedules. Until they catch up with major repairs etc, which might be mid-'08 or so, if I counted months in dock correctly, and if there are no shortcuts.

Tags

More like this

Even GWB COULDN'T be that stupid, could he?

Glad I could help! Now if only we could call them back...

Isn't this where some physicist reading this site builds a special transmitter, and interferes with the attack order, and the world is saved?

But seriously, Dubya would be facing FULL animosity and impeachment peril if he were to go ahead unilateraly with an attack on Iran, which I think your post is all about.

It is certainly good however, that we can watch what is going on.

Bit of an overkill for Somalia.

My understanding of the situation is that the Bush administration is predetermined to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, that they are not negotiating, and barring miracles that implies they expect to have to do it militarily, which means air strikes.

This could be bluff, but the rhetoric has become quite severe, to the point where it is quite damaging to long term US international relations is nothing is done; it could be a threat of force that works - the "yes I'm mad enough to do this" scenario - but I think that is too subtle; and, it could be that the US Armed Forces, or other institutional safeguards, will stop it from happening.

My overall reading is that they want to do it and that they are maneuvering to do it, and that there are very finite opportunities to act effectively. So it is worth watching.

Note that there is currently no carrier in the Gulf area. Ike is off Somalia as of last week, and Stennis only flew-on her carrier air wing off San Diego last week despite having sailed from Bremerton on the 16th. Whatever they are, it's not in a hurry.

Well, the reason I worry, other than being a natural worrier, is the rhetoric and bluster on the US side.
There is no leverage on Iran, and no diplomacy, just threats and ultimata.
My sense, from the past actions and words of the administration, is that they intend to strike.
The only option is airstrikes, IF the USAF and USN will go along. And I think they'd have to have 3 carriers in place. But they also need surprise. So they somehow have to move ships on place innocuosly.
The Kitty Hawk had repairs last year, she is about to be scrapped. And the list of "to dos" sounds kinda trivial (to the uninitiated).
Several carriers cleared exercises and training early and are surge ready now, they could send the Nimitz, Roosevelt and Truman out by the looks of it. So, even if the Reagan will actually cover Japan, then they can still get three carriers in place.
I suspect both Nimitz and Roosevelt will head out, Nimitz for fleet exercises in the Pacific and the Roosevelt to be in place in the Med by mid-March.

There's no hurry, I don't think the US can assemble forces by mid-Feb, so mid-March is it. Then pressure is off - if they don't do anything then, I don't think they can do anything until late '08.

Usual caveat - if I actually knew anything, I couldn't and wouldn't say anything.
This is just paranoid pattern matching from open source news.