So the USS Nimitz leaves San Diego on monday with its strike group, destination Arabian Sea
For those of us obsessively tracking these things, that is a bad sign - the Stennis and Eisenhower are already in the region, which makes three, the amateur minimum for a serious naval air campaign against Iran.
Nimitz would get there mid-April, if it scooted, or it could stop in every port...
Now, the official plan is that the Eisenhower will leave when the Nimitz gets there, maintaining two carriers in continuous presence. Which can not be sustained indefinitely, but is plausibe.
The Eisenhower did deploy in october, so should head home soon if it is on a normal six month cruise.
The Reagan is still in the China Sea on Korean exercises, through next week.
USS Truman is the surge ready atlantic carrier right now.
Nobody do anything stupid, please.
- Log in to post comments
Your attention to this crisis is appreciated, though events may be difficult to stop. Charles de Gaulle is already operating with the US force. Britain theoretically has the light carriers Illustrious and Ark Royal, and the amphibious carrier HMS Ocean.
This is a normal rotation of carrier groups. Would the US use the concentration of forces that results from a handover to initiate aggressions? -- Yes. Does this rotation signify the start of aggressions? -- No.
Neither Lusty nor the Glory Ark are operational. (Insert humiliation here.)
well, the rotations have not been normal since january,
but it is a rotation on the face of it.
It is an opportunity for the US to get forces into place for a strike, they need not be planning to do so, or to make use of it even if they plan to.
If I were the Admiral of the Royal Navy I'd keep both carriers in dock for the next 21 months.