The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is being reinforced.
That is not good.
It is generally true that aircraft carriers to not launch air strikes while in harbour.
I believe it has been done, probably by a UK carrier at Malta, but generally not a good idea.
So, if one were to worry that intemperate rhetoric on war is something to be taken at face value, and if one assumes that the US armed forces like to use the advantage their large and many aircraft carriers provide, then it is prudent to keep an eye on the very public deployment of these carriers.
At any given time, of the 11 currently available carriers, a couple are out of action in dock, a couple are on routine deployment and the rest rotate between exercises and rest&refurbishment.
As carriers hand off on deployment, there are periods when they "double up", and that is a natural window for a surprise strike, should the Navy want to co-ordinate two or more carriers for a medium sized surprise air strike.
I just concluded, that despite the confluence of 3-5 carriers in the Indian Ocean/West Pacific next month, this would not be a time to do anything silly and that in particular the USS Nimitz and USS Truman would leave for the US.
The USS Nimitz was sent out earlier this year, to cover for the Kitty Hawk which was in dock, the Kitty Hawk is "forward stationed" in Japan, with primary duty to cover Korea and maybe Taiwan.
The Nimitz tour was explicitly announced to be short - four months, instead of the usual six, while the USS Washington got ready to replace the Kitty Hawk in Japan.
Earlier this month the Nimitz stopped in Guam, which is a bit off the path home, but when you have a group at sea you usually do some live exercising while you are at sea, I gather.
Guam is also a supply depot, in case you need to pick something up that you left behind. But a carrier going home ought not to be loading many supplies other than fresh fruit and water.
Now, the US announced that USS O'Kane and USS Reuben James are leaving Pearl Harbour to join the USS Nimitz.
Huh?
The Nimitz took a cruiser and three destroyers with her in Jan when she left San Diego. Those ships were with her at Guam last week (except maybe for the USS Chafee which is not mentioned).
Why do they need a destroyer and frigate escort on the way home?
An exercise for the O'Kane and James?
Now the O'Kane has joined the Nimitz group before, but the Reuben James is a anti-sub frigate which just got back from a six month tour. Sending her back out again so soon is slightly strange and very hard on the crew, unless there is a operational readyness problem with the ship and she needs some hard work.
The James' commanders comments suggest not - that they were surged out of cycle because they were needed.
So, why is the Nimitz strike group being reinforced and is the Nimitz actually going back to the US in the next 2-3 weeks?
I am now ever so slightly worried.
- Log in to post comments
The USS Nimitz is also staffed by 5,000 people with an AVERAGE age of 19! Scary.
http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/review/2008/04/24/carrier/
I sincerely hope that is a modal average or some such...
"it is generally true that aircraft carriers to not launch air strikes while in harbour."
Pretty much universally true since they stopped shooting biplanes off gun-turrets. The principle reason is that the aircraft are dependent on the forward motion of the carrier to give them the extra 30 knots or so they need to be 'flying' when they leave the carrier deck. You could launch a F-18 from a stationary carrier - but it couldn't really carry anything destructive.
Because of this limitation the aircraft are usually flown off to a land base before the carrier docks.
But I don't see how that has any bearing on the likelihood of military action, it's not like they're going to launch any sort of carrier strike from Guam!
Actually I think the Europeans can launch from docked carriers again, a S/VTOL jet with a ski jump can do amazing things. Maybe not a full load, but something could go up at short notice.
If the Nimitz goes back to San Diego right now, then she is not going to attack Iran with the Truman and Lincoln.
Guam is a bit off route - a more direct path would be great circle north of Hawaii.
One reason to stop at Guam is to pick up stores, like ammo. Or not.
You get to the Persian Gulf a lot faster starting from Guam than from San Diego or the East Pacific (like if other carriers like the Roosevelt or Reagan decided to scoot over under guise of coastal readiness exercises).
All of which is mildly paranoid speculation. And not indication of anything.
Now, having additional escorts meet the Nimitz in the West Pacific is slightly strange if the group is actually heading home - but they could use it as an exercise opportunity, or some of the Nimitz escorts could be going elsewhere and procedure calls for their replacement.
But, the Nimitz had two destroyer escorts with her this week at Guam, and the anti-sub frigate being sent out just got back into port from a deployment, and the military.com story on it suggested a certain stoic attitude from the crew and commander about going out again.
That little bit is what got me worried.
If the USS Nimitz is cruising from micronesia to San Diego across the mid Pacific, why does she urgently need an anti-submarine frigate escort?
I can't think of any subs other than US and UK attack subs that could deploy there to be any sort of threat and the Nimitz just toodled off the Chinese and NK coasts for months without an anti-sub frigate in tow. There are real actual sub threats up in the China Sea.
So I am slightly worried. Very slightly.
"If the USS Nimitz is cruising from micronesia to San Diego across the mid Pacific, why does she urgently need an anti-submarine frigate escort?"
That's the question that had my eyebrows raised too. Doesn't seem to be any sense in attacking NK now that they're talking. Apparently the Iranian navy has some submarines...
sense? whether or not it makes sense depends heavily on what outcome you are trying to promote.
are you trying to prevent or prolong hostilities...
Sense? Did you forget who the Commander and Chief is?
The background press briefing given today on Syria contained some seriously worrisome rhetoric on Iran. In one instance they appeared to be trying to retract the NIE conclusions; in another, there was the predictable (if logically vacuous) reasoning that "since Syria had a reactor, that must make us ever so much more suspicious of what nefarious things the Iranians are up to."
I like to think that if I were trying to provoke hostilities I'd be better at it...
I think war between Iran and the USA would be catastrophic for both sides and would directly endanger a number of my friends.
I am acutely worried that the rhetoric from the US is signaling a naive and explicit intent to go to war with minimal casus belli, and possibly with a view to proactively trying to provoke a casus belli.
I fear the US government might plan on and deliberately let war be triggered in the near future.
A US University is also staffed by 5,000 people with an AVERAGE age of 19! Scary.
Louise, true, but running a university doesn't demand the kinds of skill sets and training levels it takes to sail a carrier. i suspect that average is a few years short of the real figure, myself.
"Dynamics of Cats : carrier reinforcement"
When I saw that I thought this post was about the box used to carry your cat around.
Well, thing is that Thor expects at least a Nimitz class carrier, especially if it is to the vet.
The modal average age of a typical US University is around 19.
But there is a reason "sophomoric" is an insult, and "staff" is not how we usually describe them...