A 2nd carrier group is headed near Iran, A look @ Force composition

The Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group also includes:
-guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio-CG-68
Armament: MK26 missile launcher (CG 47 thru CG 51) Standard Missile (MR) or MK41 vertical launching system (CG 52 thru CG 73) Standard Missile (MR); Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) Missile; Tomahawk Cruise Missile; Six MK-46 torpedoes (from two triple mounts); Two MK 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight guns; Two Phalanx close-in-weapons systems.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4

-guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage-DDG-61
Armament: two MK 41 VLS for Standard missiles, Tomahawk; Harpoon missile launchers, one Mk 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight gun, two Phalanx CIWS, Mk 46 torpedoes (from two triple tube mounts)
http://www.navysite.de/dd/ddg61.htm

ARLEIGH BURKE - class Guided Missile Destroyer USS Mason-DDG-87
Armament 1 x 5"/62 RF, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 90 VLS Cells,
2 SH-60B helicopters, 8 Harpoon Missiles, 6 x 12.75" TT.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01087.htm

Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Newport News-SSN-750
Carries Tomahawks:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-750.htm

The Enterprise carrier group has been in the area for a while:



The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group also includes:

-guided missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf-CG-55
Armament: MK26 missile launcher (CG 47 thru CG 51) Standard Missile (MR) or MK41 vertical launching system (CG 52 thru CG 73) Standard Missile (MR); Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) Missile; Tomahawk Cruise Missile; Six MK-46 torpedoes (from two triple mounts); Two MK 45 5-inch/54 caliber lightweight guns; Two Phalanx close-in-weapons systems.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4

ARLEIGH BURKE - class Guided Missile Destroyer USS McFaul-DDG-74
Armament 1 x 5"/62 RF, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 90 VLS Cells,
2 SH-60B helicopters, 8 Harpoon Missiles, 6 x 12.75" TT.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/01087.htm

the frigate USS Nicholas-FFG-47
Armament: one Mk 75 76mm/62 caliber rapid firing gun, MK 32 ASW torpedo tubes (two triple mounts), one Phalanx CIWS
http://navysite.de/ffg/FFG47.HTM

Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Alexandria-SSN-757
Any boat of this class may launch a Tomahawk cruise missile from its horizontal torpedo tubes. The last 31 boats of this class also have 12 vertical launch tubes specifically for the purpose of launching Tomahawks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_class_submarine


The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is a short range missile intended to provide self-protection for surface ships.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rim-162.htm

The Harpoon missile provides the Navy and the Air Force with a common missile for air, ship, and submarine launches. The weapon system uses mid-course guidance with a radar seeker to attack surface ships.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-84.htm

Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missile
On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing. Work will be performed in Tucson AZ and is expected to be completed by March 2003.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

Thanks for Texas Explorer who got me thinking with this post here:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4

Jesus Christ, sub-hunting, Sparrow, Tomahawk and Harpoon?

Totally useless.

Then ya got those 4400# & 1000# bunker busters carried by Carrier planes. I guess it may be the Oct surprise. All they can do is bomb the doorways to any underground installations.

If Bush Attacks Iraq can I say "wag the dog"? LOL.

Total crap.

We should already have learned the futility of serious bombing.

You cannot kill a man who has a shovel.

We used to run extraction missions into Laos to retrieve downed pilots.

The 52s would run large to soften up the landscape to facilitate our missions.

The g**ks would use the craters as bunkers to shoot at us.

Cheney's been wanting to use tactical nukes to bomb the nuclear bunkers. it would be like the last taboo - they've violated every other notion of decency.

thanks for the list, very interesting. how is this distinct from ships that would be in the Gulf to support forces in Iraq?

"trust but verify"

They weren't supposed to go out until the spring, but yeah it's a normal rotation in that sense. What will stop being normal is if they rendezvous with Enterprise and then neither leaves. That will be something to watch for.

but the unthinkable has become thinkable with this criminal cabal
nothing is a surprise anymore.
:mad:

You need PT boats again, even on bluewater but especially in the littorals. You need somebody who can keep a bunch of skiffs and zodiacs far enough away that they can't kamikaze a ship. Subs aren't the problem. Neither are planes. It's little, light, maneuverable, explosives-laden boats.

IIRC Swiftboats had a V-12 diesel, 50mph... in a River. Remember the USS Pueblo, caught by North Korean patrol boats, at around the 12-mile limit?

I R A N

W A R

P L A N

R E V E A L E D


S I N K I N G

O F

U S S

E N T E R P R I S E

I M M I N E N T


Updated Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:04 PM EDT

IRAN WAR PLAN EXPOSED!

PREPARE FOR THE SINKING OF A U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER -
The USS Enterprise - CVN-65!

The existence of a hideous plan to sacrifice a U.S. Aircraft Carrier as a pretext for war with Iran is presently being uncovered!

The Hal Turner Show has been told that within the next five (5) weeks, the United States will "suffer" a missile attack upon the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, presently on patrol near the Persian Gulf. This attack will appear to be from numerous "Silkworm" and/or "Sunburn" missiles which will sink the vessel and kill most of the 5,000 crew onboard.

The "attack" will be blamed on Iran and thus provide the Bush Administration with an excuse to go to war with that nation.

The Hal Turner Show has learned that the missiles used to attack the USS Enterprise will not be fired from or by Iran, but rather will be a "false flag operation" made to LOOK as though Iran carried out the attack!

The USS Enterprise is the worlds first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It was Commissioned in 1961 and is due to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015. The ship was selected to be the "victim" of this "attack" due to its age.

THOSE PLANNING THE ATTACK ARE INSIDE THE U.S. AND ISRAELI GOVERNMENTS and view the loss of the Enterprise crew as a necessary sacrifice to induce Americans to support war against Iran. Put bluntly, the ship and crew are to be cannon fodder.

I am being fed more information and expect to be able to name names as to who is behind this plan. Check back often.
LIBERTY REDUX | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 10:09 am

Found on Rawstory message board




Here is the DRESS REHEARSAL for the sinking of the USS Enterprise:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-17-ship-reef_x.htm...

Aircraft carrier sunk in Gulf of Mexico to create artificial reef
Updated 5/17/2006 4:38 PM ET

N THE GULF OF MEXICO (AP) -- As hundreds of veterans looked on solemnly, Navy divers blew holes in a retired aircraft carrier and sent the 888-foot USS Oriskany to the bottom of the sea Wednesday, forming the world's largest deliberately created artificial reef.

Clouds of brown and gray smoke rose in the sky after more than 500 pounds of plastic explosives went off. The rusted hulk took about 45 minutes to slip beneath the waves, about four hours faster than predicted.

VIDEO: Navy ship sunk to create reef

Korean and Vietnam War veterans aboard charter boats watched from beyond a one-mile safety perimeter as the "Mighty O" went down in 212 feet of water, about 24 miles off Pensacola Beach.

Lloyd Quiter of North Collins, N.Y., who served four tours on the ship in Vietnam, wept.

"I'm a little stunned. It's a little hard to take," he said.




AND WHY DID THEY FEEL THE NEED FOR THE DRESS REHEARSAL?

I found this over at Huff Post. Madness if true.


BECAUSE WHEN THEY TRIED IT A YEAR EARLIER, IT TOOK 25 DAYS TO SINK THE USS AMERICA WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES!

http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050522a.html...


USS America 1048-ft aircraft carrier sunk off North Carolina
Powered by CYBER DIVER News Network

NORTH CAROLINA (22 May 2005) -- The retired aircraft carrier USS America is on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, sunk by the Navy in a series of explosive tests that upset some veterans.

The 84,000-ton, 1,048-foot warship that served the Navy for 32 years rests about 60 miles off the coast and more than 6,000 feet down, according to Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

She did not give a location, but the Navy previously said the explosions would take place off North Carolina.

Dolan said the America went down May 14, finally flooded after the series of explosions over 25 days. No announcement was made at the time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/01/gop-leaders-running-for-c_n_30670.html

to attack the Enterprise and pretend Iran did the attacking? How reliable is that source?

and anyone who thinks we aren't capable of this sort of thing...suffice it to say, some are very capable, and they are 100% in charge at this time...(think Operation Northwoods)...and what of the men, IF this comes true...Perhaps if it's being exposed as the plan to attack Iran, it might be too dangerous to go ahead and do it, then again, who can figure out what some are thinking...indications of the past week, are not encouraging in the least.......my heart hurts...
windbreeze...

This is just unit rotation. The thing to watch is when more (say 4+) CV and their groups are sent to the area or suddenly disappear from where they usually are located. Not because their aircraft are really needed (they are up to a point) but because the Navy needs them involved to continue to justify them at budget time. Watch Carrier movements and you can pretty well predict the level of importance of any area or issue.

IIRC, from a post a week or two ago, the Eisenhower's refit was 'expidited' by a month and it was due to be deployed elsewhere. (Can a member with search help with a link please?)

The above (hopefully ficticious) account might be a bit farfetched. However, it might be possible that certain idiots believe that with enough posturing, physical crowding and rhetoric, Iran might be tempted into a pre-emptive attack. And they might well be right.

There are reports of special ops teams already on the ground and operational inside Iran.

There are reports of border incidents that neither side seems willing to publicise. Why? Given the anti-Iranian rhetoric of Bushco, why aren't they making political hay out of such incidents? Quite possibly because IIRC these clashes are on the wrong side of the boder.

So why isn't Iran asking for redress in the UN? Why would it bother? The US would deny. The UN would them do its usual thing and pissfart around deciding on whether to investigate and what form any investigation would take, and finally the US would veto any finding against itself.

Hopefully the Iranian policy is/will be to stare the US down. To dare them to start something which will put the truth in Bush's words and turn Iraq into a punctuation mark in history as a billion odd people declare Jihad on the US.

Iran knows that to act first is likely to force it's non-Islamic friends to distance themselves out of political expediency. Whereas if it is the one attacked first, there is at least a small (and possibly quite a good) chance those same allies will provide material support.

Damn I hate double think, because now I'm wondering if there isn't some sort of plan ready, just in case Iran refuses to come to be party and let itself be provoked.

I dunno, 6? I'm guessing that clustering 4 or more leaves a lot of open area, globally. And placing 4 or 5 in the same area is also a big target. IIRC (2002) the 1st Wargame of the Iraqi invasion led to the loss of one carrier, and some of her group.

IIRC he took out a carrier, most of its group (including 2 battleships), and parts of the relief group.

Let me briefly re-iterate what happened because it's even more relevant to Iran than to Iraq.

The scenario of the game was that the US was pushing for a country to give up its NBC programs. They had given the country a deadline to comply. van Riper was playing the role of this country, which I will call IraX.

Van Riper reasoned that the United States was likely to attack no matter what action IraX took. So, he saw the deadline as an announcement by the US of when it would attack. He decided the only winning move was for IraXi forces to strike the assembling Navy forces before the deadline, when they were still fuelling and fitting. He then scattered his ground forces and told them to wage a low-level insurgency against the ensuing occupation.

The result? The US lost about 6000 pretend sailors and marines, 3 capital ships and dozens of smaller ships, and the initiative. The game was cancelled, and van Riper was told to "play by the rules" for the next round. In the next round, he just sat there and let the Navy and Air Force pulverize his forces, and the generals' model was "vindicated".

Thought 1: this situation applies much more strongly to Iran than Iraq (Iraq's coastal exposure is small, and an amphibious assault would create a dangerous salient for US forces)

Thought 2: I doubt the fact that it applies to Iran is a coincidence; I am convinced that Iraq was meant as a short-term (6 month or so) practice run for an invasion of Iran.

Thought 3: as Gen. van Riper points out, the results of this game show that the doctrine the generals went forward with is at worst seriously flawed and at best not fully tested, and contains no robust response to enemy initiative; as Clausewitz points out, the sole strength of a war plan is its flexibility of adaptation to the enemy's action, who, after all, has a war plan of his own.

Thought 4: as Gen. van Riper also points out, the US doctrine's other chief failure is its lack of a strategic narrative. What is the goal of an occupation of IraX? What interests does it serve? How will we be able to judge if the mission was accomplished? This applies very painfully to the mission in Iraq and will apply even more painfully to a mission in Iran.

2nd wargame, it was porclaimed the WMDs are here->. Which allowed, IRC marines maybe... to go in early.. secure the WMD stockpiles. I think that was like painting a big sign on the roof of the building where the WMDs were stockpiled. "WMDs are here". LOL.

but that would take a major effort. I think Gulf War 2nd Edition had 6 CVSG's operating with 3 in the Med and 3 in the Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean. Should still not be a problem to put 6 on station to encourage the natives with a little Gunboat Diplomacy. Nothing like putting up everything with wings on a couple to get their radars all heated up and identified. Check www.globalsecurity.org for information on Iran's military and our CV's.

It does look like a normal rotation, but trust and verify.

And 1 in San Diego.

Hmm

That leaves the Atlantic unguarded.

Great idea...

..."lacking a carrier strike group" for "unguarded"

NO? LOL. I'd at least organize ground based aircraft to cover the east coast. OTOH couldn't WesPac CV's be brought over to the Persian Gulf quickly, what... 2weeks or less? Giving Rummy 6 groups in the Middle East....

I am just speculating now....

.