| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Stennis To Join Eisenhower And Boxer In Gulf |
| 2007-01-04 |
| The Pentagon will send a second aircraft carrier and its escort ships to the Gulf, defense officials said on Wednesday, as a warning to Syria and Iran and to give commanders more flexibility in the region. Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bremerton, Washington-based USS John C. Stennis strike group would deploy this month. It will put 5,000 more U.S. sailors in the region, bringing the total to 16,000. The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to comment, saying the Defense Department would not discuss future deployments or ship movements. But military analysts said the move was intended to demonstrate U.S. resolve in the face of acts by Iran and Syria that it sees as provocative, such as Tehran's pursuit of its nuclear program. The Stennis had been scheduled to deploy to the Pacific region. But the Pentagon agreed instead to send the carrier group to the Gulf after a request from U.S. Central Command, the military command responsible for Middle East operations. Senior defense officials have said that request was aimed at increasing Central Command's flexibility in a variety of operations and providing deterrence in the region. Washington has locked horns with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear program. American defense officials also regularly charge Iran and Syria with fanning sectarian violence in Iraq and contributing to the deteriorating situation there by providing arms and technologies. The second carrier, while adding relatively few service members to the region, is valuable as a symbol of America's increased presence in the Gulf, military analysts said. Longer term, however, the Bush administration must decide if it will keep two carrier groups in the Gulf indefinitely. Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously said the increased American presence in the Gulf was a message to the region as a whole and not a response to any specific action by Iran. "I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries." |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #17 Lawn darts, sky pigs, who cares, as long as we use those toys to kill sand monkeys, that's all. Lock and load, let's roll, tally ho ! |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-04 15:15 |
| #16 ...when they blasted over @ about 100 ft and 450 kts. better than sex, it was! I bet it was! Thanks for the inside info, USN, ret. I've always had a fanboy love for the A-6. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-04 23:23 |
| #15 Be it via "Nuclear Victory" celebration come February 2007, or any appearance by the Imam/Mahdi this Spring Equinox, iff Dubya follows thru on "FORTRESS IRAQ/ISRAEL/ME" scenarios, Iran will have to either forsake its support for Iraqi-and other regional insurgent efforts, OR ELSE INITIATE=LAUNCH NEW ATTACKS IN ME + WORLD, INCLUD INSIDE AMERICA, to "SAVE FACE". e.g. Amer Hiroshimas/new 9-11's. Moud vs Dubya > WHOM WILL "BLINK FIRST" ala Cuban Missle Crisis + JFK-Kruschev. IMO Dubya knows there is risk of himself glowing-in-the-dark or by other BCWar means, but Radical Islam-Terror can't be allowed to possess Nukes/WMDS. GOTTA ADMIRE DUBYA FOR THAT. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-04 22:43 |
| #14 SteveS: While the stresses of carrier ops were in play, the Boeing plastic winged A-6s were doing a superb job. That's right, Boeing beat out Grumman for the rewing effort. There was a coule of upgrades on the table an also in flying status, the Block 50 SWIP and the A6-F. The SWIP had a lot of EA-6 B Prowler ECM stuff as well as some other (still classified I believe) goodies, while the 'F' was basically a re-engined 'E' with more bombing capabilities as well as a glass cockpit. The engines were the -408s from the Prowler. Now all this was going on at the same time as the F-A 18 early variants were being scrutinized for cost / perfromance overruns ( read 'Pentagon Paradox for a complete and saddening rundown on what our tax $$ bought) as well as the A-12 Avenger II Stealth bomber. The A-12 ( flying Dorito) was something like 5000 ounds overweight and many millions of dollars over budget. Something had to go and the majority of Dorito heavies were old A-6 / F-14 bubbas, (some personal opinion inserted here) after the A-12 got axed, the senior NAVAIR types were all of the Light Attack Mafia (A-7 and Hornets) so they pulled the plug on the Intruder. There are something like 100 (plastic wing) still in war reserve in the Davis-Mothan Boneyard, and about 33 or so off the coast of St. Augustine Florida, forming the 'Intruder Reef.' The remainder have been cannibalized for Prowler compatible parts ( not many) or placed in the Foreign Military Sales used airplane lot. They have had the weapson system stripped and were being advertised as visual bombing or tankers only ( as of about 2 yrs ago). Yeah they weren't stealthy, but stand in the bullseye at Nellis and have a flight of 12 come at you ont of the sun, and even knowing that the racks were empty, it still made you want to find a (big) rock to crawl under when they blasted over @ about 100 ft and 450 kts. better than sex, it was! |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-01-04 22:36 |
| #13 if the Intruders hadn't been sacrificed at the altar of the "one size fits all" lawn dart, I was under the impression the Interuders had reached end-of-life due to the stresses of carrier ops. The EW variant is flying, I believe, since they weren't as heavily loaded. Feel free to correct any misunderstandings on my part since you are obviously closer to the problem. The A-6s had some impressive capabilities as a bomb truck. Seems like a shame not to replace them with something as functional. Maybe everyone simply punted after the A-12 mess? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2007-01-04 21:19 |
| #12 Whats over TAIWAN = NORTH KOREA ways??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-04 21:10 |
| #11 Wouldn't need carriers at all if we hadn't scrapped the battleships. Nothing warms the cockles of my heart more than a good Alpha strike. Go 'truders! |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2007-01-04 20:37 |
| #10 'bout time for some LLL human shields to protect those poor poor uranium centrifuges. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-01-04 18:37 |
#9
| |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-01-04 15:15 |
| #8 Fots:Call me nostalgic, but if the Intruders hadn't been sacrificed at the altar of the "one size fits all" lawn dart, there would be no reason to even have a CV inside the gulf as the "skypig" not only had longer legs than the hornet but also had a bigger payload carrying capacity. 15K worth of ordnance and still had 16K internal fuel, or you could hang 4 drop tanks and a buddy store on one and provide all sorts of IFR capacity (26K of fuel)to those dragging the bombs around. show me a lawn dart with the same numbers. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-01-04 14:55 |
| #7 it's a worthless ugly garbage scow named after Barbara Boxer LOL! Really, why is the Boxer there? Isn't it supposed to deliver EGs or something? Are they using it as some kind of carrier? Are they swapping out some Marines? |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-01-04 14:17 |
| #6 The USS Boxer's a Wasp-Class LHD - Dock Landing Ship/Helicopter platform. The history goes back to the War of 1812. Go here for more info. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-01-04 13:17 |
| #5 Think it's a worthless ugly garbage scow named after Barbara Boxer ;) |
| Posted by: Warthog 2007-01-04 12:22 |
| #4 Don't we usually keep 2 carriers in the region? And what is the Boxer? USMC Expeditionary Group? |
| Posted by: Anon4021 2007-01-04 11:58 |
| #3 Tally Ho! |
| Posted by: Warthog 2007-01-04 11:11 |
| #2 Well...that puts at least 90+ F18s well within striking distance of Irans' oil fields and platforms. CenCom requested the additional battle group, eh? That's very interesting... |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-01-04 10:30 |
| #1 Anyone for Stennis? |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2007-01-04 09:01 |