PDA

View Full Version : USS Nimitz carrier group rerouted for possible help with Syria




orenbus
09-02-2013, 04:55 AM
http://ca.reuters.com/article/idCABRE9800IT20130901




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its strike group are heading west toward the Red Sea to help support a limited U.S. strike on Syria, if needed, defense officials said on Sunday.

The Nimitz carrier strike group, which includes four destroyers and a cruiser, has no specific orders to move to the eastern Mediterranean at this point, but is moving west in the Arabian Sea so it can do so if asked. It was not immediately clear when the ships would enter the Red Sea, but they had not arrived by Sunday evening, said one official.

"It's about leveraging the assets to have them in place should the capabilities of the carrier strike group and the presence be needed," said the official.

President Barack Obama on Saturday delayed imminent cruise missile strikes by five destroyers off the coast of Syria, and sought approval from Congress, a move that effectively put any strike on hold for at least nine days.

The delay gives military planners more time to reassess which ships and other weapons will be kept in the region - and which may be swapped out - before the U.S. military launches what defense officials say is still intended to be a limited and narrowly targeted attack on Syria.

The U.S. Navy doubled its presence in the eastern Mediterranean over the past week, effectively adding two destroyers to the three that generally patrol the region. The five destroyers are carrying a combined load of about 200 Tomahawk missiles, officials say.

The Nimitz carrier group had been in the Indian Ocean, supporting U.S. operations in Afghanistan, but was due to sail east around Asia to return to its home port in Everett, Washington, after being relieved in recent days by another aircraft carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman.

Given the situation in Syria, U.S. military officials decided to reroute the Nimitz and send it west toward the Red Sea, and possibly the Mediterranean, officials said.

The Navy has also sent the USS San Antonio, an amphibious ship with 300 Marines and extensive communications equipment on board, to join the five destroyers, diverting it from a previously scheduled mission that would have taken it farther west.

A second official said the San Antonio had been asked to serve as an afloat forward staging base, which could provide a temporary base for special operations forces, if they were needed. It could also assist with evacuations.

A spokesman for the ship declined comment, referring questions to the Navy. Lieutenant Adam Cole, spokesman for the Navy's European headquarters, declined to discuss any specific plans for the San Antonio or future ship movements.

Decisions about the location of other ships will be made in coming days, based on military needs, maintenance issues and staffing requirements, officials said, noting that the delay in a strike on Syria had sent planners back to the drawing board.

The USS Kearsarge, a large-deck amphibious ship that is part of a readiness group with the San Antonio, is also on the way toward the Red Sea after a port call in the United Arab Emirates, officials said. No further specific orders had been issued to the ship, they said.

The Kearsarge, which carries 6 AV-8B Harriers, 10-12 V-22 Ospreys and helicopters, played a key role in the 2011 strikes on Libya. Two Ospreys launched from the ship helped rescue a downed F-15 pilot during that operation.

Cleaner44
09-02-2013, 05:00 AM
Sounds like just what is needed for a limited and narrow mission. :rolleyes: How much will that cost the taxpayers in fuel alone?

Zippyjuan
09-02-2013, 01:24 PM
The ships will be out at sea burning fuel anyways. The additional fuel cost is zero.

alucard13mm
09-02-2013, 03:04 PM
Marines are probably just part of the naval group. Most likely standard operation.

XNavyNuke
09-02-2013, 05:35 PM
The ships will be out at sea burning fuel anyways. The additional fuel cost is zero.

Not exactly. The Nimitz was supposed to turn over to the Truman and be returning from deployment. The additional burn is not budgeted.

XNN

eduardo89
09-02-2013, 05:43 PM
Not exactly. The Nimitz was supposed to turn over to the Truman and be returning from deployment. The additional burn is not budgeted.

XNN

The US'S Nimitz doesn't burn fuel, it is nuclear powered.

willwash
09-02-2013, 05:50 PM
We did the exact same thing on my first cruise on the enterprise in 2011...they pulled us back from the gulf of Aden on our way in to the Arabian Sea, and we sat in the Red Sea for weeks waiting for the order to intervene in Libya...which never came. They used LHAs and LSDs but no carriers.

It costs nearly a million dollars to chop a carrier through the Suez Canal, so they won't do it unless the order comes. They'll sit and wait in the northern Red Sea and do nothing. It sucks. The Red Sea is about 30 degrees hotter than the mediterranean sea 50 miles up the road on the other side of the suez.

Henry Rogue
09-02-2013, 05:53 PM
The US'S Nimitz doesn't burn fuel, it is nuclear powered.Some of the ships in the task force are probably not nuke. Plus the Flat Top probably launches regular patrols to protect the carrier and the rest of the armada. Only my speculation, I could be wrong.

eduardo89
09-02-2013, 06:08 PM
Some of the ships in the task force are probably not nuke. Plus the Flat Top probably launches regular patrols to protect the carrier and the rest of the armada. Only my speculation, I could be wrong.

You're right, I would guess the majority of ships in the fleet are not nuclear powered. Carrier strike groups have one or two cruisers, which are powered by gas turbines (Ticonderoga-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)) as well as two or three destroyers which also have gas turbines as well as a supply ship.

willwash
09-02-2013, 07:43 PM
You're right, I would guess the majority of ships in the fleet are not nuclear powered. Carrier strike groups have one or two cruisers, which are powered by gas turbines (Ticonderoga-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser)) as well as two or three destroyers which also have gas turbines as well as a supply ship.

The only nuclear ships in the fleet are carriers and subs. We used to have nuclear cruisers but they weren't economical. You need MASSIVE fuel savings to justify a nuclear engine. Conventional CVs burn so much fuel that its worth the investment. With subs it's more the tactical advantage gained from not needing air to burn the fuel, ergo they can stay submerged indefinitely. This overrides the cost of fuel considerations.