Debka: Two U.S. carriers in Red Sea, assault ship in the Persian Gulf

Any before accusations of OPSEC start flying, everything I described above is available from mulptiple open sources, particularly Globalsecurity.org. I must say when I was on a ship it was quite annoying that often times it seemed like local vendors and contractors had better information about when and how long our port calls would be than we, the sailors, did. OPSEC is important, but most nations we’re concerned with take an active interest in the deployment patterns and locations of our vessels and devote intelligence resources as well as open sources to monitor our capital ships. Hiding port calls, canal transits, etc. is virtually impossible because of the advanced scheduling required, to say nothing of deployment schedules in general.

NPP on November 2, 2006 at 1:55 AM

Then why, pray tell, is it news?

Nothing against you, but… you have a lot to say that contradicts current news.

I assume that is directed at me, in which case I would ask what news? Just because something is reported on or speculated in the media does not make it true. I would think that reading this blog and the media debunking it does should make that point obvious.

The Republicans would have to be mighty devious indeed because carrier deployments are projected a few years in advance (though not publically announced, naturally). So 3-4 years ago, the Navy would had to have anticipated the need to put 4 strike groups near the 5th Fleet AOR right before the mid-term elections and adjust the deployment schedule accordingly.

Given the lack of other indicators, notably the absence of any unusual Air Force mobilization or deployments (to say nothing of increased defensive postures against the inevitable reprisals) the idea of some kind of surprise, out-of-the-blue military strike seems far-fetched.

NPP on November 2, 2006 at 2:08 AM

You still deny that aggressive deployment of military ships is happening? Because Iran just test-fired several missiles.

Yes – the evidence is not there. Point me to some evidence of a build-up besides the routine rotation of strike groups. Besides, they are, or were, in the Red Sea. The Enterprise would not have gone from the Arabian Sea over to the Red Sea – away from Iran, only to turn around and head back to the Arabian Sea to conduct an attack. In fact, such a move would signal an attack because it would be a singularly unique event and would be easily observed by all the dhow and commerical shipping traffic that transits the Red Sea – not to mention it would surely get back to the Iranians that the ship failed to meet its scheduled Suez transit time.

Yes, Iran just began a series of exercises, largely as a response to exercises we just completed. This isn’t unusual either. Iran likes to flex it’s muscles in response to exercises we do, particularly ones in the Gulf. Do your research – they’ve done similar action in response to regional or strategic events they don’t like.

Again, you need to provide more than two carriers in the Red Sea to support a “buildup” of forces.

NPP on November 2, 2006 at 2:31 AM

There are actually quite a few more ships besides the St Paul and Newport News in the area, including a host of coalition vessels, but again, this is not unusual. Given the importance of the region, we’ve maintained a large naval presence there for over 25 years, though it became thoroughly established in 1991.

And turning back to Debka’s article (before I, too, hit the sack), he does his credibility little good by refering to the Amphibs as Aircraft Carriers. Unlike a true carrier, the Amphibs do not have the aircraft or capability to conduct offensive air operations.

NPP on November 2, 2006 at 2:58 AM