nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) (08/11/90)
From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby)
To follow up a previous post about what US Naval forces are near/headed
towards the gulf:
In the Persian gulf, from North to south:
Aegis missile cruiser Antietam
Guided missile cruiser England
Missile frigate Vandergrift
Command ship LaSalle
Missile frigate Robert G. Bradley
Missile frigate Taylor
Destroyer David R. Ray
Guided missile frigate Rentz
Frigate Barbey
At the mouth of the gulf, in the Arabian Sea is the Independence Battle
Group:
Command attack carrier Independence
Missile cruiser Jouett
Fleet oiler Cimarron
Frigates Brewton and Reasoner
Missile destroyer Goldsborough
Ammunition ship Flint
South of the Suez canal, the Eisenhower Battle group:
Carrier Esienhower
5 other ships including 3 destroyers
In the Med, the Saratoga battle group [my previous posting suggesting
the JFK was incorrect, as I suspected] (This group is heaeded for the
Suez canal)
Attack carrier Saratoga
Battleship Wisconsin
Aegis missile cruiser Phillippine Sea
Destroyer Spruance
Guided missile destroyer Sampson
Frigates Elmer Montgomery and Thomas Hart
Destroyer/Tender Yellowstone
The Ohio Air Nat'l Gaurd 160th and 179th have volunteered to help ferry
troops, equipment and planes. The 160th flies KC-135E tankers, the 179th
flies C 130 Hercules. Details unavailable due to DoD request for
security.
Source: 10 August Columbus Dispatch, which cited DoD, Jane's Fighting Ships
and a CIA map of the gulf.
Neil Kirby
...att!archieSteve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) (08/13/90)
From: Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) Well, being in Ohio, I have a little more information regarding the OANG deployment. It was reported that only 34 OANG members are being activitated. If this is split evenly between the C-130 and KC-135 units, it's isn't a whole lot of airplanes. Assuming 5 crewmembers per airplane (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, crew chief, loadmaster or boomer), that is only 3 airplanes from each group, with one extra person). I also heard early this morning on CNN that the U.S.S. Kennedy is preparing to sail from Norfolk to the Middle East. -- Steve Bridges | NCR - USG Product Marketing and Support OLS Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM | Phone:(513)-445-4182 622-4182 (Voice Plus) ..!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve | AOPA #916233 ..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!uspm650!steve| PP-ASEL, AMEL
nelson@ee.udel.edu (Mark Nelson) (08/14/90)
From: Mark Nelson <nelson@ee.udel.edu> In article <1990Aug11.015150.19844@cbnews.att.com> nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) writes: > >To follow up a previous post about what US Naval forces are near/headed >towards the gulf: ... > South of the Suez canal, the Eisenhower Battle group: > Carrier Eisenhower > 5 other ships including 3 destroyers According to the Wilmington (DE) News-Journal 8/9 , the Eisenhower's battle group includes the (original) Aegis cruiser, Ticonderoga. Unfortunately, they didn't give any sources for their information. Also, according to CNN, another carrier battle group is headed toward the gulf, the JFK (unless my memory is playing tricks on me) plus ten unspecified escorts. -- Mark Nelson ...!uunet!udel!nelson or nelson@udel.edu This function is occasionally useful as an argument to other functions that require functions as arguments. -- Guy Steele, Jr.
macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) (08/15/90)
From: macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko)
A few additions to a previous posting on U.S. fleet dispositions in
the Persian Gulf area.
1. The "command ship" La Salle of the U.S. Joint Task
Force-Middle East (the ships actually in the Gulf) is an
amphibious assault ship of the Raleigh class commisioned in
1964. This ship is not considered a surface combat craft.
I don't have the specifications on the Raleigh class vessels.
but from what I've read, amphibious assault ships generally
carry "almost 2000 marines" plus a "number of helicopter
squadrons depending on its class". The newest design which
is called the Essex class is one and a half times the size
of the R.M.S. Invincible (a British Aircraft Carrier). So
these ships are quite large. Unfortunately I don't have their
exact stats.
2. According to the New York Times (8/9/90) the Antietam is not
an Aegis missile cruiser but a guided missile cruiser as is the
England. Of course there's always the possibility that they made a
mistake.
3. Two of the ships accompanying the the carrier Eisenhower are
the guided missile cruiser Ticonderoga and the guided missile
destroyer Scott. Also with the Eisenhower are 3 other ships. Two
of these are probably destroyers if Neil is correct. I have seen
nothing to the contrary.
4. In addition to the ships already mentioned travelling with the
Saratoga Battle Group is the "Missile Cruiser" Biddle. The Biddle
is normally a member of the Wisconsin Surface Action Group which is
now also under the Saratoga Battle Group in the Mediterranean. These
ships which departed on the 9th have already entered the Med.
5. The carrier JFK as mentioned by Neil is in deed being readied
for deployment. Whether it will be heading for the gulf or not, the
Pentagon refuses to confirm. According to "an inside source" it will
in fact head for the Gulf region and "depending on circumstances"
either join the other three carriers or replace the Eisenhower. The
JFK will be acompanied by 10 other surface ships.
6. Another that point that the Pentagon seems to be keeping
very low key is that every carrier also has a submarine escort of
at least one or two sub. The exact mix of attack subs to ballistic
subs is in fact, they won't say. Neither will they divulge the
number of subs in the area. I wonder just what type of warheads
those ballistic subs are packing. Hmmm......
7. The second largest navy in the region doesn't belong to either
the Brits or the Russians but the French. They've recently sent one
of their two aircraft carriers, the Clemenceau, into the region with
a very sizable escort. On top of that, the English, the Canadians,
the Russians, and the Australians have also sent ships into the
region. The English have sent some Tornado fighter squadrens as well.
With the exception of the Russians, these forces have agreed to assist
the Americans in a "quarantine" or as Bush puts it: "interdiction".
The Russians have stated that they will assist if the UN decides a
blockade is in order.
One last little tidbit. In todays paper it was mentioned that Bush
had a very long pow-wow with Syria's Assad this morning. They have
supposedly reached an "understanding" and are "united" against Iraq.
A possible military alliance with Iraq's most hated Arab foe has not
been discounted. This most definitely has some interesting
possibilities...........
Finally, I have a question of my own. A few years ago I heard about
Israel's plan to build a state of the art fighter called the Lahvi??
(I don't remember the exact spelling). I also heard that there was
considerable pressure to cancel that project. Supposedly this fighter
would be able to outperform even America's best. In addition it was
supposed to contain the most advanced electronic warfare capability in
the world. A tough order, but then if anybody can do it, it would
probably be the Israelis. Does anybody on the net know its current status?
My sources include the whole weeks worth of the New York Times, The
Star Ledger, The News Tribune and an outdated Air Force magazine on
the balance of power as of 1988. Questions, comments, and suggestions
are welcome.
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/21/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug15.032421.26794@cbnews.att.com> macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) writes: > > > 6. Another that point that the Pentagon seems to be keeping >very low key is that every carrier also has a submarine escort of >at least one or two sub. The exact mix of attack subs to ballistic > subs is in fact, they won't say. Neither will they divulge the >number of subs in the area. I wonder just what type of warheads >those ballistic subs are packing. Hmmm...... > Direct support SSN's accompanying USN CVBG's are not a secret. They are common knowledge. If you read the naval literature, one of the recurring questions is how to communicate with that sub and not reveal its presence. After all the sub-drivers would prefer to not have S-3's dropping torpedos on them:-) Look in the Fleet series of wargames, and in many instances you will see a SSN in proximity to the USN CVBG's. I have never heard of a SSBN used for this role. I'm not sure what an SSBN would even do around the Persian Gulf. The missiles on boomers are nuclear warheads, and I have never seen reference to any other type of warhead for USN ballistic missiles. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (08/21/90)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
In article <1990Aug15.032421.26794@cbnews.att.com>, Peter C. Macko writes:
* 6. Another that point that the Pentagon seems to be keeping
*very low key is that every carrier also has a submarine escort of
*at least one or two sub. The exact mix of attack subs to ballistic
* subs is in fact, they won't say. Neither will they divulge the
*number of subs in the area. I wonder just what type of warheads
*those ballistic subs are packing. Hmmm......
i would doubt very much that there are any SSBNs at all accompanying
the carrier forces; that is not what they are used for. keep in mind
that modern SSNs can carry torpedo-tube launched Tomahawk cruise
missles anyway, so i really don't see why SSBN resources would be
either wanted or needed in the middle east right now. it's simply
the wrong tool for the job, and all that.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
``Don't close your eyes for the crash; you'll miss the best part''
-- Bruce MacInnes, Skip Barber Driving School instructormilitary@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (08/21/90)
From: sun!sunburn.West.Sun.COM!gtx!anasaz!qip!john
Peter C. Macko writes:
] 6. Another that point that the Pentagon seems to be keeping
]very low key is that every carrier also has a submarine escort of
]at least one or two sub. The exact mix of attack subs to ballistic
] subs is in fact, they won't say. Neither will they divulge the
]number of subs in the area. I wonder just what type of warheads
]those ballistic subs are packing. Hmmm......
Why would a carrier group need BALLISTIC missile submarines for escort?
Does anyone know if they actually do this?
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale,AZ 85253 anasaz!john@asuvax.asueas.edu
Voice: (602) 951-9326 FAX:602-861-7642 Advice: Long palladium, Short Petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!phl@attunix.att.com (Philip Listowsky) (08/22/90)
From: phl@attunix.att.com (Philip Listowsky) In article <1990Aug15.032421.26794@cbnews.att.com>, macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) writes: > > Finally, I have a question of my own. A few years ago I heard about > Israel's plan to build a state of the art fighter called the Lahvi?? > (I don't remember the exact spelling). I also heard that there was > considerable pressure to cancel that project. Supposedly this fighter > would be able to outperform even America's best. In addition it was > supposed to contain the most advanced electronic warfare capability in > the world. A tough order, but then if anybody can do it, it would > probably be the Israelis. Does anybody on the net know its current status? > the Lavi (I.A.F. order for 300 Lavis) was cancelled due to lack of money for completing R&D and especially lack of $$ for production. The lack of money was due to: 1) $$ needed for other IDF projects 2) US manufacturers (my personal opinion) not being terribly anxious to lobby the pentagon for a potential competitor (not to mention the fact that they get to produce and fill that 300 craft need with their own stuff. I was hoping that Grumman or some one else would either co-produce or take over (-: Lavi production as it looked to be a damn good plane that we could use in our U.S. arsenal. Oh Well. Currently there are two flying Lavi prototypes being used a testbeds for misc. jet fighter stuff. (two that I know of from photos in Aviation Week). Followups on the Lavi should probably change the "Subject" header. Phil
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (08/23/90)
From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) In article <1990Aug15.032421.26794@cbnews.att.com>, macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) writes... ^ 2. According to the New York Times (8/9/90) the Antietam is not ^an Aegis missile cruiser but a guided missile cruiser as is the ^England. Of course there's always the possibility that they made a ^mistake. According to Janes Antietam is a CG-Aegis. So (missing the ealier post) you're both right. FYI a list of all the Aegis Cruisers: (sorry to all those with Janes) Ticonderoga CG-47 (ex-DDG-47) Princeton CG-59 Yorktown CG-48 Normandy CG-60 Vincennes CG-49 Monterey CG-61 Valley Forge CG-50 Chancellorville CG-62 Thomas S. Gates CG-51 Cowpens CG-63 Bunker Hill CG-52 Gettysburg CG-64 Mobile Bay CG-53 Chosin CG-65 Antietam CG-54 Hue City CG-66 Leyte Gulf CG-55 Shiloh CG-67 San Jacinto CG-56 Anzio CG-68 Lake Champlain CG-57 Philippine Sea CG-58 There may be more (or corrections) as this is an older Janes... BTW: Where (or what) was Cowpens? And why is one named T.S. Gates when the rest are battles? I missed that story... ^ 6. Another that point that the Pentagon seems to be keeping ^very low key is that every carrier also has a submarine escort of ^at least one or two sub. The exact mix of attack subs to ballistic ^ subs is in fact, they won't say. Neither will they divulge the ^number of subs in the area. I wonder just what type of warheads ^those ballistic subs are packing. Hmmm...... Why would they want to attach a boomer to a carrier group? The improved LAs work just dandy as cruise missile platforms. There are quite a few downsides to attaching a SSBN to a carrier. For one it would tell people where your boomer is...I'd guess that carrier escort subs would be older LAs and Permits if there are any left. Wouldn't they mostly be employed to run a little interference beyond the outer zone defensive ring? I can't imagine where you'd stick the sucker any closer. Surface ASW wouldn't really like to have to distinguish between a supposed friendly contact and a possible hostile before shooting. Good way to lose a carrier to an Oscar ;-) or maybe :-(. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
arnaud@samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) (08/23/90)
From: arnaud@samsung.com (Alain Arnaud) In article <1990Aug21.025551.2684@cbnews.att.com> terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: > > 6. Another that point that the Pentagon seems to be keeping > >very low key is that every carrier also has a submarine escort of > >at least one or two sub. The exact mix of attack subs to ballistic In The August 13 issue of AvWeek, there's a picture on page 25 of the USS Einsenhower carrier battle group, and if you look closely you can see a periscope just behind the carrier. There are 13 surface ships, the carrier and one sub. Obviously, the carrier is in the center.
gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) (08/24/90)
From: gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond)
>>>>> On 15 Aug 90, macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) said:
Peter> On top of that, the English, the Canadians, the Russians, and
Peter> the Australians have also sent ships into the region.
[...]
Peter> With the exception of the Russians, these forces have agreed to
Peter> assist the Americans in a "quarantine" or as Bush puts it:
Peter> "interdiction".
The Australian contingent consists of two FFG7 guided missile frigates
(the HMAS Darwin and HMAS Adelaide). They carry "76mm gun, Standard
SAM, Harpoon SSM, Antisubmarine torpedoes, Phalanx CIWS"*. Also going
is a fleet oiler (HMAS Success). They have put a couple of Army Air
Defense units on the Success for air cover (using RBS 70 SAMs).
Exact ROEs haven't been released yet, but the hand-waving from the
pollies indicates the fleet will be involved in "tracking, identifying
and warning" outside the Gulf, but not (as yet) in firing on or
boarding civilian shipping bound for Iraq or Jordan. US is in
command, but Australian commanders can (and will) refuse orders to
fire on things.
As an aside, this may be the first Australian naval action since WWII
(Brian?), and none of the staff officers would have any combat
experience, let alone the ship commanders....
(* Source: "Defense Report 1988-89", the report to Parliament from the
DOD)
Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: gnb@melba.bby.oz.au non-MX: gnb%melba.bby.oz@uunet.uu.net
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnbbxr307@csc.anu.oz (08/28/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz In article <1990Aug24.034424.1521@cbnews.att.com>, gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: > >>>>>> On 15 Aug 90, macko@police.rutgers.edu (Peter C. Macko) said: > > Peter> On top of that, the English, the Canadians, the Russians, and > Peter> the Australians have also sent ships into the region. > [...] > > As an aside, this may be the first Australian naval action since WWII > (Brian?), and none of the staff officers would have any combat > experience, let alone the ship commanders.... > Did I hear my name? Well Greg your nearly right. RAN was involved during Vietnam mainly acting as Naval Gunfirce Support off Phuoc Tuy province (and the one just to the north as well whos name escapes me) where Australian troops operated. They used the then brand new DDG's with their 5in guns. In addition they had duties as naval interception forces whom were mainly concerned with preventing the smuggling off arms into South Vietnam via sea trade (either coastal or from overseas). The RAN was also involved in a limited way after WWII during both the Malaysian Emergency and the Confrontation with Indonesia. However this was mainly in a support role with the RN whom operated the actual ships. The action in the Gulf could/will(?) constitute for the first possible use of the RAN as true combatants perhaps facing real opposition. Brian Ross