US Warships to Lebanon

#5
AndyPipkin,

Is this what smartly-dressed, clever young things in Whitehall and elsewhere call 'power projection'? You know, sail your large grey canoe off someones shore, and they'll be begging to be friends with you before sunset.

Do you really think this will make a positive difference to the strategic and tactical thinking of Hezbollah? Methinks the complete opposite. :x


tomahawk6 said:
The Nassau strike group will be joining the Cole. However,unless they have picked up Marines en route they are sans Marine MEU. Originally the 24th MEU was deploying with the Nassau but they are being flown to Afghanistan instead.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/ap_warships_mediterranean_022808/
Not stricktly true tomahawk 6. The Nassau ESG (TF-62) consists of 6 surface vessels and a submarine (which still hasn't left the states!). It is only USS Nassau from TF-62 that is joining USS Cole of the Lebanese coast. So, no MEU and no support ships means a rather weak 'show of force' - all things considered. Looks more like an evacuation mission than anything else - as they've borrowed a handful of whirly things from elsewhere.

ronnie12398 said:
But isn't the USS Nassau carrying the 24th MEU's aircraft and pilots?
No.
 
#6
The Nassau has its entire ARG with it. :)
The other ships with Nassau are the dock landing ship Ashland, also based at Little Creek, the Norfolk-based destroyers Ross and Bulkeley and the cruiser Philippine Sea, based in Mayport, Fla., as well as the Norfolk-based attack submarine Albany.
 
#8
tomahawk6,

I trust your efforts to research and apply some attention to detail were a little better when you were in command of men. Sadly, it seems to have left you in recent times (my bold)...

From the link YOU posted, first paragraph...
WASHINGTON — The Navy is sending three ships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea in a show of strength during a period of tensions with Syria and political uncertainty in Lebanon.
The Nassau ESG took over command of TF-62 when it arrived in the 6th Fleet AO. All six surface ships in attendance. However, and here's the crucial detail you have missed - or ignored - is that USS Nassau alone is to steam into the Eastern Mediterranean to join the USS Cole and support ship (it still has a long way to go!).

Now, as regards the submarine, which for your reference as you like quoting numbers and names is USS Albany SSN 753 (my bold)...
Amphibious assault ship USS Nassau (LHA 4); amphibious transport dock USS Nashville (LPD 13); amphibious dock landing ship USS Ashland (LSD 48)? guided-missile destroyers USS Ross (DDG 71) and USS Bulkeley (DDG 84)? and guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea (CG 58) entered the AOR. The seventh vessel of the strike group, USS Albany (SSN 753), is expected to deploy from its homeport in Norfolk at a later date.
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=35230

Of course, the Navy could be lieing just to confuse Hezbollah. But I doubt an LA Class attack submarine will present too much of a threat to their operations, do you.

Best sharpen your pencil General. :D
 
#9
And as a little aside, USS Cole is supposedly sailing with the HMS Illustrious Task Group to take part in Ex Orion 08. Don't say the RN and RAF are going to be expected to lay on the fireworks if the Cole gets wacked again!!!
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
The Nassau is the command ship for the ARG so they arent going off alone thats for sure.
Do you have any evidence to support this new assertion given that it contradicts that which you initially brought to ARRSE?

Or, are you just playing the age old game of trying to look clever by stating your beliefs in a firm and resolute manner - irrespective of their veracity?
 
#12
Looking clever is your MO. The article I posted from Navy Times did mention three ships which may or not replace the Cole. However,the Navy doesnt normally break up an ARG. This particular ARG left port without an MEU, a USN first. However, the ARG could pick up Marines or SF personnel in Naples.
 
#13
tomahawk6 said:
Looking clever is your MO. The article I posted from Navy Times did mention three ships which may or not replace the Cole. However,the Navy doesnt normally break up an ARG. This particular ARG left port without an MEU, a USN first. However, the ARG could pick up Marines or SF personnel in Naples.
Thank you General, I'll take that as a compliment. :)

I only look clever if the words I type and the analysis and predictions I make turn out to be true and valid. I look a fool, as does anyone else, if I make bold statements and predictions that turn out to be complete tosh - especially if it contradicts the evidence I introduce. Nevertheless, I am not of the habit of trying to bluff my way out errors by simply repeating the same but more forcefully.

Without 24 MEU, 8 ESG is just a strike group in name. Its current mission has been completely readjusted in light of the fact that it is sailing without its MEU component. 8 ESG is now just 6 ships trundling around the oceans on goodwill visits and playing exercises. Unless otherwise ordered, the other 5 ships of the ESG will continue with the planned exercise at the opposite end of the Meditteranean. In effect, each ship has now become an individual asset to CNE rather than a combined package.
 
#14
Odd that they would be photographed together just a few days ago then ? Lets see how this plays out though whitecity.If events prove me correct I will gladly accept your apology. :D
 
#15
tomahawk6 said:
Odd that they would be photographed together just a few days ago then ? Lets see how this plays out though whitecity.If events prove me correct I will gladly accept your apology. :D
That will of course be forthcoming after you apologise for your errors of judgement. Starting with the incorrect information on the submarine's whereabouts - unless of course you have evidence to share with us that the USN is publically diseminating false information. It cuts both ways General.

As regards the picture taken on the 25th that you posted above, I have no idea where it was sourced. However, the link I posted above has a similar picture, taken on the same day with the caption...
080225-N-7945K-185 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Feb. 25, 2008) The amphibious assault ship USS Nassau (LHA 4) leads a formation of ships during an Atlantic Ocean crossing of the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Andrew King (Released)
It seems perfectly logical to me that all ships of ESG8 should be together whilst crossing the Atlantic. What they do subsequently is, however, quite another matter. Don't you agree? Or is the entire premise of your argument that all 6 ships are sailing to Lebanon based upon this one photo opportunity taken mid-Atlantic? Attention to detail, General.

At this moment, I see no reason for 8 USN warships to be stationned off the coast of Lebanon. The situation simply doesn't warrent it and certainly not at the expense of wrecking a multi-national exercise. There wasn't that many ships there when Israel was wrecking havoc in 2006. I suspect USS Cole +1 are going to be relieved by USS Nassau so that Cole +1 can continue through the Suez with the rest of the Lusty Group. It's a guess.
 
#16
The USN isnt releasing false information they just arent reporting the full scope of the deployment as yet. There is a sizeable Russian naval presence in Syria so showing the flag isnt out of the norm.
 
#17
tomahawk6 said:
The USN isnt releasing false information they just arent reporting the full scope of the deployment as yet. There is a sizeable Russian naval presence in Syria so showing the flag isnt out of the norm.
Cost-benefit analysis methinks. Russian navy presence in the AO has not changed significantly in the past couple of weeks - or even months. If the true intention was to 'fly the flag' off Lebanon and Syria, then simply make that the initial mission for ESG8. Why continue planning for a multi-national exercise for 12 months, and then just waltz off at the last moment?

Benefit: chance to wave at some Ruskie matelots.
Loss: Pi$$ off a number of allies by wrecking an exercise.

USS Cole +1 ship is being sent to Lebanon to 'fly the flag', but they are required elsewhere. So, on station for a couple of days before relief by the USS Nassau. Best of both worlds: wave to the Ruskies and keep allies happy by not scrapping the exercise.

No doubt, in a few weeks, as ESG8 heads towards the Suez for transit into Indian Ocean, they may well make a slight navigational detour to pass the coast of Lebanon. That, I'm afraid, doesn't count. :D

And the sub? Was that a Navy porkie or your misjudgment?
 
#19
tomahawk6 said:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/28/us.lebanon/index.html

The destroyer and two support ships are close to Lebanon but out of visual range of the coast, Pentagon officials said. Another six vessels, led by the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, are close to Italy and steaming toward the other three, the officials.
That, I confess, is a truely novel way of 'flying the flag' - beyond visual range!
 
#20
There is a strong possibility that the other two 'USN' vessels accompanying USS Cole are none other than HMS Westminster and SPS Mendez-Nunez of the Spanish Navy!
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads