The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-28-2002, 12:04 AM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,672
Carrier Battle Groups - How Many? Where Now?

OK, so how many active, and inactive, carrier battle groups do we have?

And where are each of them now?


Why, you ask?

Better to understand these published orders.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 12-28-2002, 03:13 AM
fauxpas fauxpas is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
This should be in MPSS.....or Cafe Society...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-28-2002, 03:28 AM
Blown & Injected Blown & Injected is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by fauxpas
This should be in MPSS.....or Cafe Society...
Seems like a real GQ, but why ask? a sleeper sell getting bored and lookin' for action?

They are commin' and they got the biggest can of whoop ass that it probably don't matter how much info gathering the enemy gathers.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-28-2002, 04:12 AM
Darwin's Finch Darwin's Finch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
This site mentions that there are a total of 11 active carriers (with associated battle groups), and one reserver/training carrier (the John F. Kennedy) which can be deployed, if necessary. There are typically three Carrier Battle Groups (CVBGs) and three Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs) deployed at any given time.

This site has some info as to where (generally speaking - specifics aren't typically made public for security reasons) the carriers are currently (more or less).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-28-2002, 10:12 AM
UncleBill UncleBill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
From Darwin's Finch's cite:

USS Kitty Hawk - Japan
USS Constellation - in the mix right now, scheduled for decommissioning in nine months
USS Enterprise - scheduled to come out of a one year dry-dock next month, Norfolk, VA
USS John F. Kennedy - scheduled to go in the shop for nine months in a few weeks, Mayport, FL
USS Nimitz - scheduled to deploy anyway, San Diego, CA
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower - Home Boat to our own ChiefScott, in the shop for three years
USS John C. Stennis - San Diego
USS Harry S. Truman - just deployed, hit the Med last week
USS Carl Vinson - Bremerton, WA, schedule to go into the shop in about two years for a long stay
USS Teddy Roosevelt - scheduled to deploy in a few months, Norfolk, VA
USS Abraham Lincoln - has been in the mix, scheduled to head home now, but there are still thinking about that. Waiting for word in Australia, I think.
USS George Washington - JUST got home last week from the Persian Gulf, was in the mix, now Norfolk, VA.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-28-2002, 05:35 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 28,380
Wouldn't you like to know...Sheik Duckster ?
__________________
"The rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer, and the vessel of state is driven between anarchy and despotism."
~~~~(Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1821)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-28-2002, 07:10 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
What did Sen. John C. Stennis do to deserve the honor having a carrier named after him?

Just curious.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-28-2002, 07:48 PM
UncleBill UncleBill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Apparently that is not well known.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-28-2002, 07:51 PM
Ringo Ringo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 11,261
The Navy knows which side its bread is buttered on. From a description of the seal of the USS John C. Stennis:

Quote:
The three arrows in the eagles' talons symbolize the Ship and Air Wing's awesome ability to project power. They also represent Senator John C. Stennis over three decades on both the Senate Armed Service Committee (37 years) and Appropriations Committee (33 years), where he oversaw our country's military capabilities and earned the title "Father of America's Modern Navy."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-29-2002, 01:19 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
A slight hijack -

What's a carrier group the equivalent of, in military terms? A division or a corps?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-29-2002, 02:49 AM
I am Sparticus I am Sparticus is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally posted by Alessan
A slight hijack -

What's a carrier group the equivalent of, in military terms? A division or a corps?
It represents an enormous investment in personnel and capital. http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

They were originally designed to counter the threat of the Soviet Union. There is no country on Earth today that is anywhere near the level of opposition potentially faced from the Soviets.

In direct answer to your question, certainly more than a division, probably more than several divisions making up a corps.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-29-2002, 03:02 AM
Alessan Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Money aside, how many stars does the guy in charge have? One usually means division, two means corps.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-29-2002, 07:54 AM
critter42 critter42 is offline
He who fixes things
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mr. Fixit's House
Posts: 897
Alessan,
You cannot make a direct comparison between ground force units and Naval units. The two are nothing alike.


A typical carrier battlegroup consists of:
Quote:
1 Carrier (CV/CVN) -- Strike warfare
2 Cruisers (CG) -- Air warfare (TBMD)
3 Destroyers/Frigates (DD(G)/FFG) -- Surface and undersea warfare
2 Attack submarines (SSN) -- Surface and undersea warfare
1 Fast Combat Support (AOE) -- Replenishment
plus the Carrier Air Wing.

cite

That link also states in the first paragraph that the composition of a Carrier Battlegroup has varied composition over the years, whereas IIRC, the definition of a unit, division, etc has remained constant over the years.

The "person in charge" doesn't wear any stars, unless they're on the tie he chose to wear off of Air Force One (g,d,r).

Sorry. Couldn't help it .

Actually, I have seen 1 AND 2 star Admirals in charge of battle groups, but they're mostly Read Admirals (Lower Half).

critter42
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:49 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,672
Quote:
Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Wouldn't you like to know...Sheik Duckster ?
Actually, just wanted to know how thinly spread we may turn out to be. Since Rumsfeld boasted we can fight a three front war (Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea) I just want to know some simple logistics.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:58 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 28,380
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Wouldn't you like to know...Sheik Duckster ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Originally posted by Duckster
Actually, just wanted to know how thinly spread we may turn out to be. Since Rumsfeld boasted we can fight a three front war (Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea) I just want to know some simple logistics.
Typed while he tapped out a coded Morse message on the Shortwave set he keeps concealed in his hat.

OK Duckster..what famous Duck wears a sailor suit?
__________________
"The rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer, and the vessel of state is driven between anarchy and despotism."
~~~~(Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1821)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-30-2002, 03:21 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I would wager the US is more than happy to let everyone know where the carrier battlegroups are. They act as a deterrent in their own right and I think there have been several times where merely deploying a CVBG to a region has cooled itchy trigger fingers. Hell, IIRC just stationing a battleship off the coast in Vietnam was enough to give the North Vietnamese fits and bring them back to the negotiating table. I would think a modern carrier can carry a similar message.

Knowing where a battle group is deployed doesn't help you much anyway. While at sea woe be to the person or people who try to go after one. Heavily armed hardly does them justice. Most countries would have to deploy their entire air force in one go just to have a decent shot at doing them damage (most countries have nowhere near the naval capacity to probably even get within sight of one). Even if the carrier is taken out they will almost certainly exact a heavy toll on the country that did it and they are then doubly screwed when the next carrier shows-up on their doorstep.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-30-2002, 03:53 PM
Darwin's Finch Darwin's Finch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole
I would wager the US is more than happy to let everyone know where the carrier battlegroups are.
At one time that may have been true. But, it would seem, such is no longer the case:
Quote:
The Union-Tribune will indefinitely stop publishing the Standing the Watch map, which shows the at-sea locations of San Diego-based Navy ships, because of tightened military security in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks.
Also, from USS Kitty Hawk's homepage:
Quote:
"OPSEC (Operational Security) is protecting sensitive information so that it can't be used by others against us," explained Lt. Cmdr. Carol Prather, command security manager on board USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). "It's important that we don't make it easy for anyone who's working against us to get a tactical advantage."

According to Intelligence Specialist Senior Chief James T. Isham, Hawk's intelligence division leading chief petty officer, OPSEC runs under the principle that one or more pieces of unclassified material, when put together, can damage security by revealing classified information. "OPSEC is built around not giving any indication to our enemies of what our intentions are," Isham said.

[...]

"The point is to minimize the publicizing of the ship's movement as much as possible," said Prather. Discussions about the ship's movement should be limited to keeping family members informed for planning purposes, she added.

Prather said similar caution should be taken when discussing Hawk's mission. When Hawk is on a specific mission, it's important that the minimum number of people know what that mission is. Crewmembers need to avoid mentioning the what, how and when of a mission to or near anyone who doesn't need to know.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-30-2002, 04:17 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Ok, I can see the importance of not specifying a mission and I also wouldn't want to specify with GPS precision the location of our forces. Still, you often here that Battle Group X is being deployed to the Indian Ocean. That narrows things down a bit but it's still a helluva big place to go looking for them and anyone in the region knows that at most it might be a day or three before they are parked off shore. You still get the deterrent effect without spilling all your beans.

That said isn't it regular for CVBG's to be deployed one in the Indian Ocean, one in the Pacific somewhere and one in the Med (I think)? Thus everyone knows that at least one fo these beasts can crawl most anywhere in the world in a matter of days?

The biggest issue I could see is not specifying a return to port date as I would think that is when the carrier is at its weakest against terrorist attack.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-30-2002, 04:20 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,672
Quote:
Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Wouldn't you like to know...Sheik Duckster ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Typed while he tapped out a coded Morse message on the Shortwave set he keeps concealed in his hat.

OK Duckster..what famous Duck wears a sailor suit?
Can't be Donald because he doesn't wear pants!

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-30-2002, 04:28 PM
World Eater World Eater is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Why is the USS Constellation being decommissioned?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-30-2002, 05:43 PM
Alien2022 Alien2022 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Yea, one Carrier Battle Group, packs a lot of power... I mean a LOT. Think about this. If we fight a three front war, Iraq, Afghanistan (really isn't a battle anymore, just occupation), and North Korea, that's three Carrier Battle Groups per war zone, plus 2 left over. Muchless, with 500,000 troops, this isn't a question of if we can do it, but how long we will be able to do it for. The logistics of food, etc, are extreme, but we did it back in WW2...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-30-2002, 07:14 PM
MEBuckner MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,205
Quote:
Originally posted by World Eater
Why is the USS Constellation being decommissioned?
Old age. They began construction on that ship back in 1957, and she was commissioned in 1961. The newest Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, will be commissioned in spring 2003. The next carrier after that, the USS George H.W. Bush, will be ready for service in 2009. The George H.W. Bush, CVN-77, is planned as a modified version of the current Nimitz-class. The Navy also has plans on the drawing board for still more advanced designs after that.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-30-2002, 07:19 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 28,380
MEBuckner----

Will the USS Constellation be scrapped? Or converted to a Marine Corps Amphibious Warfare mothership?
__________________
"The rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer, and the vessel of state is driven between anarchy and despotism."
~~~~(Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1821)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-30-2002, 07:25 PM
XPav XPav is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Scrapped.

Fleet carriers generally make poor troopships. The Essex-class carriers that originally served as marine assault ships were decidedly suboptimal.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-30-2002, 07:35 PM
Danimal Danimal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by Alessan
A slight hijack -

What's a carrier group the equivalent of, in military terms? A division or a corps?
A carrier battle group is normally commanded by a rear admiral. The equivalent Army rank is a major general, who would normally command a division.

In manpower terms, a carrier battle group represents about 7,500 personnel. That's about half of a typical U.S. Army division's authorized strength of 15,000 - call it two understrength brigades.

In dollar terms, a carrier battle group is something ungodly, somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 to to $30 billion. I have no clue what army unit costs anywhere near that much.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-31-2002, 02:43 PM
XPav XPav is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Rear Admiral could be Brigadier General or Major General. Remember, Rear Admiral has upper and lower halves.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-31-2002, 02:47 PM
censored censored is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
I read somewhere a while back that "they" were thinking about converting one of the old carriers into a special operations base.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-01-2003, 10:35 AM
UncleBill UncleBill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by UncleBill
From Darwin's Finch's cite:
.....
USS Abraham Lincoln - has been in the mix, scheduled to head home now, but there are still thinking about that. Waiting for word in Australia, I think.
They got word. The Abraham Lincoln, spending the holidays in Perth, is not coming home as scheduled.
Quote:
The nuclear-powered Lincoln and its battle group will remain deployed indefinitely in the Pacific Ocean and Arabian Gulf and ``will be available as required to meet national security requirements,'' said Cmdr. Karen Sellers, a public affairs officer for the Navy.
From the NYTimes AP Wire.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.