"It's Time to Rethink the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf " Topic

"When the U.S. Navy announced the deployment of a second carrier, the USS Harry Truman, to the Persian Gulf on July 23, the news should have alleviated critics who view the presence of only one aircraft carrier in such a strategically vital region as a major risk to U.S. security interests in the Middle East. But it didn't, because there won't be two carriers in the gulf for long. Just a week earlier, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, stated that the Navy would not operate a second carrier group in the Gulf during the 2014 fiscal year due to sequestration.

Critics should take a deep breath and welcome the opportunity provided by the difficult fiscal realities to rethink America's military presence and strategy in the Persian Gulf. It's time to restructure America's Navy presence in the Gulf to be stronger yet cheaper. It's not the number of carriers that will affect U.S. plans and collective interests in the region but the strategy that America will employ in the troubled waters of the Gulf. The essence of this strategy must focus on building a Fifth Fleet that emphasizes small, agile platforms and greater military cooperation with regional allies.

Of course, only a fool would deny the enormous diplomatic, military and symbolic value of carriers. However, the benefits of carrier deployments shouldn't lead observers to assume that this mammoth vessel is necessarily the safest and most effective military tool America can deploy in all strategic contexts. The narrow Persian Gulf is one such area in which carriers are, comparatively speaking, a less than ideal choice. Therefore, the Navy's decision last month to deploy a fleet of patrol coastal ships, or PC ships, to the Gulf should be praised…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

You know, some stuff should just be kept secret, so our enemies don't know what's going on.

Whatever happened to good old misinformation?

Seems to me that someone worrying that five carriers are just over the horizon, out of visual and radar range, and four of them being our new, super-secret stealth carriers which can't be detected by normal means might be a bit better story-line.

"The narrow Persian Gulf is one such area in which carriers are, comparatively speaking, a less than ideal choice".

Exactly, and that's why we don't deploy them there, but we do place them close enough for the aircraft and helos to strike over the horizon, when needed.

Problem with the Persian Gulf, is your freedom of Manoeuvre is heavily constrained. The only way in is the Straights of the Hormuz. You stick mines in there, you've just bottled up the 5th Fleet in a Pond thereby negating one of the biggest advantages of having a Carrier e.g It can Move, but where can it really go?

You are essentially trapped on the Enemies doorstep, so the only way to survive is to all out attack, and it would really come down to the USAF in Al Udeid to dominate and protect a stranded fleet.

Another issue is them all being based in Bahrain. Lets be honest if it kicked off, that would be a prime target, and 5th Fleet would probably take a hit on the HQ, and the Wharf.

My idea would be to move, the Carrier out of the Pond, leave behind some CC/DD/FF to do security stuff. Uprate Al Udeid maybe add more aircraft. Free up a Carrier for Blue Water Ops.

It's not ideal but what else could the 5th Fleet do?

I really don't understand why a carrier group there is needed there. What possible purpose does it serve other than intimidation (which is hardly necessary given all the other US bases in the region).

I suspect they could find some other places in the region to base the vessels.

Oman, Yemen, and Somalia come to mind.

Of course, the jihadis in the latter two would have to be dealt with, but I suspect the pirate issue in Somalia could be put to rest finally, if we did that.

Also, not sure there are adequate port facilities, but that didn't seem to be an issue during WWII with the Normandy landings, so it can probably be solved now even more easily.

I can't imagine anyone taking the latter two locations seriously, but it would be interesting to try, perhaps, and could provide support for bases/personnel to deal with the enemy effectively in those areas.

It also greatly complicates Iran's ability to strike at out naval vessels too, since they'd no longer be in such restricted and vulnerable waters, but can still impose their presence in the area.

"It also greatly complicates Iran's ability to strike at out naval vessels too"

True, but it complicates something they have no real interest in doing anyway. In a hot war they would only have an interest in striking major units if anyone was daft enough to put them through the straits. But they would be able to achieve their likely aims without having to do anything like that.

That raises one or two questions. How many ships does Iran have in the Gulf of Mexico? How many bases does Iran have in Canada, Mexico and Caribbean?

Apples and oranges, IGWARG1.

That raises one or two questions. How many ships does Iran have in the Gulf of Mexico?

I'm sure that there are a few Iranian-flagged 'merchant' ships cruising around in the Gulf of Mexico.

How many bases does Iran have in Canada, Mexico and Caribbean?

Based on a recent terrorism arrest in Idaho, enough.

I'm confused. I served with COMFIFTHFLT as liaison as a CTF152 Battle Watch Captain for 6 months in 2008, and was right accross all water and air space movements. In that time we had one CVN transit into the Gulf for about a 10 day period, in conjunction with laying on a demo for the new Iraqi Navy being trained up by the Aussies. That was it. Period. No 'on station' flat top, and, as far as ever I heard, no need for one either, there were always a couple within 1-2 days steaming…

Having a CVN carrier battle group head towards trouble at 30 knots is the best way I know of making that trouble go away!

One thing I do remember clearly though is a big wall chart in the Ops Room showing the number of days estimated before each Western nation collapsed into anarchy and chaos if the straits of Hormuz were closed for more than a few weeks….

The carriers rarely actually go into the Persian Gulf. The aircraft range is more than sufficient to access all the necessary points without ever transiting the straits.

If you want to make money as a think tank under a Liberal administration all you have to do is argue that PCs are better than carriers.

And the same is true under a Conservative administration. The Beltway Bandits are equal opportunity leeches.