Transiting the Suez Canal

@SatyrService You think that Egypt would be foolish enough to attack a US warship?

@SatyrService nothing happened

@HoraceGreenley no it did not
this time.
Look At the Suez canal... Where is it?
yeah right where all the rogue nations, and terrorist assets are very much In range

maybe you don't get the risk assessment.

A MULTI BILLION weapons system a nationally important defense asset?
in a place where any old ww2 field gun can hit it
when cheap RPG's, and antitank missiles can tear it up


would YOU put it there?

@SatyrService
I'm sure security measures were taken for the passage through the canal

@SatyrService Why would you have such a powerful asset if you weren't ever going to risk putting it where it can perform its designed role?

Is it undefended then?

It seems not:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/11/06/eisenhower-strike-group-submarine-arrive-in-middle-east/

Isn't it armed with the Phalanx CIWS?
https://ig.space/commslink/phalanx-ciws-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gatlin-gun-navy-ship-defense

And lastly, how much damage could your proposed attacker and his RPGs actually do?

you are missing the point
this is a risk,, a gamble,, and what might we win?
and what might we lose

@ninalanyon
is is designed as an Open ocean aircraft asset, it is not a "coaster" it is designed to defend US interests what interest is it serving in that area?


so Billions and Billions of dollars at risk for the defense of what American interest?


Look at the suez canal... you call that a Stable area? EGYPT? read some news


yes,, an awesome system. if all works well.
The Israelies had many fine up to date systmes supported By the us tech, and they got caught flat footed by a bunch of guys with hardly any tech
the USS cole, was blown up by some guys in a little boat
I GURANTEE that the officers and crew of this task force are Very Nervous


how much military history training have you had?
my entire family served, and i retain close ties in the military

“no plan survives contact with the enemy” is a widely held military axiom
do you disagree>?



and if the Canal gets closed?? that's easy to do..
Egypt is notorious for not being in charge of their own country

ask the Russians! they got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan by shoulder mounted weapon systems
as they did in the first half of the Ukraine War

the point is why are OUR DEFENCE ASSETS in such a risky situation?
For Netanyahu?

@SatyrService This is obvious stuff. I'm sure the Navy considered all this as well.

@HoraceGreenley it is not The Navy's Decision

be sure they do not like it
that comes from the CIC, Mr Biden

@SatyrService It's not like no one has considered this before. Carriers have transited the canal since it was built.

As for the decision, you're probably right that the Navy didn't like it and Biden made the call.

And I agree, it's far better to avoid the canal. But the simple fact is carriers are vulnerable and there is some debate as to whether they are even worth having.

@HoraceGreenley they seem safest when far at sea... and they DO carry significant strike power
and as such are strategic assets..
Not tactical ones

I like to Game,, how would i work, if i was the enemy.
it is easy to imagine what a well organized funded group might do
knowing we will use that canal time to time.. Why not cache things there

@SatyrService I get it. Far out at sea, beyond the range of ground based anti-ship missiles, are the safest place.

My implication is that a carrier strike force requires very significant assets to protect the carrier. At least one submarine, and several destroyers and cruisers for antimissile defense. Then there are helicopters for antisubmarine duty, as well as fighters for a protective combat air patrol to protect the air space.

So yes, the best time to nail a carrier is when it is close to the shoreline. Even better if it is in a canal without the benefit of screening vessels.

And yes, the Blue Water Navy doesn't want to even see the shoreline.

But sometimes you have to transit the canal to show you can do it. the Persian Gulf can't be much fun for a carrier either.

My worry would not be about an artillery attack. The Suez Canel is in Egypt and the last time I checked, we weren't at war or even being threatened by Egypt.

The risks to a carrier in the Canal would include (among others such as mines):

(1) a missile attack (readily defended by its escorts, whether in the Canal or in the open sea)
(2) a terrorist attack by speed boats (again, something defendable by its escorts)
(3) a 9-11 style hijacking to crash a jetliner into it (THAT is what I'd be worried about)

Because of #3, I woud have preferred a carrier strike group going to the Arabian Peninsula from the Indian Ocean and avoiding the Suez Canal. But at the time, the Eisenhower was already in the Atlantic on its way to relieve Ford before the crisis began and the Reagan was in Japan.

It was probably felt that it not be advisable to leave the Western Pacific without a carrier strike group in case of trouble by China or North Korea. The Vinson then left the West Coast to reinforce the Reagan strike group and both are now in the Western Pacific.

With 15 aircraft carrier battle groups, instead of 11, we would not have faced that dilemma.

The Navy recognizes this, even if Congress doesn't. Which is why it is now considering extended the service life of ALL Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/us-navy-considers-extending-all-its-nimitz-class-carriers

I would prefer that we refuel the nuclear reactors of Nimitz, Eisenhower, Vinson and Roosevelt and give them each another 25 years of service, which would bring our carrier force back up to 15 once the other Ford's enter service.

@beckyromero Egypt is notorious not in control of its own territory or its own military

yes we need to keep the fleet refueled we need it on a global scale

but putting it where every half assed terrorist state can get to it easily is not good Strategic thinking

we need to stay OUT of the theater of operations
we al already being attacked across the zone.. daily US personnel
are under fire.

@SatyrService

“A ship in harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”
- John A Shedd 1928

@beckyromero
yes. but that is not the point or the case
it belongs At Sea
not an a shooting gallery that is only 205 meters wide ann easy target
not enough room to turn the ship around

Did you serve in the navy?
from where do You get your opinion?

Me? a life at Sea and My entire family served in the US military
and continual interaction with members of the armed services


THE POINT IS


what national interest is there, that supersedes the Real Purpose of that task force

@SatyrService

As I said in another post, I would have sent Reagan from Japan to the Arabian Sea and sent Vinson to relieve her. But the Navy feels two aircraft carriers are needed right now in the western Pacific and so Vinson instead has joined Reagan. That it was decided to sent Eisenhower quickly to the Arabia peninsula instead of shifting carriers from the Pacific no doubt has something to do with assessments and the need of a show of force towards China, North Korea or both.

But there are always going to be choke points. Whether it be Gibraltar, the Suez and Panama Canals, the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Malacca Strait or the GIUK gap.

You simply can't get everywhere without going thru somewhere that has an elevated risk.

In this case, sending Eisenhower thru the Suez Canal is likely a pre-cursor to airstrikes against the Houthis and possibly later against Iran (along with missile strikes from the Ohio-class SSGN). The risk of the battlegroup going into the Red Sea has been deemed an acceptable one when balanced against the need for urgency. I agree with that assessment.

If to lessen the risk to the level you seem to want, then you have to avoid the Malacca Strait as well to get to the Arabia Sea. Then I suppose you could send Roosevelt down from California and across the Pacific and take the long way around southern Australia and maybe visit the penguins in Antarctica before heading into the Indian Ocean.

Good thing you weren't around advising SHAEF in June 1944. Based on your recommendations, the world would still be waiting for an Allied cross-Channel invasion of Fortress Europe. Then again, the UK would have probably been knocked out of the war because you would have felt it too risky to send supplies across the Atlantic given the U-boat threat.