Two Carrier Strike Groups converge, amplifying U.S. naval power. A dual-carrier offensive against Iran is now a distinct possibility, with potent firepower en route.
by Kris Osborn, Warrior
The U.S. Navy’s powerhouse USS Abraham Lincoln is already in the Middle East after surging from as far away as the South China Sea, and now the Pentagon has ordered a “second” Carrier Strike Group to join the USS Abraham Lincoln and deploy to the region. None other than the USS Gerald Ford supercarrier is now on the way to the Middle East after supporting U.S. military missions off the coast of Venezuela, a development which massively multiplies the pressure being placed on Iran.
A second Carrier Strike Group in the region could enable a much larger-scale, extended coordinated attack campaign against Iranian targets. A second carrier in the region would of course offer President Trump additional options should he choose to order strikes on Iran. The U.S. Navy has on several occasions practiced dual-carrier operation war drills wherein two Carrier Air Wings simultaneously launch and coordinate large scale, sustained sea-launched air attacks. In addition to a dual-carrier option, a second Carrier Strike Group could operate from a different strike location to multiply options and angles of attack for President Trump.
Both Carrier Strike Groups would operate with a Carrier Air Wing armed with F-35Cs, F-18s and fixed-wing surveillance assets such as the E-2D Hawkeye, yet the massive platform also travels with a Carrier Strike Group including heavily armed destroyers. The presence of warships surrounding the carrier not only “protect” the large ship from incoming attack but also offer heavy firepower options such as Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Carrier Strike Group FirePower
USS Arleigh Burke-class DDG 51 Destroyers are built with Vertical Launch Systems capable of firing precision-guided Tomahawk missiles from ranges out to 900 miles. With these weapons, a Carrier Strike Group could exact a military “effect” without necessarily destroying Iran’s infrastructure or hitting civilian targets. While details of a military strike of this kind are typically not available, targets in these kinds of operations tend to involve leadership headquarters, command and control facilities, troops and weapons locations and ammunition depots.
While an operation against Iran would likely be quite different than what was executed in Venezuela, there could be some tactical similarities in the sense that an Iranian strike would likely be quick, precise and extremely targeted. This means there is not likely to be any kind of land deployment, apart from possible missile batteries in the region, and there is not likely to be a prolonged air campaign. By contrast, any potential operation is likely to be short, yet decisive. It would potentially not be that much different than what’s known as a “decapitation strike,” meaning a targeted lethal attack on leadership and command and control facilities designed to cripple or destroy the regime without causing widespread destruction.
Decapitation Strike?
Without any top-level command and control, forces and supporters loyal to the Iranian regime would be at a loss to communicate, receive orders or enact any kind of stability or cohesive action. The strategic intent in this particular scenario would likely be to disable any leadership authority currently operating on behalf of the regime and enable protesters to essentially take over the country or create a power vacuum large enough for new leadership to arrive.
Advanced Tomahawk missile present U.S. Naval commanders with a number of strike options, given the Block IV Tomahawks operate with a two-way datalink enabling a missile to “change course” in flight as needed, loiter if necessary and even conduct a small measure of ISR-type functions of high-value target areas. Beyond Block IV, the U.S. Navy also operates what’s known as Tactical Tomahawks, cruise missiles able to adjust course very quickly to track and destroy “moving” targets. Arriving just in the last several years, these Tomahawks can leverage new generations of radio signal throughput and guidance technology to hit moving ships or, in the case of Iran, track and target leaders on-the-move.
F-35Cs & Air Attack
Cruise missile strikes using Tomahawks fired from ships or submarines are typically the first weapons used in military campaigns as they can operate from long ranges with precision accuracy and, in a tactical sense, set conditions for an air attack by destroying air defenses, troop locations or other fixed high-value targets. However, there are also likely to be contingencies for which 5th-generation stealth aircraft might be needed, should Iran operate mobile air defenses or ballistic missile launchers seeking to target U.S. assets in the region. Also, while Iranian air defenses, drones and aircraft have likely been massively degraded by Israeli F-35i Adir strikes, there may be a need to establish air supremacy to support a quick-strike option of some kind or strike moving targets from the air. An aircraft such as the F-35C has as much of an ISR surveillance and targeting function as it does an attack capability, so it would be in a position to find fast emerging targets from the air.
Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven– Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The HistoryChannel. He also has a Master's Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia