Looks like a deployment, including most of the Lakenheath wing, to join the buildup...

.............

Two E-3C Sentrys en-route from Anchorage (currently over Dorset) heading to ??? Another part of the continuing build-up of US forces in the Middle East?

U2 deploying to join the rest.

Over the last six weeks, I would estimate the costs involved for the US forces deployment (ships, aircraft, troops, logistics, etc) is probably equivalent to the annual UK Defence Budget.

Awfully expensive if they do nothing.....:rolleyes:

Might be a bit more robust than Operation Praying Mantis...if things go south.

..............

............

Ramstein is expecting tonight (ETA 23.30) USAF E11A 22-9046 (Blackwulf02). Arriving from Warner Robins KWRB and expected to leave for ME to join the 3 already deployed.

Blackwulf was a pair, uncertain as too whether the are still a pair or one was RTB'd or diverted with a problem.

That does make 50% of the entire fleet nw deployed to the Gulf.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ac6a5c03d8.png

Coronet East 033 (see posts above), towing across the F-22s would now seem to contain 4 tankers.

Persian Gulf
 

It has to be said that, if this is all just posturing, it’s a very expensive and labour intensive way of sending a message.

The question needs to be at what stage all out war becomes inevitable.

BV

The Great War became almost inevitable once the belligerants called up reservists at harvest time, thus causing widespread problems at home. Once done, it became a case of "p1ss or get off the pot".

Is there a 2026 equivalent?

What makes you think this is all posturing? All in would be my description.

………….

24 of the F-16s are the F-16CJ variant (from Spangdahlem AB & McEntire JNGB) and 12 are the F-16CG with LANTIRN (from Aviano)

2 x E-3G arriving at RAF Mildenhall, UK

WC
 

I didn’t say I think it is posturing. I said if that’s what it is it’s a very expensive way of doing it.

My thoughts are that, unless this is just Donald’s way of holding the Iranians feet to the fire, war seems inevitable.

That’s another key election pledge broken. Unless team USA really can wrap it up in 5 days and Trump can claim it’s not a forever war.

I suspect any war will not be quick and it will not be without regional collateral damage.

That’s fine for someone who lives thousands of miles away but not for the many millions that live in the region.

It’s a hell of an armada and air component that has been assembled but with no obvious ground forces.

Pummelling Iran should be no problem with the assembled might. Effecting regime change and doing it without killing thousands of Iranian civilians might be trickier.

BV

War by its very nature is expensive, measured in dollar bills but more importantly in blood. If talks aren’t successful, there will be war.

Honest, open question
 

Is it REALLY in the USA’s best interests to start/fight/end a war with Iran.

The elephant in this particular room is that it seems to be in the interests of a different country, allied to America, in the region to have Iran obliterated.

Despite the threats of the Iranian regime does anyone really think they pose a threat to mainland USA?

Let’s just hope that, if Donald and his little friend, do manage to get rid of the Ayatollah, they don’t just start a slide towards total anarchy and destabilisation in the wider region.

Would it all feel worthwhile if the USS Abraham Lincoln and its 6,000+ crew end up at the bottom of the Persian Gulf?

BV

Presumably they'll wait for the 2nd carrier group to arrive before starting anything? So a couple of weeks tops to hammer out a deal, which seems unlikely given the scope of negotiations.

Also it can't be good for all those F35s to be out in the open in those conditions. One assumes their deployment must be time limited by such environmental factors.