The USS George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group (GHWBCSG) deployed from Naval Station Norfolk last week.
The task force is expected to replace the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, which is currently deployed to the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations.
The aircraft carrier joins guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf and guided-missile destroyers USS Delbert D. Black, USS Farragut and USS Truxtun, who recently departed from their homeports. Notably, Delbert D. Black is underway on her maiden deployment.
“We bring the full-range of U.S. and allied maritime power in support of national security and defense objectives wherever we sail,” said Rear Adm. Dennis Velez, commander, CSG-10, GHWBCSG.
“Throughout our deployment we will continue to operate with and reassure our allies, maintain open sea lanes for trade and increased prosperity, and deter – or if necessary – destroy our adversaries.”
This marks the first deployment for George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) since 2017. The carrier completed an intensive maintenance availability after the 2017 deployment before she returned to the operational fleet to begin a robust deployment readiness cycle in late 2021.
“The GHWBCSG is comprised of the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 10 staff, George H.W. Bush, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 7, Destroyer Squadron (DESRON) 26 staff and units, the Information Warfare Commander, and the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55). In total, the strike group is a force of more than 6,000 Sailors, capable of carrying out a wide variety of missions around the globe.”
You can read more on this here.
“The USS George H.W. Bush”. Drop the “The” or the “USS” don’t use both. I’d suggest “USS” – like in the linked article – as it’s not of the ship itself. Even with none US content I’d still like to see the DoD style guide. It tends to be representative of custom if not codification.
Either way you have my head spinning. I suppose ‘the HMS Daring’ does sound odd thinking about it rather than ‘HMS Daring’ or simply ‘the Daring’ so maybe you have a point, though one presumes none of the usages here are actually poor usage in English are they?
Why
Strange, my USN friends always say ‘The USS…’, as in ‘The United States Ship….’
Where as, we countries with a Royal Navy do not use the word ‘The’ as it is grammatically incorrect… ‘The Her Majesties Ship…’ just butchers the English language…
Yes, Darren, you are correct.
Exactly. The HMS is ridiculous!
And if the common way of speaking and proper way of writing were the same this would be a valid point.
This is wrong. The should not be used with “HMS” because “the” followed by “her” is grammatically incorrect. US sailors and commanders often say “the HMS Queen Elizabeth” because they are used to saying “the USS Ronald Reagan”. In the USN, placing “the” before the “USS” is correct and advised since that forms a grammatically correct sentence. “The United States Ship Ronald Reagan arrived in Yokosuka.” The “United States” in this case is an adjective, which can be removed to form the also correct sentence – “The Ship Ronald Reagan arrived in Yokosuka.” Removing “the” is grammatically incorrect.
Indeed you are right it’s the gender element of HMS that mean you should not use a definite article like “the” as USS is not in any way a gendered work you can use “the” all you like.
lol it’s HER name!
From the U.S. Navy Style Guide (google it);
Ship names – For first reference always include USS, the ship’s name and the hull number: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75).
• There is no hyphen in the hull number. On second reference, use only the ship’s name or reference as “the ship”. Do not use “the” in front of a ship’s name: “USS San Jose,” not “the USS San Jose.” Use ‘the” before the ship type: “the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77).
• Exceptions: Do not use “USS” for ships before 1909, or if it is not yet in commission, or has been decommissioned and you are referring to the ship in its present state.
USS is like an honorific or title and part of the name. You don’t say “The Mr Joe Blogs” or “The Sir Henry Nonesuch”.
Haha, look at you coming in here all pompous and self-righteous only for the whole point of your comment to be wrong.
Thanks for the grammar lesson. Or should that be thanks for HMS grammar lesson.🙈
I take it you didn’t take the time to extend me a courtesy and check if the US DoD styles guides I mentioned had anything authoritative to say on how the US Navy says it’s ships should be referred to in written material?
For those unaware, the Bush is the last Nimitz carrier produced and thus the second most advanced carrier in operation in the US Navy at this time. It was built with several significant changes to its design over previous Nimitz ships, including a modernized island, advanced hull design, improved air ops, and enhanced electronics and comms systems.
yeah….but is it any good 🙂
It’s not quite as simple as which was brought into service last. The last carrier to be refitted, I believe, was the Theodore Roosevelt with some currently undergoing the refuel and concurrent refits. Whichever was the last to be refitted would actually be the most advanced (the Ford is still having trouble with its EMALS among other issues).
I clearly substantiated why it was the most advanced beyond it being the second newest… The refits you mentioned do modernize parts of the ship, but certainly not anywhere close to the major design changes like that of the Bush.
Also, though totally unrelated to my original post, I believe the emals issues are largely resolved now.
Not quite. The majority of the design elements that made the Bush a transition carrier were later fitted to the Reagan, including the updated weapons handling system and redesigned island but not the different shaped bow. These different designs do not necessarily make the Reagan or the Bush more advanced than the others, just like the slightly different build of PoW does not make it more advanced than the QE. The Bush hasn’t undergone the refuel and refit yet, meaning its core systems are largely the same fitted during construction. The integrated weapons command system on the Roosevelt, for example, is newer.
Regarding the EMALS, it’s still not anywhere near the 4166 consecutive successful launches it’s meant to do, and though IOC has been declared it’s not anywhere near FOC.
It’s like arguing the difference between a shite and a jobby.
Just about a month ago it was announced that they reached 10K launch and recoveries on the USS Ford.
Love the concept of destroyer squadrons. Can we have some (RN)?
I wonder how many aircraft the USN has borrowed from other countries to get a full complement of squadrons on her.😉
US carriers do at times have USMC F/A-18C/D Hornets on board. lol
👍
Not anymore. Last C/D deployment has finished.
F35C next.
Well, the USMC is part of the USN so it’s to be expected. The carriers, as with other USN ships, carry USMC personnel in any case.
LOL Touche. Britain sadly has discount carriers now. The HMS Chuck carrier deployed with no F-35s recently! A sad state of play.
Very sad Craig. It is very frustrating, at least for me.😁
It seems like British politicians have given up on the idea of defending Britain. I was on a FB group “Queen Elizabeth carriers” and I got suspended for pointing out how ludicrous it was having carriers without aircraft and having USMC aircraft on board to make up numbers! LOL They seemed to want to live in a world of self delusion.
It is ludicrous. I’m sorry to hear you got hassled for telling the truth. Our best hope now is for Liz Truss to win the election. She is committed to 2.5% and then 3% and has the look of a lady who get’s what she wants.
For a relatively small amount of money compared to the 20,30,40 billion pounds that some are going to throw at the energy problems here we could fix a lot of what is wrong with our armed forces. Throwing money away will not work anyway. It will only be wanted again next year.
Regeneration of full spectrum carrier ops., after an 8-10 yr. absence, would be a non-trivial task for any navy. RN will undoubtedly be in a better position by end of decade, provided current geopolitical environment does not deteriorate precipitously during the interim. Meanwhile, USMC and USN support and assistance should prove to be quite valuable. The US position is dictated by enlightened self-interest, if nothing further. A thoughtful and useful reciprocal gesture would be the deployment of a T-23 w/tail to USN CBGs, whenever the opportunity arises; the T-23 w/ tail is generally acknowledged to be the most potent ASW asset w/in NATO, w/ the exception of the SSNs.
Your right about rebuilding carrier capability bur my concern as always with the politico/MOD establishment here is the Sloth like speed they move at and the “tiny” numbers of aircraft involved. Your USN and USMC people are always welcome in my book but we desperately need to get ourselves together here.
I presume it’s the Boeing Wedgetail your referring to.? If so we are only going to get three so deploying it much beyond UK airspace is going to be a challenge.
Sorry, don’t understand your Wedgetail reference. From fairly extensive reading, believe RN T-23 frigates equipped w/tail are, at least by current standards, the very best surface fleet ASW assets w/in NATO. RN was renowned for ASW capability and prowess in days of yore (Cold War I). Presume when linked w/ P-8s and SSNs a very formidable threat to Mad Vlad’s Orcs and the ChiComs. Of course, w/ only a portion of the eight available at any given time, there would be limited coverage, but presume that attachment to USN CBGs in the Atlantic or Med might be occasionally feasible. Concerned that USN CVGNs are torp magnets.
…CVN…🙄 Would someone please provide guidance re reputed post edit function?
Hmmm…also realize I am dating myself by reference to CVBG instead of CSG. Mea Culpa from a living fossil. 😁
GHWBCSG Is the best acronym I’ve ever seen.