2006 defense budget plan eliminates Navy aircraft carrier

Are those reserve units?

Yes. TAR units.

Typically, when it comes to the Navy, TAR units are a bit different from normal military reserve units.

They have the same number of aircraft as a RegNav unit, they fly nearly the same number of flight hours, but half of their people are reservists and only show up for two days a month.

That is, except for the pilots, who show up randomly and want to go fly.

The biggest difference is that TAR units don't regularly deploy to the boat, though that's starting to change too.

The proffered rationale' is that the officer corps is heavy with too many mid-grade officers. Somehow that seems counter intuitive but there is some lame justification for it issuing from the head shed propaganda dudes. Who knows? But, the Republic will survive and , in spite of, not because of, those who make personnel policy decisions, the needed aircraft will fly and the crews will be able and proficient. It seems to be a Navy-style FUBAR.

Contrary to your impulse, I doubt that the policy has anything to do with UAV or unmanned subs.

Did you (or anyone else interested) see the Newsday article yesterday about Naval Academy applications being down 20%?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--academyapplicatio0208feb08,0,3290763.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

Obviously, 11,140 applications (down from 13,922 at the same time last year) is still many more than the approximately 1,200 slots available for the Class of 2009, but still - not good news. Besides the USNA or Pensacola, where would be the best military pilot training I can get my junior high student on track with?

Be careful about Newsday, they love to spin facts. The do it so often they spun their circulation up a bunch.
Middie is the go to guy for Annapolis. Perhaps a speed reading course might be good to get him into. Sounds silly, but would be a great time saver. Also I suspect any high school sports would be good for him. Getting him on the HS swimming team would be great. A debating team would help his confidence. And lastly, get him off on his own for a week at a time during the summer to learn how to deal with strangers in strange environments. I've done an Outward Bound trip myself and it was really good for me (at the age of 44!)
AF pilots are OK, so I guess he could do the USAF academy. But he could probably go ROTC and still learn to fly with the USAF.

Whether at one of the academies, through any other commissioning source like ROTC or OTS (if any such source remains), the commission is the same, a reserve commission. Begining with the class of '97 all newly minted 2nd Lts or Ensigns receive a reserve commission. Before that class the academy graduates received a regular commission. Congress changed that policy for several ostensible, but really inapplicable reasons. It had more to do with egalitarian political correctness and the feelings of non-academy grads and parents than with any valid substantive reason. But, in the end, the commissioning source doesn't matter a bit when it comes to flight training or other training for specialized service. All young officers in training are put to the same task and syllabus irrespective of where they come from or which college ring adorns their finger.

Diligence, knowledge of candidate requirements, and stringent academic preparation, supplemented by athletics, school/community leadership, excellent physical condition, and a keen, unrelenting desire to serve the nation as a commissioned military or naval officer are the prerequisites to appointments to one of the service academies. Also, the candidate must contact his/her senator and congressman to discovery their requirements for obtaining a nomination; a track totally separate and apart from the academies' application procedures.

Preparing to obtain an appointment to one of our service academies isn't an easy undertaking. It is purposefully difficult as an indicator of the candidate's motivation and to assure those considering the applicant that the young man or woman has what it takes to successfully complete what is an arduous four years. But, the old axiom is certainly true here: If it were easy anyone could do it.

Clinton tried to cut to 11 carriers, but Congress overrode him and demanded we keep 12. I imagine they will override Bush too.

It appears you will be right, based on what I saw of the Senate Armed Services committee hearings today. If they retired the Kennedy right now, that would leave 5 carriers on the east coast, all based in Norfolk, which brings up vulnerability concerns. According to today's testimony, it would take 5 to 6 years to upgrade Mayport to handle nuclear powered carriers, which seemed to suprise Sen. Warner and got him all worked up. There seemed to be a bi-partisan consensus that retiring the Kennedy right now would be a bad idea.

In my opinion, carriers are even more valuable and needed now in the War on Terror than they were during the Cold War (when the US and Soviets were facing off under water). Cutting the carrier fleet back at this juncture seems like a big mistake to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.