US to cut carrier fleet in Persian Gulf to 1

Associated Press ^ | Feb 6, 2013 6:36 PM EST | Lolita C. Baldor

[Olog-hai]

The Pentagon is cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one, the Defense Department said Wednesday, in a move that represents one of the most significant effects of budget cuts on the U.S. military presence overseas. The decision comes as Washington struggles to find a way to avoid sharp automatic spending cuts set to strike the Pentagon and domestic programs next month.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has approved keeping just one carrier in the Persian Gulf region. The U.S. has maintained two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf for most of the last two years.

Panetta has been leading a campaign to replace the automatic cuts he warns would “hollow out” the military, and the Pentagon has been providing greater details on the cuts it would have to make if Congress fails to both replace them and agree on a 2013 defense budget bill. The carrier decision is one of the most significant announcements made thus far. …

[GeronL]

Peace breaks out....

or rather we might see some “friendly” (imaginative use of the term) governments falling to the Islamics and Muslim Brotherhoods.....

[Mastador1]

Because there is no reason to worry about strife or war in the region. Leon just being a good Hell Hound for his master.

[llevrok]

The Navy is probably going to discontinue Saturday “deliveries” too.

[jz638]

So the navy will have to scrape by with 2010-era levels of readiness in the Gulf? No carrier strike groups anywhere near the Persian Gulf would be a drastic downgrade in readiness, one carrier strike group seems like plenty to sit and watch the water.

[jsanders2001]

Hopefully all the jets and weapons we’ve been “giving away” won’t come back to bite us in the butt now though I’m sure Obama could just pick up the phone and make a call to one of his Muslim buddies and get them to stop if he needed to. You know how reasonable terrorists can be..../s

[Portcall24]

That’s a great plan. If there are none of our forces there to confront, there will be no confrontation. Perhaps the near-term threat of Nuc has disapated.

[muawiyah]

Sounds more like somebody has some nukes and we are pulling back ~ probably ought to pull everything back ~ from the Persian Gulf.

We can use nukes against Tehran from a standoff position anyway.

[bert]

There will be no budget savings. The carrier force will still exist. The crews will still be maintained.

The move is confirmation of the nuclear manufacturing underground explosion. The threat is gone

[Pecos]

"We can use nukes against Tehran from a standoff position anyway."

Absolutely will not happen in the next four years, or any time after that if the Left is successful in permanently installing itself by way of "instant citizenship" for illegals.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Things begin to heat up with Iran, so the DOD and the Admirals decide to get out of Dodge, or maybe they’re bringing the forces back in case they’re needed when 0bama orders an attack on American citizens?

[PghBaldy]

Would be awfully cynical if Obama knows something is about to happen over there, but he can blame the evil GOP for us not being there to respond or project strength...

[tanknetter]

There will be no budget savings.

Not dismissing the other parts of your point, but a deployed carrier eats up a LOT more money than one just sitting tied up at the pier.

Start with the costs associated with fueling the airwing, even at a bare-minimum level to keep the crews qualified (let alone needing to maintain a constant CAP and AEW/intel/recce operations while practicing different strike and ACM scenarios)

Then add the costs associated with fueling the escorts. Yeah, the carrier's nuclear-powered and the rocks represent a sunk cost. But apart from the subs all the other ships that go along with a carrier suck down copious quantities of fuel. As do the ships tasked with hauling the fuel out to the escorts.

Further, a carrier strike group conducting deployed operations has significantly higher maintenance costs. Things break quicker because they get used more, and need to be fixed or replaced. So you have the replacement cost of the items, plus whatever it takes to get the items out to the ships (C-2s and combat support/stores ships).

There's a lot more than that, but it should give a good idea of how much can be saved by reducing deployment schedules/durations.

The flip side tho is that a carrier and escorts sitting tied up at a pier, with the airwing sitting on the tarmac ashore, is a carrier strike group that loses proficiency pretty darn quickly. Which is a completely different kind of "cost"

[bert]

The group will remain deployed in another location