The Navy Is Dropping Down to Just Two Deployed Carriers

Medium.com ^

[DoughtyOne]

Yep, I agree.

[RoadGumby]

OY!! Buckwheat!

Fedgov has a valid, legitimate function to defend the country (i.e. maintain a military).

It has no legitimate function to provide the entitlements it does. Before cutting a VALID function, then ALL non-valid functions should cease FIRST. And the size of the entitlement spending, if fully cut, would allow todays current military budget and sizable tax cuts, at the same time.

[DoughtyOne]

Response 68: LINK

The carriers need to be out where they can respond in minutes to an attack on one of our allies.

Which allies? What allies? Japan? Taiwan? NATO? Turkey? Israel? Who are we protecting them from? How much are they compensating us for the billions we spend defending them? Would they go to war for us?


Response 71: LINK

Thanks John Kerry. At least we know where your grasp of things ends.


Response 80: LINK  Graphic at link not transferred here.

Try climbing the ladder a little bit. After 70 years of wasting our blood and treasure so other countries could build little socialist paradises under our protection maybe it's time the US went Galt.


I find it rather humorous that you #1, keep that chart handy in case you're taken to task, #2, don't realize that just about every category was answered by my response to you, #3, you know so little about John Kerry, that you couldn't make the connection, and # 4, you actually needed me to explain it to you.

Yes, well it should sound something like I'm calling you an ass hat.  I could have worded it that way, but just mentioning (or more accurately inferring) it's conformity to John Kerry's vision should have said volumes to you.  Alas, you couldn't figure that out for yourself.

Yes, naturally you're going to use an Ad Hominem attack to defend against what you feel is an As Hominem attack.  LOL  I guess that was also lost on you.  Once again, the use of the term grows hollow the more you comprehend John Kerry's vision.  If someone raises the issue of your sounding as if you're channeling John Kerry, it might cause you to think more about the why, than how to defend against them saying it.  And lest you think yours wasn't an Ad Hominem attack, you didn't mention the words "John Kerry" at all.

I'm not sure the tone argument applies here, but I will say the comments you made were certainly tone deaf.  That old worn out, "We're paying everyone elses way..." argument, completely misses the issue of our allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East from being attacked successfully for over 60 years.  How long was it between World War I and World War II?  Was the post WWI decomissioning of our forces a successful strategy?  What costs more, keeping our troops on fireign shores peacefully, or having to put them in after hositlites have broken out?  John Kerry doesn't know.  Obama doesn't know.  Evidently you don't either.  What was the cost in human lives over the last 60 years?  Did it come even close to the yearly averages for WWI or WWII?  Why?

There are volumes known about John Kerry, what his past has been, what his vision is, what his political leaning is, and what his damage to the U. S. is on an ongoing basis.  I shouldn't have to list the things that worry us the most concerning him.  If you don't know, I suggest you study up.

I could go on to refute the top several categories of your pyramid, but it's not necessary.  What we are doing will lead to WW III quicker than any other strategy.  It is has been proven over time.  Now we'll open the door to adventurism again, just so idiots who can't glean anything from history, can damn their proginy to have to relive the calamities again.

Now that the U. S. is backing away from it's global committment, there will be a void left.

Other nations will fill that void.  I'm curious to know what a guy who thinks it very effective to post an idiotic graphic on the forum in an effort to cover his ass, would say about this.

Here's your list of other nations that will fill the void, by themselves in time, with others in time, or in isolated ways in short order.

China
Russia
North Korea
Iran

China is already policing it's own territorial claims in the Western Pacific, and now the Indian Ocean.  We practically invited them in, as we shirked our role to protect free passage on the high seas from Somali Pirates.  China swooped in to fill the void.

Gosh I feel so much safer.  /s  Well, evidently you do.  You're so caught up in the Leftist argument that we unfairly spend too much money on other people's security, that you can't grasp the fact that it's our security as well.  While we spend as much money on give-aways to citizens and non-citizens in the U. S., you and the Left focus on cutting back our military, the one thing our federal government is tasked to do.

So yes, my reference to John Kerry provided enough information to replace volumes.  Sadly, you couldn't grasp it.  You saw it as an unfair response to your nonsensical comments, and I'm sure you will continue to do so.

[tanknetter]

Not surprising and pretty predictable given it takes three carriers to keep one deployed, there is always one carrier being refueled and a good chunk of the time another carrier prepping for refuel or working back up after coming out.

Right now Lincoln is being refueled ( just started) and Roosevelt just finished up. The Enterprise retired before her replacemenr (Ford) is finished and in the cycle. So the US is down to eight carriers, one less than the 9 required to keep three deployed. It’s just mathmatics.

I’d expect that the USN will compensate by putting more Harriers onto the LHDs, particularly those going to the Med. During the Libyan overthrow the USS Kearsarge was the “Med Carrier” and it’s Harriers did fly combat missions.

[Pan_Yan]

That’s some amazing projection and demagoguery there. Just because I don’t think the primary focus of our military should be nation building in the Middle East doesn’t make me a leftist. Are you a big believer in our role as world police, fighting at the whim of the UN like in Libya and Somalia? That’s the reality of our world.

Just because I don’t think we need to spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined doesn’t mean I think that money should be wasted on welfare. That’s a low rent slander and shows just how shallow your arguments are.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s some amazing projection and demagoguery there.  Seriously?  LOL...

Just because I don’t think the primary focus of our military should be nation building in the Middle East doesn’t make me a leftist. Please link me to where you criticized nation building, and I objected.  You touched on us providing national security for allies, and I responded on point.  You did not mention Iraq or Afghanistan.  You did mention other traditional allies.  "Which allies? What allies? Japan? Taiwan? NATO? Turkey? Israel?"  LINK  What do these allies have to do with the topic of nation building?

Are you a big believer in our role as world police, fighting at the whim of the UN like in Libya and Somalia?  I specifically came out against operations in Libya.  I have come out against operations in Syria as well.  I am against aligning with al Qaeda or the Muslem Brotherhood and their numerous proxy groups.  Our operations in Somalia were humanitarian in nature.  I did not object to providing food to peoople who were starving.  Whether you like it, I like it, or anyone else likes it, there is going to be 'in effect' a global police force.  If we participate in these actions, we get to help draft policy.  Do you think these operations would be as sound if China were the driving force behind them?  What if Russia was the driving force behind them?  What about Iran or North Korea?  Go ahead and carp until the U. S. is totally out of the global police efforts, and then you can reverse youself in short order.

What's your take if Russia, China, Iran, and or North Korea are determining the best ways to bring Israel into compliance with global consensus?  Does this connect with you on any level at all?  How do you think the world would have been improved if the United Nations had it's way with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan, and China or Russia were the main players.

That’s the reality of our world.  Yes it is.  And how the goals of the United Nations are countered, remains our option, or the option of other rogue players.  No we should not have joined in Libya or Syria.  We should have discouraged that sort of thing.  The Islamic Commander in Chief didn't use sound judgment.  We all knew he didn't.

Just because I don’t think we need to spend as much on our military as the rest of the world combined doesn’t mean I think that money should be wasted on welfare.  Oh bull shit.  Next you're going to tell me that the Welfare state is addressed with 10% of the vigor our military spending is attacked with here.  We probably spend four or five times the welfare money the rest of the world does.  Where's your outrage at that?  Own up to what you're doing.

That’s a low rent slander and shows just how shallow your arguments are.  You really are a clueless wonder on this subject aren't you.

You and I may agree on many subjects here, but on this one I can't tag along.

[cva66snipe]

Hey people guess where the hell these carriers will be sitting when not underway? N.O.B. Norfolk. Now think about two more things as well. Hampton Roads Tunnel and Chesapeake Bay Tunnel. Can anyone say PEARL HARBOR ala NORFOLK? NOB Norfolk is the only carrier home port. Five county them five carrier berths less than two miles from the International Piers. You can fix stupid indeed by removing Stupid from office. Appointed Stupid can be fired. Elected Stupid can be Impeached.

[cva66snipe]

Correction NOB Norfolk is the only east coast carrier home port.

[DoughtyOne]

Exactly right. This has been on my mind for some time, and now the situation is more acute.

I believe that if you were to draft a book on what things not to do military, that would expose your nation to extreme danger, we would be breaking nine out of ten of the top things, and more than likely 18 out of the top 20.

[cva66snipe]

Training when I was in was done at sea. To qualify a competent watch stander it took doing it at sea. The article isn't saying as much but they may be operating planning off VACAPES. Typically it used to take about a nine month work up of going for a smaller deployment such as NATO or South America then after about another two months you deployed for six months coming back to a three month downtime in the yards.

Even before the shorter month or six week deployment there was at minimal a month of ops off GITMO. Your ship went through Operational Readiness Evaluation, Propulsion Examination Board, Carrier quals for the air-wing, and that was in addition to the training to pass these test. Cutting down to one deployment every three years basically means this. A new crew will deploy each time. That is not wise either.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not qualified to make the observations you have. What you’re saying makes a lot of sense. This is being passed off as being of little value change overall. That’s bogus, and it gripes me considerably to see folks here act as if this is just a minimal tweak.

We’re not going to have crews trained to the best of their abilities. We’re asking for trouble.

[Salvation]

Obama is absolutely dumb to do this.

[cva66snipe]

This article Congressional Record 24 February 1994 is 20 years old. It was written about my old ship 14 years after I got out. Pay close attention to this part of it.

The America needs constant attention. Commissioned in 1965, it is showing its age. A month before leaving Norfolk, a senior enlisted crew member complained to his congressman: The ship was operating on only two of its six electric generators, without radar and unable to pump fuel. This would be its third six-month cruise in three years, and without the standard 18 months at home for repairs, salt water and full steaming had taken their toll.

That doesn't mean the ship was in port for 18 months it meant it missed needed yard times. She did three six month deployments in three years an abuse of the other extreme. What the article doesn't mention was the boiler room explosion that happened a few days after returning to Norfolk.

These cuts started immediately after Gulf War One. America's Ship Life Extension Program {SLEP} was not done and the ship decommissioned at 50% of it's service life. I do have enough knowledge of that ship to say the conditions were likely. Why no radar? Because there was only two functioning generators. The electronics were heat sensitive. Two of six generators would only allow for lights, fire pumps, pumps for boilers, and little else. The ship had six - 200 ton, three 150 ton, and one 300 ton A/C unit. The 200 ton units took about 1200 amps start up and 220 amps at 460 volts to run. A/C was the largest single electrical load. No A/C? No Radar or other electronics. I worked on that ships A/C units.

Fast forward to immediately after the 9/11 attack. The JFK had at that time been used as a reserve carrier missing maintenance. The Kitty Hawk also lacked funding. Cutting the military was popular by every POTUS since Reagan's last day in office - present as well as congress approved all these cuts while expanding non Constitutional programs.

The America's lessons were ignored. The lessons of 9/11 have been ignored. This nation is well below a relative to needs of the era level of military readiness ever allowed in our nations history. Who did it? Both parties for over 20 years now.

[Kickass Conservative]

The Japanese were hoping that the American Carriers were docked in Pearl Harbor.

If Obama were President back then, GAG, they would have been. The Battle of Midway would have ended up being the Battle of Catalina.

Everyone West of the Mississippi would be speaking Japanese and everyone East of the Mississippi would be speaking German if Obama was in charge back then.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your conclusions. It’s part of the reason why I cannot support Republican party leadership. They agree to everything, then blame the Democrats.

They’re signing off on all of it.

It’s quite evident that our military is being ravaged at this time. All the while the whiners in our society are being coddled constantly.

[wxgesr]

“call it the ‘white flag fleet’...”

half-white fag fleet....just sayin’

[theBuckwheat]

Yes, you are exactly right. However, Congress and the Executive branch have slowly encumbered us with “entitlements” and social spending. When fiscal reality asserts itself, we will have to cut all spending and the military will not be an exception. The only issue is to what extent it is cut relative to other budget items.

[Coronal]

The Navy is quietly working on an alternative option, one better suited for many of the more mundane tasks today’s Navy faces than the supercarriers presently in service. You don’t need a Ferrari to go for groceries, or pick up your kids.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dfad249c4dfc

[Secret Agent Man]

this is part of state dept pub7277 freedom from war. scaling down our military capability outside of our own country. while militarizing our internal security forces.

[DakotaGator]

The new “Optimized Fleet Response Plan” represents an effort to standardize training, maintenance and overseas cruise schedules for the Navy’s 283 front-line warships, in particular the 10 nuclear-powered carriers.

The Navy knows full well that 15 Carrier Battle Groups are required for it to perform is mission.

In each three-year cycle, a ship will sail on patrol once for eight months...but those ships—and their crews—should be in better condition, having spent more time at home for training and refit...

Nonsense! Eight month deployments are brutal on ships and crews. The Navy again knows full well that warships' equipment status and crew efficiency drop dramatically after five months of peacetime deployment. With less ships deploying into more wartime type operations this will worsen. So basically the Navy is saying: "We'll make them do more for longer with less support but they'll be just fine!"

U.S. flattops will be routinely absent from the rest of the world’s oceans...

And there it is. Our Navy will no longer rule the waves. Pax Americana is over.

This is a bad plan. It is probably the best that could be done given the fact that Congress continues to ignore its Constitutional requirement to provide and maintain a navy if favor of funding uncounted unconstitutional programs. But the Navy should not whitewash it simply because it has been shoved down its throat.

Another typical disaster brought to you by the fools on the hill.