Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paleo Conservative
Lack of maintenance during the Clinton years?

Goes back further than that and I can prove it. Seems the GHW Bush years wern't to kind to her either. Three six month deployments in three years. That's a five year cycle minus yard times. Proof? Here it is. Drop down to the {below decks} portion. But remember this story started in August of 1993. Here is what was reported then.

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. AMERICA was history by summer 1996. Seems Clinton didn't do much to stop it though.

Here is the source of that information.

Click here to get to the link

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/940224-cr.htm

43 posted on 07/16/2002 10:42:13 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: cva66snipe
Goes back further than that and I can prove it. Seems the GHW Bush years wern't to kind to her either. Three six month deployments in three years. That's a five year cycle minus yard times. Proof? Here it is. Drop down to the {below decks} portion. But remember this story started in August of 1993. Here is what was reported then.

Well, there WAS a war fought with six carrier battlegroups in theater. The Navy's maintenance establishment was very upset over the war, as it screwed up their oh-so-sacred CVBG rotation plans. One wonders how the Navy would have dealt with a NATO/WP conflict if a regional war strained them so hard. BTW, the Norfolk piers didn't get maintained properly, either.

Notice that the Navy never mooted the idea of cutting down the carrier presence in-theater once there was enough land-based air to support offensive ops. They were going to have their piece of the war even if it ruined the Navy in the process.

There's a ton of blame to go around about the overall decline of Naval Aviation. The Navy gets a big share of it (read The $5 Billion Misunderstanding for a gory account of the A-12 Avenger II program--begun illegally, maintained in a steady atmosphere of deceiving the contractors, the Navy civilian leadership, and Congress, and cancelled when NAVAIR told Dick Cheney "Uh, well, we need another few billion dollars" in the middle of post-Cold War euphoria). Congress gets a huge helping (not supporting a 15-carrier fleet--I think 15 is the bare minimum for supporting current OPTEMPO with a reasonable reserve for wartime surge).

It's a manure sandwich, and EVERYONE in DC should be taking a big bite.

49 posted on 07/17/2002 11:48:29 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson