-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Pentagon cuts aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf due to budget
- Thread starter Praying4OCS
- Start date
Well Italy and Spain each have two, but yeah we have like ten, and then another eight Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, which are basically comparable to other countries' carriers since they can launch STOVL and helos, plus the ACV's. Is this overkill? Not for me to say. But it's a lot easier to sleep at night knowing our Navy is better than the next dozen or so combined.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
So during the next crisis du jour, when the President asks " where is the closest carrier? " The answer will be Norfolk. Great job, Washington DC, keep up the good work!
I think most of you are missing the point. Do we really need 2 carriers in the Gulf right now. For air support, Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down. So, why two boats in the Gulf? To look more threatening to Iran? We are using up platforms (boats, planes, ships) at twice the rate needed. We are also making the lives of those on said platforms miserable as can be when we rip to fill from one unit that has just returned from deployment to fill the next unit deploying. With one CSG in the Gulf and one in Japan, we are fine. Having CSG's on either coast that are in work ups or that have just returned and are surgeable is all that is needed. Lets not forget that the AF can get assets into country X, Y or Z if needed as well. The Navy doesn't have to do it all. It's about time we started taking care of the stuff that we have. If we use our assets up now, when nothing is going on, what are we going to do when something does happen? What about budget cuts? It's about time we went back to a 1.0 CSG presence in the gulf. We need to get rid of the we can do more with less attitude. Its breaking everybody. Now is the time to do less with less.
In my view, the problem with this thinking is that a large portion of the rest of the Western world can afford to have few or no carriers BECAUSE we have 10. People make it out to be absurd that the US spends so much more on defense than the Europeans, but look at Libya - Europe couldn't handle that campaign without the help of a number of unique national assets that essentially only the US maintains. And Libya represented a fairly negligible threat.
I agree with Dave on it being about time to do less with less, but I think it's an outdated (i.e., pre-globalization) view that says the US can keep the same level of world influence with a fraction of the power projection capability because others do it. In a large sense, they're able to because we do it for them.
There no doubt that the rest of the world has been free-riding under the blanket of collective security we've provided since the end of WWII. With shrinking defense budgets in nearly every country in Europe (Norway being the notable exception), that's not going to change anytime soon. I suspect that this is going to be the norm until the west has a sustained period of economic growth. Even if the Europeans move toward a more collective approach (be it NATO or EU based), those kind of consensus demanding bureaucracies tend to not react well in crisis mode when you have to get troops downrange yesterday.
Well, I was part of the same ilk a few months ago complaining about deployments stretching our fleets too thin. I just wish it was announced under a more planned circumstance.
Agree…America seems to be everyone's "Favorite Sugar Daddy" these days. Whoever read a pleading headline from (fill in your crisis spot…) that read "Why Doesn't Norway DO SOMETHING???"
There are probably worse things to be respected for…one of the only nations on the planet with the capability to affect outcomes…and do much of anything…be it tsunami relief, HA/DR, countering piracy, European missile defense initiatives, whatever. But, yeah…it grows old...
I wouldn't bet on it. When "Western Europe" has more economic growth, their social welfare programs and 28-hour work weeks will expand…not their military influence or capabilities.
A tip of the hat to the French, however…for Mali...
Funny you bring that up, since I've literally been at the center of that whole thing in the Chairman's office as the French came begging... begging for US support. Fascinating to watch all the political machinations run their course. It's an extraordinarily complex issue, but suffice it to say that the French bark is a lot worse than their bite. That said, they've done a pretty nice job of turning things around militarily, but as we've all learned recently, it's phase IV that tends to be the real ass-kicker.
Bonnes chances, mes amis!
..Who needed us (USAF) for a ride to the fight and to get gas while on the way/there. I think that helps the point that our defense spending is what it is because so much of the world lives under a protective blanket paid for by the tax payers of the U.S.
Phase IV …yeah…that. Shitty "implied and included tasks".
So…we agree?
Considering the "militia" that they've been leading was pretty much the Mali's under-resourced military until a coup last year, I wouldn't exactly call it a substantial "military" victory. As long as they don't get into the nation building scene that is in vogue as of late, they should be fine. I'd imagine something more like along the lines of a Bosnia-like intervention. Oh yeah, and recently heard, Amadou Sanogo - the aforementioned leader of the militia? Yeah he went to TBS...
Yeah, those inconvenient little factoids have made this whole thing unbelievably complicated for the US.