-
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
IKE Double Pump
- Thread starter robav8r
- Start date
Independent of this decision:
From what I've learned about sourcing, the "Navy" (as in CNO, Fleet Forces, and/or SECNAV) will non-concur with using USN assets citing force regeneration, preservation, readiness, etc. to source Combatant Commanders' Request for Forces. The denials to the Combatant Commanders (some more than others) seem infrequent at best.
And, I just feel bad for those guys, because you know they aren't going to get port calls again. Woof.
I’d take a guess that the plan was already to double pump them and no one expected the first to go that long.
Or, the carrier that was supposed to go is delayed in the yards, etc, and the Ike is the only carrier that can fill the spot.
It reminds me of my last deployment on IKE. 6 months out, home for two months to get the deck resurfaced, then between 5-6 months back out. At least we had port calls...
The Navy has to be better about pushing back on COCOM requests for carriers to do presence ops. Sure, Iran presents a threat, but I’m skeptical that the presence of a carrier would really make them decide to hold off on hostilities if they were truly serious. While a CSG provides a lot of flexibility, I can’t think of any unique capability the carrier (and the air wing) bring that already isn’t present in theater. We’re running the force ragged for no reason.
The Navy has to be better about pushing back on COCOM requests for carriers to do presence ops. Sure, Iran presents a threat, but I’m skeptical that the presence of a carrier would really make them decide to hold off on hostilities if they were truly serious. While a CSG provides a lot of flexibility, I can’t think of any unique capability the carrier (and the air wing) bring that already isn’t present in theater. We’re running the force ragged for no reason.
The MAP is has several double pumps scheduled. It’s certainly not a new thing, or some thing that is done only in extremis. The piece does make a good point about the merits of burning out our peacetime force. There‘s a balance to be found in the value of forward presence and the overall readiness of the force to conduct MCO. I’m not convinced we’ve found the sweet spot just yet.
It's interesting to see the dynamics between current leadership in PACOM/PACFLT and the CNO. I wonder where our Navy would be with Bill Moran at the helm . . .
After what happened in C7F a few years ago, the material readiness of aviation the last 5 years, and the Ike’s latest cruise from hell, this shit is unconscionable. At some point someone needs to say No. The revolving cast of SECNAVs and CNOs I don’t think helps.
Well, NIM spontaneously breaking didn’t help matters. Just saved us from being the ones who got the year-long deployment shaft . . .
Although that did hose me out of an Air Medal, which still mildly irritates me.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
If you were any number of senior military officers or Congressmen with a vested interest in carrier funding, would you be as willing to say 'nah, we don't really need one of those to keep Iran in check.'
How would a senior military Officer have a vested interest in carrier funding, but not care whether the asset that the funding was used for was utilized efficiently? I see your Congress point, but don’t see the logic in the other half.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
How is 2 deployments in 2 years not being 'used efficiently?'
That wasn't my point. I guess I'm misunderstanding yours. I thought when you questioned the willingness to say "nah, we don't need one of those to keep Iran in check", you were saying there was some conspiracy by a senior military Officer with a 'vested interest in carrier funding' to say that superfluously to get money to use it for funding an asset to use it...inefficiently.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
No. I'm saying that it could be hard for a well meaning Admiral to argue that we need to fund 11+ carriers after saying that we don't actually need to deploy a carrier to one of the most volatile regions in the world for the Navy to accomplish its mission.
Got it. I was looking at your comment from the perspective of the article, particularly this part:
But some experts question the conventional wisdom that carriers in the region deter Iran, pointing to the very fact that Iranian malign activities in the region continue despite the presence of carriers.
“It’s an asinine strategy,” said Bryan Clark, a former senior aide to the chief of naval operations and now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, in a March interview. “The Iranians don’t perceive carriers and a threat to their ability to project power because they project power through gray zone activities and terrorism — the kinds of things that carriers aren’t very good at dealing with.”
I now see that that is clearly not your perspective!
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
It would be interesting to see how she is doing on EFPH, that extra yard time she had very well could mean she has more wiggle room than other carriers.