Does anyone think this is a good idea? I find it hard to believe, short of a legitimate, national emergency this is in the best interest of the Navy . . .
Does anyone think this is a good idea? I find it hard to believe, short of a legitimate, national emergency this is in the best interest of the Navy . . .
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.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'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 . . .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.
Well, NIM spontaneously breaking didn’t help matters. Just saved us from being the ones who got the year-long deployment shaft . . .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.
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.'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.
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.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 is 2 deployments in 2 years not being 'used efficiently?'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?
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.How is 2 deployments in 2 years not being 'used efficiently?'
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.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.
Got it. I was looking at your comment from the perspective of the article, particularly this part:No. I'm saying that it's going to be hard for a well meaning Admiral to argue that we need to fund 11+ carriers after saying that we don't need to deploy one to one of the most volatile regions in the world.