• 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

Not the end of the CENTCOM CVN rotation?

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Politico quotes some anonymous sources and retired folks as saying that with the lack of forces in theater, that the "over the horizon" strategy is going to probably result in a continuing CVN ask from CENTCOM.

Guess the Joint Staff/OSD are going to have fun refereeing some more food fights between CENTCOM and INDOPACOM if that's the case . . .
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Was there a presumption they were going away, because that's not the case as far as I'm aware. I mean, CAG-5 is maintaining that presence currently, and you can probably guess how much fuss Aquilino made about that.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Was there a presumption they were going away, because that's not the case as far as I'm aware. I mean, CAG-5 is maintaining that presence currently, and you can probably guess how much fuss Aquilino made about that.
Going away, of course not. Priorities shifted between COCOMs? Sure. That was my takeaway, at any rate. Whether "over the horizon" is nice to say in theory, but in practice is going to end up with both CENTCOM and INDOPACOM arguing over the same deployed CSGs at a greater rate than one might expect given the so-called "end" of the so-called "forever war."
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Priorities shifted between COCOMs?
Yeah, the old pivot to Asia routine. That sounds strangely familiar. It'll be interesting to see how Naftali Bennett's compares to his predecessor. Thus far, somewhat less bellicose toward Iran, and willing to at least not be outwardly obstructionist toward our effort to reconstitute the JCPOA. Successfully reengaging w/ Iran on the nuclear issue could make that ever elusive pivot more attainable. That said, we have enough Iran-anxious Gulf state partners to keep us connected to the region for the foreseeable future.
 

SynixMan

HKG Based Artificial Excrement Pilot
pilot
Contributor
My read is that the other COCOMs will have some better reasons to ask for those assets, but until something changes with the status quo vis-a-vis Iran, CENTCOM will claim they need the assets. To me “OTH” means Drones and then a manned strike mission if it’s needed. As always, ABO rights reign supreme. Any other -stans willing to play ball?

Will be interesting to see if CENTCOM itself gets trimmed back. They’re a monster with less reasons to exist at their current size. Honestly, same for all -CENT staffs. ?
 

DanMa1156

Is it baseball season yet?
pilot
Contributor
Was there a presumption they were going away, because that's not the case as far as I'm aware. I mean, CAG-5 is maintaining that presence currently, and you can probably guess how much fuss Aquilino made about that.

I'll look later if someone doesn't find it for me quicker, but SECDEF Austin has said in the past (as SECDEF) the idea that we need a 1.0 (or 1.0+) presence in 5th Fleet was something he was going to take a hard look at since he thought it could no longer be justified.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I'll look later if someone doesn't find it for me quicker, but SECDEF Austin has said in the past (as SECDEF) the idea that we need a 1.0 (or 1.0+) presence in 5th Fleet was something he was going to take a hard look at since he thought it could no longer be justified.
It's a bit amusing that both he and Mattis have made statements like that from their E-ring perches, having taken very different positions as CENTCOM CDRs. TBH, we've maintained <1.0 presence during the past few years, and I don't disagree that it couldn't be lower still.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
It's a bit amusing that both he and Mattis have made statements like that from their E-ring perches, having taken very different positions as CENTCOM CDRs. TBH, we've maintained <1.0 presence during the past few years, and I don't disagree that it couldn't be lower still.
Well, when they were the CCDR, it was their job to be the advocate for their AOR. When they were SECDEF, it was their job to referee the inter-COCOM food fights, not join in. It's like an attorney who advocates for a client and then later gets confirmed as a judge.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Well, when they were the CCDR, it was their job to be the advocate for their AOR. When they were SECDEF, it was their job to referee the inter-COCOM food fights, not join in. It's like an attorney who advocates for a client and then later gets confirmed as a judge.
Oh, thanks for that insight. Fascinating.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
OK, in the private mod forum, you said wanted to know when your snark and condescension was coming out? This is exactly what it looks like. Handle that as you will.
Dude, you kinda walked right into that one. ;)
 

DanMa1156

Is it baseball season yet?
pilot
Contributor
It's a bit amusing that both he and Mattis have made statements like that from their E-ring perches, having taken very different positions as CENTCOM CDRs. TBH, we've maintained <1.0 presence during the past few years, and I don't disagree that it couldn't be lower still.

Agreed, but my understanding is that it's not for lack of trying by CENTCOM; it's literally been the Navy saying "we got no one to send to you" for the most part, correct? That's ultimately why RRN is there now.

I guess the next question is: when does the Western Pacific have a 1.0+ presence requirement? When will the Pentagon finally say "uh yeah, this part of the world [WESTPAC/ECS/SCS] is definitely a better value for our carriers in terms of deterrence than parking a carrier off a part of the world that requires a 7.0+ mission with tanker support and limited intelligence to ultimately almost never drop ordnance anymore."
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Agreed, but my understanding is that it's not for lack of trying by CENTCOM; it's literally been the Navy saying "we got no one to send to you" for the most part, correct? That's ultimately why RRN is there now.

I guess the next question is: when does the Western Pacific have a 1.0+ presence requirement? When will the Pentagon finally say "uh yeah, this part of the world [WESTPAC/ECS/SCS] is definitely a better value for our carriers in terms of deterrence than parking a carrier off a part of the world that requires a 7.0+ mission with tanker support and limited intelligence to ultimately almost never drop ordnance anymore."
I’m with you 100%. Old habits die hard.
 

Hair Warrior

Well-Known Member
Contributor
From the cheap seats, and recognizing hindsight is 20/20, it would be nice if…
-CVN 78 was on schedule
-CVN 79 avoids the issues that delayed 78
-Navy gets to plus up (and train) our personnel end strength while Army and Air Force see a slight drawdown
-Navy avoids future costly, less-capable-than-hoped-for acquisitions like the LCS (like, wouldn’t it have been great if X years ago the Navy had just bought the FFGX straight away and skipped LCS altogether?) and Zumwalt-class that haven’t so far panned out the way intended
-Shift all GMTs to a 2-year mandate rather than annual; consolidate similar ones; centralize the message to come from Big Navy vs commands spending time to tailor the message; consolidate so sailors can knock out 2 years worth of GMT in a single day or two via virtual/hybrid learning
-Recapitalize warfare domain training so that the concept of “distributed lethality” is taken to heart for individual sailors like they said it for hardware platforms; more money for schools, more time spent on warfare areas vs admin/GMTs
 

DanMa1156

Is it baseball season yet?
pilot
Contributor
From the cheap seats, and recognizing hindsight is 20/20, it would be nice if…
-CVN 78 was on schedule
-CVN 79 avoids the issues that delayed 78
-Navy gets to plus up (and train) our personnel end strength while Army and Air Force see a slight drawdown
-Navy avoids future costly, less-capable-than-hoped-for acquisitions like the LCS (like, wouldn’t it have been great if X years ago the Navy had just bought the FFGX straight away and skipped LCS altogether?) and Zumwalt-class that haven’t so far panned out the way intended
-Shift all GMTs to a 2-year mandate rather than annual; consolidate similar ones; centralize the message to come from Big Navy vs commands spending time to tailor the message; consolidate so sailors can knock out 2 years worth of GMT in a single day or two via virtual/hybrid learning
-Recapitalize warfare domain training so that the concept of “distributed lethality” is taken to heart for individual sailors like they said it for hardware platforms; more money for schools, more time spent on warfare areas vs admin/GMTs

For what it’s worth, and I know this because I got an argument with someone the other day and we checked, the current year’s requirement is five GMT’s for most sailors with a 6th for those under 3 years of service. Several can be given face to face. (This number doesn’t include the stand down we had on extremism.) Commands can have additional ones, and of course there are the ones for motorcycle riders, but so far in my experience, commands are choosing ones that are relevant to their people or skipping over the optional ones entirely. It certainly has not turned into an arms race of various Skippers bragging about how many GMTs their command completed. Compare that to the FY 14 requirements where, depending on your age and number of years of service, you had between 14-23 GMTs to do online. It was ridiculous back then. Still not perfect, but it’s gotten better.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
While in command, I bragged about how little GMT we actually did. GMT isn’t even in the top 100 things that distract us from war fighting.
 
Top