• 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

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

Caveat that I'm an ANG/USAF dual status AGR type now. There's a lot going on right now. (Some could argue that this is what happens when a leader surrounds themself with nothing but yes men.)

We have to be careful- as has been relayed to me by our SJA- even though something may be inflammatory, telling someone to remove a post on social media *may* be violating their first amendment rights, depending on how you say it, how they said what they said, whether you're in the person's chain-of-command or not, what kind of orders that they are in that day (or even if they are on orders) and a bunch of other legal language stuff that I don't understand.

So if we see something online that we thing could be against the UCMJ, we let the SJA know and move on. If someone says something that may be against the UCMJ, we can correct them, and follow up with paperwork as necessary.


At the deck plate level I don't see this changing anything. We don't have time for it. But I'd be ignorant to think that some people are going to lose their jobs over something (fairly innocuous) they posted online, especially if it can be made for political points and favor.

Again, we should be careful.
 
Griz882 said:
Monitor is not quite the right word. As far back as the first Obama administration we (meaning the national guard) were instructed to elevate complaints the command received from the public about Spec. 4 Timmy’s social media commentary. So, if some one complained that Timmy said Obama was a commie, or Trump was a nazi, or COVID is a Chinese attack on the U.S. (all real cases) it was simply elevated to further consideration. I don’t recall anyone being punished beyond maybe the Marine noted below and I was never instructed to tell Timmy to toe the line, but maybe someone else did.

www.cbsnews.com

Marines discharge sergeant for anti-Obama Facebook posts

The Marine Corps. has decided to discharge Sgt. Gary Stein for criticizing President Barack Obama
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

There’s a difference between Obama (or Trump) and Charlie Kirk.
 
CommodoreMid said:
There’s a difference between Obama (or Trump) and Charlie Kirk.
Click to expand...
The question is the fact that applause to an actual act of political violence can be construed as everything from tasteless humor to incitement dependent on your political spectrum and we’re seeing wide examples of all types in the cesspool of social media like Reddit and TikTok. Nobody is getting fired over not showing reverence to Kirk or Obama or anybody else. They are getting in trouble for outright comments condoning or even encouraging future actions and making the killer out to be a hero. That would go very differently for one who affirmed an oath towards the constitution and the civil discourse it protects for the people not subject to UCMJ. If Joe is just now figuring out they can get in trouble for dumb stuff they put on public sphere they are catching up to something we all should have known by now.

I remember getting to shut down for 48 hours and do mandatory training where we talked about extremism with somebody from outside our CoC because an Air Force veteran got shot in the head for her own dumb actions.
 
There was a USNI article recently (will edit and add if I can find again) making a similar argument but also included using DDGs. All conveniently ignore the other missions of the Navy and the fact that rack space is a zero sum game. Yes, amphib readiness sucks, but the Marines seem to frequently forget that the Navy’s sole purpose is not just to drive them around.

Edit: found it
 
Last edited:
CommodoreMid said:
There was a USNI article recently (will edit and add if I can find again) making a similar argument but also included using DDGs. All conveniently ignore the other missions of the Navy and the fact that rack space is a zero sum game. Yes, amphib readiness sucks, but the Marines seem to frequently forget that the Navy’s sole purpose is not just to drive them around.

Edit: found it
Click to expand...
Particularly short sighted when the large scale combat opponent we are supposed to be prepping for is the one most vulnerable to attacking their lines of supply.

It’s almost like that’s one of the reasons Mahan wrote down that you have a Navy.
 
CommodoreMid said:
There was a USNI article recently (will edit and add if I can find again) making a similar argument but also included using DDGs. All conveniently ignore the other missions of the Navy and the fact that rack space is a zero sum game. Yes, amphib readiness sucks, but the Marines seem to frequently forget that the Navy’s sole purpose is not just to drive them around.

Edit: found it
Click to expand...
Interesting article. I do wonder where the Corps is headed with Force Design 2030, the lack of amphibious ships and the increasing lethality of missiles and drones. Is the traditional 3 ship ARG/MEU obsolete? Would the Marines be better off with single LPD mini MEU’s? If that is the case, could the Navy repurpose the America and Tripoli to lower threat environments to allow the big carriers to focus on the Pacific - and would the big gators be better off with no well deck and increased aviation facilities as in the America and Tripoli (giant LPH’s) ?
 
Randy Daytona said:
Former Commandants asking for 2 squadrons worth of space on carriers for SPMAGTF’s? I don’t see this happening.

Click to expand...

Kicking 22-24 strike fighters off the carrier for a company of marines and a few Ospreys is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

It will never happen and it’s amazing what an eco-chamber these Marines are discussing this in. Especially given it’s divorced from any sort of reality regarding the current threat.
 
Key words “at least” two squadrons.

Written from the perspective of 1994 and by people who haven’t seen how cramped a current CVN is.

The causal factor to the problem is Amphib and ESB readiness. You fix that and we can forget this idea was ever floated. And @randy Daytona’s idea is far more practical as a bridging action until we get the amphib fleet on their feet.
 
CommodoreMid said:
There was a USNI article recently (will edit and add if I can find again) making a similar argument but also included using DDGs. All conveniently ignore the other missions of the Navy and the fact that rack space is a zero sum game. Yes, amphib readiness sucks, but the Marines seem to frequently forget that the Navy’s sole purpose is not just to drive them around.

Edit: found it
Click to expand...

…and generally speaking the Navy is pretty horrible at that basic requirement. I wouldn’t want any Marines near the missile magnet of a carrier for multiple reasons. The fact we put C models on those things is a massive waste of resources.
 
Hotdogs said:
…and generally speaking the Navy is pretty horrible at that basic requirement. I wouldn’t want any Marines near the missile magnet of a carrier for multiple reasons. The fact we put C models on those things is a massive waste of resources.
Click to expand...
The fact that the Marines have expeditionary F-35Cs is the absolute dumbest force allocation decision ever. We can start talk about expeditionary Cs when every air wing has a -35 squadron and they are filled out to a useful PAA.

If you think the CVN is going to be the missile magnet, I hate to tell you about the PLARFs strike capabilities against a fixed airfield.
 
Bad_Karma_1310 said:
The fact that the Marines have expeditionary F-35Cs is the absolute dumbest force allocation decision ever. We can start talk about expeditionary Cs when every air wing has a -35 squadron and they are filled out to a useful PAA.
Click to expand...
You guys got played when we skipped on the supers. Surprised you didn’t see the wind up for that fastball coming down the pipe.
Bad_Karma_1310 said:
If you think the CVN is going to be the missile magnet, I hate to tell you about the PLARFs strike capabilities against a fixed airfield.
Click to expand...
Filling in an airfield with cement is a much more cost effective solution than rebuilding a $13-15B carrier. We can also build 20x more low cost airfields than 1 carrier. Let alone the fact there are plenty of highways and roads to base out of it needed.

If you hate being called a missile magnet, you’re going to really hate being operational irrelevant 2000-3000 miles away from the fight. The USAF is far and away ahead of this problem than the US Navy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top