Where did you see that reporting?It's being reported CNO is pushing back hard on extending FORD.
Where did you see that reporting?It's being reported CNO is pushing back hard on extending FORD.
I’ve seen the work those guys have to do ton plan out day by day the maintenance for each ship and dock and berth and trying to ensure there are no gaps and ships get the maintenance they need while balancing out the force requirements… and then they have to redo all of their work once a ship gets extended. It’s a miserable house of cards - always felt bad for those guys.It throws a huge wrench in the maintenance cycle, and every SECDEF / President / COCOM is like 'meh, we'll figure that out later.'
Where did you see that reporting?
8 months next week. Especially shitty when you consider that they've been sitting in the Caribbean and were so close to being home in just a few weeks.Haven’t they been out for about 8 months already?
It’s concerning we didn’t have another carrier option for whatever the clown show is cooking up.
This is one of those times where I wish I still had access to the SDOB, if for no other reason than to see how CNO articulates the risk.8 months next week. Especially shitty when you consider that they've been sitting in the Caribbean and were so close to being home in just a few weeks.
Now they have to transit around the world with probably no RTHP date in sight.
Having just gotten home from there a few weeks ago, I really feel for all those folks. They deserve better from our leadership.
I always saw it articulated as something like “risk to force” or “risk to mission”, but during my DH deployment extensions, I became convinced that it doesn’t really matter.This is one of those times where I wish I still had access to the SDOB, if for no other reason than to see how CNO articulates the risk.
I've definitely seen instances where a service chief's input drove SECDEF's COA choices. Sometimes it's a matter of degree, IE extend a CSG for 14 days instead of 90.I always saw it articulated as something like “risk to force” or “risk to mission”, but during my DH deployment extensions, I became convinced that it doesn’t really matter.
I've definitely seen instances where a service chief's input drove SECDEF's COA choices. Sometimes it's a matter of degree, IE extend a CSG for 14 days instead of 90.
It's a hypothetical example.Was it only 14 days, or was it 14 days, then 10 days, then indefinitely?
The latter was my experience.
8 months next week. Especially shitty when you consider that they've been sitting in the Caribbean and were so close to being home in just a few weeks.
Now they have to transit around the world with probably no RTHP date in sight.
Having just gotten home from there a few weeks ago, I really feel for all those folks. They deserve better from our leadership.