Budget Strains To Cut Carrier Fleet In (Persian)Gulf To 1
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say that budget strains will force the Pentagon to cut its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf area from two carriers to one.
Officials say Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has formally approved a plan to keep just one carrier in the region. There have been two aircraft carrier groups there for most of the last two years.
The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the Gulf but was brought home in December for maintenance. It will return later this month, but plans for the USS Harry S. Truman to deploy to the Gulf this week have been canceled.
Read more: http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2013/feb/06/budget-strains-cut-carrier-fleet-gulf-1/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts):haironfire:
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)i guess the soviet union is`t going to take our oil. it`s about time we stop paying security for the oil companies.
the truman will be rotated to the south china seas.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And a bomber base in Diego Garcia, plus carrier fleets in the Indian Ocean and Med...I don't see a second carrier fleet in the Persian Gulf as a necessity. I'm not even sure that one is a necessity, seeing as its major purpose is to provoke Iran.
A few destroyers to watch over US shipping, and a couple minesweepers to make sure Hormuz stays clear is sufficient. There is plenty of air power and missiles already in place to respond to Irani aggression without the need of carriers.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)New ports have been opened and are increasing capacity as we speak, to counter any threat to that strait.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)less time at sea. Less wear and tear on equip. Lower manpower costs. Less frequent need to replace ships. Less chances of damage.
I think we only need 5 Carrier groups at sea at a time...North Atlantic, Med, Indian Ocean, North and South Pacific. Others can be in port under maintainence or on standby. Tours can be shortened a bit having ships on standby ready to replace them. Sailors be away from home for a shorter period, thus less stressed.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Fuel for all the many ships (carrier, cruiser, several destroyers, 2 or 3 submarines, at least one supply ship, perhaps an assault ship and minesweeper as well). Fuel for all the planes (which includes anti-sub patrols, and air cover 24/7).
Stateside, in port, no air patrols. No burning up ships fuel. No wear and tear. Maintainence work is less rushed, so probably less costly. The ships still could put to sea on fairly short notice, unless they were undergoing a major overhaul, which is one at a time same as now.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)We're only going to be able to turn the entire region into a parking lot 18 times over instead of 36!!
That Obammie is weak on defense!!!
Lets cut more from the military industrial complex. Why do Americans have to spend trillions of dollars protecting big biz and Europe when 57,000 Americans die each year from lack of health care?
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)and that would be better in my opinion.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)We're surrounding Iran on all sides even without a Carrier Group in the Gulf. I don't think absence of carrier groups makes us any less able to respond to Iran.
Eugenian
(191 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)could destroy most country's navies.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And any REAL targets will be LAND targets not sea going ones thus the ability of one carrier vs any other navy is irrelevant.
All told this means all the talk of war with Iran has been just talk.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Socal31
(2,484 posts)More of our young men and women home = fine with me.
