Obama Recalls All Aircraft Carriers, Setting Up U.S. For Something BIG

As I said this is a thread subject in and of itself

 

The USS Carl Vinson put to sea this morning. Oddly enough, there haven't been any nuclear attacks on the US? What a shock!

The armchair admirals need to relax.

 

....says the guy who thinks dropping 3 nukes on the US isn't going to end in WW3.

Your inability to deal with basic facts is noted and entirely expected. You can't construct a credible scenario where this is going to be an issue and you can't challenge my facts, so you just evade.

Tell me again, how are those handful of ageing Russian ships going to dominate the seas? Oh, you can't because you know it is total BS. Doesn't stop you from making the claim. Like I said, you be trollin'.

 

I'm not saying that they are impenetrable, nothing is, I'm saying that the Tidewater area has more than enough defenses if they are required. And, I also told you that this isn't the first time it has happened since WWII. I personally saw it happen back in July of 1997.

 

Watch all the people here who made a big noise go quiet as carriers begin to deploy again - as planned. One is already claiming this was a rushed response to the big fuss they all made - pretty much what I expected they would say.

They will never accept responsibility for their own words. bet on it.

 

This is a really stupid thread. Republicans should be as embarrassed about this as well as the same stupid claims they made in 2013 and 1997

 

If missle defense capability is not impenetrable then it doesn't seem wise to group such important military assets. As to this happening before I'll take your word for it but I can't see any reason for it. Apparently you've been in the Navy a long time so maybe you can tell me where I'm wrong on this. If by happenstance all our carriers need repairs at the same time wouldn't it be smarter to leave at least half of them scattered at sea while the rest were being serviced?

 

1 week later.
No WW3 yet.
Do we have a time frame?
Only 2 weeks before inauguration.

 

See................this is the problem with you civilians. I already explained it once before, but I'm happy to explain it again. Carriers are based on an 18 month cycle, 6 months deployment, 6 months training and repair, and 6 months of sea trials (practicing with the aircraft and ship operations), and then deployment again.

Due to the various requirements, a deployment may get extended, or repairs in the shipyard may take more time than previously thought, which can mess up the 18 month rotation cycle. If other ships stay on their cycle, while other ships are delayed, a bottleneck like this can happen. Like I said, I saw it happen once before back in July of 1997 when I was stationed at pier 4 Norfolk onboard the USNS CONCORD (T-AFS-5). There was a lot of hue and cry over the situation back then, but it was simply the way the rotations fell back then as well. If you were to read the REAL news article on it, you would see that it was because of the way the schedules fell.

And, if you have ships that just came FROM deployment, and ships that just got out of the shipyard, well, they might have caught up (or fell back to) those ships that were currently in their sea trials, and all just happened to show up for a week or so in the same place. Remember, even though the carriers are nuclear powered, the crew isn't and even though the ship can sail for several years at a time without refueling, the crew CAN'T, and they need to take on supplies every now and again. And before you say that they can resupply at sea and screw 'em, they should just stay out on the water, know that carrier hits are a full 48 hour evolution just to pull the requested supplies, and then another 5 to 8 hours to shuttle the stuff over to the carrier. It's MUCH easier for them to take on supplies inport, and less dangerous as well.

 

You've sufficiently addressed the conspiracy issue and I accept the rotation reason for a bottleneck. You like to say " you civilians" as a derogatory term but let's look at this from this civilians point if view. "You lifers" get institutionalized into the bureaucracy that unfortunately reigns supreme in government and yes the military. Out here in the real world where our businesses have to show a profit and we have to find a way to get things done on time and on budget this " that's just the way it is" attitude is not acceptable. From the outside looking in I can honestly say having most if not all our carriers (which us civilians pay for by the way along with your salary and retirement) is just kind of dumb. I owned and operated a logging company a good deal of my life and both me and men working for me had to adjust to changing weather and circumstances and equipment failure- maintenance to keep everybody working and logs going to the mill. Your "it ain't right but that's the way it works in the Navy" attitude is not acceptable to me but I have no say in it I guess except to say WTF? Thanks for your answer though.

 

"Grouping" them in four different places? Any attack that could be made on them in port could be made anywhere in the world. This is pure stupidity

 

Having more than one of our Nimitz aircraft carriers in any one single port is CRIMINAL. They present too much of a good target to some fool enemy.

 

You had just ONE mill to operate. Try operating 11 mills, scheduling maintenance, and making sure that at least 4 of them are up and running full tilt at all times.

Not only do the carriers have to run a schedule, but so do the ships that accompany them on deployment.

 

Yo dude..............do you realize what kind of port it takes to be able to dock in a carrier? Not only does it have to be a deep water port, but it also has to have a pier that can accommodate a ship that size. During the time that I was stationed onboard one, the only times we actually pulled into a port was in Ft. Lauderdale and Norfolk. The rest of the time the ship would anchor out and we would run liberty boats in to shore.

And, that right there is why the carriers are at places like San Diego, Norfolk and Seattle. They are some of the only places that are able to accommodate the carriers.

 

I ran into this attitude working with the Forest Service too. Always an excuse for things that private industry would never find acceptable.Around here they are called the Forest circus.

 

But of course you've put together a feasibility study to determine the practicality and expense of operating enough coastal naval bases with deep water harbors to keep and maintain ten 1,000ft nuclear powered aircraft carriers along with their escort ships in a manner where no two carriers were ever in the same port at the same time, right?

 

Never said no two carriers in the same port at the same time but nice straw man attempt.

 

Sorry, confused you with the other armchair admiral in post #337.

 

Arm chair admiral or arm chair bureaucrats? Just who should have seen this bottleneck coming and done some schedule shifting to avoid it? My guess is that just as in all government bureaucracies nobody can be found accountable who will stand up and defend the results of their decisions or lack thereof.

 

It's a non-issue. The only people trying to make it an issue are the easily excited and over-imaginative types.

 

I'm amazed that any Republicans would show up on this idiotic thread at this point.

 

So some major conflict breaks out in the world and we need carriers and we need them now and the Navy says, sorry but they are all in port getting repaired. That seem like good planning to you?

 

Don't underestimate the power of world view bias

Obama has disappointed the right horrifically by not being an incompetent backwoods idiot - you know - like them

 

You're right. We're lucky that we all aren't dead right now because some ships were moored in a port.

/s

I know you think you know more about naval operations than all the admirals in the navy but I assure you that you do not.

 

You are evading the question and I can understand why. It's just not defendable to have most if not all our carriers simultaneously out of commission.