How important is a carrier presence in the gulf?

2015-07-30T15:28:27-04:00

The United States will be without an aircraft carrier in the gulf for the first time since 2007. This is largely due to extended strain and increased deployment times, which have delayed maintenance and refit cycles. Is this a critical gap? Do we have a need for more than 10 carriers?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/navy-admiral-confirms-us-pulling-aircraft-carrier-from-persian-gulf-this-fall/

Navy admiral confirms US pulling aircraft carrier from Persian Gulf this fall

The U.S. Navy will not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf this fall for the first time since 9/11, President Obama's nominee to be the Navy's top officer told Capitol Hill lawmakers Thursday.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 30 at 2015 3:35 PM

2015-07-30T15:35:41-04:00

It's sort of the center piece of our Naval presence. The Carrier Group relies on a Carrier, which in houses all those pretty birds. If there is no Carrier, what about all the other ships that normally surround it?

Now don't get me wrong, at full steam, I know we can get on there FAST... crazy fast, but running the Straits... with an asset that valuable, and honestly irreplaceable if things did light up.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Jul 30 at 2015 3:46 PM

2015-07-30T15:46:09-04:00

We can always rely on a SSGN/SSN but the best quality of a CVSG is it is a very obvious presence. Submarines, while quite deadly, are unseen and we keep our enemies guessing where they are and where they will strike from.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 30 at 2015 3:58 PM

2015-07-30T15:58:05-04:00

Yes we need 13

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Jul 30 at 2015 6:59 PM

2015-07-30T18:59:50-04:00

Carriers by itheir shear size is often deterrent to aggression. As you know LCDR, they rarely travel alone. They bring subs, destroyer escorts and embarked aircraft with them. That makes them expensive. That being said, we can't fight every war and conflict in the world so maybe 10 is enough. If we need to put them in the yards for a period of time maybe the politicians will realize that all the conflicts come at a cost.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jul 30 at 2015 7:17 PM

2015-07-30T19:17:20-04:00

If memory serves we had 11 Carrier Groups, And never had a problem keeping one in or near the gulf....
I would love to see us grow our Naval forces back up to and beyond that....Right now is not a time to be MIA in the gulf....

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Jul 30 at 2015 9:54 PM

2015-07-30T21:54:47-04:00

It will be important in that it "shows" a presence. But the 2-3 nuclear subs there are the real deterrent.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Jul 31 at 2015 7:04 AM

2015-07-31T07:04:24-04:00

Being an OLD Carrier Sailor myself I do NOT see how the US can project its influence or be responsive to changing needs without the presence of a carrier task group in the Gulf. The carriers ability to respond to changes and emergencies is not equaled by any other single group, nor will it ever be. Pulling the carrier from the Gulf is just more proof that this Admin doesnt care about Americas allies or the safety of Americans overseas.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2015 11:45 AM

2015-07-31T11:45:35-04:00

Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) for the Nimitz class is an important program, but at $3B taking 3 years the program is already over budget and running behind. It resulted this year in a three carrier rotation as one completed RCOH and another will return to enter the yard. But in the end you get a brand new carrier completely updated to the new Net Centric Warfare capability that weapon systems like the F-35 and SM-6 integrate into to propelling the Navy into a new generation of synchronized systems where the whole is exponentially more effective then the unit.

Add to this the Ford Class carrier currently in production. With EMALS and other electronic advances guarantees American superiority at sea and specifically in carrier operations which the Nimitz class already held a huge advantage over our next closes competitor. In fact I think you could put all the navy’s of the world together and we still have them beat by any analyst. In any case delays and overruns have put that program way behind as congress is not funding anything at full steam.

In any case with the gap due to the delay the USS Ford has left us with 9 active carriers. In ship terms you need three units to keep one (of the three) deployed. This is due to transit times, training, maintenance, R&R, overhauls, ect… So that leaves us with effectively 3 carriers to cover: North Atlantic, Med, Red Sea, AG, South China Sea and the Pacific (that could take 2 just by itself). As you can see we have to prioritize so we forward deploy one to cover Pac and the South China Sea. Have Two that transit one from Pac one from Lant. Therefore you have gaps and the day of a carrier in the NAG and one in the SAG are gone unless we go back to a 13 carrier force. Which, even if you started the funding a plan today would take us close to two decades to get to.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Jul 31 at 2015 6:12 PM

2015-07-31T18:12:59-04:00

One B-2 sortie's work of 2,000lb JDAMs ... $400,000 (plus fuel)
One LA class Sub-Launched Tomahawk Land Attack Missile loadout ... $22M
The unrestrained pucker factor of a 90,000 ton, 1000' long can of concentrated Whoop-Ass ... PRICELESS

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 2 at 2015 2:06 AM

2015-08-02T02:06:54-04:00

This will be BAD for US policy/presence. I can't even blame Obama for this one, it all goes back to Bubba Clinton and his downsizing efforts.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2015 8:38 PM

2015-08-17T20:38:50-04:00

SGT Private RallyPoint Member I posted a similar (not the same so it's worth keeping both discussions) article a week or so ago. It was the first I had heard that we were going down to a 0 presence in the gulf.

Long story short we are now paying the price for having both plussed up our presence to two carriers for a while and also to drawing down from a high of 13 carriers.

Basically we are behind on scheduled maintenance on too many carriers to keep it up without even worse consequences later. So we are doing it now...

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Aug 17 at 2015 9:08 PM

2015-08-17T21:08:23-04:00

For whatever the real reasons may be, it's a mistake that we will pay for in blood and money....

Response by AN Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 12:19 AM

2015-08-18T00:19:58-04:00

Because of the ship swap USS George Washington is leaving Japan to come to verginia for a overhaul the USS Ronald Reagan will be taking its place in Japan and the USS Theodor Roosevelt will be ending its deployment and its new homeport will be San diego. The Theodor Roosevelt will also be going through an 8 to 10 month overhaul. The USS Carl Vinson is also going through a overhaul as we speek I believe this one of the main reason we will not have much presance in the middle east.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 18 at 2015 1:50 AM

2015-08-18T01:50:39-04:00

There are many issues that contribute to Carrier schedules. These include deployment length, needed maintenance, other carriers in the yards already, etc. It is far from ideal to not have a carrier in the gulf, but it's not the first time either.

The bigger issue is that the US, as I've stated elsewhere, created ISIS and we have an absolute moral obligation to eliminate them before they cause WW III...

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 10:26 PM

2015-12-22T22:26:29-05:00

Other than our continued presence in the region, not having a carrier in the Gulf does cause problems when it comes to certain contingency operations.