Posted on Jul 30, 2015
How important is a carrier presence in the gulf?
15.9K
39
31
5
5
0
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/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/navy-admiral-confirms-us-pulling-aircraft-carrier-from-persian-gulf-this-fall/
Navy
Persian/Arabian Gulf
ISIS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
5
5
0
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
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
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
LCDR (Join to see) Extremely well stated thank you!
I think we are "ok" with 10. That said when we know that we need 3 to make 1 (rough summary of what you're talking about for schedules) then it would seem a multiple of 3 simply makes sense. I would like to see 12 carriers with an even split of 6 each coast (Japan counting as West Coast).
I know the funding is a nightmare and the time to spool up long, but there isn't a reason our current Nimitz won't be around for commissioning of 2-3 more Fords. We will see.
The other huge problem with 2-3 more carriers though is the manpower that is needed, the CAGs that are needed, and the training. It's not as simple as the cost of 2 more giant ships.
I think we are "ok" with 10. That said when we know that we need 3 to make 1 (rough summary of what you're talking about for schedules) then it would seem a multiple of 3 simply makes sense. I would like to see 12 carriers with an even split of 6 each coast (Japan counting as West Coast).
I know the funding is a nightmare and the time to spool up long, but there isn't a reason our current Nimitz won't be around for commissioning of 2-3 more Fords. We will see.
The other huge problem with 2-3 more carriers though is the manpower that is needed, the CAGs that are needed, and the training. It's not as simple as the cost of 2 more giant ships.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Yes all good points the only reason 10 could work is because the Forward Deployed carrier in Japan is the odd one out leaving with a rotation of three deployed. The smallest glitch throws everything out of whack.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Amy Teachman
Question: I was on the Nimitz during operation southern watch along with the Kitty Hawk joining us in 1997. Do you have resources for possible Gulf War Illness during this period? Or if you might help connect with me to someone? I apologize for going off topic, but this question caught my attention. Thank you for your assistance
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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....
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....
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
CPO Joseph Grant Chief I agree. I think that the silence and potency of our submarines are huge, but they don't visibly convey a force presence. It will be interesting to observe reactions to this as it happens.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
The issue is one of range, yes, but also sustainability of fire. You can't really safely unrep Tomahawks underway, and not at all for the subs... Carrier air can sustain rates of fire far longer than can missile ships...
That being said, an LHD strike group is pretty good too...
That being said, an LHD strike group is pretty good too...
CPO Joseph Grant
PO2 Brian Rhodes , I've heard the same thing. I've seen it drawn out as a bubble around the strike group where the carrier dominates the battle space. In my, well, not so humble opinion carriers and subs deny the enemy Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOCs). The smaller combatants are nice but they don't deny the enemy use of the seas.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I'll admit that it concerns me, but from a different perspective. As you said we can get there fast if something happens, but the fact that we don't have the carrier there sends a signal of sorts to both enemies and allies that we can't sustain our current state.
(2)
(0)
SSG Keith Roberson
I'm not a Navy guy, but I know this can't be good at all. It's like my 1SG used to tell us..it's like being a track star with no legs. We need to keep up the presence there and show other rogue nations that we can sustain and will be there if they so decide to start things up.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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...
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...
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
For whatever the real reasons may be, it's a mistake that we will pay for in blood and money....
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SFC Everett Oliver, It couldn't be helped according to what has been posted on this question. They can't stay there forever. Maintenance and Money. The two reasons posted. I would imagine one goes hand in hand with the other.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
SGT (Join to see) 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...
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...
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LCDR (Join to see), I'm sorry Sir. I checked to ensure it hadn't been posted yet. I guess it's the way the question is worded. I'm sure the RP staff will combine them or delete mine entirely. That's ok with me Sir. I should have checked closer.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I notice you have a star, LCDR (Join to see), You may combine or delete mine. Keith
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) I think they're different enough. I'll double check but I think the renewed discussion is good. If they are too similar I'll combine.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google