Persian/Arabian Gulf
Persian/Arabian Gulf
Posted on Jul 30, 2015
How important is a carrier presence in the gulf?
13.2K
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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google