US Navy cancels carrier deployment amid budget woes

This is not a small deal. As someone on the inside I find it hard to explain how significant this is. The Navy traditionally prides itself on scraping by with not enough resources, no matter what...I've seen the Navy take the paper towels and toilet paper out of the bathrooms and turn off the water heaters, I've seen them put people into the IRR and not pay them when they're not busy and I've seen entire units decomissioned, all in the name of saving money. Golf courses and bowling alleys on bases are becoming a thing of the past. I've seen enlistment contracts violated via ERB, I've seen the enlistment bonuses completely dry up, and I've seen them take away people's shore duty and put them on back to back to back deployments--I once heard a 2 star admiral talk about how the entire concept of shore duty is flawed in this time of fiscal constraint...all of this in the name of saving money...but come hell or high water, whatever they did, the planes always flew and the ships always sailed. Operational movements just are...not...sacrificed.

We are simply out of money.

News article:
http://wtvr.com/2013/02/06/budget-cu...arry-s-truman/

Official DOD news release:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/rele...eleaseid=15804

I read a bulletin about moving resources that stated that they were ready to respond to any contingency regardless of fiscal limits. They were moving two carriers somewhere. It looked like it was responding to something, maybe this.

...I bet it's a sitting duck problem, not a "malfunctioning fiat printing press" (mouse click) or budget approval problem.

Maybe it's a treasonous plot to gut the US military. No doubt, some secret deal was made with the Cylons.

having a carrier group is important for our national defense and as well as the ability to strike countries.

i believe ron said that submarines and carrier groups should be our focus of defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willwash

Operational movements just are...not...sacrificed.

We are simply out of money.

---

Have you been tracking over at Cdr Salamander's blog? I suggest that you take a look at his 30Jan "Operationalizing Sequestration" and 17Jan "Diversity Thursday: NAVAIR edition". IMHO the problem is that the Navy is no longer deploying on A.T. Mahan defense principles, but rather is being yanked around hither and yon by State Department pet meddling projects. Unfortunately, State doesn't pay for all of their brilliant foreign policy pivots out of their own budget. Add to that the pervasivness of Congress appointed flag officer positions that are increasing while total number of operational units decrease. Of course each of those positions has their own little pet project, or defense contract, that is untouchable. http://fabiusmaximus.com/2012/09/10/...changed-43153/. That's how we end up with Little Crappy Ship that will barely meet Level I survivability and are on track to being 25% of the floating force.

XNN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alucard13mmfmj

having a carrier group is important for our national defense and as well as the ability to strike countries.

i believe ron said that submarines and carrier groups should be our focus of defense.

---

Yes, a constantly maintained Navy is explicitly required by the Constitution. But instead we have armies messing around in worthless dustbowls.

I will say we probably don't need 10 aircraft carriers; maybe just 3 or 4, so 2 in an operational status and 1 or 2 in the yards. And maybe a reserve carrier. That'd be enough for a strong national defense and, when necessary, power projection. More than that is probably overkill

Even one of our larger carriers constitutes more power projection ability than anyone else in the world has. If you want a good laugh, look up the misadventures of the French/British shared carrier.

Some sad things happen if we are going to be fiscally sane. Everyone must sacrifice.

Perhaps they should have saved some money back instead of spending it on "The Green Fleet."