“I could see them decommissioning the Sixth Fleet first.”
When Second Fleet ships deploy to the Med they are then Sixth Fleet ships. Point is, except for Mount Whitney, there is no permanent Sixth Fleet to decommission.
“With the end of the Cold War that fleet lost most of its purpose in the Med.”
The Soviets did not have a large presence in the Med even during the cold war. That was only one of the many reasons we were there. I’d argue the Sixth Fleet is needed in the Med now, more than ever.
And nobody is suggesting that if they decommission the 2nd Fleet then all the ships assigned to it will be scrapped as well. The 2nd Fleet has a substantial staff in Norfolk, and the 6th Fleet has a substantial staff in Naples. If you're going to cut costs by cutting billets then get rid of the ones in Europe. Get rid of the recently established 4th Fleet as well. Realize your savings from two less important commands rather than gutting the one major command in the Atlantic Fleet.
I agree with you. We saw more Russian ships off VACAPES than in the MED. Several reasons for a continues presence in the MED is Libya, Syria, and Turkey, to name a few. Another reason is to protect our own shipping interest. I can remember a two carrier group force presence in the MED 24/7/365 no matter what else was going on in the world. We were able to maintain that even with a 13 carrier force plus keep at least one WESTPAC. Anyone thinking we can afford anymore reductions in fleet better look at the reality of these numbers U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917-
We're headed into some very deep readiness issues. Some of those are ones which have been surfacing since the mid to late 1990's because of over deployments and missed ship yard maintenance. We can't afford any more downsizing on any level and still get the job done.