Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marines looking to deploy on foreign ships because the U.S. doesn't have enough
caintv ^ | june 22, 2015 | dan calabrese

Posted on 06/22/2015 11:09:11 AM PDT by lowbridge

Leading from behind.

Anyone who thinks Barack Obama never saw a dollar he didn't want to spend . . . OK, that's probably true, but there are some reasons for spending a dollar for which he doesn't have much use. And as we all know, the military is at the top of that list. Every dollar spent on the Armed Forces is a dollar Obama can't spend regulating industry, having the IRS harass his political opponents or illegally subsidizing health care premiums.

So why build enough ships for the Marines to fulfill their responsibilities. President Leading From Behind doesn't want the U.S. to be a global leader anyway, and hey, there's always foreign ships! Maybe they can hitch a ride on them. Now this is the point where you probably think I'm slipping into the absurd to get your attention.

Nope:

(Excerpt) Read more at caintv.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: marines; military

1 posted on 06/22/2015 11:09:11 AM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

And you stupid libs wonder why I didn’t want my son serving under a Muslim.


2 posted on 06/22/2015 11:11:50 AM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Bump


3 posted on 06/22/2015 11:12:51 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

EVERY Chief of Naval Operations and EVERY Commandant of the Marine Corps for the last 40 years should be tried at General Courts-Martial for dereliction of duty in NOT building up the United States’ Military’s “Heavy-Lift” Arena!


4 posted on 06/22/2015 11:13:57 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
What an EMBARRASSMENT to our Marines. I'd be ashamed to serve under this Femmie Prez POS. FUBO!

This is 0dumbo's segue to World Government.

5 posted on 06/22/2015 11:15:43 AM PDT by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

It’s a combination of not building ships fast enough, and retiring older ones too early.

A LOT of time was wasted redesigning the Wasp-Class LHD into the aviation-enhanced America Class LHA (although it’s really more of an LPH). And now they want the well deck back so will cap the America Class at 3 ships.

On top of that they retired the Tarawas too early. They could have been SLEP’d for another 10-15 years of service. If only to keep them as gap-fillers in the deployment schedules.


6 posted on 06/22/2015 11:17:18 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
"..and retiring older ones too early."

The lack of foresight by our military can only be explained as INTENTIONAL.

7 posted on 06/22/2015 11:22:48 AM PDT by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

What an EMBARRASSMENT to our Marines. I’d be ashamed to serve under this Femmie Prez POS. FUBO!
This is 0dumbo’s segue to World Government.


I don’t, by any means, support the present CIC...however, I somehow feel this isn’t a problem that surfaced only in the last few months. With a bureaucracy such as the federal government is, it must take forever go out for bids, award, contract, build and take possession of new amphibious ships. Where was the Navy leadership in this and why is it just coming to light now? I would imagine somebody somewhere in the food chain must have realized the replacement cycle for amphibious assault ships was coming due. This is worse than embarrassing. What’s next, asking other country’s air capabilities for U.S. airborne troops to deploy? Or, perhaps, it is planned negligence designed to reduce deployment capability.


8 posted on 06/22/2015 11:24:01 AM PDT by ripnbang ("An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

My understanding is that our military leaders want (and ask for) more but the Commie Libs running our government won’t fund what is needed.


9 posted on 06/22/2015 11:26:20 AM PDT by navyguy (The National Reset Button is pushed with the trigger finger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Sort of. There was actually an abundence of “foresight”. It was just wrong.

The military traded off current operational capabilities to pay for the development of future ones. They traded the Tarawas and continuing serial production of the Wasps to pay for the F-35, the Americas and the like. Figuring that they could handle the capability gap.

But they screwed up. Just like the Brits did by ditching the Invincibles and Harriers to pay for the QEs and F-35s. Like the US with the Americas the Brits further shot themselves in the foot by switching to a capability (conventional launch and recovery for the QEs) that didn’t pan out then having to switch back.


10 posted on 06/22/2015 11:32:39 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: navyguy

“Heavy-Lift(Ships AND Aircraft)” has been SERVERLY LACKING w/in the United State Military for DECADES!


11 posted on 06/22/2015 11:33:47 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

A number of years ago I had lunch with a Mrs. Commandant of the Marine Corps, at the Commandant’s house at the Marine Barracks in D.C. Apparently Mr. Commandant of the Marine Corps hated the politics. Tough job.


12 posted on 06/22/2015 11:37:01 AM PDT by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
How many modified F/A-18's could we have built for costs incurred on the F-35 money pit? Or F-22's for that matter? We probably could have built a few THOUSAND F/A-18E, F, G or whatever mod it's up to for that F-35 money.

I hear the military is considering building more F/A-18's. Now this IS smart. It's not stealthy but when you can afford to send in scores of them, a few are sure to hit their mark. And I think building the ONE ENGINE F-35 is NOT wise. As a pilot, I would feel safer in an F/A-18 (two engines).

13 posted on 06/22/2015 11:43:20 AM PDT by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

“..and retiring older ones too early.”

The lack of foresight by our military can only be explained as INTENTIONAL.

Anybody thinking about the Air Force pushing to “retire” the A-10?


14 posted on 06/22/2015 11:56:21 AM PDT by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

History is repeating. On the verge of WW-II the U.S. military was so weak they used broom handles in place of rifles for training, what few Navy ships we had were virtually obsolete and the air force was a decade behind.


15 posted on 06/22/2015 2:59:01 PM PDT by The Great RJ (“Socialists are happy until they run out of other people's money.” Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing
How many modified F/A-18's could we have built for costs incurred on the F-35 money pit?

I don't see it as an either/or proposition necessarily.

The F-35 isn't as good as its proponents claim. But it's also not nearly as bad as its detractors do. It fills several significant gaps in US capabilities, including taking stealth strike to sea and giving Marine amphibious groups a pretty decent organic counter-air capability.

The issue, as I see it, is that the military has been forced to choose in a rob-Peter/pay-Paul situation. Its not that they chose the F-35 and America-class LHA (despite their problems) over the Tarawas, etc. It's that they really had no choice but to do so.

The US spent several years running trillion $+ deficits as stimulus to help keep the economy afloat. There's absolutely no reason a larger % of that couldn't have been put into SLEP'ing the Tarawas, which would have put lots of money into the pockets of shipyard workers and helped support the industrial base.
16 posted on 06/22/2015 4:21:22 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Other than the F-35’s STOVL capability, I say flood the hostile territories with F/A-18’s!


17 posted on 06/22/2015 4:33:09 PM PDT by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson