Marines May Deploy on Foreign Ships,As U.S. Doesn’t Have Enough(Deliberate,Heinous ACT by FUBO)

Free Beacon ^ | June 22, 2015 | Aaron Mclean

[lbryce]

Original title:Marines May Deploy on Foreign Ships, Because U.S.Navy Doesn’t Have Enough

The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.

“There’s no substitute for U.S. amphibious” vessels, Cooling said. “We’re looking at other options” in the meantime, he added.

The Marines have been working with Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and other close allies to determine the suitability of the foreign ships for U.S. personnel and aircraft.

This is not the first attempt by the Marine Corps to deal with the shortfall in amphibious vessels in an unconventional way. Earlier this year, for example, it was reported that the Marine Corps had already begun running limited operations off of Navy supply ships that are crewed by civilians.

Among the interesting elements of this morning’s report is the way in which the Marines are making no effort to dress up the effort to use foreign ships as some sort of partnership effort that benefits the United States. Instead, Cooling paints a concerning picture of a Marine Corps desperate to fulfill operational requirements but lacking support from the Navy to do so.

[lbryce]

The president’s supporters loved it, almost as much as they loved his zinger from the same debate, that, “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” That remark was intended to make fun of Romney’s earlier claim that Russia was the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe.” The president was wrong on both counts. Russia is in fact a major geopolitical foe, one that shows nothing but contempt for a liberal, rules-based international order. And the Navy really doesn’t have enough ships, to such an embarrassing extent that the Marine Corps is now looking to hitch rides with Spaniards, Italians, and Brits.

This report shows that our military has reached a genuinely pathetic milestone, and there is no sign that the administration has any interest in stopping the decline. This nation has enough wealth to give that Marines what they need without forcing the Navy to scale back on its other priorities. Which Republican candidates will make defense spending, and the security and international leadership it purchases, a foundation of their campaign?

My comment. reaction to this deliberate, heinous act to ameliorate American power and security is exponential outrage!

What sort of sick sordid joke is this? American soldiers, Marines defending our country on the deck of some foreign two bit country....

How will the chain of command operate?

Our biggest fear to what Obama was going to do to America, to our military was to simply cut it down in size.
That's terrible enough.

Marines May Deploy on Foreign Ships, Because U.S. Doesn’t Have Enough now.

But he's gone and done something exponentially, diabolically worse, more embarrassing, much more ineffective in our need to defend the country.

Our soldiers will be placed on foreign ships because America lacks the ships it needs to defend itself.

I am absolutely livid.

All I am going to say is a simple

FUBO

May you rot in hell.

[clintonh8r]

I read somewhere, perhaps apocryphal, that the U.S. Navy now has more admirals than ships.

[Berlin_Freeper]

June 18, 2015 China Orders Civilian Ships Adapted For Military Use

[Berlin_Freeper]

Which Republican candidates will make defense spending, and the security and international leadership it purchases, a foundation of their campaign?

Rand Paul.

[tillacum]

We have a Veteran who flew C130s running for the presidency.
He has experience at the head of a state. He’s allowed more jobs to be made under his governorship than any other state in the union. He knows we have 50 states, he stands behind our veterans and our military. He’ll make sure our borders are protected. HE WILL MAKE SURE OUR MILITARY IS REBUILT AND THEIR EQUIPMENT BROUGHT UP TO STANDARD. THE PLANES AND SHIPS NEEDED TO PROTECT US WILL BE BUILD.
SO all companies who made items necessary for our military had better be prepared to retool, rehire and regenerate what is needed.
He’s a humble man, a friend of veterans and loves this great country of ours. He once signed a contract that included giving his life for this country if needed. Just like the rest of the veterans have done.
Hang in there Ibryce...I’m with you, as many are.

[Paulie]

Rand Paul would make beefing up our military a priority?

If true, this should be discussed, because many a Freeper has gone to great lengths to define him as a naïve lightweight in the area of national defense.

Was all of that untrue? Is Rand Paul the type that understands that only through a strong and able military and a strong CIC can we lead the free world toward peace?

Or is the opposite true?

[Berlin_Freeper]

Opposite.

[V K Lee]

WTH!!?? US has no ships ...either the floating type or the rocket type. We must rely on others in order to move our men about. This CANNOT STAND. The criminal administration has every penny ready to dole to their base fans. But to our wonderful men in uniform they have nothing? Get this POSPOTUS OUT of our oo and into the brig where the creature belongs. As well as taking the entire lot of the mob who bow down to such evil decisions.

[Whenifhow]

Ping

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Requisition John Kerry’s yacht. That will solve the problem.

Rename it the USS SCUMBUCKET!

[ansel12]

Rand Paul is a libertarian, meaning weak on defense.

Here is his own proposals for reducing our military, and it's weapons, and research on weapons.

[txrefugee]

The ONLY job for the federal government other than delivering the mail and printing money is THE NATIONAL DEFENSE! This should be impeachable dereliction of duty by this un-American president and his co-conspirators.

[Salvation]

Think of all the jobs for Americans in building new battleships.

[Salman]

I thought we had the biggest navy in the world.

[Jet Jaguar]

Active Duty ping.

[Jet Jaguar]

Active Duty ping.

[GeronL]

we don’t have enough.... wha...

[GeronL]

Question: Which ally has more ships than the US.....?

[GeronL]

Lots of countries have more admirals than ships these days it seems.

[tanknetter]

I thought we had the biggest navy in the world.

Depends on how you define "biggest" - total number of combat hulls, no. Total number of carriers + big deck amphibs, yes.

The problem here isn't that we have a small Navy. It's that the Navy is too small in a couple critical areas to meet it's global commitments.

One reason its too small is because of forced prioritization and some bad decisions on long-term asset acquisition. For instance, we had five Tarawa-class assault carriers that dated from the mid-late 1970s. They could have been given life extensions to keep them in service for another 10-15 years. Instead they were retired, and the money put to other things.

In the meantime the Navy made some bad choices about their replacements. The Navy had the Wasp-class assault carriers in production. These mainly replaced the Iwo Jima-class helo carriers. For the 8th and final one (USS Makin Island) the Navy went to a new type of hybrid powerplant. Which necessitated significant design changes, and had a completely new learning curve in building. Which made it take longer.

THEN the Navy decided that its future assault carriers needed an enhanced aviation capability. This resulted in the America-class ships, which are heavily modified Makin Islands ... again taking more time to build. To top it all off the Navy has now decided that the enhanced aviation design isn't really what it wants and is going to go BACK to a "standard" assault carrier (not sure if it'll be a Makin Island repeat or a completely new design) after the 3rd America class.

The result is a gap with fewer in-service decks than requirements demand.

Same thing is happening with the nuke carriers. The Navy decided to retire the USS Kennedy early. Then there were delays (and massive cost over-runs) with the Ford. In the meantime the Enterprise retired on schedule. So there's a big gap that the Navy has tried plugging in a variety of ways. Including retasking, you guessed it, amphibious assault carriers to cover gaps in carrier coverage. The US "carrier" contribution to Odyssey Dawn, the war in Libya, was the USS Kearsarge, a Wasp-class amphib with a limited detachment of Harriers. Quite a difference from the mid-1980s when the US was able to check Khadafy with no less than three carriers.