[LibertarianInExile]

Further evidence a carrier group should be based in Guam. It won't be. The Hawaiicans and the military prefer their bases to be easy livin' and junketing. Unfortunately for the Taiwanese.

Of course, Guam's 'government' sure doesn't make it easy to put things there, with their willingness to f up just about everything the U.S. government has provided.

However, Guam's government does serve as a great example--of how the U.S. is gonna go to hell.

[dk/coro]

Once again I bring out my old "saw":

To sustain a 3 Carrier group on station in a forward area would require an inventory of 14.8 CV's. currently have 10 CV Battle Groups -- and the Quadrennial Review is poised to reduce it to EIGHT! (With the fervent blessing of a "cost cutting *S* Congress).

Any serious attention to the Western Pacific would require the drawdown of EastLant, Med and Arabian Sea Naval Forces.

FWI, these figures are not pulled willy-nilly from my ancient cranium, but are contained in confirmation testimony of recent CNO appointments before the Senate Armed Services Committee -- among many other sources as well. Essentially OP-05 gospel -- and logistically irrefutable.

Thank you for your indulgence. dkp

[ProudVet77]

I agree that their should be carriers based in Guam, but there are none in Hawaii. Other than Kitty Hawk in Yokosuka, the rest of the carriers are in San Diego and Everett & Bremerton WA. This has more to do with the congress than the Navy.
Can you be more specific about Guam? When I was there, they loved us. And thought they were doing what they could to get more ships there. There used to be a boomer base there, as well as PCs and other ships.