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

To: detch

My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea. I believe I've read this in the past, that Clinton cut or even eliminated the refueling fleet and this is why ships like the Cole were forced to refuel in ports. If I'm wrong, forgive the error but I'm almost positive this is what I've read.


5 posted on 09/26/2006 3:47:04 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting out of anger in November is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: All

My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea. I believe I've read this in the past, that Clinton cut or even eliminated the refueling fleet and this is why ships like the Cole were forced to refuel in ports. If I'm wrong, forgive the error but I'm almost positive this is what I've read.


8 posted on 09/26/2006 3:47:49 PM PDT by MikeA (Not voting out of anger in November is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: MikeA
My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea. I believe I've read this in the past, that Clinton cut or even eliminated the refueling fleet and this is why ships like the Cole were forced to refuel in ports. If I'm wrong, forgive the error but I'm almost positive this is what I've read.

You're in error--this was a purely political exercise; the Cole had refueled at sea several times before during that deployment.

14 posted on 09/26/2006 3:57:57 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: MikeA
My understanding of this is that Clinton had cut the budget for Navy refueling tankers and thus refueling of Navy ships operating in the Indian Ocean or Persian Gulf were forced into ports to refuel rather than being refueled at sea.

Nope. They refueled there because it was cheaper to have a single ship tank up in a port than it is to have an oiler following every ship in the fleet. The oilers were supporting the body of the fleet, where they belonged.

And all this talk about Clinton decomissioning oilers in bunches is a smoke screen. Oilers, ammunition ships, and other resupply ships have been removed from the active duty navy and reassigned to the Military Sealift Command. All that means is that they have a primarily civilian crew. They're still there with the fleet, and there were more available when Clinton left office then there are currently. And, I should point out, the policy of converting auxiliaries from USS to USNS has continued under the Bush Administration. Currently there is not a single ammunition ship, supply ship or oiler in the U.S. Navy. First time that's happened in close to 100 years.

16 posted on 09/26/2006 4:08:36 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

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