Deployment of second carrier to Gulf a 'reminder': Gates

AFP ^ | 4-29-08

[dixiechick2000]

The plane is buzzing the “boat”.
Or, maybe it’s a fly-by? ;o)

[devolve]

.

Super animation potlatch!

[Solitar]

We have 12 carriers. Two are in extended yard periods at any given time, so we have 10 deployable carriers. Keeping 3 in the Gulf and two in the Med would mean that they would spend 6 months deployed, six months at home. When are they supposed to do maintenance, work-ups, rest their crews, whatever?

During the 3 months out of 12 that they are home (3 months, not 6 months). That allows seven carriers to be deployed -- Northern Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, West Pacific (and the three at home resting should be ready to go on a week's notice). No? The USS Saratoga was in port for repair and overhaul maybe 12 months out of 45 months during WWII. One deployed stretch lasted 12 months. There was a war on then. There is a war on now.

[potlatch]

Thanks devolve, I first posted it on another thread and pinged you there.

[Non-Sequitur]

No?

No.

[BroJoeK]

"We have 12 carriers."

First, are we at peace or war? If we are at peace, then yes, we need lots and lots of R&R for crews, down time for ships, keep deployments short and save lots of money on operating expenses.

If we are at war, then rules change, and life can get tougher on our armed forces.

Second, the simplest way to "surge" forces is just what the Navy is doing now -- overlap deployments for a time. It's not a long term increase, but does "send a message" when needed.

Third, we might note, what most countries call their "carriers," we would call "light carriers," and don't have any. But we do have a number of carrier-like amphibious assault ships. These can also send a pretty potent "message" of their own...

[Non-Sequitur]

If we are at war, then rules change, and life can get tougher on our armed forces.

Until you overwork your crews and they leave the service in waves. Then your ships are worthless if you have nobody to man them.

There is no reason for deploying the number of carriers he is suggesting. There is no need for three in the Gulf and two in the Med. One can handle all the needs of Iraq in combination with the air force.

[BroJoeK]

"There is no reason for deploying the number of carriers he is suggesting. There is no need for three in the Gulf and two in the Med. One can handle all the needs of Iraq in combination with the air force. "

Exactly.

The enemy needs to see one carrier group, and to
understand that if he messes with it, he'll face eleven more, plus
untold other military assets which
will definitely screw up his morning, and
make it very difficult for him to:

"HAVE A NICE DAY!"