Posted on 09/25/2024 7:01:21 AM PDT by george76
know a guy who does this. a good chap but fully woke.
sad.
Do we dare ask who was the Captain and Executive officer of that ship?
I might have missed it, but I did look and havent found anything about the ships Captain. Seems that might be relevant given all the DEI of this admin.
If we get into a war with France, I think we’d be OK.
But, in general, I don’t have confidence that the US could really win a war against anyone.
When I was in the US Navy (mid-late 1960’s) some skippers of aircraft carriers had held prior commands on fleet oilers. If that is still the progression protocol, there is no joy in the captain’s cabin of the USNS Big Horn.
Have read elsewhere that of America’s 11 carriers, only max. 3 can be put to sea at any one time.
WOW! Don’t we have a couple de-comd ships that could be brought back on line faster than a new build? Probably not. Anyway, back in the early 60’s my dad was the supply officer for CINCLANTFLT stationed in London. Guess this would have been on his desk.
CVNs spend year in the shipyard for every 5 years of service ( roughly )
You mean young men whom can pass the ASVAB and have a modicum of fitness aren’t fighting their way to the recruiting office, hoping for a chance to service, I mean serve aboard the USS Harvey Milk?
Fleet oilers are operated by civilians in the USNS and some active duty USN ( mostly for comms).
This old Army guy knows basically nothing about the Navy but one would think that the Captain of any Navy vessel that ran aground would...as Ricky Ricardo would say...”have some splainin’ to do”.
And what their pronouns are?
In a real emergency you’d certainly want to be able to put them *all* to sea. I wonder why that’s true.Lack of personnel? Lack of aircraft?
“...US Navy Oiler Runs Aground, Forcing Carrier Strike Group to Scramble for Fuel ...”
These US Navy “errors” are the fruit of a DEI administration and you will find many more “errors” throughout the government for the same reason.
DEI is a costly cancer in everything it touches.
When a US aircraft carrier puts to sea, it's protected by the latest anti-aircraft weaponry and a screen of escort ships and its own air cover to intercept incoming threats miles away.
Is any of this true for a lowly tanker? Not hardly --- and yet, the carrier and its strike aircraft won't work without the fuel the tanker provides.
So which target would you aim your antiship missile at? The hard target, with all its screening vessels with the latest defenses, or the slow, highly flammable soft target which is alone and virtually unarmed?
Can potential armed services recruits test positive for marijuana and still be accepted and serve?
Can active duty smoke it at will?
Want to cripple a carrier task force, at least temporarily? Incapacitate its one and only oiler. The carrier is nuke powered, but its aircraft and supporting vessels all require the fuel on board.
There are other oilers available, but they will take time get to Yemen. YouTube’s What’s Going On With Shipping did a comprehensive video on the underlying problem with our support system.
They are hotly competing to serve on the USS Harvey Milk and its twin ship the USS Big Horney.
Problem is, commercial tankers are not outfitted to refuel ships at sea. They are specifically outfitted with booms and hoses for seaborne operations.
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.