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

Skip to comments.

Pacific ships can afford little downtime
Bremerton Sun ^ | April 26, 2003 | Chris Barron

Posted on 04/26/2003 8:50:42 AM PDT by microgood

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii -- With five of six carrier battle groups deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Pacific Fleet was nearly tested to its limits. The ability to deploy the fleet's assets -- ships, subs and personnel -- quickly has given Navy leaders a great sense of pride.

"That's a phenomenal undertaking," Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Walter Doran said in his historic Pearl Harbor office. "That underlines the commitment we have made over the last couple of years in short-term readiness and maintenance. And it talks very, very highly about training and the readiness capability of the sailors."

However, it also leaves the Navy with plenty of questions in regard to aircraft carrier deployments.

Currently, the 2004 schedule is a blank slate ready to be filled in, and the top brass is trying to solve the problem.

"It's going to be a challenge," said Doran in his first one-on-one interview with a U.S. journalist since taking command a year ago. "We have to look at innovative ways of maintenance, to be efficient, to be effective and to make sure we re-cock this force."

Doran said the Navy is examining how to better marry the workload on nuclear-powered vessels between naval and private shipyards, including at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

As the Everett-based USS Abraham Lincoln pulls into Hawaii today for a one-day stop, it's already planning for a 10-month drydock maintenance period at PSNS beginning in late June. That will leave it unavailable for deployment until late 2004 at the earliest.

In addition, once the Bremerton-based USS Carl Vinson returns from deployment, likely in late July or August, it will head for its second shipyard stay in a year.

And USS Constellation, on its way home from the Persian Gulf, will be decommissioned in three months, leaving the Pacific Fleet with only five carriers until the new USS Ronald Reagan is available for duty in 2005.

"Because the global war on terrorism is continuing and not over, we are going to have to continue to be a responsive Navy," Doran said.

"We proved by our ability to move forward quickly in Operation Iraqi Freedom the value of naval forces at sea. We're going to have to maintain that. We're going to have to be a force that has a surge capability.

"Now, that's going to have an impact across the board on deployment schedules, on maintenance schedules and lots of things. We're giving it a lot of thought right now."

The Abraham Lincoln, scheduled to arrive Friday in San Diego to drop off its air wing personnel, is finishing up a deployment that will be 9 1/2 months long by the time it reaches Everett -- the longest carrier cruise since Vietnam.

With the Abraham Lincoln's late arrival and the Carl Vinson's early one, the schedule at PSNS has been virtually thrown out from where it stood at the start of 2003.

The shipyard, which had scheduled no overtime for its work force this year, is already refueling and overhauling two fast-attack and one Trident submarine in addition to offsite work in Florida, Georgia and California.

"When we bring her (the Lincoln) home, we're going to have to find time do that, and that's going to have a ripple effect," Doran said. "So we're going to have to look at and find more efficient, more effective ways to take care of this work load. But there's a commitment to do that.

"The global war on terrorism isn't over with what happened in Iraq. And so we have got to reconstitute this force in pretty short order."

USS Kitty Hawk, based in Japan, is headed for its home port, but will undergo maintenance before it's back at sea. That's why the Carl Vinson will remain in the Western Pacific, which could be the world's next hot spot with North Korea admitting Thursday that it has nuclear weapons.

As the Kitty Hawk was sent to the Persian Gulf in February, the Carl Vinson, heading for home after a short training mission, was given deployment orders and sent to Japan.

It was the Vinson's rapid training schedule, which led it to being deployment-ready in four months rather than the standard year, that the Navy is using as an example of its ability to prepare its forces quickly.

"With Vinson, we compressed that a little bit," Doran said. "We watched very carefully that they were getting what they needed and made sure they were combat capable."

And with the Vinson patrolling the waters near Japan and Korea, it maintained the stability in that region, Doran said.

"We also had a responsibility to maintain our commitments in the Western Pacific, and we've been able to do that," he said.

"All you have to do is pick up a magazine or a newspaper and read the headlines and obviously the Pacific Rim is very important to the United States. ... Those forward-deployed naval forces are just a key underliner of stability in the Western Pacific."

Reach ChrisBarron at (360) 792-9207 or at cbarron@thesunlink.com.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: everett; iraqifreedom; navy; northkorea; pacificfleet; submarines; troopmovement; ussabrahamlincoln; usscarlvinson; ussconstellation; usskittyhawk; ussronaldreagan
GO NAVY!
1 posted on 04/26/2003 8:50:43 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: microgood
"to be effective and to make sure we re-cock this force"

Is he talking about eliminating women on the ships?

2 posted on 04/26/2003 9:34:46 AM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
I would be in favor of keeping the Constellation until the Reagon is ready. Parley
3 posted on 04/26/2003 10:06:20 AM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
I agree. That would be a great idea.

The Navy sure has performed well.
4 posted on 04/26/2003 10:09:17 AM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Simple solution to this problem:BUILD MORE SHIPS!!
5 posted on 04/26/2003 10:14:55 AM PDT by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
"And it talks very, very highly about training and the readiness capability of the sailors."

Ah, the "training and readiness of the sailors" Would that be the same training and readiness that required the dumbing down of nine tests of ability, the complete performance of which was NECESSARY to becoming a Seaman, because the Gal's couldn't do them? Oh. Just asking.
6 posted on 04/26/2003 10:17:15 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HalfFull
FYI

.....only five carriers until the new USS Ronald Reagan is available for duty in 2005.

The Reagan will be commissioned this summer. You're an expert on this....why so long (2 yrs) for the shakedown?

7 posted on 04/26/2003 10:18:53 AM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
Good point.
8 posted on 04/26/2003 10:29:58 AM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: microgood
I believe these issues and vulnerabilities deserve tons of prayer, folks.

We ain't out of the woods yet by a long shot.

And, personally, I think we need ANOTHER carrier task force--beyond what I am aware of being in the works.
9 posted on 04/26/2003 10:34:02 AM PDT by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Al B.
The Reagan will be commissioned this summer. You're an expert on this....why so long (2 yrs) for the shakedown?

I can answer this one ... the article is somewhat inaccurate. What will happen is that Reagan will take Connie's place in the 2 year deployment rotation schedule, which encompasses roughly 18 months of predeployment maintenance (even a new ship will have a bunch of bugs to work out) and workups, followed by a six month deployment.

There's really now doubt that Reagan can be ready to deploy early, if needed ... as the article mentions Vinson having done. Indeed, in the immediate wake of 9-11 the Nimitz, fresh out of RCOH (Comprehensive Overhaul and Refueling) put to sea, took aboard an airwing and took up station off the East Coast ... even though she's only now on her first "real" post-overhaul deployment. A friend of mine with knowledge of such things told me that had it not been for the utter seriousness of the situation, getting Nimitz to sea in late 1991 would have been really amusing, as they were simultaneously striking ordinance down into the magazines and bolting down the chairs in the pilots' ready rooms ...
10 posted on 04/26/2003 10:57:22 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
reasonable choice...But, don't ask $hillary or any other liberal...they hate the Armed Services...if given the choice, Saddam was their Hero (as was Stalin, Mao, Castro (doesn't know it, yet) , Pol Pot..etc., even Hilter...(gun-control laws) all dead, relics of history)... :|
11 posted on 04/26/2003 11:00:04 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
Thanks for the response. I knew the Reagan was planning for a year's shakedown out of Norfolk before deploying to the Pacific. Wasn't sure about the rest of the story.
12 posted on 04/26/2003 12:42:00 PM PDT by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Simple solution to this problem:BUILD MORE SHIPS!!

And staff them with who? I don't know that there are enough Sailors in the Navy to man more ships. All the people on shore duty are where they need to be.

13 posted on 04/26/2003 12:47:55 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph
hmmm...good point. However during the Reagan era our navy was quite large and had no trouble filling the spots. Why would today be different?
14 posted on 04/26/2003 12:54:49 PM PDT by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
hmmm...good point. However during the Reagan era our navy was quite large and had no trouble filling the spots. Why would today be different?

All the downsizing, top to bottom reviews, base closure and realignments that took place two seconds after the Berlin Wall fell. Liberals in search of their "peace dividend." We might never see the 600-ship Navy that Reagan was aiming for.

15 posted on 04/26/2003 12:59:44 PM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Naval Fleet Requirements/ Shipbuilding Policy

The Defense Industrial Base -- An Industry At Risk

16 posted on 04/26/2003 1:03:27 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Thanks for those links. Worked as a EE at PSNS for many years. I had no idea the ship count was that low.
17 posted on 04/26/2003 2:08:14 PM PDT by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

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