The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) prepares for flight operations in the Arabian Gulf. Carl Vinson is deployed in the U.S. (U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alex King)
Military.com: 4-Star: Some Requests for Carriers in Middle East Are Getting Turned Down
The U.S. military is turning to allies in the Middle East to fill gaps when Navy aircraft carriers can't make it out to the region, a top general said Thursday.
Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of U.S. Central Command, told lawmakers that his command can't always get an aircraft carrier into the region when they'd like to. His response comes as Pentagon leaders are reportedly considering retiring one of its 11 aircraft carriers -- the Harry S. Truman -- early.
"We had to work solutions that included other platforms and other coalition partners to help meet those requirements," Votel said Thursday during a House Armed Services committee hearing.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The U.S. Navy cannot be everywhere at all times.
3 comments:
Trump sending a message to the Middle East. It is no longer the apple of our national defenses eyes. Obvious fact, Middle East oil and gas goes to Europe and Asia far more than to the United States. They want it, they defend it.
Retiring Truman is dumb on its face. Threats of retiring Nimitz early would hold more water. Its the oldest of the current class - due to itself retire in 2024. Retiring Truman early would be the equivalent of losing two carriers. Which is insane.
Pure Kabuki theater.
Russ,
How many aircraft carriers we need is going to be a function of what missions we are going to be carrying out in the future and how reliable the xarriers are. For example, I longed believed these things to be "floating death traps." A number of smart people believe otherwise. As such, I've somewhat altered this position and am continuing to evaluate it.
For the purpose of this post I'm going to assume they have maximum utility. I think it undeniable that the costs associated with these things is enormous. If the plan is for allies to shoulder more of the military needs, then we probably don't need as many carriers and the money and resource allocation could be better utilized elsewhere. A number of nations do quite well at meeting their security needs and representing their interests without any aircraft carriers.
Post a Comment