Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 05/28/2025 View Tue 05/27/2025 View Mon 05/26/2025 View Sun 05/25/2025 View Sat 05/24/2025 View Fri 05/23/2025 View Thu 05/22/2025
2013-02-07 Home Front: WoT
Pentagon to cut aircraft carrier presence in Persian Gulf due to budget strains
Update at 1120 CT: Mario Loyola at The Corner agrees with my question, below, and goes one (aircraft carrier) further. If we're not doing anything with them and if Iran knows we won't do anything with them, we might as well not have any carriers in the Arabian Sea.
The U.S. military is planning to shrink its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf from two to one due to looming budget constraints -- in a dramatic signal from the Pentagon about the real-world impact of automatic budget cuts that still have not been averted. U.S. military officials confirmed Wednesday that the Navy would reduce its presence. The decision will go into effect immediately.

"Facing budget uncertainty ... the U.S. Navy made this request to (Defense Secretary Leon Panetta) and he approved," Pentagon spokesman George Little said in a statement. "This prudent decision enables the U.S. Navy to maintain these ships to deploy on short notice in the event they are needed to respond to national security contingencies."

Under the plan, the deployment of the USS Harry S. Truman -- which was scheduled to leave Friday from Norfolk, Va. -- has been cancelled.

There have been two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf for most of the last two years. The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the Gulf but was brought home in December for maintenance. It will return later this month, at which point the USS John C. Stennis -- currently the only carrier in the Gulf -- will leave the region and return home.

Officials say that in the event Congress cannot avert $500 billion in defense cuts over the next 10 years, the Navy can't justify the cost of two carriers in that region.
The real question is, do we need two carriers in the Gulf on a routine basis?
The Navy could, however, be "surge-ready" one official said, and deploy more carriers in a crisis situation. It would take an aircraft carrier about two weeks to get to the Gulf from Norfolk, if needed.

The Navy has 10 aircraft carriers in its fleet and, as of today, only three were forward-deployed at any given time. Two were in the Persian Gulf and one permanently stationed in Japan. Now the Navy will only have two forward-deployed carriers.

Typically, carriers spend six months at sea, but in an already budget-constrained atmosphere, their deployments have lasted closer to nine months.

A Navy official says the Pentagon would save "several hundred million dollars per year" by reducing to one carrier in the Gulf.

The move by the Pentagon comes as lawmakers argue over how, if at all, to avoid a March 1 deadline -- after which automatic cuts to the Pentagon and other areas of the budget will begin to take effect.
Posted by Steve White 2013-02-07 08:51|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ]  Top

#1 No consideration given to BRAC savings and base closures? Submarines? Blue Angels? Uniformed manpower? New construction? DoD Civilians God forbid? Only thing they could think of to cut was aircraft carriers which could assist Israel against Iran. Ok, I got it.

Cutting carriers will be used as stick to beat Republicans into budget compromise. It has been used very effectively by the Air Force for decades.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-02-07 09:23||   2013-02-07 09:23|| Front Page Top

#2 Hussien's work at bankrupting the capitalist super power United States of America as a tool to implement socialism is upon the United States of America is going full speed ahead.

Hussein's work at reducing the military might of the super power United States of America is going full speed ahead.

His efforts is aimed at reducing the influence of the United States of America around the world and to replace it with a one world socialist order allowing nations bound together via the UN more power and influence without interference of the US.

Even though some member states are in a crisis, the EU will become a greater influence economically. EUMC and the EU Rapid Reaction Force will continue to gain from a military power perspective. The Dollar will be replaced by the Euro or other currencies due to the increased US debt Hussein is inflicting on the US Treasury and financial system.

F16 fighters to the Muslim Brotherhood gives strength to the enemies of Israel which influences the Islamic nations to now consider Hussien a critical allie.

This is not simply fundamentally changing the US, it is about fundamentally changing the world. Ask George Soros about all of that.
Posted by Dino Shomomp7692 2013-02-07 09:44||   2013-02-07 09:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Unfortunately, you speak with clarity and truth.
Posted by JohnQC 2013-02-07 10:22||   2013-02-07 10:22|| Front Page Top

#4 "EU Rapid Reaction Force"??

The ones that fly in on USAF C-17s? Or via Air Ukraine?

What color is the sky in your world, Dino?
Posted by Steve White 2013-02-07 12:07||   2013-02-07 12:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Hasn't the EU been building their "rapid reaction force" for decades? And the damned thing always ends up with French officers, German soldiers, and American logistics?

Posted by Rob Crawford 2013-02-07 12:57||   2013-02-07 12:57|| Front Page Top

#6 The 2000 Treaty of Nice created the RRF (EU European Rapid Reaction Force) and was enhanced under the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. 1500 battle groups are already prepared for rapid deployment.

EU now consists of 27 states (10 permanent members, 17 observer states). A solution to the current EU economic crisis is the establishment of a central EU Bank.

What is now missing is a strong, long term, longer than 6 months of office of Presidency. A New Foreign Minister position was first introduced for consideration in 2004. And who better than Javier Solana as long term EU President per many who want to see an EU "Super State".
Posted by Dino Shomomp7692 2013-02-07 13:56||   2013-02-07 13:56|| Front Page Top

#7 Treaty of Nice (Link) and to throw a bit of irony into the conversation, the recommendation to create the leadership position of the RRF that was eventually adoped as part of the EU treaty was titled "Assembly Recommendation DCLXVI" (Assembly Recommendation 666).

:)
Posted by Dino Shomomp7692 2013-02-07 14:36||   2013-02-07 14:36|| Front Page Top

#8 I just wanted to chime in that I agree with Dr. Steve: if we're not doing anything with 'em, don't have 'em there at all.

We have access to land bases in the region, and if we don't, we don't have allies to protect.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-02-07 15:26||   2013-02-07 15:26|| Front Page Top

#9 Re: a previous comment: the Blue Angels are cutting back; they will not be @ Seafair, it was announced earlier this week. but i do have to ask, with all the carriers being nuke powered, and the Sailors are still getting paid, and gotta eat and train ( burn JP and such) what will the real savings be in the short term? if the CVs were still oil burners I can see that. But I guess the cost for the rest of the task force is where the real savings will be.....
Posted by USN,Ret. 2013-02-07 21:23||   2013-02-07 21:23|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm sure CHINA + PLA is happy about this news.

FYI I've been telling Guam locals that a combo of OWG-NWO, NAU 2015, Global Prompt Strike, Space/Star/OrbitStrike, US-World Econ woes, Debt burdens, etc. has resulted in Guam becoming a RDF/RRF Node for CONUS-based US Army + Marines includ Elites, + also as per LR Drones for the USAF, at least thru 2030 or 2050 depending on how development of cheap, reliable, + mass-producable NASA-JPL, DARPA-led Space Techs goes.

The day is slowly but steadily coming when none of the CONUS-based US Armed Services will need overseas bases for anything due to the advent or rise of advanced Space Techs for either
"Peacekeeping" or Warfighting. LEST WE FERGIT, THE US GOVT-DOD IS PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE MAJOR WARS, I.E. MIL WARS OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE LARGE NATION-STATES = NUCLEAR POWERS, THRU 2050 IFF NOT 2100.

'Tis why I'm also telling Guam locals GUam must act now to be either a DE FACTO FULL US STATE, OR ELSE A DE FACTO FULLY INDEPENDENT + SOVEREIGN NATION FROM THE US - the longer Guam keeps putting it off, the greater the risk the US will unilaterally make the decision for Guam widout need of Guam's assent, as due to PLANNED ANDOR UN-PLANNED CHANGES IN TECHS + WORLD ORDER.

Under OWG + NAU 2015, where the US is EFFFEC suborned under anti-sovereign, anti-Borders, + anti-US OWG "Union" + Interim?, the pecking order for scarce US $$$ will be LOWER OR WORSE FOR GUAM + US OVERSEAS TERRITORIES THAN AS AT PRESENT.

STATE SOCIALISM = NEW "SOVEREIGNTY", ETC. UNDER OWG + NAU 2015 + TRANS/INTERIM - e.g. STATE CAPITALISM?

As for IRAN, unless SHTF vee Third-Parties in the ME it will choose to remain on the strategic defensive. IN IRAN'S MIND, THE BURDEN IS ON THE US = US-ALLIES + ONLY SUCH TO PROVE IRAN HAS NUCBOMBS + TO INITIATE MILACTION AGZ SAME. IRAN WILL WAIT TO BE ATTACKED ANDOR INVADED.

THE BIGGER DANGER IS CHINA, AS A US-CHINA MIL + NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION CAN BLOW ALL OF EAST ASIA + MIDDLE EAST + INDO-PAK + AFPAK + CENTRAL ASIA WIDE OPEN. Iran + Persian Gulf will just be one combat front of several or many for the US-vs-China.

Be it IRAN or CHINA, alone or in joint, can Amers trust alleged Anarchist-for-OWG/Globalism POTUS Obama to defend AMerica = Amerika's interests. IFF CHINA REFUSES TO BACK DOWN, THE RISK IS THERE THAT TO AVOID A LIMITED OR FULL-SCALE NUCLEAR CONFLICT AGZ CHINA, THAT THE BAMMER MAY HAVE TO MAKE MAJOR UNILATERAL CONCESSIONS THAT NEITHER MAINSTREAM/ORDINARY AMERICANS NOR US OVERSEAS ALLIES WILL LIKE.

[HUGO CHAVEZ + US ISLAND/LAND-SINKING
"EARTHQUAKE/TECTONIC BOMBS" here].

Will the Bammer fight, or will "He saved/kept us out of [Nuclear] War"???

* FYI FREEREPUBLIC > [ABC News] JAPAN ACCUSES RUSSIA OF [airspace] INTRUSION, SCRAMBLES FIGHTERS.

* TOPIX > NO NEW US BASES IN ASIA [vee "Pivot"]: US COMMANDER.

US PACOM Chief ADM. Samuel Locklear.

* SAME > WHY ASIA TODAY IN 2013 LOOKS LIKE THE WORLD OF 1913?

WW1 POTUS Woodrow Wilson = WW2's UK PM Nelville Chamberlain = THEY, TOO, WERE BOTH CELEBRATED FOR KEEPING THEIR RESPECTIVE NATIONS "OUT OF WAR", for a short while anyway.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2013-02-07 22:51||   2013-02-07 22:51|| Front Page Top

#11 Joe, that is probably your most lucid comment to date. And rightfully so. After learning your native tongue I have become a fan of your insights, and agree with you wholeheartedly. Like the old Chinese curse says, "we live in 'interesting times'."
Posted by Scooter McGruder 2013-02-07 23:07||   2013-02-07 23:07|| Front Page Top

06:58 NN2N1
06:58 Besoeker
05:28 Whiskey Mike
05:23 Whiskey Mike
05:21 Whiskey Mike
05:18 Whiskey Mike
05:15 Whiskey Mike
05:13 Whiskey Mike
05:08 Whiskey Mike
05:05 Whiskey Mike
05:03 Whiskey Mike
03:23 Besoeker
02:05 Grom the Affective
02:04 Grom the Affective
01:26 49 Pan
00:22 EMS Artifact
00:16 Skidmark









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com