Carrier cuts coming?

[exNavyOffRec]

It will be interesting to see how the cuts come out, there was an article I was reading this am (if I can find it again I will link it) that said the Navy was the key part of the new defense plan.

I not too sure how accurate some of this other info is but at the end of last spring I was at an event with USAF and USMC recruiters and they had been told to plan on lower recruiting numbers due to significant personnel cuts (the USAF recruiter was told 30,000 billets), who knows how many are tied directly to budget but with better technology we are able to reduce manpower and $$$$

 

[exNavyOffRec]

So you're saying that with <10 carriers, we can't maintain a 1.0 presence IVO the gulf? Explain that math to me. Besides, a 6 month cruise is standard, what's the problem there? We haven't seen any significant deviations like the 10+ month ABE cruise in quite a while.

Brett

yep, we have barely been able to maintain a 1.0 presence with what we have, even right now we have multiple carriers that are not leaving the yards in time.

Lincoln might be doing another long one, she left in Dec and is looking like arrive in Norfolk in (edited)

 

[insanebikerboy]

Lincoln might be doing another long one, she left in Dec and is looking like arrive in Norfolk in (edit).

I'm not a mod so I can't remove this but I think posting these kinds of things on an open forum isn't the smartest.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

I'm not a mod so I can't remove this but I think posting these kinds of things on an open forum isn't the smartest.

It's public knowledge, it was put out to the families when she left and the yardbirds in Norfolk was told this info as well.

 

[Brett327]

I'm not a mod so I can't remove this but I think posting these kinds of things on an open forum isn't the smartest.

Done.

 

[Brett327]

It's public knowledge, it was put out to the families when she left and the yardbirds in Norfolk was told this info as well.

Irrelevant. See PM.

As for the other assertion in that post, to say that we've barely been able to make a 1.0 presence is false. That's not even the requirement and we're not going to discuss those details here. Having done ABE's last OEF cruise, I'm familiar with her unique situation and I'm confident she will cruise according to schedule for RCOH.

Brett

 

[ea6bflyr]

Well, we do have a sweet new LPH that is getting close to being finished.

Just think, they already have their command song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcmuPc8_SWQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Irrelevant. See PM.

As for the other assertion in that post, to say that we've barely been able to make a 1.0 presence is false. That's not even the requirement and we're not going to discuss those details here. Having done ABE's last OEF cruise, I'm familiar with her unique situation and I'm confident she will cruise according to schedule for RCOH.

Brett

In regards to life of the reactors I am not specifically talking about ABE, EFPH useage is based on many things, if we use more EFPH for deployment we have to save somewhere, however the best thing that saved EFPH for ABE after her 10 month deployment was the fiasco of a yard period that last 10 months.

 

[flaps]

where are we gonna be in 10-15 years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16063607

 

[Brett327]

In regards to life of the reactors I am not specifically talking about ABE, EFPH useage is based on many things, if we use more EFPH for deployment we have to save somewhere, however the best thing that saved EFPH for ABE after her 10 month deployment was the fiasco of a yard period that last 10 months.

But you're basically stating that we can't maintain a 1.0 presence anywhere in the world with <10 CNVs. That is neither an acurate picture of our deployment schedules pre nor post 9/11. If you're saying that we can't sustain a schedule like we did right after 9/11, then say so and I'd probably agree. Times (and schedules) have changed since then.

Brett

 

[exNavyOffRec]

But you're basically stating that we can't maintain a 1.0 presence anywhere in the world with <10 CNVs. That is neither an acurate picture of our deployment schedules pre nor post 9/11. If you're saying that we can't sustain a schedule like we did right after 9/11, then say so and I'd probably agree. Times (and schedules) have changed since then.


Brett

If the gulf is the only place for a 1.o presence then yes, if we have 2 locations for 1.0 then no, not without an adjustment in
the schedules before and after deployment, and getting the yards to give an accurate timeline of the work that needs to be done. One of the greatest lines a shipyard supervisor told us during a brief is "we are doing 10 months of work in 6 months, we haven't done this before".

 

[Brett327]

You should take a look at the MAP. That will help you understand the big picture. The fact of the matter is, we've maintained greater than a 1.0 presence in the gulf since 9/11 along with our normal requirements in WESTPAC, etc. Your average carrier availability shifts with the various maintenance requirements and life goes on. Taking one boat out of the rotation will no doubt increase the demands on the remaining boats, but it's not going to overturn the apple cart.

Brett

 

[helolumpy]

Doing simple math:
Keep to the 24 month deployment schedule (pre 9/11 standard)' you need 8 boats to cover both coasts.
That gets you 2 CVN deployed 24/7 with a surge capability of 2 more boats.
(6 month deployment; 6 month return for upkeep and "surge"; 12 month train up)

Boat number 9 is for the Nimitz boats hitting RCOH windows. You need to take one boat out of the rotation for 3 years (This was how long Vinson was in the yard)

Keep 1 boat in Japan for surge for specific areas and you have a total of 10 boats.

Can you do it, yeah. We have the capability to sustain ops with 10 boats. Once you start surging boats or try to compress the turnaround time between deployments, you end up riding the boats (and crews and Airwings) hard and putting them away wet.

One factor is the requirement for a CVN for VT CQ. This may not seem like a big deal, but if there is no carrier available, then there are no flight school graduations or RAG completers for the Fixed wings bubbas. This is typically handled by an east coast boat during the work-up schedule. However, when you compress the IDTC you start making deck availability tougher for flight school to get. I think they only see a boat once a quarter right now. Can we afford to reduce that availability even further?

I'm not going to postulate on how that may or may not impact retention and recruiting, but what I do know is that ships and aircraft seem to be failing inspections a lot more than I remember as a JO.
I'm sure some Ops Reasearch guru can define when the breaking point is for the carrier force. I think we can manage sustained ops with 10 pretty easily, but that limits the options of the civilian leadership.

If there's one thing that civilians like it's options and wiggle-room (both in politics and diplomacy). I'm sure the CNO will explain the facts to civilian leadership and when he explains the RISK, then he will get people's attention.

No one wants to be the person who signed off on risk if they didn't have to.

That's just my opinion, I may be wrong...

 

[exNavyOffRec]

How they manage those demands is the big variable, if EFPH gets far enough off of the slope they have to do something to get back on it.

Having been in the engineering field and know quite a few people in the SY working on the carriers we have been closer to not meeting requirements than many people realize, the plans were all built around 6 month deployments, anything more starts throwing a wrench in the plans.

We normally have 1 in RCOH, 4 in PIA, 2 in workups, 3 on/coming back/just returned/about to go on deployment, of course the numbers adjust a bit depending on the specific time, but adjustments could be made, but to what sacrifice, equipment maintenance/replacement? that just leads to equipment failure, since we started sending carriers in the gulf we have rec'd better equipment but that heat takes it's toll, many times we were operating with the minimum equipment we needed.

 

[Brett327]

I'm not going to postulate on how that may or may not impact retention and recruiting,/quote]

Apparently, we're in a draw down. See PTS, ERB and the numbers of frustrated AW posters who are getting turned away by recruiters.

Brett