-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
USN New Deployment Strategy for CSG?
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
They'll probably change the name back to that in about ten years- about the same time the uniform board announces the replacement of the Type III/guacamoles.
WTF...no balloon makers?
Changed the title for you. First sign that the article is stupid is that it appears on “The Drive.” Second sign that it’s stupid is that it uses the words nuclear and supercarrier. They’re all nuclear, and they’re all “super” (thanks for asking).
But is the point of the article valid - that the monolithic process of workups, planning, and 6-9 month deployments for the CSG becoming a thing of the past? That the pivot by SECDEF is to a more fluid as needed deployment cycle without the need for all the "readiness" shenanigans. Or that "readiness" is now a more fluid thing - continuous readiness and get to "just good enough" to deploy for 90 days = "minimally viable product" in technology speak.
As somebody who finished the coloring book and framed the piece of paper that says I R SMRT (I won't need my high school diploma anymore!!)... well played, my good man!So whats it called now? I never did finish that War College coloring book
Last edited:
FNDF/CVW-5 has obviously been doing some variant of this concept, albeit still very planned for the most part, for a long time. I'll be interested to see what they do with the budget if they intend to sustain this model. The question I have is how many CSG's will be in the indefinite state of readiness hopper at a given time? And if that number is something somewhat reasonable like 1-2, what happens to the training/funding/readiness of all the others? There's only so many parts, so much funding for RBA of X, so much manning, and so much range time. I think the concept is a good one, but I also think these are big issues that will need to be addressed. That being said, whatever ends up happening, I don't think the answer is to get "just good enough" to deploy.
Yes. It's the only way to keep shady contractors like Fat Leonard guessing about deployment schedules and port calls.
What Truman is doing right now is anything but a good deal. Being on the hook to "deploy tomorrow" sucks fucking 100 times worse than actually knowing when you're going to leave. Keeping those guys ready to deploy at moment's notice costs a lot of money...and consists of mostly flying FCLPs to stay current for the boat.
Last edited:
Probably written by a Russian. For one, theirs ain’t nuclear. Also, they consider LHA/LHD to be a “carrier” so everything larger is “super” to them.
More SWO thinking - screw over the national strategic goals at the expense of hoarding resources - "Our pussies hurt, driving ships is hard work and we can barely keep up protecting the CVN's"
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...y-escorts-in-the-next-big-war-forcing-changes
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...y-escorts-in-the-next-big-war-forcing-changes