bigtruckguy3500 said:
74OA said:
BarstoolAggie said:
These carriers have been run ragged over the last decade, the Ike was just out for almost a full year, no port calls, and did a quick turnaround. They need to build more.
Don't need to build more, but the Pentagon does need to limit the combatant commander's incessant demands for forward-deployed forces. Not all regional commands are of equal priority at any given time, yet they all want a carrier group, dozens of Predator circuits, etc. The resultant lack of adequate time for maintenance and training is killing Service readiness. We're not at war, yet ops tempo is wearing out the force even before China fires the first shot.
Just Say No
Agree with this. We barely have the manning for our current carrier fleet, we cannot support more carriers. We already have more carriers than the rest of the world combined, we're good on numbers. Plus we have a few allies with actual carriers. We need to prioritize our projection of power, and we need to stop running our sailors into the ground so they actually want to reenlist. The fleet is tired, and we're losing lots of qualified sailors because we don't take care of them.
Yep. It's a bit mind-boggling that all the Service chiefs haven't been screaming for relief for years now.
"Put plainly, regular circumvention of the GFMAP is leaving the services scrambling at a time when they need to rebuild the health of the force. At this rate, the desire to solve every immediate problem, regardless of its strategic prioritization, may hollow the force for the next generation," they continue. "It is imperative that the [combatant commands] accept and share the appropriate amount of risk required to balance their needs against the chiefs' requirement to recruit, train and modernize the services in the long term."
