A strike group CO makes the case for existence

STemplar October 17th, 2011 at 3:23 pm

I think the utility of a CSG is unquestioned, it’s the how much we can continue to afford that is questionable. What we need to do is pair diplomatic efforts with strategic goals to achieve some economic savings. For a long time it seems to me our diplomacy and military are not used as a tandem approach but more of two alternatives to one another. If we would get our act together and bring some resolution to Iran and North Korea diplomatically there could be some savings. Unfortunately our diplomacy for decades has been measured in terms of a lack of conflict equals success which is not true at all. No war does not equal peace. If we allow security issues to persist for decades unchecked it becomes hard to realize any savings, of course the conspiracy mind set would affirm that’s the exact idea.

The current admin with it’s outsourcing of US national security strategy to the UNSC is never going to get it, not that the Bush admin with its war and nothing but, or the Clinton admin with its do nothing approach were either any better. Iran is a tough nut to crack but not impossible. North Korea could be managed if we could just accept the failure of the six party talks and move on to something else. I think 8 years later it is safe to say the “endless talking” we have engaged in with Iran and the Norks and Obama said he wouldn’t is getting us nowhere at light speed.

pp_muscimol October 17th, 2011 at 4:10 pm

There is no need for 11 carriers. Why there is a stricke group for south Atlantic?

To check on Chavez corvettes that might sow up in Tampa Bay?

Ditch one and save money for when the storms arrives to fast build whatever it will need.

STemplar October 17th, 2011 at 4:34 pm

Maintenance issues at the moment we actually only really have 8. 2 are in dry dock for maintenance and one is having its reactor refueled.

BradM October 17th, 2011 at 5:33 pm

The USS Enterprise is already scheduled to be decommissioned in 2013 and her replacement the USS Gerald R Ford wont be commissioned until 2015. So for two years will will be down 1 carrier and only have 10.

Tee October 17th, 2011 at 8:52 pm

I agree. That would solve a couple of problems and help Japan defend themselves.

Matt51 October 17th, 2011 at 11:00 pm

We need the Navy. 10 or 11 carriers should be a Navy decision. We need the Army. And Marines, part of the Navy. We need an Air Force — have to get past JSF.
Barney Frank is correct — we do not need a Triad. Take out one of the three. I would vote for removing land based missiles, and beefing up subs and bombers.
We also survived as a nation until 2002? without a Dept of Homeland Security. Cut that nonsense, but keep the conventional Army, Navy and Air Force at full strength.

pfcem October 18th, 2011 at 12:47 am

That is the exact OPPOSITE of what would increase revenue. It would in fact ENSURE that the current recession would continue & likely make it worse.

If you want to increase revenue to the US government then you LOWER taxes & REDUCE government regulation so that businesses can grow.

Crusader3 October 18th, 2011 at 1:09 am

Some good ideas and clear thinking out of the box in this group! Now I hope we have some decision makers that can reorganize an effective military based on a reduced budget despite political stupidity. Pointless wars of occupation costing 2 billion a week are not a good idea. A military that can quickly destroy any enemy that threatens the USA homeland and eliminate their capacity to wage war is critical for national survival. Nuclear CSG’s and submarines therefore might be the top priority according to the teachings of RADM Alfred Thayer Mahon. Yes, don’t forget the SEALS and USMC. Triple the size of the Army Reserve and combine it with National Guard. Eliminate the EPA,DOT,DOE,Dept,Commerce,Sec.Interior,BLM, and give those functions to the States. Eliminate the IRS and add a uniform sales tax instead of an income tax full of loopholes.

pp_muscimol October 18th, 2011 at 6:30 am

that shit gain ..;that was exactely what got us in the hole at first place … the rich get ritcher with tax evasions and the tax burden fells on the shoulder of mid-class that have piles of bills to pay up to the neck.

superraptor October 18th, 2011 at 9:54 am

well, there is no free lunch, the country is broke similar to Greece. We should be willing to endure a period of austerity for the next 20 years if it ensures our way of life. Call this managed pain. If we keep going the way things are now, the dollar will collapse and we will be paying 20 mill dollars for a loaf of bread as the Gov would print money to meet its obligations, see Weimar Republic in the 20s, call this Mad Max USA. This could transpire by 2014.

Jeff October 18th, 2011 at 10:45 am

Carriers and their strike groups are necessary, but the fact that they necessitate ships to accompany them means that any efficiency gain inherent to the carrier are lost to the fact you never need every accompanying ship 100% time, no matter the CSG’s composition. The merits of a carrier easily justify a carrier, but the need to consolidate ships around them means their cost should really take some part of the entire CSG into consideration. That while it costs ~$10bn a carrier they have to justify to some degree the expenses of a dedicated destroyer squadron, cruiser, and accompanying subs… the summation of those are the true cost of a carrier. While I still believe CSG are still justified, its at that level they need to look at improving cost effectiveness.

A. Nonymous October 18th, 2011 at 1:04 pm

Absolutely not. But I think the “clean and green” label is disingenuous.

shermon15 October 18th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Companies moving their operations overseas to realize a few more dollars in profit is going to destroy this country. The more jobs overseas the less people have to spend here in the US and the spiral continues to go downward. Need an incentive policy where companies with 90% US employees get 15–20% tax rate while US companies with less than 50% get the 35% and no tax loop holes. We also really need to reform the environmental regulations that prevent growth, entitlement reform to include all the illegals mooching off free money, immigration reform, and then create a national industrial strategy.

Curt October 18th, 2011 at 3:30 pm

We really only maintain CSG presence in the Western Pacific and Indian ocean/Arabian Gulf although the ships are based on the east and west coasts. Not that they can’t go anywhere else, just that normal deployment locations are WESTPAC and IO/AG

STemplar October 18th, 2011 at 4:59 pm

Not moving physically, moving as in growth. You never run surpluses because of cuts, you never run surpluses because of raising taxes, you run surpluses when growth is going well and the fixed %s you have for revenue collection results in more money because the economy is growing.

Medicare and social security have zero impact on defense spending. Let me repeat for you, Medicare and social security have zero impact on defense spending. You could cut Medicare and social security 100% and it would result in zero more $ for defense expenditures. They are both funded through FICA, a completely separate revenue stream from the general fund where defense is funded. You’re proposing cutting things and you don’t even know how funding is doled out.

BradM October 18th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

I think we should have 12 carriers. Once CVN-65 USS Enterprise is decommissioned I’d like to see the name and tradition carried forward and have CVN-80 (a future Ford-class carrier) commissioned as USS Enterprise for the next 50 years :-)

pfcem October 19th, 2011 at 1:54 am

Try reading your own link…

superraptor October 19th, 2011 at 2:28 pm

well, raising the Medicare tax to 10% which is not capped at 108000.- of taxable income would generate a lot of money to balance the Medicare budget. Could you agree to that? You are not providing any concrete solutions which is what our politicians do. Hence the dollar will collapse and you will see it. Better have lots of canned food in your basement.

William C. October 19th, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Barney Frank is a crook. Lets not let him rob our military too.

STemplar October 19th, 2011 at 3:23 pm

Barney Frank is correct about nothing. He is a brain dead, short sighted opportunistic populist from a sheltered district like Pelosi, whose politics are never challenged in a real election.

I do however agree with adjusting our nuclear deterrence but prefer we remove bombers from it so that we are no longer limited by treaty to total numbers.

STemplar October 19th, 2011 at 3:27 pm

You’re complaining about Medicare in the context of defense spending. I’m not offering solutions to fixing Medicare because Medicare funds are not used for defense at all. That’s what I’m trying to impress on you, Medicare has zero impact on defense and vice versa.

The FICA cap is also rising next year to $110,000 FYI, and in addition FICA is actually 15% which is split between employees and employers.

Robert A. Fritts October 19th, 2011 at 5:17 pm

Reguardless of my poor opinion of Barney Frank. Air and Land non-tactical nukes are gone like the dodo bird. Save the Billions. There is a need for 8 Carriers only. One always in Rehab, One in a training cycle, One operational in the Atlantic and Pacific Navy fleets and one each Atlantic and Pacific dedicated to support the USMC. We are covered and the F-35B problem is solved(cancelled). No military aid to Japan or Korea until they put 3–4 CVAs to sea, no aid to Nato until they put 4–5 CVA to sea. And not any of those mini-LHA carriers either.

STemplar October 19th, 2011 at 6:05 pm

FICA goes to both. The majority goes to social security. If you want a solution to rising costs in medicare then things like premiums on part A for those that can afford it, reasonable co-pays for everyone, a bump up in full benefits age (both social security and medicare), means tests to apply reductions to those that are essentially already rich, etc, all reasonable moves in my opinion.

In addition a comparison of fraud is difficult because things like presidential help, FCS, Commanche, the A12, San Antonio class, LCS, F35, F22, don’t count as fraud but they have great big money pits delivering dubious capabilities or in some cases none. The DoD needs as much as deserves a swift kick in its @$$. We need to care for our elderly. We need to stop using our elderly as some bargaining chip in a political fight. Choosing between them and dubious defense programs is easy, acting like it isn’t is dishonorable and disgusting.

bobbymike October 19th, 2011 at 6:18 pm

So one question since about 1994 or so Social Security had around a two trillion dollar surplus. If that money is for Social Security where is it, a bank account somewhere?

No there is no one tax for this another tax for that. The government takes all the taxes and spends it all on whatever they spend it on. FICA may be said to be for those programs but everything goes into a big ole money pot.

STemplar October 19th, 2011 at 8:44 pm

The government is allowed to us surpluses from the trust as it sees/saw fit, that’s part of the law. Bottom line is demand is going up, baby boomers are retiring and using more than it can pay out.

ParaMarine October 19th, 2011 at 10:30 pm

HEADLINE: Army Chairman of Joint Chiefs, “Sinks Navy”!

BOOMER October 20th, 2011 at 7:59 am

Not really when you consider that with 3 battle/MEU groups as laid out above on each coast your only talking about 168 surface ships total. one always fwd deployed to react to threats for larger threats the stdby groups could be put at sea within a week to two max. This would also allow that if a situation arose requireing a smaller foot print the group could split in two and then rejoin later. MSC cargo and ocean going tugs could round it out to 200 reserve ships for major offensives. SUB’s were never included in the 300 ship Navy to start with but eleiminating 100 surface ships (minus the lcs fiasco) would free funds up considerably.

superraptor October 20th, 2011 at 1:37 pm

no they are not doomed. China purposefully is not providing any health care benefits or retiremnet benefits to the elderly as a matter of policy. You work, you retire for abrief period and then you pass on, very economical.

superraptor October 20th, 2011 at 11:49 pm

actually, Chinese families will try their best to take care of their own, but probably won’t burn through 500000.- for prostate cancer cancer of their 85 year old grandfather. That leaves the Chinese Government free to build its 500th Stealth bomber, 60th Nuclear Aircraft carrier and 30000th nuclear warhead. We won’t even be in the same weight class. Absolutely brilliant.

ryan October 24th, 2011 at 10:44 am

1) Accepting the unique contributions of naval power and the CSG in
particular as routine demonstrates a lack of seriousness, to say the least.
The basis of international relations and national power is that nations seek
to preserve “control over the own destiny”. This is the heart of
sovereignty and the basis of America’s position as world power and leader of
free nations for the past century. Having the ability to “defend and
operate forward, project power, reassure allies across the oceans at all
times, and respond to every crisis with credible power of its own (and as an
enabler of USMC land power), allows the United States to “control its own
destiny” in a world of instability and competition.

ryan October 24th, 2011 at 10:45 am

2) Cost. Mr. Ewing rightly states that carriers and their air wings and
escorts cost billions of dollars. We can appreciate that cost when it is
spread over the 50 year life span of the CVN, the 20 years of the life of
the air wing, and the 25–30 years of the escorts. The constant upgrades and
refits of systems inherent in the platforms, the in-port periods that result
in the installations of new weapons and radars and communications mean that
Enterprise is a combat credible demonstration of US power and commitment a
generation after the Soviet Union went the way of the dinosaurs.

ryan October 24th, 2011 at 10:46 am

3) Sustainable. Simply put, this does not mean that the CSG is a “lean,
green, fighting machine” that Al Gore would be proud of. What the admiral,
and anyone who understands presence and the importance of local balances of
power and role of a maritime nation as an offshore balancer, understands, is
that sustainable is a definition of how long the US can maintain a combat
credible presence in a region. The US is the only nation that can do this
without resorting to more vulnerable land-based forces, to permission slips
from allies, or to dangerous assaults on land to secure a needed air base.

boyn3d October 25th, 2011 at 7:50 am

Our aircraft carriers give unbridled support for our friends in other countries and support for our troops in the air and on the ground. Ask the soldier or marine in Iraq or Afghanistan that were protected by the F-18s off an aircraft carrier if we need more or less. Ask Japan or other Asian countries how our carriers supported them and tell me why we need to down size. The carrier is an awesome resource that has protected our country for years and won the hearts and minds of many. Not to mention, the awesome mobile power of an aircraft carrier puts our enemies at bay and our allies at rest. There is no price tag for that.

Michael Kern November 9th, 2011 at 10:16 pm

EVERY US President since FDR has had to ask at one time or another during his administration WHERE IS THE CLOSEST Carrier Battle Group…