It is the job of the military to have contingency plans for
every conceivable scenario sitting on the shelf, ready to execute and to ensure
that the force is properly trained, maintained, and equipped to execute those
plans on a (figurative) moment’s notice.
When the Administration decided to strike Iran, it should
have required nothing more than to pick a plan off the shelf and assemble the
required assets. We should have been
ready and able.
Let’s digress for a moment. How many aircraft carriers did we use during
Desert Storm? The answer is 6. They were:
Compare that assemblage of power to the current Iran
conflict. How many carriers are active
for this? The answer is 2. They are:
And Ford was at the end of a long deployment and overdue to
return home. We should also note that
air wings during Desert Storm were larger than today’s air wings which makes
the two carriers for Iran more like one and a half carriers!
An obvious question arises;
did operational requirements only need two carriers or were there only
two carriers physically available? Not
knowing the detailed operational plan, we can’t say for sure but a common sense
assessment sure seems to indicate that we needed more especially when we
compare the needs of Desert Storm to this conflict.
Consider:
-We seem to lack sufficient air and naval coverage to keep
the strait open.
-We clearly lack the air coverage to protect our bases and our Middle East allies from Iranian drones and missiles.
-USS Ford is approaching its one year deployment anniversary which clearly says that the vessel was used because no other carriers were available.
Were we ready or were we caught unprepared?
A peripheral piece of evidence is the attempted deployment
of a MEU during the early Ukraine conflict.
Despite having around 30 amphibious ships, the Navy was unable to form a
ARG and provide ships for the MEU. This
suggests that the Navy is nowhere near combat ready and, further, has zero
surge capability.
One might also ask why the Japan based carrier was not moved
to the Middle East? It’s not as if
anyone believes that carrier serves any legitimated purpose in Japan.
I can’t offer any definitive answers but the circumstantial
evidence suggests that the Navy is woefully unprepared for combat.
- USS Midway
- USS Roosevelt
- USS America
- USS Kennedy
- USS Saratoga
- USS Ranger
- USS Ford
- USS Lincoln
-We clearly lack the air coverage to protect our bases and our Middle East allies from Iranian drones and missiles.
-USS Ford is approaching its one year deployment anniversary which clearly says that the vessel was used because no other carriers were available.
There are two plans, the Mossad's Bomb & Revolution plan.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF & IAF did a fine job of bombing, the Revolution
part, is still awaited.
The USN is working a plan from off the shelf, the Anaconda Plan.
Now, Im not saying it has anything to do without, just an observation BUT notice that all the carriers deployed for GW1 except 1 (Roosevelt) were non nuclear at the time which is pretty crazy to think of since in1991, I would assume we had a couple of CVNs in use compared to today, they are all nuclear and we only have 2 on site!!! One would be tempted to think that a nuclear CV would be more ready to deploy on quick notice but looks like the regular CVs did pretty good getting there when needed. I'm sure its not all about the nuke vs conventional, there's plenty of other factors, just an observation.....my 2 cents is maybe USN screwed up on the whole CVN fleet, maybe a mixed CV/CVN fleet would be better?
ReplyDeleteAdmirals will ignore calls to end constant deployments. Yet they may agree to adding another phase in the cycle. Add a "ready" phase with trained groups on 72 hour standby at home. So you have: 1) Rebuild/Refit 2) Work up 3) Ready (a new one) 4) deployed. So you only have a quarter of the fleet deployed rather than a third, but can quickly double the deployed force in a few days when needed.
ReplyDelete