re: "The FY13 Inactivation Schedule"

Galrahn at Information Dissemination ("The Intersection of Maritime Strategy and Strategic Communications") critiqued some planned decommissionings.

Money quote(s):

"Basically, those 11 ships represents an entire Carrier Strike Group and more. That is a lot of capability to retire in a single fiscal year. Obviously the Navy has no choice with USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the ship is going to run out of nuclear fuel and at over 50 years old. Also noteworthy, USS Crommelin (FFG 37), USS Underwood (FFG 36), USS Curts (FG 38), USS Carr (FFG 52), and USS Klakring (FFG 42) will all be over 30 years old at retirement. The Oliver Hazard Perry class was built to serve 30 years, and that the ships made it truly is a reminder to the sturdy nature of the Perry class frigate. The USS Reuben James (FFG 57) will only be about 28.5 years old at retirement, and I am unsure why the ship is being retired before 30 years."

Money, almost certainly. Money to run them, money to crew them.

"In my opinion, unless there are serious undisclosed material condition problems on these ships, this is a Bullshit Popsicle. The over 500 VLS cell missile capacity of these 4 warships exceed the combined missile capacity of the Royal Navy, the French Navy, the Italian Navy, the Spanish Navy, the Dutch Navy, the German Navy, the Turkish Navy, or the Danish Navy. These four ships are about equal in total missile capacity to the existing surface combatant force of the Royal Navy today.These ships have a decade of life in them and were on the verge of modernization towards becoming four of the most powerful surface combatants in the history of naval warfare - all four for less than half a billion dollars. When the reality is the Navy couldn't spend 6x that much money to build even one of these ships new today, and all of these ships can serve at least a decade, the retirement of these ships at a time the Navy has scarce money for new ships, and is already short on capable warships, makes no sense at all to me.

I privately hope these ships are legitimate pieces of rusted crap behind the scenes, because if they aren't, the Navy is retiring good ships way too early."

Hat tip to Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ.


3/15

re: "Will R2P become NMP"

Cdr Salamander at the Naval Institute Blog ("a venue for thoughtful, vigorous debate on naval and security policy") generated some decent lessons-learned while the civil war, er, revolution, er, "humanitarian intervention" was still going on.


Money quote(s):


"The Battle of Tripoli will work itself out, as will the conflict over time. We can pick it apart then in reasoned hindsight. There are other things a few levels out at the POL/MIL level that are a lot clearer and worth discussing."


As it did. The Law of Unintended Consequences, however, has not been suspended.


"Something that came out at the beginning; “Responsibility to Protect” known by the shorter, R2P. The concept has been embraced by decision makers such as US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. A form of “Humanitarian Imperialism” – it is something that over the last few months we have heard less of. The reasons are clear; Libya still isn’t worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier, and both sides are responsible for the deaths of untold numbers of civilians. So much was heard early that we were there to “protect civilians,” but time has shown that some civilians are more important than others. There is no appetite anywhere for Western boots on the ground to execute “R2P” in Libya’s cities. As long as African migrants are kept in Africa and the oil flows – NATO will be more than willing to move from R2P to NMP – Not My Problem. Few really believed that was the reason for intervention anyway – at least the serious." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)


R2P is just as scary a prospective "international norm" as anything else to have come down the pike in recent years. Yet, the more it becomes part of "international law," the less likely it will become anything more than what it is now: a figleaf for use when intervention is in support of some other, less noble-sounding, national interest.


Recall that once "genocide" became a crime under international law (and a treaty was widely signed that obligated states to act to prevent/stop it) all kinds of lawyering and tap-dancing ensued to call what were clearly ongoing programs of genocide from what they obviously were, just to avoid having to actually do anything about it.


"When sustainable logistics and baseline C4ISR are defined as “unique capabilities” – then the facts of NATO non-USA military capacity should be very clear."


Essentially, what are (with a straight face) termed the military capabilities of most (if not all) of our NATO allies amount, in an international sense, to the niche capabilities of our own various state National Guard entities. They provide often useful specialties, but can't function in combat unless they're embedded within a larger, coalition, deployment. Assumed (but un-said) is that the U.S. will always be there to provide the larger context and support.


"(T)he essential effectiveness and efficiency of the CV/S/N once again has been proven. Land based air has its place – but any distance makes the ability to provide persistent effects from the air over the battlespace prohibitively expensive compared to a carrier off shore."


CAA has, for years and in different venues, held that one of the essential characteristics of a superpower in the modern-to-current era are the ability to develop, deploy, and maintain global force projection capabilities. Since World War II and the dawn of the nuclear age, that has meant the following: inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM) of the nuclear variety (may be ground or sea-based) and the aircraft carrier battle group.


(Experience has caused me to add expeditionary ground forces but let's not go down that particular rabbit hole today.)


If you've got an aircraft carrier (and the screening and support forces it requires to successfully deploy), you can project air power just about anywhere excepting the far interiors of Central Asia and Antarctica.


"Whatever happens in Libya will happen. No one outside a few fringe-types will light a candle for the Gadaffi family of thugs. They have been a blight on the planet for decades. What happens next will be up to the Libyan people. We should all wish them luck and hope that something positive can come out of this."


Hat tip to The Phibian at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.").

8/23

re: "Libya, Iowa, and F22 View 20110814"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook") is good at looking at some big picture and on-the-horizon issues, at the same time.

Money quote(s):

"Libya and Syria

According to Aquinas, it is just to go to war to defend the innocent. There are restrictions, but this is not an unfair statement. Presumably that is why Obama considers it just to continue to break things and kill people in Libya. And recently Qaddaffi used helicopters, which once again put him in violation of the UN resolution, and thus required that the US kill some more Libyans and break some more Libyan property in the name of NATO acting for the UN." (Emphasis in original text heading. - CAA.)

Obviously, this linkery and quite have been idling awhile in my queue, waiting for my limited time and attention to get a "round tueit."

But the point still stands with regards to just war theory.

"One necessary condition for a war to be just is that there is a reasonable expectation of success. Success is defined in many ways, but you might sum it up by saying that in the end there would be more justice in the world after the war ends than there would be if it never started.

If we continue the intervention in Libya, do we expect that when it is all over there will be more justice in North Africa than there is now? And if we intervene in Syria, is there a reasonable expectation that what comes after the end of the thugocracy in Syria will be better than before we went in? I ask this seriously. Iraq is certainly better off without Saddam and his thuggish sons, but there were probably better ways to accomplish that than a lengthy occupation.

Republics seldom do Imperialism with any great competence. Competent Empire requires long term commitments, and a number of subtleties including the use of silver bullets, puppet regimes, auxiliaries and foreign legions, and other devices that do not win popularity in free elections. Incompetent Empire can leave both patron and client worse off than before. Washington warned us not to become involved in the territorial disputes of Europe. It is not isolationism to understand that we don’t know how to achieve some otherwise desirable results; and it is unjust to go to war without a battle plan under which we can realistically expect the world to be better off after our intervention than it would be if we did not undertake it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Part of strategic thinking (see the bolded passage above), involves knowing what sort of end state, what kind of strategic objective, you have in mind.

Now, I think the bar should be adjusted quite a bit when it comes to waging a defensive war, a war for national survival; since it's quite lofty thinking to expect national leaders to intellectually accept that because they have no "realistic" chance of success, they must not fight in self-defense.

"The Chinese have launched an aircraft carrier. Carriers are the force projection system par excellance. Viet Nam has reinstated conscription. Japan is considering expansion of its self-defence forces. Few others in the world are made joyful by the news. Taiwan announced a sale on missiles that can kill aircraft carriers."

The Chinese re-launced an aircraft carrier, the Varyag. The Kiev apparently did in fact become some sort of hotel/casino.

As Dr. Pournelle correctly states, aircraft carriers (and their associated battle groups) are the defining force projection systems of our time, along with ICBMs. One could make a similar argument in favor of amphibious or other long-ranch ground expeditionary capabilities.

CAA has, in writing, made the academic argument that the aircraft carrier, along with ICBMs, are the strategic military capabilities that make a superpower "super." That was CAA's essential thesis when writing a "one-hour essay" the first time taking the FSWE (back during the late pre-Cambrian period when the "written exam" involved actual writing.)

CAA stands by that argument, by the way.



8/14

re: "State Dept. Makes Us All Look Stooopid"

The Phibian at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") took objection to remarks by State Dept. spokesperson Victoria Nuland.

Money quote(s):

"The PRC is a sovereign nation with legitimate maritime security requirements that are easily understood by anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of where maritime strategy and commerce come together.

The fact that the DOS would ask this in public does too things; it insults the Chinese through its patronizing tone and it makes our nation look like it is led by arrogant imperialists at best, simpletons at worst."

I wonder if our institutional gobsmackedness on this particular issue is due to the residual embarrassment of those who really believed that the Varyag was actually ever going to be converted into a casino.

I mean, if you believed that one, you'd believe just about anything.

"I find all the wide-eyed panting over the Chinese carrier immature and silly.

It is a limited carrier with a limited airwing. The French CVN Charles de Gualle is a much more capable platform and we have seen what it can do off Libya. Nice, but no biggie.

I am more interested in how we would kill the Chinese carrier if we ever needed to. That is no problem at all.

As a matter of fact - in the case of general war, I would give the job to the Japanese."

Frankly, the Varyag says more about Chinese naval intentions in the longer term than about what they're likely to do with it next week or next year. Clearly it'll be the test bed and school house for development of naval aviation operations over the coming decades.

Perhaps the Chinese have doubts about future U.S. ability to ensure open sealanes. The Chinese economy has become increasingly dependent upon its ability to import raw materials and energy by sea. Developing their own ability to guarantee open sealanes could explain much of this.

"If you want to nibble your nails over the Chinese, then nibble over the multi-axis "Porcupine Strategy" they have for the Taiwan Strait that wants to make the prospect so painful to contemplate that we simply won't go there. They don't need a carrier for that. SS, Houbei Class, ASCM, ASBM, H-6M and other land based long range strike aircraft; that is what you should focus on; that is the challenge. Simple, but in numbers and worth a sober ponder.

Against our carriers coming across the Pacific, they only need to get lucky once; we have to get lucky every time. "

8/13

re: "Aircraft Carrier: Chinese Territory In Any Sea"

Michael Mandaville at Big Peace explains why this is important.

Money quote(s):

"The socialist People’s Republic of China is expanding its influence by refurbishing the Varyag, a Soviet era aircraft carrier, renaming it the Shi Lang. The carrier is expected to start sea trials later this year. An aircraft carrier is a strategy to project power far from the homeland. The mere presence of an aircraft carrier has far-reaching effects in the realpolitik between nations. To defend Taiwan, the United States sent aircraft carriers between the island nation and Communist China to warn against aggression. When finished, the Shi Lang is expected to be a formidable presence, especially when combined with other combatants into an anticipated Carrier Battle Group."

Wait a minute! Isn't the Varyag supposed to be converted into a casino? Wasn't that what the end-user certificate said? How in the world were we ever fooled like this by our strategic partners, the Chinese?

"The carrier’s loaded displacement (weight) of 67,000 tons will enable it to host as many as 50 aircraft.

The Chinese Navy has a roughly 75 surface combatants, 60 submarines, more than 50 medium and large amphibious ships, 70 or more missile boats and several hundred patrol craft. The surface combatant contingent primarily consists of Destroyers and Frigates. Most are the Chinese produced Luda or Luhai class with four Russian Sovremmony class destroyers. The frigates, which are smaller but capable ships, are the Jiangwhei and the Jianghu class. These ships are not as advanced as the American Aegis class cruisers but they are stepping stones to more far reaching naval ambitions."

As our navy shrinks, to the point where we have more admirals that ships, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy grows, ship by ship and capability by capability.

"In 2006, a Chinese submarine stalked an American Carrier. The Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine trailed the Kitty Hawk battle group which has cruisers, submarines and helicopter anti-submarine detection capability. Undetected, the Song class surfaced within five miles of the carrier – well within the firing range of their Russian wake-homing torpedoes and their anti-ship cruise missiles. The incident proved a keen embarrassment for Admiral Fallon who heads U.S. Forces in the Pacific and has aggressively engaged the Chinese military with exchanges and even invitations to sensitive U.S. military bases. The Chinese have not reciprocated with similar invitations to their military bases, perhaps proving that an American open hand offered in friendship merely shows its Communist adversaries that it holds no weapon. The Song class captain would not have shadowed and embarrassed the U.S. Carrier Battle Group without permission from China’s masters. They did so to prove American vulnerabilities – and perhaps the mettle of their own submarine fleet against the vaunted U.S. Navy. Moments like this allow the PLAN’s leaders to request bigger budgets and prestige within the Communist hierarchy. Now it is they who are confronting the Americans in ‘their’ Pacific ocean."

Can't find fault with that analysis. Keep reading:

"The Chinese have been visiting ports far and wide, including the Gulf of Aden, the Phillipines and even battling Somali pirates on patrol. They are upgrading the carrier for ‘research and training’ purposes according to an article in the Washington Times. The Chinese have been struggling to create a navy beyond their coastal force over the last few decades."

China has been more than a regional naval power in the past, but you have to go back some few centuries to see it. In living memory it just hasn't happened.

This time around they're the new guys on the global block and have something of a learning curve ahead to master all the interolocking and moving pieces that come together to generate naval force projectiong. But they've gotten started.

"I discovered the demographics intertwined with economics driving the Chinese goal. With a burgeoning population and more than 100 million unemployed, the Communist Party must keep the economy pumping. If not, then social unrest results. For the last four or five years, this social unrest has been percolating and popping across China. The corrupt Communist party officials have routinely ignored the people and the people’s democracy. The PRC has routinely used its security forces to slam down hard on political and economic grievances."

Demographics and economics are the corpses at the banquet for China. China must keep its economy growing even as its population ages and tens of millions of young Chinese males grow to an adulthood where there are no young Chinese women for them to marry. In the short run this means ensuring access to overseas resources (i.e., open sea lanes) no subject to any other nation's interference. In the long run there may be no easy answers.

"Riots and bombings, more common in the rural area, have moved into the cities. These acts don’t directly threaten the Socialist Dictatorship, but they do alarm the Communist hierarchy which uses ’social management’ like internet censorship and police presence to neutralize any threats. And these are not just a few incidents. When China does something, the word ‘big’ almost always enters the picture."

So they're like Texas that way.

"To keep their economy going, China needs resources and oil. This strategy is in line with their overall quest to extend Chinese PLAN (People’s Liberation Army Navy) influence well beyond their traditional coastal defense imperative. Oil lies in the disputed islands of the South China Sea and vast natural gas reserves lie under the Senkaku Islands controlled by Japan but disputed by Chinese nationalists encouraged by Beijing. Influence. Energy. Territory. The only direction for them to go is outward. And the next logical step is the 4.5 sovereign acres of national territory that can move anywhere. An Aircraft Carrier."

An aircraft carrier battle group is the platform for sea-based force projection centered from anywhere you're able to sail it. It's like having your own fortified, nuclear-capable mobile island.

re: "We were all fooled by the “floating hotel” cover story, weren’t we?"

Murdoc at Murdoc Online ("my quasi-journalistic weblog with military news commanding the greater part of my attention") asks a more-or-less rhetorical question.

Money quote(s):

"It was sold by the Ukraine to China on the condition that it never be used as a warship."

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that China is welching on the terms of the deal. You could knock me over with a fender.

Pray they do not alter it any further.

re: "The march of Ruritania"

Richard at EU Referendum ("To discuss issues related to the UK's position in Europe and the world") relayed some Royal Wedding-related commentary.

Money quote(s):

" "The Edwardian braid and sashes worn by Princes and Dukes emphasised that our Armed Forces are shrunken remnants – lots of big hats, not many planes, ships or soldiers", writes Peter Hitchens. "Never have they looked so laughably Ruritanian".

And more or less the same point is made by Booker as he writes of politicians hiding their plans to put French jets on Royal Navy carriers. The Royal Navy won't be flying Anglo-US Joint Strike Fighters, but providing a platform for French Rafales as part of an EU force, he tells us."

I remarked to the Madame-at-Arms, when we watched some of the wedding pageantry (CAA is partial to all things protocol-y), that the two princes in their honorary colonels get-up looked like kids wearing their great-uncle's uniforms.

(Which is unfair to both of the gentlemen, being qualified and serving officers in their own rights.)

"Thus does Booker write that the magnificent military pageantry of the royal wedding coincided, sadly, with yet another humiliating instance of the precipitate decline in Britain's military power. Soon, all we will have is lots of big hats, as we hand over operational control over our few remaining assets to an Anglo-French consortium, where the one operational carrier that we will have will be used as a platform for French aircraft.

The point that must be emphasised again and again is that this has always been the plan, ever since 1996, under the last Tory government. The carriers have always been earmarked for a joint Anglo-French project. Their purpose has been to serve as the main Anglo-French contribution to the European Rapid Reaction Force, as agreed by Tony Blair at Helsinki in 1999.

That is what makes our pageantry and the military splendour a hollow charade. It had some meaning when it was a reflection of our power and status, but when we have more admirals than ships, more generals than battalions, and our sad little navee goes to sea with iPods and EU flags, earmarked to further EU grandiosity, then the splendour takes on a Ruritanian character. It is all show and no substance.

That is what it has come down to. That is why there can be no pride in watching a celebration of something that no longer exists - just overwhelming sadness. We have sold the substance of Great Britain on the altar of European integration."

Color me Euro-skeptical. And I like Europe. I've served there in and out of uniform as both soldier and diplomat. But I've always felt that the EU was a bit of a put-on, for show, and not really serious. Unfortunately, lots of European governments seem to feel the same way about NATO and defense in general.

re: "Where are the Carriers?"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") wonders what I was wondering.

(The difference is that he knows how to reason his way to an answer on this one.)

Money quote(s):

"That was the question that once used to spring unbidden to presidential lips when an international crises bubbled up. It wasn’t that the sheer destructive power of the carrier’s air wing and her escorts were immediately put to use, so much as the weight of all that firepower rested heavily on tempestuous brows: An aircraft carrier strike group tends to alter the calculus.

So it’s with interest we read in Bill Gertz’ Inside the Ring that, with Libya burning and the tyrant starting to gradually throttle the nascent rebellion that President Obama has not shifted anyone anywhere"

It's a ship after all. It's supposed to move, to keep moving, so moving it around isn't going to hurt anything and, as a precaution ahead of time, can likely save days when hours will count.

"(F)or 9 months of the year anyway, given our rotational capabilities with only 11 big decks, the Mediterranean is less a destination than a throughway.

Once she’s already forward deployed, it’s an almost trivial thing to shift a carrier between the 5th and 6th fleet OPCON lines. Doing so can send a message. So can not doing so: The tyrant who our president has said “has to go”? Has a free hand.

The rebels who stood against him? None of our concern.

If we really cared about the humanitarian element of this crisis, we’d come right out and say that. Having the rebels know that there is no NATO or “international community” cavalry coming to the rescue might save a lot of lives in the long run by suppressing false hopes."

re: "Today's Reading Assignment"

George Smiley at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") discusses a national asset in decline.

Money quote(s):

"(S)igns of our naval decline were on display in recent weeks, as the Libyan crisis began to unfold. Instead of sending a warship to rescue American citizens from that country (as the British did), the U.S. hired a commercial ferry. One reason: there was only one U.S. warship in the Mediterranean at the time, although a carrier battle group and an amphibious group were only three days away, in the Red Sea. Those assets have since re-deployed to the Med.

We neglect our Navy at our own peril."

Actually two warships, were in the Mediterranean but one was a command and control ship and the other was having, er, command climate problems.

"(I)n an era when federal spending must be reduced, it is very easy to say we have "no peer competitors" (to use Dr. Gates's phrase) and use that as an excuse to downsize the military. A modern Navy is expensive to build and expensive to operate. Yet, it represents an essential investment, not only for the United States but for the west as a whole.

Did we mention that China is currently building five fleet carriers which will join the PLAN by 2020? Beijing is building a Navy for the future, while ours continues to decline. We've been down this road before (think Japan in the 1930s) and paid dearly for our mistakes. The next time, we may not be as lucky."

I'm not a naval expert, but five "fleet carriers" sound like just the thing if you want to be a regional hegemon, and the region you have in mind is the Pacific Ocean.

re: "What's Involved In Setting Up A No-Fly Zone Over Libya? - DrewM."

Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ is realistic about limitations on U.S. and Allied capabilities.

Money quote(s):

"From the military perspective, it's not impossible but it's not like we have a lot of extra capacity laying around in that part of the world."

Used to be we had something called a "fleet" on station in the Med, or do I mis-remember?

Even back in the "shores of Tripoli" days we'd have a squadron of frigates thereabouts.

"After surveying the help we might be able to get from our regional allies, CDRSalamander seems a bit more pessimistic about the available options."

"Would we give a station to our allies? Of the remaining
folks, GBR, ESP, & ITA have CVS, right? Well, the Brits don’t do CVS
counter-air anymore – and the Italians and Spanish carriers? How many sorties can they do? How about if they had a lot of land based fighter support? How many fighter aircraft need to be stationed at Sigonella supported by how many tankers to cover Tripoli? Same
question about Souda Bay and Benghazi. The British bases
on Cyprus?

UK officials said they could use of a British military air base in Akrotiri, Cyprus to enforce a no-fly mission. “Akrotiri would be very useful if we wanted to deploy,” said an official. “That would seem most logical.”Although fixed-wing aircraft appear to be depleted, British officials said the main concern was that Col Gaddafi could use helicopters to mount bombing raids on opponents."

"(T)he leader of the No Fly Zone idea is UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Good for him and all but it's rather hollow to hear this can of talk from the guy who has put the Royal Navy out of the power projection business.

Aircraft carriers are damn expensive to build, operate and man but they are damn handy things when you need one or three. We are at the bare minimum at the moment and as you can see, it's actually below the minimum."

As much as former dirt merchants like myself like to tweak my swabby friends about how carrier battle groups are something of a self-licking ice cream cone, they're darn useful things to have on the board when things like islands and air bases aren't conveniently located in terms of threats or operational areas.

"Gates talks a lot about how much is enough, especially in terms of carriers when no one else really has any to speak of. According to the Chief of Naval Operations, we need at least 2 to cover the Persian Gulf, 5th Fleet area alone for the foreseeable future. If you want to start cutting them, you better let the CNO and head of Central Command what operations you want them to stop doing. And oh yeah, when the shit hits the fan, don't ask, "Where are the carriers"?"

And if you need two carriers for the Persian/Arabian Gulf, basic logisitics means you need a third one. Multiply that by "the world" and the numbers needed start to climb. Then add in all the other surface and support ships needed to make a carrier task force more than one big target.

re: "Soft power, or flaccid power?"

"The Phibian" at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") is always insightful with regards to the naval aspect.

Money quote(s):

"As an already dangerous nation started to disintegrate last week, I heard it first from Charles Krauthammer - the phrase that always comes up when something nasty turns towards our people or a national interest - "where are our carriers."I don't know about you, but I count this as a moment of national shame last week. The world's greatest naval power, its citizens in danger and need evacuation by sea - and our answer is ...."

Apparently the only U.S. warship in the entire Mediterranean Sea, and area I always to have a Fleet dedicated to it, was a destroyer, and one rather pre-occupied beyond mission parameters.

"I know the argument that the American military presence would be destabilizing - but I just say it is wrong headed in the extreme.

At this touchy moment - letss not even talk about which ship is where. What the Big E is doing and not. If there is a CSG and an ESG in the Gulf of Sidra or the Gulf of Mexico - or on liberty in Caan; it does not matter to the argument ... but we'll get to that later.

For an untold number of times, American citizens have relied on the Navy-USMC team to get them out of a country falling apart. Our citizens in Libya are lucky that things did not go south. Nod our heads and be thankful that we got lucky this time. Ask yourself why we did not have other ships out there, and know we are not alone.

I think the nations of the world are re-discovering the joys of having and effective navy - and the consequences of not having one."

As a consular officer, it's always been a source of reassurance to know that my Navy and Marine Corps colleagues had my back, especially since consular officers are virtually the last official Americans to be evacuated, occupied, as they/we are with assisting in the evacuation of American citizens.

"(I)f you ever wanted to create air supremacy - a no fly zone if you will - either to cover evacuations or to keep the Libyan runt Air Force from bombing their own people - there is only one way to do it - with Aircraft Carriers. Big deck aircraft carriers. Way to far for land based air even if you could get basing rights.

If you want to do it for any length of time, you need two at a minimum. Longer - three. Two American and one French would be nice. Two American and then perhaps Brit/Italian/Spanish as help would be."

It's an awfully big world out there. Since nearly the founding of the Republic, the U.S. Navy has helped ensure that freedom of the seas and of navigation meant something more than an aspiration. They've made it stick. But they can't do that from the Pentagon, from Norfolk or San Diego; they have to have hulls in the water and sailors to crew them.

S&S - Carrier homeport decision delayed until next year

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes


Carrier homeport decision delayed until next year


By Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes

Pacific edition, Sunday, April 12, 2009


ARLINGTON, Va. – The Pentagon confirmed Friday that it was delaying until 2010 any further decisions on a controversial plan to move the homeport of one aircraft carrier from Norfolk, Va., to Naval Station Mayport in Florida.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Defense Department announced that it intends to dredge the Mayport channel in fiscal 2010 to “provide an alternative port for a carrier on the East Coast if a manmade or natural disaster or other emergency closes the Navy’s base in Norfolk, Va., or the surrounding sea approaches.”

But the U.S. will not move forward with other costly improvements required to base a carrier in Mayport, including expanding the wharf and upgrading infrastructure for nuclear maintenance facilities, the statement said."

S&S - Decision on carrier base opposed by Virginia lawmakers

From my archive of press clippings:

Stars and Stripes

Decision on carrier base opposed by Virginia lawmakers


By Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Saturday, January 17, 2009


ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy this week announced it will homeport an aircraft carrier at Naval Station Mayport in Florida, sparking criticism from Virginia lawmakers who vowed to fight the decision.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The move would put a nuclear-powered aircraft at an East Coast port outside of Norfolk for the first time to diversify the fleet’s location in case calamity struck the Norfolk area, the Navy said."

&

"Naval Station Mayport hosts 22 guided missile destroyers, cruisers, frigates and other vessels."

S&S - Aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush joins the fleet

Stars and Stripes



Aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush joins the fleet

By Kevin Baron, Stars and Stripes


Mideast edition, Sunday, January 11, 2009

Kevin Baron / S&S

Command Master Chief J.D. Port said that with sea trials for the USS George H.W. Bush just a few weeks away, the thing he is most looking forward to is “The look on everyone’s face when they see what it’s like when a crew comes to life.” Here, Port stands in front of a scupture of the former president and ship's namesake as a naval aviator during World War II.

See more photos here.

USS George H.W. Bush, by the numbers

2 nuclear reactors

4 bronze propellers

4 high-speed 4,000-sq foot aircraft elevators

4.5 acres of flight deck

20 stories tall above the waterline

20 years of life expectancy before the reactors needing refueling

21 foot diameter of each propeller

30 knots top speed

30 tons, weight of each propeller

80 combat aircraft capacity

90 days of food and supplies to last at sea

246 miles of pipe

325 feet, the distance in which two 3-in. wide arresting wires can stop an airplane flying 155 mph.

360 lbs, weight of each link of anchor chain

500 tons of aluminum

1,092 feet in length, nearly as long as the Empire State Building is high

1,400 telephones

1,600 miles of cable and wiring

14,000 pillowcases

25,000 steel plates, each 30x10 ft.

28,000 sheets

30,000 light fixtures

47,000 tons of structural steel

97,000 tons of displacement, when loaded

400,000 gallons of sea water converted to fresh water daily (enough for 2,000 homes)

700,000 metal pieces form its base

Photo gallery

RELATED STORY: President lands on carrier named after his father

NAVAL STATION NORFOLK, Va. – More than five years after the keel was laid, a rainbow of signal pennants, huge American flags and patriotic bunting adorned the fully-dressed and nearly-completed aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush on Friday, as thousands of crewmembers busily prepared the ship and its pier for Saturday’s commissioning ceremony featuring its namesake and his son, President George W. Bush.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"On display are a flag from the vessel that pulled Bush from the Pacific Ocean during World War II, a marble ornament from Saddam Hussein’s palace, and the letter awarding Bush the Distinguished Flying Cross that was signed by Vice Adm. John S. McCain Jr., the father of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

As the Bush closes out the Nimitz-class era, the room fittingly includes a World War II-era letter to home that the naval aviator wrote to his parents. It is symbolic of how daily life has changed in the Navy. On this ship, Petty Officer Amber Kitchens manages the computer network that allows more than 5,000 people to send emails home from the ship’s library, around the clock."

re: "In the money"

Richard at EU Referendum ("To discuss issues related to the UK's position in Europe and the world") is a rather unwilling member, but will still have to foot his share of the dues.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he bill for membership of the European Union will increase by nearly £4 billion, because the collapse of the pound's value against the euro."

"This, of course, is real money. It has to be found by the UK taxpayer, if not now, through borrowing that will have to be paid-for sooner or later."

&

"The sum, incidentally, is about the same as we would eventually have to pay for our new carriers. Since these would be (and in fact already are) pencilled in to join the EU Navy, we might just as well cancel them and let the EU buy its own carriers."