It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Recalls All Aircraft Carriers back to US, None At Sea Anywhere

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl

Commander in Chief sets broad policy. It's up to the various services to make it work.

C in C isn't day to day. Which is what maintenance would fall under.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl

The point is that the Commander In Chief isn't responsible for every single thing that happens in the military. Do you really think that a CEO of a major company is deciding things in the mail room? Or arranging shipping on routine shipments?

The President makes major decisions about military operations. He has nothing to do with a unit deploying for an exercise, or a ship going into a shipyard for maintenance.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No the CEO would only get involved with the mail room when it is all down for maintenance at the same time. Then the CEO would make changes to make sure that doesn't happen again.


The point is that the Commander In Chief isn't responsible for every single thing that happens in the military. Do you really think that a CEO of a major company is deciding things in the mail room? Or arranging shipping on routine shipments?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
This is all nonsense. President Obama is not the commander of the Navy and has nothing to do with any of this.

You people need to lighten up and stop blaming Mr Obama for everything.
This is clearly George Bushes fault. He didn't get the fleet serviced and now it is falling apart



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

If the mail room company wide was down and there were no other options. In this case it's the mail room at one facility, and they have plenty of other options.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
If all the aircraft carriers are IN port or heading to port, where EXACTLY do we need them right now? Also if it was in the middle of a real war, most except the Washington would be 'Haze Grey and underway"

Also not at sea VS. recalled to the US are two different things. Also, the Super carriers are not the only thing that can launch aircraft from sea. The America Class phibs can launch Harriers and the F-35B and the WASP class which can carry harriers.

This also fails to note the global strike ability of the USAF not to mention the Ohio class SSGN's

This explains the schedules for keeping these ships in fighting trim based on high op tempos www.globalsecurity.org...

For example the USS Reagan is currently in its home port of Yokosuka, Japan after being deployed for 5 months and is getting maintenance but will be back in 2017

The USS Nimitz and Bush are ready to be deployed

The USS Truman, Stennis, and the Ike are post deployment

The USS Roosevelt and Washington are out with extended maintenance with the Big Stick ready in 2017 and the Washington out till 2019

www.globalsecurity.org...

I have to be honest this seems like a few bee's got lose in someones bonnet that has little understanding about MRO and Navy operations.
edit on 1/17/17 by FredT because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/18/17 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

You got a few of those wrong. Lincoln is almost done with RCOH. The crew just moved back aboard.

Reagan is in Japan now, undergoing PIA. Washington starts RCOH after Lincoln finishes later this year.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Your 100% right, I saw Regan and some reason Abe stuck in my head LOL

But seriously, given presidential schedules I doubt highly that ANY POTUS would be micromanaging repair/maintenance schedules.

Was he briefed? no doubt..



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
LMAO

Excuses Excuses..........

At least the sailors have leave in ports
They are having a good time chasing sweet lill ladies and drinking it up.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

Actually, in this case, we can blame Bush.


The USS George Bush was supposed to undergo an 8 month maintenance period, that got pushed to 13 because of problems they found as they opened her up. So she was late getting handed back to the Navy, which made her late getting ready to deploy.

So Bush is to blame!




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I think that one is on Reagan.
Ill give you a reason later Bro!




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: KansasGirl

The point is that the Commander In Chief isn't responsible for every single thing that happens in the military. Do you really think that a CEO of a major company is deciding things in the mail room? Or arranging shipping on routine shipments?

The President makes major decisions about military operations. He has nothing to do with a unit deploying for an exercise, or a ship going into a shipyard for maintenance.


No, I don't think he is making every single decision or deciding things in the mail room. That's why there is a chain of command (or one of the reasons, anyway)... so that one person doesn't have to make (and obviously couldn't, anyway) every single decision.

But a chain-of-command also lays out a clear line of responsibility, and the Commander-in-Chief is the final stop in that chain. Why have the U.S. President as Commander-in-Chief, if not for an unambiguous head honcho?

Just saying- to say that the commander-in-chief has nothing to do with it (the fleet being in port) isn't exactly accurate.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl

He may be the head of the chain of command, but that doesn't make him responsible for the carrier fleet being in port. The Pentagon made that decision, on its own. Just as they made the decision to push them until it got to this point.

It's funny how he's not making day to day decisions, but he's to blame for this, which resulted from day to day operations.

The President also doesn't decide which B-52 goes to PDM when, or which Destroyer is in Drydock at what point. So why should he take the blame for this? This was a Pentagon decision, not presidential.

We have a Commander in Chief because of the way our military command structure is organized. There must be a civilian in charge. But he, legally, can't give direct orders to the military. Decisions requiring orders have to come from the Pentagon.
edit on 1/17/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


I agree, head of the chain of command isn't responsible for much at all. Especially not all our carriers being inn port at the same time. It another guy that is in charges of these things . Obama is just the chief. It doesnty really mean much its just a head dress thing, so Ive heard.....




new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join