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

a reply to: butcherguy

I had no idea that there was a site that informed everyone about the ships, thank you. Cool link.

a reply to: seasonal




For saying, "the ukraine"

a reply to: seasonal

Because we ARE protecting what we should. Carriers make it easier, because we don't need to get basing rights, but there are plenty of assets currently in all the areas a carrier would be sailing in.

a reply to: Zaphod58


He is the commander and chief. If I were told that ALL our carriers are off line, someone would not like the results.

And maybe there is some of that going on behind the scenes.

And guess what, if this crap was going on during Trumps admin, I would write the same exact thread. Not everyone views the world through constant political glasses.

a reply to: Zaphod58

oh come on , dont be so quick to shutdown the doom porn with facts and all that shatz.

this is about the trump inauguration on friday and the US navy being called back to the us for when Obama declares Marshall law and resumes his presidency for another 4 years. oh what the heck lets make it 8 years since we are doing doom porn.

a reply to: cosmic66

I don't follow?

a reply to: seasonal

It doesn't matter if he's Commander in Chief or not. The Commander in Chief doesn't decide anything but where the military is going. Everything else is up to the Pentagon, from what gets retired, when something goes into maintenance, and when carriers sail to where. The Navy got themselves into this mess, and only the Navy is responsible for getting out of it. There are plenty of other assets around to deal with them being in maintenance, and have been since before the last carrier gap. There are several carriers that could be recalled to sea in an emergency. It's not as huge a deal as it sounds. The far worse aspect of this, is the fact that the Navy leadership allowed them to get into this mess in the first place.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok and blame is such a dirty word, I would say responsible.

Because he was president for the life of each aircraft carrier through out their demanding deployments?

There is enough to blame him for, pegging eveningthing on him is just a way to let partisanship blind you.

Partisanship is how they keep us from rallying together to put a leader for the people in. Cough cough Ron Paul

a reply to: seasonal

Neither. I think you need to understand Obama had nothing to do with the USN pushing their ships to the point of needing repair, pushing these ships long before Obama even thought about running for prez.

It's really, really ignorant to blame this on Obama, like really ignorant.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: cosmic66

I don't follow?

I don't either, and nor do any of you either...you have no say,. no power...will you deal with it?

a reply to: Swills

As I said in an earlier post, I have little knowledge of deployments. If I were pres, I would not like hearing that all the carriers are in port. That is the rub.
As president he doesn't care why they are not available just that they are not. If you can't understand that, it's OK.

You certainly do not know of deployment or when not to deploy.

a reply to: InTheLight

Very cryptic and deep.

a reply to: seasonal

The only thing that matters is that the mission is being completed. Carriers are nice, but they aren't the be all end all of military equipment. As long as the mission is getting done, having a carrier, or not having a carrier doesn't mean much. In another year the Navy will have the majority of them back at sea, or finishing their maintenance.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Little birdie told me they are being upgraded from copper wire to fibre optics a smart move,next would be all those chinese chips

a reply to: khnum

They're getting a lot of upgrades during RCOH. Lincoln just got a new mast that is more than double the weight of the old one, and moved most of her antennas up to there, instead of on the island.

They're also finding some odd corrosion that isn't consistent from hull to hull.

This isn't that big of a deal. I was in back during the 80's and there were a couple of times here and there where all the carriers would be in Norfolk for some reason or other. It would usually be a few days but it did happen.

I researched this when I saw it a week ago and it appears that it is true, all carriers were there but one was supposed to have left this week. It was on a military watcher site that they talked about them being there. It did state that it was a little unusual but nothing to worry about. I thought there were rules that these carriers were supposed to be spread out to insure we did not lose all of them. But evidently someone decided that that concern was not necessary, now one nuke could take them all out. There was not really any information as to why they were all recalled at the same time.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: seasonal

It doesn't matter if he's Commander in Chief or not. .

Well.... so, what is the point of having a Commander-in-Chief?

a reply to: rickymouse

They try to keep them deployed, but they're in bad shape right now. They've been pushing RCOH on a couple of them, due to budget constraints, and instead of coming home and going into maintenance, they spent years coming home, doing the minimum amount of maintenance required, and going back to sea. It caught up to them.