It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Sec. Hagel warns Navy could lose 3 Carriers and troop levels to 1950's numbers!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:40 PM
Okay, round and round we go with madness that NEVER stops. Not least of which the "Congressionally Mandated Spending Cuts" that I believe refer to Sequester. Since, literally, no other budget or similar document exists in a controlling form to do this that I know of. Sequester was Obama created (Source #1 and #2), Congress approved and everyone's effort to actually turn into the nightmare it has.

Either way for cause, Hagel's words are very clear and this isn't funny anymore. If our leaders cannot run the nation better than this? They should be thrown OUT. Short term or not.

OUT! ! !

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Wednesday that the Pentagon may have to mothball up to three Navy aircraft carriers and order additional sharp reductions in the size of the Army and Marine Corps if Congress doesn't act to avoid massive budget cuts beginning in 2014.

Well, considering Chuckie there was JUST a member of Congress himself, it seems like just YESTERDAY.....perhaps he can do something to help kick things into motion. I know budget cutting doom and gloom comes as predictably as the cherry blossoms. However, I don't think it's at all bluff this time. This nightmare of cutting without blame has already done serious damage. This is just the follow-on phases.

Going from 11 to eight or nine carrier strike groups would bring the Navy to its lowest number since World War II. And the troop cuts would shear the Army back to levels not seen since at least 1950, eroding the military's ability to keep forces deployed and combat ready overseas.

Detailing options, Hagel said America may have to choose between having a highly capable but significantly smaller military and having a larger force while reducing special operations forces, limiting research and cutting or curtailing plans to upgrade weapons systems.

Generally speaking, this is what I've wanted. A smaller peace time force ...but Chuckie seems to be leaving out any talk of actually HAVING peace...while war seems the order of the day. War, rumors of war and support for more war. If we can't back our words....we'll have to learn VERY FAST how to stay out of other people's business. Somehow I don't see that part happening before someone calls us out for a pounding we may not be in a physical position to do more than repel and hold with this talk.

He said that to achieve the savings by shrinking the force, the Pentagon might have to cut more than 100,000 additional soldiers from the Army — which is already planning to go from a wartime high of about 570,000 to 490,000 by 2017. And the current plan to reduce the size of the Marine Corp to 182,000 from a high of about 205,000 could also be changed — cutting it to as few as 150,000 Marines.

He added that the Air Force could lose as many as five combat air squadrons as well as a number of other bomber and cargo aircraft.

I don't know how much more of this hope and change our once proud nation can take. It's become slash and burn as a more apt description. No care or evidence of planning. Just jumping from one crisis to another and half way working things into a fix before jumping to the next. This isn't how to run a's how to end one, in my humble opinion.

edit on 31-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 03:46 PM
It is going on here in England too ....... for some reason we seem to be disarming ourselves .... something is coming.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:04 PM
Something to add here. I was curious about just where our Carriers are at the moment and it so happens, they seem to all have recent status updates. All but 3 carriers are sitting in port. The Truman is in the East Atlantic/6th Fleet area. The Washington is in Australia for exercises there. Then the Nimitz is in the North Arabian Sea. Normal support to Pirate operations and 5th fleet stuff, presumably.

Current and recent U.S. Carrier Status Changes

It's pretty quiet out there as it is and certainly running on minumum's as it has been for a good long time now I've been watching those deployments. The Navy parked for a few years compared to activity levels almost constant right up to the most recent period, IMO.

* OH and the Bush is running around somewhere off our East Coast. I'm not sure what it's up to and I don't know if they do either. lol.... That's the platform that just served for the record UAV carrier landings. Maybe more?

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

One thing to consider rabbit...apart form Sequester debate...we don't need the same size Navy that we once did. Between drones and Spec Ops...Aircraft carriers, while still needed, are not needed at WW2 numbers.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:16 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Wednesday that the Pentagon may have to mothball up to three Navy aircraft carriers and order additional sharp reductions in the size of the Army and Marine Corps if Congress doesn't act to avoid massive budget cuts beginning in 2014.

Yo Hagel?

4 in reserve duty ready to go in a moment notice would save billions still leaves the others.

Army reductions stop giving bonuses to people to join Marine Corps doesn't least i thought they didn't.

And stop wasting millions on buildings to no where.

Every department in the US government has bloat trim the fat and stop with the 'boy who cried wolf'.

Hell Hagel wants to gut the military as much as the current command and chief meanwhile the rest of the world modernizes. and is building up theirs..

edit on 31-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:31 PM
Good, there's no need for this big of a military at all. We should cut back all the armed forces to pre WWII numbers, even better would be to cut them back to pre civil war numbers and actually disband the Army and Airforce if there is no congressionally declared war on.

That would save the budget boatloads of money.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by neo96

And stop wasting millions on buildings to no where.

Like the 200 millions wasted on the Saudi Syrian Opposition?

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:43 PM
Why do we have such a military to start with?

It isn't like there is a world war or even a global threat us any longer now that the globe has been absorbed by the multi-national corporation.

The only reason there is any military any longer appears that it is a public funded (money and lives) security force for our Corporate overlords.


posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:43 PM
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Have anything to say about Hagel's comments?

Or just wanna troll the op's thread?

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

One thing to consider rabbit...apart form Sequester debate...we don't need the same size Navy that we once did. Between drones and Spec Ops...Aircraft carriers, while still needed, are not needed at WW2 numbers.

I have to disagree with you on that. If anything,. I think the Carriers are needed more now than ever before and for two important reasons. First, assuming major naval warfare is not something looming on the horizon between world powers (Russia is dramatically increasing their fleet size with modernization for existing ships, as one concern there), then the Carriers serve another major purpose.

Carriers supply the ability to project a little or a lot of force. With or without allied requests for help, depending on the nature of things. The future is far more likely to look like more Somalia's and it's off shore Pirates Inc. operating all over those waters than World War II Capital ship battles. NOTHING matches a Carrier for being an unmatched weapon of war to fit any situation (almost)... Or.....

The other thing they are is the equivalent of 4 1/2 acres of the U.S., x's the number of decks and across over 4,000 compartments to assist and support nations and people in need, anywhere on Earth. That is also a capability which no other nation really has in anything close to that package with that speed and self sustainability. Things like the Indonesian Tsunami and a number of quakes over the years and across the world (to name a few things) have turned out markedly better for there having been a US Carrier group nearby and assisting, IMO.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Bush came back in to port after the second round of landings. That's why they weren't able to try again for three traps in one flight.

As for the cuts, I'm all for a smaller, more capable military. I say shrink it, and find a good balance of technologies. I'm sorry but the "tooth to tail" ratio of the US military is obscene.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by Viesczy

Yes because the world is an incredibly safe place and the human race is just so peaceful.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:07 PM
and not a single crap was given.

our leaders don't lead, is that big news these days? our defense needs are 10 times over bloated now amigo, i just hope you didn't come here for sympathy?
edit on 31-7-2013 by LittleBlackEagle because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I agree with you entirely and the truly insidious nature of the way our nation is being taken apart, one level at a time right now, is that each step is in some very real way, not only logical but necessary.

The problem is where and how it's done. Do we de-ball our own forces and capabilities with things like off-line Aircraft Carriers. As we all know, they aren't the new model year sedan to go down and order. Replacing ones sidelined by reckless, seat of the pants hack and slashing the military in a haphazard and not carefully considered way may not BE possible if they hack too much of the structure supporting them.

Hey, I do have some ideas of where cuts can come though. Having been an active and participating supporter of Ron Paul, I'm a very BIG fan of cuts to the 600+ Billion dollar defense budget. Just not the pointy end FIRST.

Some suggestions though? Let's start with defense contractor profits. Another thread is having a Walmart Roast-a-Thon over the fact they turn a 3-4% profit margin on operations. Yeah... 3-4%. How....small, by comparison.

Top 10 Defense Contractors with Revenue and Gross Profits shown aside each.

I figure when they are doing business with Uncle Sam, that's doing business with us as a captive audience. That means their profit is a "how much we scammed you for" figure over cost of service to provide the taxpayers. I count over 20 billion gross profit across those sheets. That wouldn't be counting endless cost over-runs to so much as build a proper latrine, of course.. lol

Oh.. and this..

If cutting must be done, then let the cutting commence. Which is cheaper and more cost well as less invasive to pretty much every nation with a red dot? Having Aircraft Carriers out sailing the 7 seas, so to speak? Or having Perm., significant basing within foreign nations under long term commitments of all kinds?

I'm thinking bang for the buck goes to the boats, by far ...and that actually was the service the Founder saw as necessary to maintain in a standing status. As opposed to the actual opposition to standing land armies. They'd have just shrieked in sheer terror and run from the room to see that basing/presence map, IMO.

When they are serious, they'll talk about starting in nations at relative peace with a red dot to dismantle the world empire we've made when no one was paying attention. When they just want to cause PAIN...they'll hit the guys in Uniform and take one of America's greatest prides and symbols, the Aircraft Carrier group.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

We need to get rid of some of the pointy end as well. Especially the Air Force. The simple fact is that our top aircraft, with the exception of the Raptor, are as old as or older than their crews. The Eagle, one of, if not the greatest fighter built, is both mach and G limited due to age and fatigue. And instead of replacing them, either with newer upgraded birds, or new designs altogether, they're liking to extend their life. Something like 80% of the fleet is close to or over90% of its current life cycle.

As for the carriers, one thing to remember is that six MinuNimitz class ships, without escorts, is more sheer tonnage than most entire navies. Yes, we lose flexibility some, but we can regain it through other improvements.

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:01 PM
These three carriers will be replaced by nearly fully automated ships that have 5 times the payload and 10 times the strike capability.

Think about it,a ship the size of a carrier with only 50 crew, loaded with hundreds of unmanned drones that can be loaded with almost limitless supplies of munitions. three automated carriers would replace 10 carriers of today. It only make sense

posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by Retikx

Considering the first unmanned landing on a carrier happened a couple weeks ago, I'd say we're a long way from that.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Honestly not educated enough on Global Military Strategy to argue with you, so I afford for the possibility that you are correct and I am wrong. All I can say is that I have heard military analysts on panels explain that the nature of our militarry conflicts these days does not demand the carrier fleet size that we currently have and that we continue to build carriers in order to keep jobs in certain states.

Who is right and who is wrong? seem well informed on the issue, so I am not qualified to debate it with you.

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Indigo5

I think I liked it better when we disliked each other and fought like the proverbial cat and dog. lol.... It wasn't boring anyway. This whole respect each other thing has it's downsides. (smirk)

Now, I'd be defining the word conceited if I didn't mention that, while putting a lot of time into learning this stuff? Heck.. I'm no more expert than anyone else. I'd defer to the people here who have served in more than a yeoman's role within the Navy or strategic jobs anywhere in the military. They lived it...I just read about it.

(still...despite being boring at times? Agreement or polite disagreement sure is less stressful, isn't it? lol)

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:15 PM
Well the usa could quite easly withdraw most its forces from Europe, i mean we have the stability and forces to look after our own and the royal and french navys could take some of the Atlantic and med burden off the USA when our aircraft carriers are done. I mean the EU military is more than a match for most the middle east and we could hold our own if russia do any stupid ( which is unlikely) until the USA can arive. There is no need for the usa to have such a large active presence expect maybe a few monitering bases and airfeilds for mobility.

edit on 1-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in