Home » News » Around the Globe » Early Retirement for a Nimitz Carrier?

Early Retirement for a Nimitz Carrier?

by John Reed on October 7, 2011

This is interesting. The Navy is thinking about retiring the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George Washington sometime in the next decade — roughly 25-years early, Defense News is reporting.

The move, designed to save money, would make the GW, commissioned in 1992 and originally slated to serve for 50-years, the very first Nimitz class carrier to be decommissioned.

According to Defense News’ Chris Cavas, the ship wouldn’t receive the mid-life refueling of her nuclear reactors that’s scheduled for 2016. She’d then serve until her current supply of nuclear fuel runs out — which is expected to happen sometime between 2016 and 2021.

Navy officials are also apparently considering disbanding one of the sea service’s 10 carrier air wings to coincide with the retirement of the GW — both moves would cut thousands of personnel positions and save equal sums of cash.

The Navy would need Congress’ permission to retire the GW early, since this would reduce the Navy’s big deck carrier force to 10 ships and U.S. law mandates an 11-carrier Navy. The currently has ten Nimitz class carriers along with the 50-year old USS Enterprise. The Enterprise will be replaced by the brand new USS Gerald R. Ford in 2015.

While the Navy isn’t confirming this, Chris Cavas is incredibly well sourced and knows the service and its ships better than just about anyone I know. It’s more than safe to assume this is under active consideration at the Pentagon as officials there try to shave $464 billion from DoD budgets over the next decade.

The other thing that’s safe to assume is that the Navy will get plenty of pushback both internally and externally on this idea. Nobody needs to be told that carriers are the backbone of the Navy and one of the keys to U.S.’ military dominance. Reducing the carrier fleet by just one ship will undoubtedly alarm some people given the fact that China is fielding its first, albeit refurbished carrier, and reportedly set to commission two brand new carriers in the coming years.

Remember this fact that Cavas points out:

Congress raised its collective ire only a few years ago when the service asked for permission to temporarily drop to a 10-ship fleet during the time when the Enterprise is decommissioned in 2013 and the Ford is commissioned in 2016. But when the request was resubmitted in an off-election year, virtually no objections were raised.

One veteran observer opined that the Navy could cancel or defer the refueling overhaul, but leave a specific request to decommission the ship until after the election.

Click here for the story.

 

Share |

{ 102 comments… read them below or add one }

brian October 7, 2011 at 11:05 am

This would be great tragedy if it occurred. I hope this is just the Navy's way of getting more funding by threatening to cut a fundamental instrument of our defense.

Reply

T. Farrell July 28, 2013 at 1:20 am

We can't keep spending billions of dollars for the luxury of saying we are the strongest navy in the world. The bills are due and there just isn't enough money in the kitty. America is long over spent on the military. Now the insanity must stop and plain common sense must prevail in this economic hard times. Sure, it's tough, but we have to be smarter and do the right thing.

Reply

arby October 7, 2011 at 11:16 am

If they really wanted to save even more money, I am sure China would be willing to forgive some debt in exchange for the carrier…

Reply

EJ257 October 7, 2011 at 11:51 am

Shhh…don't give them any ideas.

Reply

jacob October 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm

O god no if we sold them that you would see 20 more ***** versions of it and there’s more technolighy in one aircraft carrier than china has all there military

Reply

RunningBear October 7, 2011 at 11:21 am

Parking the GW at Norfolk in a Ready Reserve with a few years left on her reactors would not be the worst decision that could be made. The skeleton crew could be employed also for technology updates. This should be a rotational assignment for all Nimitz carriers, before their mid-life refueling.

Reply

Jake October 7, 2011 at 11:24 am

Do re really need 10+ carriers? I am sure if we cut it down to 6-8, we would still have more than enough power projection than the rest of the world not to mention saving tons of money (which we need to do right now).

Reply

bill P July 24, 2012 at 7:39 am

Ummm, No

Reply

Schreiber October 7, 2011 at 11:49 am

National Defense is the main purpose of the federal government, yet it seems to be the first place that is effected by budget cuts. In today's absolutely crazy world we should never jeopardize our safety.

Reply

Kurt Montandon October 7, 2011 at 2:11 pm

National Security is always the *last* place looked to for budget cuts. It's practically sacrosanct.

Reply

XYZ October 7, 2011 at 2:22 pm

"Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

I think there are some things we should jeopardize our safety for.

Reply

Sev October 7, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Yeah. Lets cut welfare and other government fat feeding the lazy of society before we cut out military!

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 6:33 pm

Carriers don't vote. Those waiting for a check at the first of the month do….

Reply

crackedlenses October 14, 2011 at 9:41 pm

He's still got a point. I'm willing to bet we'd save as much or more cutting welfare as cutting defense……

ForrestCantrell October 7, 2011 at 11:51 am

Why couldn't we lease it to a close ally that would really want a carrier, like the Australians. Help train a crew, let them pick up maintenance costs, least it for a dollar a year. They already have FA-18s, will be getting F-35s. Similar to Lend-Lease, and we have a close ally with a carrier in the South Pacific.

Reply

EJ257 October 7, 2011 at 1:04 pm

Or the British. They already have plans for F-35Cs and are already in the process of building conventional take off carriers.

Reply

Logan October 7, 2011 at 1:16 pm

The Aussies couldn't man it and Britain's shipbuilding industry is hurting bad enough that they won't buy a carrier from abroad. They want to cancel one of the two they've already ordered. Both of those countries are trying to cut spending like the US, too. The only countries with the ability and desire to field such a carrier are China, Russia, France, and India. Of those, only France and India are serious options for a lease (for obvious reasons), and a Nimitz might even be more than either of them could handle.

France and India are the only countries we'd consider leasing the GW to, and I don't see that happening. The US will mothball it in the reserve fleet and–if the unlikely war with China ever happens–it will be reactivated and sent in with the rest, just like the Korean War.

I'm not happy to see this happening, but I understand it.

Reply

Type 40 October 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm

The other issue is that Australia is steadfastly anti-nuclear… apart from a small research reactor near Sydney, there are no other nuclear installations in the country – much less the RAN. Given the debate that appeared a short while ago when there was a push from some quarters to develop an Australian nuclear power industry – combined with the media scare-mongering following the recent events in Japan – it would be political suicide for the current government to introduce nuclear warships.

Reply

Jacob January 8, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Australia's defense budget is, comparatively, tiny. it occupies 1.8% of their GDP and a increase of 1-1.5% could find the necessary resources to purchase the CVNs, As for the Anti-Nuclear Status the current government has conceded that the most likely platform for Australia's First major nuclear reactor is a naval, in the form of an aircraft carrier. The RAN has begun the procurement of 3 Air warfare destroyers which would mos likely become an escort with the only truly operation Collins class submarine becoming support. the only major issue is, as has been said, Defense recruitment in Australia is at an all time low, and is not in the position to change.

Reply

VTGunner October 7, 2011 at 11:55 am

I think a complete rethinking of our strategy is needed. We need to stop being the world's policeman. I'd rather we be used as the local cop walking the local beat but carrying a huge stick. Cut our carriers to around 7-8, keep them working around our shorelines and only send them out to the Med or Persian Gulf or wherever when needed. If we keep our forces closer to home we will be giving our servicemen and women more time at home. This will not impact their training schedules, if you want to run a two week exercise, well you're already at homeport so the logistics of such a thing is greatly simplified and reduced in cost. So just put to sea, do your training, and come back.

Reply

Jim Gammon October 8, 2011 at 12:00 am

It is good to see that the preparedness genius of the early 1930's Congress is alive and well. It almost plowed us under when Germany and Japan arose, and now it will do the same as the Chinese Dragon arises.

Reply

jhm October 9, 2011 at 11:35 pm

according to ur brialliant idea, why even have carriers? and i know policing sucks, but who else is gonna do it? i know u guys will shoot back with dozens of naitions, but seriously, if teh US stopped "policing" will we just sit back and watch the world erupt in flames ( as tempting as it is since much of it hates us) and eventually slap our heads when the conflicts spread to the US, or

Reply

Mastro October 7, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Oh- anyone know why its the GW and not the Nimitz or Ike?

I remember reading a few years ago that the Ike was a bit of a rat trap and that would be retired first- why one of the newer ones? Did they let rust eat her out?

Reply

VTGunner October 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm

According to the article it's because she's the next one up for refueling and modifications. Nimitiz and Ike just modernized and refueled so it doesn't make sense to retire those.

Reply

skyking607 October 7, 2011 at 12:56 pm

First question asked by our elected officials in a crisis: "Where are our aircraft carriers?" Enough said. Keep the carrier battle groups at full staffing.

Reply

Ed! October 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm

So we decommission the G.W. I am sure the Japanese would "love" losing that piece of soveriegn US territory while the Chinese navy gets ever stronger.

This is military thinkers trying to win a budget battle. Here's a way to save some money without cutting an entire carrier and flight group. You want to save money? Check your contracts and start enforcing penalties for late contracts and cut out the massive cost overruns on these contracts. They could save most of this money if they would have had the F-35 developed on the correct schedule and not go over the Nunn-McCurdy act with it.

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 6:38 pm

We would still homeport a CVN there.

Reply

Shail October 7, 2011 at 1:11 pm

Well hell,
why don't we just lease one of the Nimitz class to the Euros (UK, etc) indefinitely,
park it in the Med near Italy or Greece (stationary floating runway), let them maintain it and launch all the anti-Libyan and Middle East peacekeeping mission they want off her decks…

(sarc)

Reply

Tyler October 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm

There is actually a certain amount of validity to what you are sayng though. If the French and Brits wanted to go in on a joint venture aircraft carrier like they have discussed in the past, why don't they pay the mid-life overhaul and run it jointly instead of both building a pair of new carriers, they could built less new and still have a better ship. The Brits are buying the f-35c no instead of the f-35b anyways. I wouldn't give it to just anyone, but the Brits could lease it for a decade or 2.

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 9:22 pm

Like the Greeks have cash?

Reply

nuclearnuts October 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm

So your saying turn over two functional A4W plants? FYI they are highly classified, no other nation has the capabilities our plants do. The french were the closest and they had to refuel retardedly fast and abandend the nuclear program. How about we dont turn our immensly complex naval nuclear reactors over even to our allies. Remember these are designed WAY differnt then commercial land based systems.

Reply

blight October 14, 2011 at 3:45 pm

If we trust them with Tridents, then surely we trust them with a CVN. I always thought it was cost and manpower that kept the RN out of the business.

Reply

Musson1 October 7, 2011 at 1:31 pm

We spend a zillion dollars trying to develop a space plane or subspace ICBM that can hit any spot on earth in 2 hours. Meanwhile, we are cutting back on our ability to project boots on the ground power and lengthening the time required to get there.

Reply

chaos0xomega October 7, 2011 at 3:54 pm

Lets be real here, a Carrier does very little to project boots on the ground capability, aside from providing air support, now an amphib….

Reply

jhm October 9, 2011 at 11:36 pm

yup, reminds me of germanys v2 program…

Reply

crackedlenses October 14, 2011 at 4:42 pm

The V-2s caused alot of havoc…..

Reply

jamesb October 7, 2011 at 2:21 pm

This is just window dressing….
Smart though…
None of the action moves would be for AT LEAST 5 Years…
More than ample time to reverse if the Economy picked up before then….

Reply

STemplar October 7, 2011 at 2:28 pm

It would be ok to consider moves like these if we would resolve some of the needs. If we could get some closure with the Norks and bring the regime in Tehran to an end the need we go with them to some extent. As long as our foreign policy and national security moves are dependent on the UNSC agreeing to something I don' t see how we can scale back carriers.

Reply

Lance October 7, 2011 at 3:10 pm

I hope they make a new USS Enterprise by the end of the decade not a US Navy w/o the Enterprise.. I think the USS Nimitz itself would be retired first after the Enterprise since its the 2nd oldest carrier we have. I dont get to retire them before the replacement sales They should keep the Enterprise in service till 15 itself and then retire it after the USS Ford is launched.

Reply

Joe Boyum October 7, 2011 at 3:34 pm

carrier aviation has been a joke since they retired the A-6 without an adequate replacement.

Reply

chaos0xomega October 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm

I would say carrier aviation became a joke when doctrine evolved from "planes are primarily an anti-ship attack platform, and by extension a fleet defense platform" to "hai guys, look we can be the air force too!! We're still technologically and doctrinally relevant, plz don't take our budget away, k thnx, bai"

Note, I'm not attacking Naval Aviation as an institution, merely its employment on the battlefield.

Reply

crackedlenses October 14, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Wow, using your logic suddenly the high-tech stealth bombers the Air Force wants would make sense because they'd get all the bombing missions the Navy currently gets. Mind-blowing…..

Reply

Derek February 9, 2013 at 8:17 pm

Joe,
the A-6 was a fine aircraft, I know, I worked on um for 3 years. But I can tell you from first hand, on board, hands on experience…. There is NOTHING an A-6 can or could do that an F-18 cannot do better.
All Weather….. Check..
In Flight re-fuel… Check
Anti-Radiation Runs (Iron Hand)….. Check
Anti-Communication (Ordinance/Coms/DATA) Jamming.. Check
Low, Med level infiltration bombing… Check
BUT… with the 18 you add
* Supersonic in supersonic out…
* Laser pods for laser ordinance WITHOUT having to add a pod.
* GPS Ordinance capable without adding GPS Blister
* High Level Bombing
* 20mm Vulcan 6 barrel cannon
* Air to Air superior to just about anything south of Russia's best.
* Sparrow, Sidewinder air to air along with a couple new designs
* In Helmet 360 degree display
* Even with a Dead Pilot… an 18 can be brought aboard with ship board avionics

I'm a 14 year Navy man… worked aboard the Nimitz and the Independence. The A-6 was unmatched in Range and load carrying capability. But you know as well as anyone in today's air-war, there are two things that will keep you alive. Stealth or Speed (both is preferable) An A-6 not Jamming can be painted at 300 miles. And take 20 minute to cover that distance. Paint an F-18 super hornet at 300 miles and before you can relay the information he is within your airspace, by the time you launch a missile or aircraft the bomb is already off his wing. Not true of a "Drumstick"…

Reply

Dan October 7, 2011 at 4:05 pm

Didn't the GW take over for the Kitty Hawk in Japan? I wonder what ship would take that duty?

Reply

Tad October 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm

This would be stupid. Cut the bloated AF, cut the Army, pull our troops out of the silly wars they're in, but giving up the key to US power? Nuts.

Reply

Jeremy October 7, 2011 at 5:50 pm

Would be a terrible move IMO…..

Reply

Kski October 7, 2011 at 7:07 pm

NO NO NO don't retire a carrier early. Cut defense programs before you cut very very valuible combat and power projection forces. Esspecially when we can expect the Chicoms to make more very unsettling decisions that can upset the pacific.

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 6:47 pm

We already have. Now we are cutting troops & having talks about changing the Pension system. To meet budget goals most of the fat has been cut. Now we have to slice the meat.

Reply

Andrew M October 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm

Cut foreign aid to Pakistan

Reply

Andrew M October 7, 2011 at 8:59 pm

Keep the GW

Reply

roland October 8, 2011 at 3:34 am

With Iran and N. Korea as a threat we still need this for defense.

Reply

roland October 8, 2011 at 3:39 am

Just overhaul it, add a 8 multiple antiship missile launchers on each sides, modern-wide range radars, anti aircraft guns, algae fuel engine compatible, paint it with water proofing and a good long lasting paint. It will look good as new.

Reply

Pharsalus October 8, 2011 at 6:53 am

Tssss. do like the Chinese do: turn it into a nuclear casino with wedding chapel.

Reply

PolicyWonk October 8, 2011 at 11:20 am

This has bad idea written all over it – especially in light of China's military buildup being fuled by American dollars due to incredibly stupid trade policy on the part of the United States.

Reply

XYZ October 8, 2011 at 11:39 am

Apparently, this CVN caught fire in 2K8 and was exposed to radiation in 2K11. They may have good reason to retire her early…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_Washingto

Reply

Move_Forward October 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm

Upfront caveat. This is pure speculation and online research (was censored elsewhere perhaps because of excess open source detail). This carrier is a national asset and piece of U.S. sovereignty. In or before 2016, it could become a centerpoint of a stationary island constructed in the reefs/banks of the shallow Spratly Islands to maintain law and order for oil exploration by all countries. Could the carrier's reactor life be expanded by making it a stationary feature?

It could become an LCS base for guarding the Malacca and other straits from piracy. Instead of planes launched by catapault, it would become a joint base with Soldiers, Marines, Navy, and Air Force assets…primarily joint helicopters, F-35B, and ships, and ground troops permanently embarked on Naval LCS and High Speed Vessels. Another alternative would be to ground it in the Malacca Straits which are seldom more than 120' deep and as shallow as 82' in shipping lanes.

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 6:51 pm

You do realize You need wind over the deck to launch? That means moving……..

Reply

Move_Forward October 11, 2011 at 8:20 am

Which was why I mentioned F-35B STOVL in limited numbers to make room for the helicopters and ground troops that would spend much of their time on the LCS and HSV patrolling…especially if tensions were high and you wanted to disperse assets.

Reply

BigRick October 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm

Cut the beyond stupid LCS program and there will be plenty of money for keeping all of the carriers around

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 6:55 pm

You must be mistaking Obama for TR? The man wants trains & windmills. Not CVN's.

Reply

Robert October 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm

In way makes alot sense their retiring the Nimitz Class ships earlier, aside with possible radiation leak/clean up. Keeps the shipyards busy and cycles newer technologies on aging ships. When Nimitz was design, i can't imagine that folks at Pentagon actually believe turn even of events that would come with 21st Century. Cold War ends, force deductions on large scale, declining production, esclating of costs rearch and development of all things involing the DoD from tiny field weapons to aircraft carriers themselves.

Its make sense in some ways, but it still doesn't cure fincianal problems or these actions will cause in the future of the America's defense forces.

Reply

ew-3 October 9, 2011 at 12:33 pm

I'd be curious what the operating costs of an SSGN are.

Perhaps we could trade one carrier for 2 or 3 SSGNs. If you figure time on patrol they would give at least as much first strike capability.

Reply

bart October 9, 2011 at 9:05 pm

The SSGNs would also be safe from these new carrier killing ballistic missiles.

Reply

Andy October 9, 2011 at 10:09 pm

Would there be any benefit to having more smaller carriers of the Wasp class? Some as regular assault carriers and some without the helicopters but with more F-35Bs. It would seem to me that 80 F-35Bs spread over four locations would be tactically superior to 80 f-35s in one location.

Reply

BigRick October 9, 2011 at 10:54 pm

It's called the economy of scale. Wasp "amphibious assault ships" can only carry a half a dozen or so Harriers and about a dozen helos or so. Wasp class ships are designed to support the Marines on the ground not for sea control or strike missions. They don't carry E-2 or refueling planes and they would need to be grouped together to have enough planes available at one place and one time. It's like asking a Humvee to do the job of a tank, not possible.

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 9:27 pm

For plane still in flight test, Just how good it is simply theoretical guessing.

Reply

OMEGATALON October 9, 2011 at 11:30 pm

The US should consider selling older Nimitz class carriers to countries like Australia as this would allow us to build more CV21 (Gerald R Ford class).

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 7:02 pm

This about the 3rd time this has come up. Australia has no nuclear experience with ships or subs. Lack the money & manpower to run one. That is why they gave up Carriers.

Reply

jhm October 9, 2011 at 11:40 pm

sigh, once they get rid of this carrier, those carrier cutters will get emboldened and cut another, and another… I really hope that doesnt happen.Plus, if this battle group is eliminated, what happens to the escort ships?

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 7:04 pm

Cut the ship, & you cut the Air wing. The escorts can be cut as well.

Reply

Oudin October 10, 2011 at 6:57 am

May be China can lease nimitz aircraft carrier, i think good idea for defense bugdet cut.

Reply

Prodozul October 10, 2011 at 5:49 pm

You're not fooling anyone…

Reply

Dennis November 15, 2011 at 3:55 pm

You cannot retire any carriers!!!!
It seems history is repeating itself. Before ww2 we had only 7 carriers. Two where in the Atlantic and one was just finishing construction and another just finished with refit. Japan had 6 fleet carriers in the Pacific against our 3. If it was not for Roosevelt we would not have had those.
Russia and China have already announced they will or are building carriers and both their Governments hate the U.S. For Russian Government the cold war is not over and the Chinese Government seems to be acting like the Japanese in the 1930's.
Today it takes more than 5 years to build a carrier. There more complex to build today. What we will have if a world war breaks out is what we will have to fight with. It wont be like WW2 where we built Carriers in 18 months.

Reply

blight December 7, 2011 at 8:09 am

I imagine another contributor to our five year build times is the need to stretch out the work with respect to the costs of carrier construction. In wartime, construction could conceivably be bumped up, but I'm not sure how much.

The real kicker in wartime is our carriers are built in two yards and our subs in two yards, with no construction facilities on the west coast. Not sure if Pearl and San Diego can still do extensive repairs anymore, or if it would require a trip through the canal to the manufacturer.

Reply

Eddie Gentry July 8, 2012 at 7:48 am

We should look into donating or a lend Policy to put a few aircraft carrier under the UN control. they currently lack a large military muscle, leaving the US to project force to the likes of Somilia and west africa for regional problems, not to mention the Persian Gulf. If they had a carrier or three they could post there and unload this global stabilization burden from the US significantly. If they bad enough they offend the global Morality and International law then the UN would send their forces. a cost burden carried by the globe and also negating more the need or desire for countries like Iran to posture aginst the whole world, not to mention making their intervention in the Warlord Countries easier to implement from a larger force. dumb down the carriers from the High security electronics to international approved systems. refuel once and donate them, along with some standard aircraft they are able to support on the carriers. Such a effort will make a emense dent in our own long term threat defense policy by relieving a lot of these threat we react to thru the years,

Reply

Derek February 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm

So… send a squadron of F-16 fighting Falcons and 200 Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks to Muslim Brotherhood led Egypt… then start retiring our greatest non nuclear weapons? More GREAT work by Obrozo….

Reply

david September 1, 2013 at 4:21 pm

why retire the g.w it was commissioned in 92 wasnt the original 1st of class nimitz built about 20 years earlier . then why retire a ship 20 years younger?

Reply

Edwin Claveria January 8, 2014 at 12:50 am

DEAR SIR, i am a filipino,,from the PHILIPPINES-…THE my country is faithful ally of the U.S. ESPECIALLY during the 2nd world war…..If i may request to the AMERICAN GOVT. to PLEASE grant this AIRCRAFT CARRIER TO THE PHILIPPINES FOR ITS DEFENSE AGAINST CHINA….CHINA IS BULLYING US.. One reason is the huge mineral, gas and oil deposit we have in the west PHILIPPINE SEA..WHICH WELL WITHIN OUR EEZ….CHINA IS SO GREEDY AND SLY…IF THIS MINERAL RESOURCES (WHICH IS VERY HUGE) WILL BE TAKEN BY CHINA BY FORCE OR ANY OTHER WAY, CHINA WILL BECOME VERY POWERFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD…..SOON ALL THE OTHER COUNTRY INCLUDING THE UNITED STATE WILL BE UNDER ITS MERCY AND COMMAND….A COMMUNIST SELFISH IDOLOGY IN NATURE…..THE VERY HUGE POPULATION OF CHINA SHOULD IT BECOME THE TOP POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WILL BE A GREAT FACTOR TO EXERCISE WHATEVER IT WANTS TO DO…..AS A MATTER OF FACT.. THE LOYAL COMMUNIOST FOLLOWERS OF CHINA IS INSIDE THE PHILIPPINE GOVT. AND SOCIETY -SPREADING HAVOC ..AND TRYIONG TO OVERTHROW THE DEMOCRATIC GOVT. OF MY COUNTRY WHICH WAS FOUNDED BY THE U.S….
FOR YOUR INFORMATION- THE IDEAL FILIPINOS LOVE AND WANTS THE AMERICAN PRESENCE IN OUR COUNTRY…IT IS ONLY THIS SPIES FROM CHINA WHO WNTS THE AMERICAN OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES SO THAT CHINA COULD EXERCISE ITS MUSCLE AND SOON WOULD INVADE THE PHILIPPINES
IF THE PHILIPPINES WILL BE INVADED BY ADDING THE RESOURCES IT HAS—THEN THE NEXT BIG THING IS THE WORLD……PLEASE DONT LET THIS HAPPEN…WE. LIKE YOU , LOVES FREEDOM AND LIBERTY…TOGETER, We can stop CHINA FROM DOING THIS NO MATTER WHAT……..SURELY, YOU DONT LIKE CHINA TO RAISE ITS FLAG IN WASHINGTON ….OR DO YOU?……
ON THE OTHERHAND , IF YOU COULD GRANT THAT AIRCRAFT CARRIER WITH ITS FULLY GOOD OPERATING CONDITION TO OUR COUNTRY—WE CAN SURELY PAY THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE–AS WE ARE NOW WANTS TO EXPLOIT GAS AND OIL RESERVE IN THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA, BUT CHINA IS PROHIBITING US WITH ITS NAVAL BLOCKADE…EVEN OUR FISHERMAN ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF FISHING INSIDE OUR WATER…THEY ARE BEING SHOT BY CHINA……RECENTLY, THEY BUILT A MILITARY GARRISON IN THE MISCHEEF REEF THIIS OPLACE IS WELL WITHEN OUR EEZ……EVEN REED BANK- WHICH IS 30 MILES AWAY ONLY TO PALAWAN –CHINA STOP OUR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION THERE……PLEASE REFER TO THE ON-GOING HISTORY IN THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA OR SOUTH CHINA SEA…..MANY CHINESE POACHER SND ILLEGAL FISHERMEN WITH THEIR FLOTILLA OF ISHING VESSEL ARE INTRUDING OUR WATER WITH THE COMPANY OF THE CHINESE NAVAL SHIPS—WHAT CAN WE DO……PLEASE HELP US….WE HUMBLY ASK YOUR DIVINE HELP …….
WE NEED TO HAVE THE NAVAL RESOURCES WHICH YOU AE ABOUT O RETIRE AND SOME WHICH ARE NOT SO OLD…..W CAN PAY THOSE BY THE TIME WE COULD FREELY EXPLOIT OUR RESOURCES…EVEN IN THE MAINLAND PHILIPPINES–THRE ARE PLANTY OF MINERAL ORES..SOME ARE BEING RAMPANTLY STOLEN BY THE GREEY CHINESE AND BRING THEM TO THEIR HOMELAND…..PLEASE HELP US SO THST WE CAN BE A USEFUL PARTNER IN THE NEAR FUTUR….MAYBE WE CAN HELP YOU TOO…THANK YOU SO MUCH UNCLE SAM……..LASTLY—THE PHILIPPINES WANTS YOU THERE..,….THE ONE WHO OPPOSE YOU TO BE THERE ARE THE SPIES OF CHINA …WHICH HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DESTABILIZE THE GOVT…..LIKE THE NPA—THE COMMUNIST PARTY WHO ARE CONSTANTLY KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS WHO ARE AGAINST THEM AND KILLING MILITARY TOO …WE WANT TO GET RID OF THEM……..THANK YOU AMERICA—YOU ARE OUR BIG BROTHER……WE ARE WITH YOU THRU THICK AND THIN……MAY GOD BLESS OUR TWO COUNTRIES…

Reply

Edwin Claveria January 8, 2014 at 1:22 am

AND ALSO, you can build your base there,,,,like in Japan….remember that YOU have built before already the naval base in SUBIC ZAMBALES in the northern tip part of the PHILIPPINES…AND THE AIRFORCE BASE in ANGELES CITY- THE CLARK AIR BASE…..
THE PHILIPPINES AS AN ARCHIPELAGO IS IN THE STRATEGIC LOCATION MILITARILY AND ECONOMICALLY ALSO OF THE U.S. and THE PHILIPPINES ITSELF….WE ARE YOUR LOYAL LONG TIME ALLY IN THE PACIFIC—AND MAYBE THE FIRST…… we need to build a strong naval and airforce to deter CHINA–AND TO BE A STRONG ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES, LIKE JAPAN……WE CAN ONLY HAVE THESE WEAPONS THRU LONG TME LOAN……..,WE HAVE OUR COLLATERAL …PLEASE SIR……DO DISCUSS THIS THING TO OUR PRESIDENT -AQUINO….OUR ONLY DEDICATED PRESIDENT AND THE RIGHTOUS ONE AFTER HER PREDECESSORS…….THANK YOU SO MUCH…AMERICA

Reply

chaos0xomega October 7, 2011 at 12:00 pm

We need to abandon the two war model IMO, either that or actually commit to the model and back it up with an actual capability to do so. As it stands we have enough aircraft and ships to do so, we lack enough personnel to actually make it happen, specifically in the Army and to a lesser extent the Marines (which have become the second land army because of our inability to fight and occupy two nations at once).

Iraq and Afghanistan, I think, were a very relevant proof of concept for our military. They have shown us that the concept doesn't work, at least not in our current state of affairs.

Reply

VTGunner October 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm

And look at the navies of those pathetic countries…I think we'll be just fine!

Reply

Defend October 7, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Good job working the diversity training into your argument on threats, carriers, and costs.
Cause when an argument is already pretty bad, you might as well show your a bigot to add a little icing to the bad argument cake!

Reply

Mastro October 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm

Iran off our coast? Venezuela spewing rhetoric?!?

ARMAGEDDON!

Reply

chaos0xomega October 7, 2011 at 3:49 pm

And look at the sorry state of our own Navy… What was it the GAO report said, 60% of surface ships are failing inspections and incapable of meeting mission requirements? Warships optimized at shooting down incoming but incapable of really doing damage in return? The fleet needs to be recapitalized

Reply

Tyler October 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm

exactly

Reply

Beltway Bandit October 7, 2011 at 3:02 pm

You obviously have no clue how the world works.

Reply

Mastro October 7, 2011 at 5:23 pm

You obviously have no clue that we are borrowing a trillion dollars from China- and that THAT is far more damaging to our security than 1-2 carriers.

Did you notice that we didn't sell F-16's to Taiwan? Because we didn't want to piss off China. One day China might decide to take back Taiwan- and we will let them- CV's or no.

Who exactly will invade who but for 1-2 carriers?

Reply

Pox Voculi October 7, 2011 at 6:46 pm

What in the world suggests to you the Aussies want, can pay for, or could even supply crews for three Nimitz carriers?

As for force projection, it isn't an optional capacity for a superpower, it's a necessity. I think we can modestly reduce the carrier force, but nothing about the next 30 years says to me "Global Peace." Dwindling access to potable water, affordable sweet crude oil, and maybe even arable land could spell a time of radical destabilization coming.

Reply

Fiffer October 7, 2011 at 8:59 pm

It costs around a million to train a nuclear operator, nimitz class carriers have 500 nukes. You think Australia would be willing to do that, let alone the other 5K in service personel? Plus they'd have to develop the training program unless of course they agreed to ship there guys to the US for training. Which I guess could make us money.

Reply

FtD October 8, 2011 at 11:43 am

most Aust ports are nuclear free so how & why should Aussies get such nuclear device?

Reply

Hale October 9, 2011 at 2:29 am

Isn't Australia a nuclear-free nation?

Reply

chaos0xomega October 7, 2011 at 8:26 pm

I think you should check your facts… we dont borrow a dime from China, we (which means, in large part, private organizations) sell our debt to China, kinda like how loans of just about any sort can be bought and sold by various investment groups.

Reply

Chimp October 8, 2011 at 2:43 am

That's correct. The issue with debt and China isn't that China holds paper on the US. The actual question is the willingness of China to buy *more* debt in the future.

And, given that the EU looks like going the way of Soviet Socialism, there isn't much choice.

Reply

Mastro October 8, 2011 at 11:21 am

5 seconds on Google- Wash Post

"China's new status — it now owns nearly $1 out of every $10 in U.S. public debt — means Washington will be increasingly forced to rely on Beijing as it seeks to raise money to cover the cost of a $700 billion bailout. China, in fact, may be the government's largest creditor, period."

Government bonds don't have that many middlemen- believe me- people know when the Chinese are buying- and when they don't.

Reply

Mastro October 8, 2011 at 11:11 am

I don't dislike Gerald Ford- but he was a pretty bizarre choice for an entire fleet of carriers.

Bush, Enterprise, JFK, America, so many choices would have been better…

Reply

jhm October 9, 2011 at 11:38 pm

i think he was playn around

Reply

m167a1 October 10, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Nerd Point
Yorktown and some of the other "traditional" carrier names are traditionally used for cruisers

Okay end needless nerd point.

Reply

blight October 10, 2011 at 4:29 pm

"USS Yorktown (CG-48), a Ticonderoga-class cruiser commissioned in 1984 (awaiting scrapping)"

We renamed the USS Constitution before to free up the name. Rename it before you dump it, then stick the name onto the Ford.

2/5 Yorktowns were CVs. One was a sloop, another a PG and the most recent was a CG.

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 6:57 pm

The Army is cutting 50,000 troops over the next 5 years. The USMC, over 17,000.

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 7:10 pm

Nobody in the beltway is even close to your playbook. Obama is a domestic policy/ swords into plowshears guy. I hear you, but nobody in DC is……

Reply

tiger October 10, 2011 at 9:31 pm

In 200 years, when have we not had domestic problems? We need Guns & Butter. But the Butter only folks are in charge.

Reply

crackedlenses October 14, 2011 at 9:46 pm

Or we can walk into WWIII with a weak military and a stabilized domestic situation, resulting in Red Dawn. Guess we're doomed either way…..

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: