Listen to the article
The Navy’s top admiral said he would “push back” if President Trump tries to send a long-deployed aircraft carrier from the Caribbean to the Middle East as part of a U.S. military response to Iran’s crackdown on protestors.
On Tuesday, Trump posted on Truth Social that “Help is on the way” for protestors in Iran, as the Iranian government announced that police had killed 2,000 so far during violent clashes with demonstrators, the same day he was scheduled to receive a briefing on military options to respond.
The following day, Adm. Daryl Caudle said he hopes one of those options won’t be to deploy an aircraft carrier to U.S. Central Command, a favored show of force over the past few decades. The chief of naval operations said he especially hopes it’s not the Ford, the U.S.’s biggest and most advanced carrier and probably the best-suited for the job.
Ford left its Virginia homeport for the Mediterranean Sea in June and is about to exceed its planned seven-month deployment, having been sent to U.S. Southern Command last fall in for what was described as counter-narcotics operations and possible military action against Venezuela.
“And so if the president needs options in the Middle East, we can go build out what that looks like for him,” Caudle told reporters during a Surface Navy Association event. “I think the Ford, you know, from its capability perspective, would be an invaluable option for any military thing the president wants to do—but if it requires an extension, you know, it’s going to get some pushback from the CNO.”
The Navy is trying to balance the wellbeing of sailors and the maintenance of its ships, and deployment extensions throw a wrench in both.
“People want to have some type of certainty that they’re going to do a seven-month deployment,” Caudle said. “When it goes past that, that disrupts lives…to the financial and readiness aspects, we have maintenance agreements and contracts that have been made with yards that are going to repair the ships that are in that strike group, including the carrier itself. And so when those are tied to a specific time, the planning, the yard is expecting it to be there, all that is highly disrupted, okay?”
The service has been for years trying to get on top of these maintenance delays, even releasing a strategy a year ago that aimed to get 80 percent of ships deployable by 2027. Caudle warned that delaying that maintenance now could extend its funding into the next budget cycle, and with continuing resolutions so common, increased wear requiring increased repairs might not get the commensurate increased funding.
“So the financial aspects of an extension can be quite disruptive when we burn the ships hotter,” he said. “When it goes eight, nine-plus months, those critical components that we weren’t expecting to repair are now on the table, so the work package grows. So that’s disruptive.”
Read the full article here
15 Comments
The Navy’s goal to get 80 percent of ships deployable by 2027 is ambitious, and I hope they can achieve it, but it’s clear that deployment extensions like the one being considered for the Ford can hinder progress towards this goal.
It’s interesting that the Ford was originally sent to U.S. Southern Command for counter-narcotics operations and possible military action against Venezuela, and now it’s being considered for deployment to the Middle East.
Adm. Caudle’s comment about the financial aspects of an extension being ‘quite disruptive’ resonates with me, as delaying maintenance could extend funding into the next budget cycle and lead to increased wear requiring increased repairs.
Adm. Caudle’s comments highlight the complexities of military planning and the need to balance competing priorities, such as readiness, maintenance, and the wellbeing of sailors.
I think Adm. Caudle is right to prioritize the wellbeing of sailors and the maintenance of ships, as these are critical to the Navy’s overall readiness and effectiveness.
The Navy’s people and ships are its most valuable assets, and taking care of them should be the top priority.
The fact that the Iranian government has killed 2,000 protestors so far is alarming, and I think the US should take a stronger stance against such human rights violations, but I’m not sure if sending an aircraft carrier is the right approach.
It’s a complex situation, and while a strong stance is necessary, we also need to consider the potential consequences of escalating the situation.
I’m concerned that the situation in Iran could escalate further, and the US needs to be prepared to respond in a way that supports the protestors without putting American lives at risk.
The Navy’s top admiral, Adm. Daryl Caudle, is pushing back against sending the aircraft carrier Ford to the Middle East, citing concerns about disrupting the lives of sailors and the maintenance of ships, which could lead to increased wear and repairs.
This is a valid concern, as the Ford is already exceeding its planned seven-month deployment and extending it further could have significant financial implications.
The fact that the Ford is the U.S.’s biggest and most advanced carrier makes it a valuable asset, but also a significant resource to deploy, and I think Adm. Caudle is right to consider the potential consequences of extending its deployment.
I’m skeptical about the effectiveness of sending an aircraft carrier as a show of force, as it may not necessarily deter the Iranian government from continuing its crackdown on protestors.
The president’s statement that ‘Help is on the way’ for protestors in Iran is reassuring, but I’m not sure what specific actions the US can take to effectively support them without escalating the situation.
I’m curious to know what other military options the president is considering to respond to the situation in Iran, as Adm. Caudle mentioned that the Navy can ‘build out what that looks like’ for him.