sea rotations

[Cycoticpenguin]

Hi, just curious how different presidents affect sea rotations? I.E. Obama wants to pull out of iraq, so will he feel our need for forward deployment has deminished?

I guess more vaguely, do the presidents control battle groups or does congress?

[taterhead]

There is a long and a short answer for this one, and everyone is bound to have a couple.

Does it matter?  Not really.  But be aware that carriers have other missions other than just launching planes to drop bombs.  Carriers are deterrents.  There will be carriers in the persian gulf for the foreseeable future, because we help keep order.  Same goes for any other trouble spot or potential trouble spot in the world (afghanistan, China, NK, etc).

A Presidential nominee may want to have less troops on the ground over time, but I would doubt that there would not be a change in carrier commitment.  We are just foreward deployed airfields, ready to bomb the snot out of people at the drop of a hat.

So what do I think?  I think the answer is no, it really doesn't matter who gets elected what your underway time will be.

And while we are at it, there is no regular sea rotation for carriers.  There are underway cycles with maintenance periods in between.  To call it a rotation would be to assume it is regular, and it decidedly is not.

[93-383]

With McCain I don't know probably be just as dynamic as they are today.

With Hilary or Obama on the other hand probably less since they won't have any intrest in the military and will slash the DOD budget so the CNO will have to lessen deployment cycles to keep costs down.

[JustinHEMI05]

Either way, someday soon, you are going to sea... A LOT.

Justin

[taterhead]

Either way, someday soon, you are going to sea... A LOT.

better him than me!

[JustinHEMI05]

better him than me!

And me.

Justin

[Cycoticpenguin]

Either way, someday soon, you are going to sea... A LOT.

Justin

I dont mind that, Im a sailor for god's sake. I just want to know what to expect

thank you guys for the info, I appreciate it.

[withroaj]

Hi, just curious how different presidents affect sea rotations? I.E. Obama wants to pull out of iraq, so will he feel our need for forward deployment has deminished?

I guess more vaguely, do the presidents control battle groups or does congress?

Yeah, I know this is a dead post but let's bring it back for some fun.

Not to out myself for being a complete crazy-pants here, but I think our deployment schedules COULD change.  It would just take a major overhaul of perspective in the role of the United States in the world.  I'm going to use 2007 numbers here, since they are in the history books already.  And yes, to answer your question, I have way too much time on my hands.

I would also like to state at the beginning of this that I have not (yet) been selected for IA, and I cannot imagine the experience in the desert.  My heart goes out to the people who served there, and people need to know that nukes get sent there.  An ELT-gone-O-gang died within the last few weeks over there, and I don't know if I am okay with that.  I must also state that I am proud to be in the Navy, and if asked to go to the desert in my remaining time I will go without argument.  What I say here is not intended to disrespect anyone currently serving or who has served in the sand in the past.  At risk of sounding entirely too cliche', that I humbly believe that anyone who has had to return fire on hostile people in the Middle East was not, at that point, fighting for Iraqi/Afghan freedom, but for the lives of himself and his buddies over there.  Seems strange that our colleagues get sent over there in the name of one thing, and die defending eachother.  It saddens me to hear about a SEAL who dove on a grenade to save his team.  I don't think he thought he was protecting America, I think he was saving his buddies' lives.  Tragic.

To look at our military from an economic standpoint is alarming on a different level.

This is our government's freely posted picture of our GDP, updated quarterly for our enjoyment. 13.8 TRILLION in 2007.  Prosperity feels good, doesn't it?
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Here is our government's proposed federal budget for FY2009.  Not bad, I guess.  Pretty thrifty for a bloated beaurocracy that provides all of the hopes, dreams and windfalls for 300 million people 'from womb to tomb.'  Since this is www.nukeworker.com and the question is about deployment schedules, let's look at the Department of Defense, to which all of us Navy folks proudly belong.  Total discretionary budget authority for 2007 is over 600 billion dollars.  Take a look at the footnote that says additional funding for our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are not limited to DoD, meaning that money didn't make this list.  If you watch the news, I am sure you heard about the (at least) two emergency spending packages, both about 200 billion dollars, that got sent to supplement the war effort.  So if we go 200 + 200 + 600 billion dollars, we get about one trillion dollars spent on our military excursions across the globe.  Take into account the fact that I didn't include Intelligence organization budgets here, since we are just talking about nuclear ship deployment schedules here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/budget.html

If we take 1(trillion) divided by 13.8(trillion) we see that we spend about 7.24 percent of our GDP on our military.  (Yes, L-Ville people, 7.24). 

Okay, what does that mean?  It means that we really do have the best equipped, best trained military force in the history of humanity.  Add to that the fact that it is an all-volunteer force (the whole stop-loss thing may make it a mostly-volunteer force), and we can proudly say that our military is the greatest ever to grace the planet.  Do your homework and you will see, the VIRGINIA Class SSN's are awesome.  The new CVN Class (which may just be another NIMITZ mod) is awesome.  Take a look at the SSGN conversion for the OHIO through the GEORGIA, it is amazing.  Nuclear powered submarines are finally a significant weapons delivery platform that we will actually use (SSGN's vs. SSBN's). 

Anyone born after World War I knows of the United States as a military superpower, and we tend to take that for granted.  It's true that OUR military intervention really saved the world at least once, and for that we owe our grandparents a huge debt -- which we will pay by spending up Social Security on our current military agenda.  From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

"A 2001 study by the General Accounting Office said the United States was paying $11.2 billion annually to finance its military presence in European NATO countries in spite of a post-Cold War drawdown that had reduced the number of U.S. military personnel in Europe from 300,000 in 1990 to 100,000."

100,000 US Troops in Europe?  I understand the Cold War (any submariner had better recognize the glory days of the Nuclear fleet, when Nuclear power had more purpose than pushing a ship from ORSE to ORSE), and the necessity of preventing Communist expansion.  While we can argue all day that communism would have failed any way had it spread over Europe, the cost would have been too extreme in the long run.  Now, though, the USSR is no more (at least for now), and our containment garrisons are still in place.  I'm sure anyone who's done a West Pac has stopped in Japan.  Beautiful place, LOTS of US Military there.  Slate Magazine's Phillip Carter said: (By the way, I don't know anything about slate magazine, just quoting it for the sake of my argument).

"Nearly all of the U.S. military presence in Asia remains concentrated in two countries—Japan and South Korea. The U.S. Pacific Command keeps about 37,500 troops in South Korea and 47,000 troops in Japan (including Okinawa). "

In fact, the United States military is stationed in 138 countries across the planet.  It is true that many of these countries just have a small Marine Corps Detachment at the US Embassy, but US forces are also defending countries and borders that have nothing to do with our security.  Remember Kosovo?  US troops are still there.  I went to DC for Memorial Day weekend (ahh, yes, to witness the Great American Tradition of completely missing the point), and ran into a friend who was stationed in Kosovo -- from '02 to '04!  Apparently there is a two-story tall mural of William J. Clinton there.  The guy is a rock star over there.  I guess I am trying to say that, with my limited world perspective, I can't see why US troops are in Kosovo.  Are they keeping us safe, or are we(DoD) just putting them in danger for some really crappy overseas duty.

We might also want to take an honest look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  The people who planned the horrible attacks on American soil should not go un-punished.  They need to be hunted down and made to answer for their horrible crimes against humanity.  Does our military need to be in the desert/mountain wasteland building countries in our image?  Does that make us safer?  Did we truly free the Iraqis/Afghans by imposing martial law over there?  Should we continue to hedge our bets in the Holy land by aiding both Israel and Palestine?  Do these actions really make us safer, or do they just piss people off overseas?  Is this really how we want the money that is taken from each of our pay checks spent? 

As much respect as I have for John McCain, I don't think his so-called "small government" domestic policy is the answer here. I don't think electing a Liberal Democrat, like Obama, would really help us out here.  To steal Ron Paul's words:  While he may want us to withdraw from the needless conflict in Iraq, he no doubt has a laundry list of other countries he sees as justifiable US military action.  It seems like we only have a choice this year between Big Government at home or Big Government abroad.  I whole-heartedly believe that we are on an unsustainable path right now, and that we need to make some major changes here, and not just symbolic ones.

"What does this have to do with deployment schedules?"  Nothing, for now.  Maybe we should start to pay attention to world affairs and domestic affairs, though.  Maybe if we actually thought about what is happening here we would get a bit angry.  I am worried that our currency is going to be so de-valued by our military and domestic spending policies (saturating the money supply with money generated from thin air to create a symbolic drop in the Prime interest rate), that it won't matter if I stay Navy or pick a "recession proof" job like commercial nuke power.  It doesn't matter if we don't get laid off if the money we get paid isn't worth anything.  Sorry, back to deployment schedules.  Let's reconsider our role in the world.  Maybe we don't need two boats and a carrier in the Gulf at all times just to show the people how big our wee-wee is.  Let's pressure our elected officials to at least take a look at a few pages of faded parchment for a minute.  As corny as the phrase is, the Declaration of Independence literally spoke our nation into existance.  The Constitution really gives us the basis of a successful Republic.  If it needs to be a "living, breathing document" (like a divisional training binder), let's Amend it instead of interpreting it into non-existance.  Long story short, if we revisit our founding documents and realize that they are really the basis of our country's greatness, designed to limit government and not to allow government to limit us/Iraqis/whomever-else-we-want, our deployment schedules will get easier.  A Navy/Army/Air Force/Marine Corps controlled by a government that operates within its Constitutional guidelines won't go to sea so much, or spend a year in third-world countries as much.

Maybe I wanted to comment on how a President could affect sea duty, maybe I wanted to start this discussion at nukeworker.

[withroaj]

This stuff came from the Heritage Foundation, a noted conservative think tank.  Trust me, this really does have a lot to do with time we will spend at sea.

Parent Article I got these highlights from:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda04-11.cfm
Very interesting table showing troop deployments over the years:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/troopMarch2005.xls

-On average, 22 percent of all U.S. service­men were stationed on foreign soil during 1950–2000.In 2003, 27 percent were deployed, which is roughly the average of the 1950s. The low point in percentage terms was 13.7 percent in 1995, while the high points were 31 percent in 1951 (approximated) and 1968.

-There were a total of 118.8 million billets during 1950–2000.There have been an aver­age of 2.33 million military personnel on active duty per year from 1950–2000. That is, during those 51 years, there were 118.82 mil­lion billets (with "billet" defined as one service­man for one year). Of that total, 27.3 million billets were overseas assignments.

-In 2003, 387,920 troops were stationed on foreign soil.This figure is out of a total of 1,434,377 personnel. Deployments have ranged from a high of 1,082,777 troops in 1968 to a low of 206,002 in 1999.

(Let's do some math here -- 387920 divided by 1434377 means 27 percent of the military!  Also remember that us Navy folks are typically stationed on US soil, so our presence here doesn't even figure into this number.)

-Since 1950, 54 countries have hosted at least 1,000 American troops.Troop deploy­ments are widespread every year. During the past 50 years, 54 different countries have hosted 1,000 or more U.S. troops at one point. During the typical year, 20 countries hosted 1,000 (or more) U.S. soldiers. An additional 11.8 countries hosted 100 to 999 American troops. During the 1990s, troops were concen­trated in fewer countries. In 2003, 14 coun­tries hosted 1,000 or more American troops, the same number of countries as in 2000.

-Foreign deployments have been concen­trated in Europe and Asia.The number of U.S. troops in Europe and Asia dwarfs the scant troops stationed in the other three regions: Africa, the Middle East, and the Amer­icas (excluding the United States). During the second half of the 20th century, 52 percent of deployed troops were in Europe and 41 per­cent in Asia. More than one-third of troop deployments during 1950–2000 were to Ger­many alone, which hosted over 10,000,000 U.S. military personnel.

[Preciousblue1965]

Your right, you do have too much time on your hands.  But you are at least actively researching information instead of relying on someone else to tell you what you think.  Bravo, bravo.

[arduousartifice]

Withroaj:  Smote for 724 joke.

Get off your soapbox and get back to work. 

CP:  The rotations won't change much for as long as most of us are in the Navy.  Only a drastic reshaping of the military will cause much change.  If anything, expect the sea-shore rotation to get longer on the sea side and the deployment schedule to stay the same, or get worse.

[withroaj]

Hey, do the math.  It's not my fault.  If you plug in the numbers that I got from published sources you get 7.24.  Have some pride, man.  Feeish.

[LaFeet]

Okay....  I need a beer...... way too much time  - bet your fingers are tired.

As for your service - Thank You.....and I salute you... and would be honored to buy any vet a beer.....

Politics is the worst sort of war

[Preciousblue1965]

Some of my favorite sayings about politics(ok get some popcorn)

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan(I believe)
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession, but I have come to realize it very much resembles the first. 

The military is a dictatorship that preserves a democracy-Unknown

We should be wary of a few individuals that would pluck the eagle of liberty to feather their own nest-FDR paraphrased.

[Loffy Muffin]

We can either reduce the military and government proactively or have it impode in a collapse of the dollar much like all former empires. 

I think the number ships and deployments will be drastically reduced due the unsustainable nature of the current US fiscal planning. 

Empire of Debt is a good read for those interested.   We are at the end of debt expansion.  That game is done. 

[RDTroja]

Some of my favorite sayings about politics(ok get some popcorn)

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan(I believe)
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession, but I have come to realize it very much resembles the first.  

The military is a dictatorship that preserves a democracy-Unknown

We should be wary of a few individuals that would pluck the eagle of liberty to feather their own nest-FDR paraphrased.

I wonder where I have heard that before...

|
|
|
\ /

[withroaj]

We can either reduce the military and government proactively or have it impode in a collapse of the dollar much like all former empires. 

I think the number ships and deployments will be drastically reduced due the unsustainable nature of the current US fiscal planning. 

Empire of Debt is a good read for those interested.   We are at the end of debt expansion.  That game is done. 

I agree with you totally on this one.  The big one here is simply:  What do we do now?

It seems that we are on a collision course with something big; that an economic correction has been put off for the last 20 years by tweaking here and there by the Fed (an organization free from debate), and that the correction can come either voluntarily or involuntarily.  I would like the option to choose voluntary correction.  It's scary to consider that we have been able to fund wars on multiple fronts while lowering taxes.  When you consider the fact that any new Big Government program (yes, wars are government programs) costs new money (we don't send hundreds of thousands of people anywhere without paying for it), you have to ask where this money comes from.  Inflation, anyone?  We have all heard recently of the Fed cutting the prime interest rate a quarter point here and there, and seen the markets get a little boost whenever it happens.  I don't think that we all know that when a country has a national debt in the trillions that the Fed can't just buy the amount of bonds required to lower the prime rate appreciably.  The prime interest rate lowers when the Federal Reserve buys bonds from banks to raise the amount of cash they have on hand to lend and to meet the reserve requirement to allow customer withdrawals, etc., and the money the Fed currently uses to accomplish this is generated from thin air!  It would be great if we could just blame corporations for the fact that a dozen eggs costs three bucks now, but we also have to realize that the rising prices of consumer goods and fuel has largely to due not only with the rising price of crude oil, but with the current destabilization of the US Dollar.  It terrifies me that this is true, and that the statistic we use to track inflation, the Consumer Price Index, doesn't take into account food and energy costs.  That means we get a picture of inflation at 4.2 percent in 2007 and believe it even though we know that gas alone (for those of us who drive to work every day) is up far greater than that.  I feel the need to say again that this has everything to do with our deployment schedules.

To answer the question that brought about this post, with the expansion of executive power that has taken place over the past 80 or so years, the President (also Constitutionally assigned responsibility as Commander in Chief of land and sea forces, which in theory should supercede expanding executive power) has great sway over our deployment schedules.  In fact, we could even say that he has irrefutable authority when it comes to his place as CIC, allowing him to significantly impact our deployment schedules.  Unfortunately the status quo, as it is now, more or less erases any true difference between either of the major political candidates. 

Long story short:  the President could have an impact on our schedules, but if the initial question is to wether or not the next President will impact our deployment schedules I think we can all safely say, "NO."

[withroaj]

I forgot to mention, I went out and bought a platinum plated soap box with my name spelled out in diamonds.

[Preciousblue1965]

I forgot to mention, I went out and bought a platinum plated soap box with my name spelled out in diamonds.

Ok well did you get it with some 20 inch rims that spin even though you are stopped.  Only then are you truly "blinged" out.

[Preciousblue1965]

I wonder where I have heard that before...

|
|
|
\ /

In my defense I have heard that before, just was not sure who said it.  That is why I paraphrased it.  You have to admit it is a really good quote and VERY accurate.

[withroaj]

Some of my favorite sayings about politics(ok get some popcorn)

It's too bad that this issue is considered a political one.  That means there will be no right answer to the question, and that the extremes offered on both sides of the issue are completely unable to reach the real answer. (see:  Global Warming -- one side says it's so extreme that we'll resort to cannibalism within 30 years, and the other side says humans don't contribute at all, with "science" supporting both claims).

This is an undeniable economic issue, and one that will reach a point beyond debate:  it will be simply a matter of recovery from disaster.  Again, we have no idea how long it will take, but an economic correction WILL happen.  Many things about our government's current operating parameters should probably change to help curb the crash; I just think the military situation is the easiest affected here (we act as ordered, when ordered -- "Go home."  --> "Yes, sir".)

[RDTroja]

In my defense I have heard that before, just was not sure who said it.  That is why I paraphrased it.  You have to admit it is a really good quote and VERY accurate.

I just re-read my post after a couple of days when this topic came back up and I realize that it came off the wrong way. I was certianly not trying to take credit for it, merely showing my support for what you said. (Maybe there was a touch of the instructor in me trying to provide the proper quote.)

I apologize if it came off as arrogant. And yes, I do admit and agree.

[Preciousblue1965]

I just re-read my post after a couple of days when this topic came back up and I realize that it came off the wrong way. I was certianly not trying to take credit for it, merely showing my support for what you said. (Maybe there was a touch of the instructor in me trying to provide the proper quote.)

I apologize if it came off as arrogant. And yes, I do admit and agree.

No offense taken, in fact if you are able to offend me, I will most likely be quite impressed.  So far the only thing that I find offensive is stupidity in the face of overwhelming facts. I too was an instructor so I know how you feel. 

But to go along with what Withroaj stated about global warming and the "science" behind both, I choose to quote Mark Twain

There are lies, there are D@MN lies, and there are statistics. 

[Roll Tide]

Hi, just curious how different presidents affect sea rotations?

I believe my old NECs (3355 and 3365) still have 5/2 rotations. That is 5 years at sea, then 2 years shore duty. If you go to a particular duty (e.g. Prototype) you may get longer than 2 years. You could also be offered shore duty prior to your 5 year sea duty point. This is based on the needs of the fleet for the particular NEC / rating. If you were a DP (Data Processor) when I was in, you had a 2/5 rotation (and could get credit for overseas service in lieu of actual sea duty). As long as you choose something useful like Nuke, you need to go to sea to perform your job. All others can go pass out basketballs at the base fitness center. In general, it didn't change much from Reagan to Bush to Clinton (or to Bush II, if I heard correctly).

Deployment intensity (formerly OPTEMPO) has varied a lot depending upon the actions in progress. It was once stated only one 6 month or longer deployment per 18 months, but many commands supplemented that with multiple 4 month deployments. I remember when it worked out on paper that you spent half your time in port and a third of your time in your homeport. That was a target met only by the slackers that left the real work to schmucks like me on the boats & ships that could get back out.

Not only has it changed, but it is an acknowledged change under more recent administrations. Since some people listen to what is said instead of watching what is done, this is an important acknowledgement.


And once again, thanks to all who are currently serving. I am enjoying the liberties you are providing.