Navy Ship and Crew Rotations

I just heard today this was going on, and has been for a few years. I'm thinking it's not such a good idea. Primarily it's being touted as a cost savings, but I think only short term. Do not ever ever ever short change the military. The number one job of government is the security of the citizens. The idea is still being tested, but with more ships and crews.

Ships are on a six month rotation to overseas stations. Traditionally, crew were assigned to a ship, and pretty much that's were you served for your hitch. When I was in, the rotation was eight months. Six months stateside in port, then sail overseas for six, then back. After I had done two of those eight month rotations, it was switched to six months. gaaarh....There was ownership: my ship, my guys, we won the competitions, we had the sharpest best performing ship. . .that kind of thing.

What's being tried is leaving ships stationed overseas, and the ships have two rotating crews. It's call forward home porting. I think those ships would be underway a lot, with the attendant wear and tear. Seems like it would reduce the life of the ship. Stateside training would probably be at land based training centers, since the government can pretend they're saving money by not having much stateside ship movement. There's the issue of ownership too. How much pride and performance is there, if you're only on a ship for six months at a time?

Part of the idea too is that, follow the money again, the fleet can be reduced by 20% as is being recommened. We're down to about 300 ships now. I'm a big advocate of a 600 ship navy. Not so much carrier groups which are great for sea battles, but helicopter and troop carriers for quick deployment into the bad guys property so we can kill them and break their stuff. The ability to get boots on the ground fast, to control the area, is paramount.

My view is that this is a bad idea, especially now that we have an anti military president and political party running things. I was in the navy during the Carter administration, and it was brutal. We didn't have enough fuel to go out as much as needed for training, or enough shells for gunnery practice. Not that I personally objected. Less time out left more time in for sex, drugs, rock 'n roll. But as a naval strategy, not such a good idea. I think, if fully implemented, it'll create a reduced naval presence, reduced naval ability, ships getting worn out faster, lowered moral, and reduced recruitment.

I've had a lot of jobs, and being in the navy was about the toughest long term. Sea duty is hard, demanding and stressful. Dr. Samuel Johnson: "No man will be a sailor who has contrivance enough to get himself into jail; for being in a ship is being in a jail, with the chance of being drowned." "A ship is worse than a gaol. There is, in a gaol, better air, better company, better conveniency of every kind; and a ship has the additional disadvantage of being in danger."

Given that, our sailors, making a huge life sacrifice, deserve better treatment. Full 600 ships, latest technology and weapon systems, traditional ship rotation, and the greatest 'conveniency' possible. They deserve, our country deserves it.