the united states appeased israel, and its western pacific allies went crazy: there is not a single aircraft carrier left in the pacific!
2024-08-29
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
seeing the tense situation in the middle east, us defense secretary austin ordered to extend the deployment of the uss roosevelt to ensure that the us navy can have two aircraft carrier strike groups on standby in the region at any time. however, many foreign media have noted that although this move appeased israel, it made the us's western pacific allies collectively crazy - the us currently does not have a single available aircraft carrier in the entire pacific region!
everyone knows that aircraft carriers are the apple of the eye of the us president. whenever something unexpected happens, he will inevitably ask "where are our aircraft carriers?" the us defense news said on the 27th that at the end of june, as the "eisenhower", which had extended its deployment time twice, left the red sea and returned to the united states, the us navy was forced to send the "roosevelt", which was active in the western pacific, to the middle east, resulting in an aircraft carrier "window period" in the western pacific. in order to fill the gap, the us navy urgently dispatched the "lincoln" aircraft carrier, which had just completed its rest mission. however, the "roosevelt" went to sea at the end of last year, and now it has exceeded the normal overseas rotation deployment cycle, and it should have returned to port for rest. previously, the us navy dispatched the "lincoln" aircraft carrier equipped with f-35c stealth fighters to replace the "roosevelt" to continue the deterrence mission in the middle east. at present, the "lincoln" has arrived in the jurisdiction of the central command. however, as the situation in the middle east becomes more tense, both us aircraft carriers must perform "regional deterrence" missions in the region, resulting in the us navy having no available aircraft carriers in the entire pacific region.
according to the us' earlier "asia-pacific rebalancing" strategy, the us navy deployed 60% of its aircraft carriers to the pacific, but now it is obviously not enough. the us navy news website detailed that among the six aircraft carriers deployed by the us navy in the pacific, the carl vinson has just participated in the "rimpac 2024" multinational joint maritime exercise held in hawaii and has returned to its home port in san diego, california for routine maintenance; the nimitz has just completed a six-month scheduled maintenance and is on standby in bremerton, washington; the reagan, which was originally deployed in yokosuka, japan, has returned to the united states to prepare for subsequent overhauls, and the replacement washington is currently preparing for a scheduled visit in san diego, and may need to complete the handover of crew and equipment with the reagan before going to sea.
in addition, the uss roosevelt and the uss lincoln are both deployed in the fifth fleet of the central command to deal with major conflicts that may break out in the middle east. considering that the uss roosevelt has been deployed overseas for a long time, even if it completes its middle east deployment mission, it will need to return to the port for rest and will not be able to go out to sea in the short term.
in general, the us navy has no available aircraft carriers in the pacific for the time being, and this situation may last for at least three weeks. the us naval institute website revealed on the 26th that there are currently only four us aircraft carriers deployed worldwide, namely the uss washington on the west coast of the united states, the uss eisenhower on the east coast, and the uss roosevelt and uss lincoln in the middle east. considering that the uss washington cannot sail in the short term, it is reasonable for indian media to say that there is no us aircraft carrier available in the entire pacific region.
india's eurasian times said that the u.s. navy operating in the indo-pacific does not have a usable aircraft carrier, which has caused concern and alarm among military observers - because the u.s. navy's aircraft carrier combat capability gap in the western pacific may make u.s. allies believe that "washington cannot fully fulfill its military commitments in asia, which may undermine the credibility of the u.s. defense guarantee to its regional allies."
in contrast, the deployment of us aircraft carriers in the atlantic is slightly better. on august 24, the us navy's "eisenhower", "truman" and "ford" aircraft carriers formed a three-carrier formation when transferring weapons in the atlantic - although they have since gone their separate ways.
as for why the us navy, which has 11 aircraft carriers, has fallen to this point, the old driver has said it several times before. the first is a series of mistakes made by the us navy in the maintenance and subsequent construction of aircraft carriers. for example, the maintenance period of the "washington" was seriously delayed, causing the "stannis", which was waiting in line to replace nuclear fuel, to wait in vain in the shipyard for two years, and it will take until at least october 2026 to complete this mid-term overhaul. the subsequent construction progress of the "ford" class aircraft carrier was greatly delayed, and the old "nimitz" was forced to "go to work with illness", resulting in repeated accidents, which in turn affected the us navy's global deployment plan.
faced with the situation that aircraft carriers are "not enough", the pentagon is more and more actively intervening in regional conflicts, which naturally makes the problem more troublesome. we have all seen the results of the united states' deep involvement in the middle east conflict. but then again, not all of these us aircraft carriers that are not deployed can be deployed. for example, the "carl vinson", "nimitz" and "washington" are on standby before and after deployment, and can quickly resume combat status when necessary. we must also maintain an objective understanding of this.
source: privy council no. 10
