Why Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget. What’s Going On?

[whitehall]

Maybe it's a Truman curse. He bungled the Korean war so badly that we ended up where we started after 3 years with anywhere between 35,000 and 50,000 Americans killed.

 

[Mushroom]

6-7 months is the stated target.

Six-months of maintenance, six-months training, one-month sustainment, seven-months deployed, seven-months sustainment, seven-months deployed, followed by two-months sustainment.

Not sure how many deployments you did, but I have done plenty. Six months is the standard, and you can not count the time in work-ups before as "deployment" as you are still at your base. But just about 6 months on the dot is pretty standard, even when we were deploying heavily.

And in case you have not noticed, we only have around 2,500 in Iraq. And nobody in Afghanistan.

At this time, the vast majority are right at home in the US. Second is East Asia, with 132k (mostly in Japan and Korea). Next is 65k in Europe (mostly in Germany). All of West Asia and the Indian Ocean is under 10k. And most of that is Navy personnel at a US Navy base in Bahrain.

So I am not even sure what you are trying to say. You are talking about operation tempos of well over a decade ago, nothing even remotely like has been seen in over a decade.

Please try to stick to current events, and not what happened in the 2000's. Because that is about as applicable to the situation today as stating that we deployed soldiers for years without a break in a combat zone. Yeah, during WWII.

 

[whitehall]

The pregnancy rate on U.S. warships is around 2% and they all are forced to abandon their posts within 9 months. Maybe the genetic female Sailors on the Truman were prettier than most.

 

[para bellum]

Please try to stick to current events, and not what happened in the 2000's.

I'm talking about the OP. The Truman supposedly rationing meals as per the Gateway Pundit's unsourced claim.

Another poster speculated on possible errors or omissions in provisioning. That seems unlikely to me, and in any case replenishment in the Med should not be a challenge.

I said the Truman would be at the end of a 6 month deployment, but Austin extended in in March after things blew up in Ukraine.

The issue with getting carriers in and out of the yards on schedule is not solved as far as I've heard. That was one of the ideas with the 36-month cycle, but I don't think it has made much difference. At least that's not the impression you get if you watch the hearings in the Congress. And longer times between maintenance and longer deployments exacerbate the problem.

End of comment.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm talking about the OP. The Truman supposedly rationing meals as per the Gateway Pundit's unsourced claim.

And carriers often stay out up to a year at a time. But that is also the Navy, they essentially take their home and base with them.

However, going back to the OP I have been looking and still do not see a single reference other than ones from garbage sites that point right back to the Gateway Pundit. So as far as I am concerned, this is yet another garbage fake news story.

Oh, and supplies are rarely an issue no matter how long a ship is out to sea because of UNREP. That is something that the US has mastered, and can keep a ship well provisioned forever. At that point it is more important to return to a base for maintenance, not for food.

I can only guess that whoever wrote that "article" is a complete retard, and has absolutely no idea what UNREP is, let alone how to spell it.

And this is not surprising, considering what other "articles" that individual posted on that day.

Judge Alito Halts Recount of Pennsylvania Ballots Received that Lacked Required Date After the Recent Primary

The far-left Washington Post reported this evening on an action by Supreme Court Justice Alito in Pennsylvania. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Tuesday put a hold on counting some challenged ballots in Pennsylvania while the Supreme Court continues to review a lower court’s decision that they be...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Dr. Peter Navarro Sues Pelosi and Her Unconstitutional Jan 6 Committee

Dr. Peter Navarro is suing Speaker Pelosi for the unconstitutional Jan 6 Committee she put in place to harass President Trump and those who support to the President. Yahoo news reported yesterday that Dr. Peter Navarro will sue the corrupt Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for her...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

"The Ideological Purposes of the Elite Make Use of the Complicity of Economic Potentates Whose Aims Are Merely to Make Profit" - Archbishop Vigano on New World Order

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, a fearless opponent of the New World Order, where human rights are discounted and sacrificed for those in power, was interviewed recently by Attorney Reiner Füllmich. Below are some key thoughts coming from Archbishop Vigano’s interview with attorney Reiner...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Now what kind of "journalist" makes 4 radically different articles on the same day?

Simple, one that simply makes them up as they write them. Once again, not surprising as Jim Hoft is also the founder of that website. In fact, their "about" page says it quite clearly.

Our focus is to make editorial choices that address the gap in the politically liberal leanings of establishment media outlets.

Notice, nothing in that "mission statement" discusses accuracy or truth. It is all about a "message". That is yet another site that should be ridiculed whenever somebody tries to use it as a "reference".

 

[para bellum]

And carriers often stay out up to a year at a time.

Yes they have, but the point I was trying to make was that was under the 32-month cycle. One long deployment per cycle. Adding the 4 months and going to 2 short deployments was supposed to relieve the yards.

The Truman was the first carrier to go under that plan, I think it was in 2014. They called it the ECP or something like that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I would love to see the source for this info in the OP. When ships are deployed, they receive underway replenishment from civilian operated MSC ships with dry stores and fuel. When we deployed to the Med, everywhere we stopped, we bought food also from the countries where we made port visits. There is absolutely no plausible reason why they would run short of food. We never had that issue on the carrier, two cruisers, and amphib assault carrier that I served on. In fact, our amphib carrier was supposed to deploy in August for about 6 weeks in the Caribbean. We left in August and arrived back home the day before Christmas that year thanks to potential civil war in Haiti. They even added 1300 Marines and French Foreign legions troops to our complement while we were in port at GTMO in Cuba.

When I was on a ballistic missile submarine, our supply officer became seriously ill and he could not manage our menus for our crew of 150. We wound up with roast beef (in a can) served for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and midnight rations (MIDRATS) for about the last two weeks of the 10 week deployment. Of course, with these type of subs there are no port visits or underway replenishments. You had only what you took with you when you left, including foods, spare parts, and fuel. Just loading food took several days before we left.

 

[Dayton3]

I'm not sure the Med at this time is the best place for a first deployment of a new class CVN, I guess we'll see.

Why not?

 

[para bellum]

Why not?

I don't think there is risk to the ship or anything like that. It's kind of a high-profile first deployment, and things don't always work as planned.

So it gets there and something goes haywire with EMALS/AAG and they can't do flight ops, it's another big PR embarrassment for a brand new ship that already has it's share of bad publicity.

I know, it's al supposed to be sorted out, but I can't help wondering anyway...

 

[Dayton3]

I don't think there is risk to the ship or anything like that. It's kind of a high-profile first deployment, and things don't always work as planned.

So it gets there and something goes haywire with EMALS/AAG and they can't do flight ops, it's another big PR embarrassment for a brand new ship that already has it's share of bad publicity.

I know, it's al supposed to be sorted out, but I can't help wondering anyway...

How would it be any different if they were in the North Atlantic or Western Pacific and that happened?

 

[para bellum]

How would it be any different if they were in the North Atlantic or Western Pacific and that happened?

No difference as it applies to the ship. Just a lower profile than if it happened right in the middle of a big NATO exercise. Neptune Spear/BALTOPS show of NATO force- don't want to embarrass the Ford.

Probably fretting over nothing, I know.

 

[Mushroom]

Just a lower profile than if it happened right in the middle of a big NATO exercise.

Every carrier no matter where it is based takes part in such exercises.

In fact, I really can't think of what a "low profile carrier deployment" would even be like. Or where it would go, other than maybe the Gulf of Mexico and nowhere else.

 

[22lcidw]

The military wants to save money. So, the Truman is supposed to be retired halfway or so its total lifecycle. Otherwise, a 4 billion dollar overhaul would be needed including refueling its nuclear reactors. The newer Ford class will not need a halfway refueling and save money on that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget. ​

What’s Going On?​

Why Is the US Military Rationing Meals? They Have a $770 Billion Budget. What's Going On? | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

What is going on? The US Military is rationing food on at least one huge aircraft carrier. Why is this happening? Doesn’t the military receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year? Where is the money going?

www.thegatewaypundit.com

31 May 2022 ~~ By Joe Hoft

What is going on? The US Military is rationing food on at least one huge aircraft carrier. Why is this happening? Doesn’t the military receive hundreds of billions of dollars each year? Where is the money going?
This Memorial week we received information that the men and women on US aircraft carrier, the USS Harry Truman, are receiving food rations. This makes no sense.
The USS Harry Truman is not at war. It is not in harm’s way. It is in the Mediterranean Sea near the conflict in Ukraine but not in the Black Sea.
Around 5,000 personnel are on board this huge carrier. Reports are coming out that the ship is rationing food. Why is our military doing this? It makes no sense. They are only receiving two meals a day.

Where are the billions going? Who is making the call to ration meals for our soldiers? Is this the love and respect they get from the Biden/Obama Administration? It appears that this is punishment, but for what? Why are our soldiers being treated this way? Is this just another effort to destroy the US military? First, Biden had forced vaccinations – now food rations – what is going on?

Commentary:
What is disturbing is food rationing for our military that aren't deployed to war accomplishes a few things for the criminals running our government.
It dissuades military personnel from reenlisting, a purge of the military so they can remake it in their own image.
It reduces the spending on people that they don't care about so that they can funnel the money to their own pockets and projects.
It gives the Biden government a way of punishing military that haven't taken the jab as they have demanded.
They are trying to purge the military while making money doing it.
The good thing about that is that when the revolution does come, all the highly trained military personnel will be with the revolutionaries.

Do you think this is a government decision?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The military wants to save money. So, the Truman is supposed to be retired halfway or so its total lifecycle. Otherwise, a 4 billion dollar overhaul would be needed including refueling its nuclear reactors. The newer Ford class will not need a halfway refueling and save money on that.

 

[Dayton3]

The military wants to save money. So, the Truman is supposed to be retired halfway or so its total lifecycle. Otherwise, a 4 billion dollar overhaul would be needed including refueling its nuclear reactors. The newer Ford class will not need a halfway refueling and save money on that.

Almost every effort by the U.S. military to save money results in disaster going the other way.

Remember the F-35 was conceived as a way to save money

 

[Mushroom]

Remember the F-35 was conceived as a way to save money

Actually, that was largely to replace the F-18 and AV8B Harrier. More than anything else the Harrier, as that Vietnam era turkey was long past its prime and needed to be retired. The Marines had been screaming for another VSTOL fighter since the 1980s, and that was the primary reason why it was made.

And many are now believing that it may ultimately be among the most successful of fighters, as the International interest has been huge. Only 7 years after full introduction, 13 nations now fly them. And this is especially true of the B variant as a great many Naval Forces are moving to that to replace their older aircraft. And the A seems popular, as it gives a nation a "stealth aircraft" without the huge cost of funding such a program for themselves.

A "standard" F-35 comes in at around $80-100 million. A huge savings when compared to the hundreds of billions that it would cost a country to create their own stealth aircraft.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually, that was largely to replace the F-18 and AV8B Harrier. More than anything else the Harrier, as that Vietnam era turkey was long past its prime and needed to be retired. The Marines had been screaming for another VSTOL fighter since the 1980s, and that was the primary reason why it was made.

And many are now believing that it may ultimately be among the most successful of fighters, as the International interest has been huge. Only 7 years after full introduction, 13 nations now fly them. And this is especially true of the B variant as a great many Naval Forces are moving to that to replace their older aircraft. And the A seems popular, as it gives a nation a "stealth aircraft" without the huge cost of funding such a program for themselves.

A "standard" F-35 comes in at around $80-100 million. A huge savings when compared to the hundreds of billions that it would cost a country to create their own stealth aircraft.

You don't care for the Harrier? While the first Harrier was "Vietnam Era" the much modernized Harrier was built in the 1980s. The thing is without the F-35 a bunch of close U.S. allies would be out of the carrier-based naval aviation game and this of course would hurt U.S. military planning.

 

[Mushroom]

You don't care for the Harrier? While the first Harrier was "Vietnam Era" the much modernized Harrier was built in the 1980s. The thing is without the F-35 a bunch of close U.S. allies would be out of the carrier-based naval aviation game and this of course would hurt U.S. military planning.

It was a good aircraft for the era, but that era was decades ago. Hell, look no farther than the spanking that the UK got from Argentina. The harrier was decades newer than what Argentina had, yet their Korean War era A4 Skyhawks tor a royal arsehole out of the Royal Navy on multiple occasions.

And the F-35B is vastly superior to the Harrier in almost every way.

As for allies being out of the "carrier based naval aviation game", that should be obvious. The Falklands War should have been a loud and clear wake-up call to the Royal Navy that they still need CATOBAR carriers. The US has told them that many times, as have others. But they continue to build "barely carriers", with aircraft that would in reality be of little use in a real conflict against another naval power or a land based power (like say Argentina).

As far as I am concerned, the UK pulled out of the "carrier game" decades ago. And what they have is about as much of a real threat as what China and Japan have.

But the carriers of China are a larger threat, as they are really heavy missile cruisers. And the missiles can do a hell of a lot more damage than their aircraft can.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It was a good aircraft for the era, but that era was decades ago. Hell, look no farther than the spanking that the UK got from Argentina. The harrier was decades newer than what Argentina had, yet their Korean War era A4 Skyhawks tor a royal arsehole out of the Royal Navy on multiple occasions.

And the F-35B is vastly superior to the Harrier in almost every way.

As for allies being out of the "carrier based naval aviation game", that should be obvious. The Falklands War should have been a loud and clear wake-up call to the Royal Navy that they still need CATOBAR carriers. The US has told them that many times, as have others. But they continue to build "barely carriers", with aircraft that would in reality be of little use in a real conflict against another naval power or a land based power (like say Argentina).

As far as I am concerned, the UK pulled out of the "carrier game" decades ago. And what they have is about as much of a real threat as what China and Japan have.

But the carriers of China are a larger threat, as they are really heavy missile cruisers. And the missiles can do a hell of a lot more damage than their aircraft can.

The A-4 was not operational until AFTER the Korean War, making it's very first flight in 1954.