By John Q. Hosedrinker As I read about the news regarding the US Navy aircraft carrier going head-to-head with the Houthis, one statement from the strike-group commander caught my attention. He mentioned that the carrier’s planes are constantly in the air, ready to combat any threat that may arise. And for me, that seems like a normal and necessary practice in an active war zone.
When you have the risk of enemy fire and the need to protect shipping and suppress firing positions, it’s only logical to have round-the-clock Combat Air Patrol (CAP). This allows for quick strikes and provides extra anti-air protection for a wide area. Of course, this comes at a cost, estimated at around $2 million per day. However, considering the capabilities and significance of a carrier group, it seems like a justified expense.
I can understand why some may find this topic to be a non-story. Flying around the clock during a conflict is not a new concept. It was a standard practice during the Cold War, with bombers ready to go 24/7. So for a carrier group deployed in a hostile theater, having planes in the air constantly should be the norm.
Having served on an aircraft carrier myself, I can attest to the importance of maintaining a strong presence in these situations. We were always on standby, waiting to carry out our mission. And it’s not just an aircraft carrier; it’s a battle group consisting of frigates, destroyers, support vessels, and submarines. This battle group represents the strength and capabilities that our taxpayer dollars have invested in.
However, it is disheartening to see the situation with the Houthis. It seems like they are playing a game with money, spreading their own version of freedom. And as someone who understands the significance of diplomacy, I can’t help but think about the missed opportunity with the Iran nuclear deal. If it had not been torn up, perhaps we wouldn’t be facing this situation. The deal would have eliminated a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear material stockpile and led to tough inspections. This could have deterred them from supporting proxies like the Houthis and Hamas.
But now, we find ourselves dealing with the consequences of those decisions. And while it may be tempting to adopt a “crush them all” attitude, it’s essential to remember the complexities of geopolitics. However, I do believe that we need to find a way to deal with these types of threats more cost-effectively in the future. Each airframe has its limitations, and constantly putting them in the air comes with its own set of challenges and costs.
Interestingly, I also stumbled upon some comments about the article that mentioned the Navy inviting media outlets for a ride-along, possibly for propaganda purposes. While I can’t confirm the intent behind this particular article, it does raise questions about the media’s role in shaping narratives.
Despite the criticisms, it’s important to recognize the dedication and hard work of individuals like Chowdah Hill, the commanding officer of the carrier. I’ve heard nothing but praise for his leadership and the way he takes care of his sailors. From what I gather, he is not only focused on the mission but also on fostering a positive and supportive environment. And the fact that he shares moments on social media like the ship’s dog or distributing cookies to his crew members shows a side of leadership that is relatable and human.
In conclusion, the constant presence of planes in the air from the US Navy aircraft carrier is not a surprising revelation. It’s a necessary practice in a hostile theater, ensuring the readiness and effectiveness of the battle group. While there are costs involved, the significance of such a deployment cannot be overlooked. It’s a tangible demonstration of our military capabilities and the impact they can have. And as we navigate through complex geopolitical situations, it’s essential to consider both the costs and benefits of our actions.