You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Caribbean-Latin America
U.S. Navy Reviving Fleet for Latin America, Caribbean
2008-04-25
April 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy plans to re-establish its Fourth Fleet, disbanded in 1950, to oversee ships, aircraft and submarines operating in the Caribbean and Central and South America, a Defense Department statement said.

Rear Admiral Joseph Kernan, current commander of the Naval Special Warfare Command, will lead the fleet effective July 1, Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said in a statement. The fleet will be based in Mayport, Florida, coordinating efforts with the U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, which also is based there. ``This change increases our emphasis in the region on employing naval forces to build confidence and trust among nations through collective maritime security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests,'' Roughead said.

The U.S. Navy has been planning to build up its forces in the region. Admiral James Stavridis, who oversees military affairs for Latin America, told Congress on March 6 that he backs plans to designate a new fleet, led by a nuclear aircraft carrier, to patrol the waters of the Caribbean and Latin America in support of counter-terrorism operations.

The move comes as South American nations, including Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil and Ecuador, boost military spending to counter tensions and protect oil reserves.

Rear Admiral James Stevenson, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, said the re-establishment of the Fourth Fleet will send a message to the entire region, not just Venezuela. The focus will probably be on security, he said. The fleet could ``certainly bring a lot more stature to the area and increase our ability to get things done,'' Stevenson said in a telephone interview with reporters today.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez reacted to the Navy announcement, saying on state television: ``They don't scare us in the least.'' Chavez said that ``along with Brazil we're studying the creation of a South American Defense Council.''

About 11 vessels are currently under the Southern Command, a number that will probably increase in the future, Stevenson said. The types of carriers and vessels that will be deployed is ``a matter of timing and what needs have to be addressed to the particular mission,'' he said.

Other U.S. Navy fleets are the Pacific Fleet, the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the Seventh Fleet off the coast of Asia.
Posted by:Steve White

#12  if we don't use the mothballed fleet ( both boats and planes) then they should be cut up for scrap. how much do you think it costs to keep those hulls afloat?

Why do you think ships are being sunk as targets?

As for carriers, let's look at the current developments:

A SEAL two-star with fleet experience will head 4th Fleet.

The fleet is backing up SOUTHCOM, which the two-star will also command.

Current Commander, SOUTHCOM, ADM Stavridis: "anti-drug operations, humanitarian and cooperative training missions are expected to be the new commandÂ’s primary engagements."

Plain English: 4th Fleet is going to be more of an expeditionary, non-conventional soft-power show-the-flag operation. I suspect gator-freighters, the USNS Comfort and some of the SF-platforms are going to be more of use at this point than a CV (though I like the idea of an air-combat-capable CV being used as a sea-base).
Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-25 21:28  

#11  probably not when you also figure all the engineering that would have to go into the various studies to ensure safety of the crew and the retrofitting of the various shielding needs. i am not a blackshoe sailor, just an airedale, and never got below the mess decks, so i will have to defer to any snipes in the 'Burg.
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-25 17:15  

#10  Serious comment, would it cost less to install a smalish nuke plant,(just for Steam, use the engines installed) than refurbishing an oil burner, and fueling it for 20 years or so?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-04-25 16:48  

#9  Putting 2+2 and getting 5
Comment Think there's funds for it?

Answer "Only if the Democrats do NOT win this Presidency"
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-04-25 16:39  

#8  i don't wanna sound like atree hugger but that would put us even more at the mercy of the ME in oil terms. build new ones that could run on something lese with a longer shelf life and less maintenance. Bet Hugo shit himself when he saw the article, and would there be an aircraft acrrier in this fleet. I'm not a navy man
Posted by: sinse   2008-04-25 16:38  

#7  Didn't say it was free, Pappy, but it would still be cheaper and quicker than new constuction.
ANd the Navy is sending Sailors inland to 'augment' those on the ground. agree that there is a lot of looking for work type of things going on in the Navy, but if we don't use the mothballed fleet ( both boats and planes) then they should be cut up for scrap. how much do you think it costs to keep those hulls afloat?
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-25 16:38  

#6  Right now there are 3 CVs sitting in mothballs at Bremerton that could be pulled back out, Ranger, Connie, and Independence.

Sure. Then you have to get someone to shell out the bucks to get them operational - drydock, powerplant and systems refurb and check, underway quals, degaussing. Six months minimum, unless you're willing to pay extra for a wartime-tempo overhaul.

Even with a 'mothership' approach, you'll need to find a crew of about 2000, especially those still qualified to run a conventional steam plant.

Now if you want to make it fully operational, then we're talking some real money.

Think there's funds for it?
Posted by: Pappy   2008-04-25 16:22  

#5  Maybe not whining about downsizing but you can bet your @ss that as sailors begin to experience the same quick turns the Army and USMC are seeing on the ground in the ME, due to not enough hulls for all the committment, expect them to become just as vocal. its not that easy to get a beer at the end of the day when you are underway.....
Right now there are 3 CVs sitting in mothballs at Bremerton that could be pulled back out, Ranger, Connie, and Independence. Oli burners, but i am sure a 'deal' could be reached down south to get a top off every now and then.
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-04-25 14:29  

#4  Faced with downsizing, I'm sure the Navy is not whining too much about picking this up.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-04-25 09:34  

#3  Hi Hugo!
Posted by: Frank G   2008-04-25 08:27  

#2  WAFF.com > FOREIGN AFFAIRS - THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POWER - CAN AMERICA SURVIVE THE RISE OF THE REST?; + PAKISTAN MAKES A PEACE DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN/ISLAMIST MILITANTS, ANGERING THE US.
Saving the Jihad, Camels, etc. for FUTURE POST-US NUCLEAR CALIPHATE???

Also from WAFF > AMERICA'S PERILS IN THE ORIENT, vv CHINA alone + RUSSIA-CHINA combined.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-25 01:40  

#1  The NET-MSM evidence is rather extensive, to include even UNCLES FIDL-RAUL = QUBA/CUBA, and from NORTH AMER UNION, TO GREAT LAKES FREE TRADE, TO NORTH ATLANTIC FREE TRADE, RUSS-ALASKA CHUNNEL, ARCTIC-ANTARCTIC EXPLORATION,.........@.

*WOT > WAR FOR OWG-NWO > including WAR BWTN NEW WORLD + OLD WORLD = AMERICAS + EURASIA FOR DOMINATION/CONTROL OF MACKINDER'S WORLD ISLAND.

Now iff only HILLARY's Marketing-PR campaign staff can get a good photo of her properly holding a HISPANIC/SPANISH FAN, as per another First-Lady down SOUTH AMERICA ways also running for national Presidential Officia.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-25 01:34  

00:00