Okay ... one of the aircraft carrier logistics mysteries has been solved, as per the following article:
As per this article:
"Alleged supply problems on the USS Abraham Lincoln can be traced back in part to the start of the Iran war, when an Iranian drone strike took out a key American logistical hub in Bahrain, according to a report."
So, they're having "Alleged" supply problems. Well ... okay, I don't much like getting sued either. But, at least, this verifies that Bahrain was a "key American logistical hub."
But, I'm not buying that it would have been a usable logistical hub for aircraft carriers, or anything else trying to fight a war right in the middle of the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Nothing can pass through the Strait of Hormuz without becoming an easy target for Iran. It doesn't matter whether it's an aircraft carrier, a cruiser, a destroyer, a mine sweeper, a submarine, a fleet supply ship, a fleet oiler, or a rubber raft.
And, further along in this article it is written:
"The Lincoln has been stationed in the Arabian Sea, making Bahrain a natural choice for logistical needs. Instead, the Navy has been forced to rely upon the smaller Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, about 2,200 miles away in the Indian Ocean, an anonymous official told The Times."
Well ... I can understand why that statement came from "an anonymous official," because I wouldn't want to go on record as having said that either. I mean, that statement begs the question: Since Diego Garcia is a long, long way from everything, where are all of the supplies coming from that are "alleged" to be available on that tiny, remote coral atoll?
A quick look at the map tells the story. Using Diego Garcia as a logistical hub is a ridiculous "solution" to an aircraft carrier replenishment problem in the Arabian Sea. And so, I'm suspicious of that statement from "an anonymous official."
Concerning a related detail, the problem of simply getting mail to and from the aircraft carriers is really bugging me. And, it's bugging me even more after I remembered a little, but important detail about how aircraft carriers operated back in the day. That is, it used to be standard operating procedure (SOP) for aircraft attempting to land on an aircraft carrier to dump all of their fuel, except for enough to attempt three landings and a "bingo." That is, if the aircraft failed to land after three attempts to "catch a wire" (A "wire" is slang for an arresting gear cable.), it was "bingoed" to a "bingo" landing field within fifty miles of the ship. And, that meant, the ship was very rarely more than fifty miles away from an emergency landing field when its aircraft were flying. This SOP existed to reduce the possibility of an aircraft crashing onto the flight deck with a near full load of fuel, and possibly ordnance. A crash under any circumstances is bad enough. But, a crash with a near full load of fuel would kill a lot of sailors, and possibly even destroy the ship.
The only exception to the SOP that I remember is when we were buzzed by a Russian "Bear" bomber in mid-ocean. Now, during the Cold War, Russia used to send those long-range bombers out over the Atlantic, from somewhere near Murmansk, following a flight plan that took them all the way down to Angola on the west coast of Africa. And, as aircraft carriers are hard to hide, even in the middle of the ocean, those bombers could find us and intentionally buzz the ship, with their bomb bay doors open no less, to test our response. And, the Russians expected our ship's response would be to launch a couple of F-4 Phantoms to chase them away. It all sounds like a silly game, but the Russians knew our SOP. And so, they knew that, after chasing away their bomber, our aircraft had to dump most of their fuel, and then had less than 100% change of landing back on the ship. (Even without dumping, the aircraft still didn't have enough fuel to make it to a "bingo" landing field, as inflight refueling would have had to have been scheduled in advance.) And, although the pilots, and RIOs, would probably have been rescued from the sea after ejecting, the aircraft would have been lost. (As incidents like this were common, coming back from my first cruise, our F-4 Phantoms had been fueled, armed, positioned on the catapults, and had pilots and RIOs standing by in shifts, not long after we exited the Strait of Gibraltar. So, it only took four minutes to launch, after the Bear bomber had been identified on radar. I don't remember anything like that happening on my second cruise. But, that return was odd in that we were relieved by the USS Forrestal in mid-ocean, and then steamed into a storm so violent that the ship had to be drydocked to repair the damage.)
I bring all of this up because, even in a war zone, an aircraft carrier is going to make an effort to be within an acceptable distance from a "bingo" landing field when its aircraft are flying. And, any acceptable bingo landing field, no matter where it is, should be more than capable of being utilized to also deliver the mail.
Last, after more than fifty years, I think I finally figured out an inside joke. The other day, when I learned that the Navy acronym "COD" stood for Carrier Onboard Delivery, I took a couple of minutes to search for photographs of the of aircraft. And, I did find plenty of photos that matched the plane I remember. But, I couldn't find a COD that was painted the same color as the one on my boat. I thought that was odd, so I looked again this morning, but with no success. Then I tried to think of the name of a color that best matched that of my boat's COD. And, when I realized the closest color match to my boat's Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft was that of a UPS delivery truck, it hit me. Now I'm surprised the Navy brass let its crew keep that color scheme for so long.
As per this article:
"Alleged supply problems on the USS Abraham Lincoln can be traced back in part to the start of the Iran war, when an Iranian drone strike took out a key American logistical hub in Bahrain, according to a report."
So, they're having "Alleged" supply problems. Well ... okay, I don't much like getting sued either. But, at least, this verifies that Bahrain was a "key American logistical hub."
But, I'm not buying that it would have been a usable logistical hub for aircraft carriers, or anything else trying to fight a war right in the middle of the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Nothing can pass through the Strait of Hormuz without becoming an easy target for Iran. It doesn't matter whether it's an aircraft carrier, a cruiser, a destroyer, a mine sweeper, a submarine, a fleet supply ship, a fleet oiler, or a rubber raft.
And, further along in this article it is written:
"The Lincoln has been stationed in the Arabian Sea, making Bahrain a natural choice for logistical needs. Instead, the Navy has been forced to rely upon the smaller Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, about 2,200 miles away in the Indian Ocean, an anonymous official told The Times."
Well ... I can understand why that statement came from "an anonymous official," because I wouldn't want to go on record as having said that either. I mean, that statement begs the question: Since Diego Garcia is a long, long way from everything, where are all of the supplies coming from that are "alleged" to be available on that tiny, remote coral atoll?
A quick look at the map tells the story. Using Diego Garcia as a logistical hub is a ridiculous "solution" to an aircraft carrier replenishment problem in the Arabian Sea. And so, I'm suspicious of that statement from "an anonymous official."
Concerning a related detail, the problem of simply getting mail to and from the aircraft carriers is really bugging me. And, it's bugging me even more after I remembered a little, but important detail about how aircraft carriers operated back in the day. That is, it used to be standard operating procedure (SOP) for aircraft attempting to land on an aircraft carrier to dump all of their fuel, except for enough to attempt three landings and a "bingo." That is, if the aircraft failed to land after three attempts to "catch a wire" (A "wire" is slang for an arresting gear cable.), it was "bingoed" to a "bingo" landing field within fifty miles of the ship. And, that meant, the ship was very rarely more than fifty miles away from an emergency landing field when its aircraft were flying. This SOP existed to reduce the possibility of an aircraft crashing onto the flight deck with a near full load of fuel, and possibly ordnance. A crash under any circumstances is bad enough. But, a crash with a near full load of fuel would kill a lot of sailors, and possibly even destroy the ship.
The only exception to the SOP that I remember is when we were buzzed by a Russian "Bear" bomber in mid-ocean. Now, during the Cold War, Russia used to send those long-range bombers out over the Atlantic, from somewhere near Murmansk, following a flight plan that took them all the way down to Angola on the west coast of Africa. And, as aircraft carriers are hard to hide, even in the middle of the ocean, those bombers could find us and intentionally buzz the ship, with their bomb bay doors open no less, to test our response. And, the Russians expected our ship's response would be to launch a couple of F-4 Phantoms to chase them away. It all sounds like a silly game, but the Russians knew our SOP. And so, they knew that, after chasing away their bomber, our aircraft had to dump most of their fuel, and then had less than 100% change of landing back on the ship. (Even without dumping, the aircraft still didn't have enough fuel to make it to a "bingo" landing field, as inflight refueling would have had to have been scheduled in advance.) And, although the pilots, and RIOs, would probably have been rescued from the sea after ejecting, the aircraft would have been lost. (As incidents like this were common, coming back from my first cruise, our F-4 Phantoms had been fueled, armed, positioned on the catapults, and had pilots and RIOs standing by in shifts, not long after we exited the Strait of Gibraltar. So, it only took four minutes to launch, after the Bear bomber had been identified on radar. I don't remember anything like that happening on my second cruise. But, that return was odd in that we were relieved by the USS Forrestal in mid-ocean, and then steamed into a storm so violent that the ship had to be drydocked to repair the damage.)
I bring all of this up because, even in a war zone, an aircraft carrier is going to make an effort to be within an acceptable distance from a "bingo" landing field when its aircraft are flying. And, any acceptable bingo landing field, no matter where it is, should be more than capable of being utilized to also deliver the mail.
Last, after more than fifty years, I think I finally figured out an inside joke. The other day, when I learned that the Navy acronym "COD" stood for Carrier Onboard Delivery, I took a couple of minutes to search for photographs of the of aircraft. And, I did find plenty of photos that matched the plane I remember. But, I couldn't find a COD that was painted the same color as the one on my boat. I thought that was odd, so I looked again this morning, but with no success. Then I tried to think of the name of a color that best matched that of my boat's COD. And, when I realized the closest color match to my boat's Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft was that of a UPS delivery truck, it hit me. Now I'm surprised the Navy brass let its crew keep that color scheme for so long.