@JRem The problems aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln weren’t random. Iran disrupted the supply system keeping the ship running.
On the first day of the war, Iranian missiles and drones heavily damaged the Navy’s major logistics base in Bahrain, headquarters of the Fifth Fleet. Other regional ports were also disrupted. (https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/uss-lincoln-bahrain-diego-garcia-iran-b3036544.html)
That mattered because Bahrain was where the Navy normally stocked and moved food, supplies and other necessities to ships operating nearby.
Suddenly, the Lincoln had to be supplied from places like Diego Garcia, about 2,200 miles away, and even Singapore. Some Navy resupply trips were forced to travel more than 4,000 miles. (https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/uss-lincoln-bahrain-diego-garcia-iran-b3036544.html)
And aircraft carriers are not designed to simply stock nine months of everything onboard and forget about logistics.
Experts say a carrier at war can require replenishment every three to six days. (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-carrier-lincoln-food/)
So now the food problems, hygiene shortages, delayed mail and other failures aboard the Lincoln make much more sense.
The Navy lost its nearby supply hubs while fighting a prolonged war, and the nearest workable replacement supply chain was thousands of miles away.
Here is the part that deserves scrutiny:
A former Navy captain told Task & Purpose that the military had known for years that its Persian Gulf ports and supply routes were vulnerable—and had simply accepted that vulnerability. (https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-carrier-lincoln-food/)
That means this is bigger than bad food or broken toilets.
Iran successfully attacked a weak point in the American war machine: logistics.
The sailors aboard the Lincoln experienced the consequences first.
The real question is why **the United States entered this war without a more resilient backup system already in place for a vulnerability the Navy knew existed.**
Not sure why you tagged me. You just wrote an entire post proving my point. I said Lincoln’s sailors were dealing with legitimate problems, not just “deployment sucks.” You just explained exactly why.
Thanks, I guess.
I tagged you because you questioned whether any of this was avoidable or reflected failed leadership.
The new reporting says the Navy knew its regional supply hubs were vulnerable, those hubs were hit, and the backup supply chain was thousands of miles away.
We now have evidence that the conditions aboard Lincoln were partly the consequence of a foreseeable logistics vulnerability for which we were inadequately prepared.
That is a failure of leadership.
A known wartime vulnerability becoming a problem when the enemy attacks it isn’t proof of failed leadership.
The failure is knowing the vulnerability and entering the war without an adequate backup. Then Bahrain was hit, the Navy’s main replacement hub was 2,200 miles away, and the sailors were hung out to dry to absorb the consequences.
You keep calling the backup inadequate as if that proves the point. What was the realistic alternative the Navy should have had in place?
A commander-in-chief competent enough to plan for his own war.
That's not an alternative logistics plan. That's just naming who you want to blame. This is going nowhere fast...as usual.
@coffeebadger summed it up best:
The war was reckless from the start, and they entered it without an adequate logistics plan.
Will USA dare sanction Chinese banks facilitating trade with Iran?
https://m.stacker.news/153502
Not if it wants the refined rare earths it needs to rebuild its depleted Interceptors.
https://m.stacker.news/153503
China won the trade war- USA lost the Iran war.