Maybe he can take all the illegals that he wants to deport that he can’t afford to and put them into the navy to replace all those women who can’t possibly be in combat anymore.
On a slightly more serious note…
Does anyone know the minimum manning level for a DD, a DDG, or a Bird Farm?
I get it, I’m about as far from a Trump fan as possible, but he is the President (elect) and we need to see and understand what will happen, this thread is about naval manpower levels.
And when China invades Taiwan, assuming the U.S. will defend them, will there be a navy to at least try and protect merchant ships crossing the Pacific?
I know the USN has already said they can’t but will a reduction in available Destroyers help that?
It’d be inappropriate to comment on decisions that the Navy hasn’t even been asked to make, and I certainly don’t speak for the Navy in any event, but you can come up with some likely scenarios.
We deploy fewer ships that are fully manned
We deploy the same number of ships but with much reduced manning
We try to carefully define what “combat” means and shuffle female Sailors to ships that aren’t deploying to combat areas or to ships that are in extended overhaul.
There are pros and cons to each of these COAs. There would be second, third, and tenth order effects from such a decision. Will this decision be permanent or will things change again in a few years? Do you retain Sailors you cannot deploy banking on being able to use them again with a new administration? How do you handle recruiting thousands of new Sailors when it is already a challenge? The list goes on…
Based on the clips from the hearings I saw today that seems to be the idea. It didn’t seem like the “get women out of combat roles” meant remove women from any role related to combat, but more so eliminate a different set of standards for Ranger school, BUDs, etc. If there are qualified people of any gender and they meet the standard I can’t see why they would remove them.
FWIW these hearings are all bullshit anyways. It’s politicians having their soapbox to warp whatever storyline they want to fit their narrative. Regardless of how you feel about the nominee you can’t tell me these are ever fair or even accurate representations of the poor bastard sitting up there.
The most revealing thing to me was when he couldn’t name one country in the ASEAN alliance where US Navy ships patrol regularly. The three he did name are not even in that alliance. Other than that it was mostly political talking points
He was however able to testify to how many pushups he did so apparently he is somehow more qualified relative to others who have recently served in the position?
“The poor bastard sitting up there” cheated on his wife, which would get the soldiers he will be overseeing kicked from service.
Did he say he wanted remove women from “ALL” combat roles & from USN ships or are we projecting that onto him to attempt to control the narrative? To paint him in a bad light? I just asked Google the question, “What are traditional combat roles in the military” & this is what AI responded. Nothing about navy ships.
Traditional combat roles in the military include infantry (frontline troops engaging in close combat), artillery (providing long-range fire support), armor (tank crews), reconnaissance (gathering intelligence behind enemy lines), engineer (building fortifications and breaching obstacles), medic (providing medical care on the battlefield), and communications (relaying information) all playing vital roles in coordinated combat operations.
Key points about these roles:
Infantry
Considered the backbone of the military, directly engaging the enemy with small arms and maneuvers to capture or destroy them.
Artillery
Utilizes large-caliber weapons like howitzers to deliver heavy firepower from a distance, often in support of infantry operations.
Armor
Operates tanks and other armored vehicles to provide fire support and mobility on the battlefield.
Recon
Patrols enemy territory to gather intelligence on enemy positions, movements, and capabilities.
Engineer
Builds and destroys obstacles, constructs bridges, and provides technical support to facilitate troop movement.
Medic
Provides immediate medical care to wounded soldiers on the battlefield
I think people may be over dramatising what Hegseth said or what he meant. He would be silly to mean that no women should engage in combat. The more likely meaning is that he disapproves of women in face-to-face combat and he would have considerable support from US citizens (who must largely deplore women face to face with an enemy) and a large body of actual experience from armed forces around the world, all of whom have tried this to varying degrees.
I served in the RAN both prior to and after women were allowed to serve at sea and I can assure everyone it was not an easy process. My navy has nevertheless survived and we have overcome the teething problems but remained adamant that women would not serve in the navy’s face-to-face units, notably the Clearance Diver Teams, special forces equivalent to USN SEALs. That has recently changed and we now have female CDs. We await results of their service. I remain a sceptic.
My experience also includes command of our navy’s largest training establishment, HMAS CERBERUS, engaged in a wide variety of initial and advanced training in numerous specialties. The message for those who push for females in combat is simple. Females cannot perform to the same physical standards and either standards drop overall (ie including males) or females are set lower physical standards. Don’t get me wrong. Females make good sailors and officers, but you cannot pit them against men in any event of possible hand-to-hand combat. Anyone remember the Olympic women’s boxing bout between a first class female and a bloke who claimed to be female?
When female trainees are pushed to male physical standards, their injury rates, back classing and ultimate failure rates skyrocket and people get discharged with lifelong injuries. This would be far more prevalent in the army and special forces. They can’t carry the loaded packs and weight of weapons etc, so they become injured with sprains and shin splints trying and drop back in training. This happens to males as well, but the incidence for females is always higher.
Anyone who says women can do everything a man can do needs to study the science. They are different.
That was before the confirmation hearing when he went full ‘woke’ and told Sen. Ernst he supported women in combat roles.
So no more worries about manning the USN
That applies to anyone who has to sit up there, not him specifically. Again, regardless how you feel about whatever nominee is up there they’re all get destroyed when it comes to anything they’ve ever done in their lives.
I heard some on the hearing & it was whats to be expected. Easy, professional layup questions from from Republicans & mostly partisan bash-Trump & his agenda rhetoric from the Democrats, very similar to this thread. The lunatic antifa style protesters that had to be removed was a given. That’s how the left rolls I guess? What I chuckled at was Sen. Gillibrands rhetoric & faux anger about womens rights to fight in traditional combat roles. I say “faux” anger because Gillibrand happily voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Jackson, a lady who is so dumb to womens rights she couldn’t even give an off the cuff definition of the word “woman”. When asked, Jackson looked as blank as a deer at night staring into a spotlight but Gillibrand was fine with that? At least Hegseth knows what a woman is, he has the first box on the checklist marked concerning defending womens rights.
