Almost 8,000 Navy chiefs face ax

[Chef Ramsay]

WASHINGTON — Almost 8,000 senior enlisted personnel must go before a continuation board later this year to determine whether they can continue to serve or must retire.

The board — the first since early 2013 — will convene Oct. 27, according to a Navy document released Aug. 14.

At risk are between 7,500 and 8,000 retirement-eligible active and reserve E-7s, E-8s and E-9s with at least at least three years' time in rate.

But there is a big upside to the process: Clearing out senior enlisted who have engaged in misconduct or whose performance has slipped noticeably makes way for hot running sailors to move up.

More...http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/18/navy-chiefs-continuation-boards/14223129/

[Tusk]

Interesting they claim "It has absolutely nothing to do with force-shaping" but I have heard rumours (info wars if I recall correctly) that certain officers are being asked questions like would you be willing to exercise force on US civilians. I wonder if this is not a prelude to a more sinister shake-up to follow, or an attempt to put positive spin it.

[Elwar]

While the Navy is useful, they have not played a dominant role in these past two wars. Cutting the navy down is inevitable. They did too well at eliminating any sea battles.

[CoinBoerse.com]

Obama is now flexible... Putins request has been granted.

[TaunSew]

No the issue here is the Fleet-in-being and massed carrier tactics that were doctrine sound in WW2 are no longer relevant in the contemporary era.

A new carrier has a $32 billion lifetime cost and then they need destroyers, frigates and other screens (billions more) and it can take years to construct this.  For the same price, I can invest in more strategic aircraft and supersonic anti-ship missiles and it doesn't take years to build them.  

As well there's a market for reselling aircraft and missiles... old naval vessels.. not a whole lot, although Angola supposedly bought an aircraft carrier months ago