So, let's talk about the issue raised by @AaronParnas. 1️⃣The @USNavy and @US5thFleet are operating a fleet of about 20 ships in the northern Arabian Sea centered around two carrier strike groups - Lincoln and Bush - and an amphibious ready group - Boxer. 2️⃣The loss of access to bases in and around the Persian Gulf means that all the food have to be procured either from local sources in and around the Indian Ocean, or brought in from East Asia. 3️⃣To replenish the ships at sea with food, there are four ships available: USNS Arctic, Cesar Chavez, Wally Schirra and Alan Shepard. Some of these ships departed from bases in East Asia over a month ago. 4️⃣Food, depending on the type, has specific shelf life. The Navy is well aware of this. Nuclear submarines load up all the food they need for months when they deploy. Surface ships have the advantage to receive fresh food on a more regular basis. 5️⃣However, because of the number of ships on station, the limited number of store ships (four), and the elongated distance from supply sources, means that the food onboard ship will be of the type that can be stored, frozen or preserved for long duration. This means less fresh fruit & vegetables, or milk (butter there is good old fashion nuclear milk - if you know, you know). What this story tells us, is that we need more logistics to keep our Navy at sea in a contested environment. In 2015, @MSCSealift re-introduced the concept of commercial shipping transferring fuel to Navy underway replenishment ships. What we have lost are the commercial ships that can transfer dry stores and ammunition to restock. Currently, the four stores ships have to shuttle between bases to the forward deployed fleet. Remember, deployed warships are not cruise ships in the Caribbean. This does not mean we cannot do better, but admirals never like to prioritize and fund logistics over warships. This is a video I did a few months ago when this same topic came up: youtu.be/tsDvoEj1xgY