Will Mayport's Missing Aircraft Carrier Show Up on Schedule?

[stjr]

Based on Secretary Gates presentation today, it looks like the Pentagon will be going through quite a shake up including the eventual reduction of aircraft carriers from 11 to 10.  I wonder how Mayport will come out of all this with its promised aircraft carrier.  Virginians are fighting the move tooth and nail as a waste of money.  Of course, Virginians got Cecil Field closed, too, and look how the Navy ended up regretting following that plan.

From: http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-defense-0407,0,120265.story

Raptors, carriers take hit in defense plan

BY HUGH LESSIG

5:10 PM EDT, April 6, 2009

NEWPORT NEWS

Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to stop production of the F-22 fighter jet that flies from Langley Air Force Base and decrease from 11 to 10 the number of aircraft carriers built at Northrop Grumman Newport News.

He also wants to add $300 million to care for wounded, ill, and those suffering from traumatic brain injury and other psychological health problems. And he would spend another $200 million to improve child care, spousal support, lodging and education for troops and their families.

The secretary's announcement came Monday in a press conference closely watched in Hampton Roads and Washington, D.C. It was considered highly unusual because he was announcing his requests before President Obama submitted a budget to Congress. But Gates made it clear that he sees the Pentagon at a crossroads in terms of strategy and budget.

"If approved," he said, "these recommendations will profoundly reform how this department does business."

One proposal drew immediate local fire: Gates said he would shift the aircraft carrier program to a five-year building cycle, resulting in 10 carriers after 2040.

Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Westmoreland, said he was "deeply concerned" and could not support that plan without a formal assessment, such as the Quadrennial Defense Review. "There is a legal requirement to maintain our carrier force at 11," he said.

Decreasing the rate to five years "would significantly weaken the industrial base that is so essential to our national defense. In this era of fiscal largesse in all other areas, it is disappointing that the administration would show fiscal restraint in the only area that we are constitutionally-bound to provide: the common defense of this great nation," Wittman said.

Gates acknowledged that his recommendations would be controversial. But he said America's military "must enhance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today."

That means the days are numbered for weapons systems designed in the Cold War era, such as the F-22.

However, Gates also wants to purchase more of the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, increasing the buy from 14 aircraft bought in fiscal year 2009 to 30 in fiscal year 2010.

Copyright © 2009, Newport News, Va., Daily Press

[BridgeTroll]

My guess is that it will depend on how much this administration values the Aircraft Carrier.  Since WWII it is the most important visible instrument of American resolve any President has.

[reednavy]

Shocking, Virginia thinks of it's own interests again. They seem to rely to heavily on government as it's largest economic driver, IMO.

This will not affect Mayport, because the Bush would likely be homeported here and not the being built Gerald Ford.

[Jason]

I'm not suprised Virginia is fighting this.  We would (at least I hope so) if in the same position.  That's a lot of economic impact they stand to lose.

[Ocklawaha]

I agree 100%, keep all the damn Navy ships in Norfolk. We don't want to make it too hard on our poor disadvantaged enemy's. We must play fair and allow them the first shot, you know, like the one we gave Yamamoto back in 41.

Maybe this is the reason I voted Communist, or Socialist, or something else... I just couldn't vote for either in the infamous geriatric running against a child election.

This administration seems all about spending to "create wealth" as long as it has nothing to do with national defense. Jobs are important, jobs are number one, but not if those jobs seem mean-spirited, I mean we wouldn't really expect to USE any of those weapons would we? Not when we could just beg, "Oh crazy Great leader, PLEASEEEEE Don't launch your missile... Can't we just sell you some bread? How about a set of TV Westerns?"

What a crock of pantie arsed boys, God help us if we get in a shooting war with these kittens in charge. We could always load the air cannons and fire surplus credit cards at the enemy.

OCKLAWAHA

[heights unknown]

Gotta move em and spread em around to give the enemy several targets instead of one with all of the firepower and arsenal in one area.  Be smart to move one or even two to Mayport (we used to have two in Mayport (FDR and SARA), or even another one to another Naval Station like Kingsbay or Charleston.

Whether we have 11 or 10 Carriers is not an issue right now; but guarantee the next significant conflict we have will guage whether we were correct in having 10, 11, 12, or 50 aircraft carriers; but by then it will be too late and we probably, after than conflict, will cease to be the United States of America.  We'd better make the correct political and military decisions regarding these instruments and tools of war now!

Heights Unknown

[parabellum]

It boggles the mind how political the stationing of carriers is. Putting them all in one spot is just stupid. Let's look at carrier bases on the west coast: San Diego, CA, Bremerton, WA, Everett, WA, and one in Japan, and Pearl Harbor capable of porting them temporarily. They're spread out like they should be!

[Doctor_K]

^ Which makes a little more sense, since a strategic Naval strike from China would come across the Pacific, and not the Atlantic.  At least in theory. 

Maybe there are no big-enough potential threats in the Atlantic theatre to warrant such a spread?  I agree completely that we should not keep all of our proverbial eggs in one basket, but hey, I'm just a civvie.

[heights unknown]

^ Which makes a little more sense, since a strategic Naval strike from China would come across the Pacific, and not the Atlantic.  At least in theory. 

Maybe there are no big-enough potential threats in the Atlantic theatre to warrant such a spread?  I agree completely that we should not keep all of our proverbial eggs in one basket, but hey, I'm just a civvie.

Being a 20 year Navy man (you can tell I am proud), I've got to educate you guys; don't think cause Russia and China are not directly looking at us on the Atlantic side that they can't or won't attack...WALLA...they've got submarines everywhere, not only on the Pacific side but the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, etc., just like we do!  So we can be attacked or struck just as easily on this side.  We must spread the flat tops out on the Atlantic side or else a Pearl Harbor will happen and can happen!

Heights Unknown

[stjr]

Virginia is at it again!  So far, looks like they are off to a good start:

Fight to get carrier at Mayport hits a few snags
Funding for St. Johns dredging cut; amendment denied in late voteBy Timothy J. Gibbons Story updated at 6:13 AM on Wednesday, Jun. 17, 2009

Virginia politicians have won the first major congressional fight over bringing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Mayport Naval Station, succeeding in stripping funding for dredging the St. Johns River.

The $46.3 million dredging project is necessary for a carrier to be able to come into the channel without sucking up river mud.

Spending the money on the dredging before a final decision is made about a carrier is premature, said Clark Pettig, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va., who wrote the amendment stripping the funding.

Although the Navy had signed off on moving a carrier to Mayport, the decision was put on hold after the change in administration this year. Now the decision is being considered as part of the military's Quadrennial Defense Review, a study conducted every four years to plot out the nation's defense strategy.

But the channel has to be dredged even if a carrier wasn't based at Mayport, said U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla.

"It's not about the home-port issue, but about being a safe haven for all sorts of ships," he said.

Without the dredging, a carrier couldn't even stop by Mayport in case of emergency.

"The Navy requested this money," Crenshaw said. "The only reason to vote otherwise is some sort of political reason."

When the Navy first announced that it would review the decision to bring a nuclear-powered carrier to Mayport, the Department of Defense said it wanted to move ahead with the dredging regardless of the home-porting decision.

"This action would provide an alternative port for a carrier on the East Coast if a man-made or natural disaster or other emergency closes the Navy's base in Norfolk, Va., or the surrounding sea approaches," the department said in a release announcing the decision.

Nye, who is on the subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, was joined by two other Virginia members in pushing through the fund-cutting amendment.

No representatives from Florida are on that subcommittee, but there are two on the entire Armed Services Committee.

As the full committee debated the budget request Tuesday afternoon, the Florida members tried to get the funding restored. The amendment was rejected in a vote late Tuesday evening.

"This is important for the state of Florida and for national security," said Jeff Ostermayer, spokesman for Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican who is one of the Florida representatives on the committee.

Despite this defeat, the issue isn't going away. Now that the Armed Services Committee has reviewed the bill, it must be voted on by the full House.

Whatever passes there will then have to be reconciled with the version passed by the Senate. Florida is more powerful in that chamber of Congress, with both of its senators on the Armed Services Committee.

timothy.gibbons@

jacksonville.com,

[mtraininjax]

When the administration says, it puts off the decision, that means we are screwed. JPA needs to step up and deepen the port with its own money to get the Navy here, besides the JPA stands to benefit more than the darn Navy.

[blizz01]

Senate Passes Mayport Upgrade Bill
Bill To Go To President Barack Obama For Approval
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The project to upgrade Mayport Naval Station so it can host a nuclear carrier has cleared a hurdle in Congress.  Now some lawmakers are taking their case for Mayport to the president.
Late Thursday afternoon, the Senate passed its Defense Authorization Bill, which includes about $75 million for dredging and upgrades at Mayport.  The House already passed its bill, so now it goes to President Barack Obama for his signature.  The project still depends on bills allowing the government to spend the money.
The House passed its spending bill, and the bill is now waiting to go to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
Meanwhile, Florida Sens. Bill Nelson and George LeMieux, along with Reps. Corrine Brown and Ander Crenshaw, have sent a letter to Obama.  The letter underscores the importance of having two East Coast aircraft carrier homeports, and it urges for the upgrades to Mayport to be made.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/21397557/detail.html

[JeffreyS]

Mayport on Monday would be a great place for the President to sign this bill.  I'm not saying that is what he is here for. I'm just saying?

[Jason]

^ Great point Jeffrey.

This is good news.  Let's just hope it get the final OK and we are another step closer to landing a carrier.

[buckethead]

A bit of grandstanding while benefiting our city and diversifying military assets? I'm all for it.