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
QuoteRaptors, 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!
^ 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.
Quote from: Doctor_K on June 17, 2009, 04:51:40 PM
^ 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
Virginia is at it again! So far, looks like they are off to a good start:QuoteFight 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,
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.
QuoteSenate 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
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?
^ 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.
A bit of grandstanding while benefiting our city and diversifying military assets? I'm all for it.
Hey, maybe the President will confirm a carrier here has the full support of Secretary Gates and his Pentagon staff and the White House. Forget the Quadrennial Review Virginian's got put into the process. ;)
QuoteFleet's admiral backs carrier at Mayport
A carrier at a second base makes strategic sense, he tells group.
* By Timothy J. Gibbons
* Story updated at 6:20 PM on Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2010
The admiral in charge of the Atlantic fleet said Tuesday that moving a carrier to Mayport Naval Station makes sense, although he didn't know what decision will be made later this year.
According to a report in the Navy Times, Adm. James Harvey Jr., the commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, said Norfolk being the only home port for carriers on the East Coast could lead to disaster.
"When you look at it from my perspective, the strategic imperative for having another home port capable of a [nuclear-powered aircraft carrier] is not idle talk," Harvey said at the Surface Navy Association's annual meeting outside Washington.
The four-star admiral had been asked about the possibility of a nuclear carrier coming to Mayport by a crew member from the Norfolk-based carrier Theodore Roosevelt.
Harvey said concerns about ships getting stuck either at the base at Norfolk or trying to get in were real. He recalled a waterfront tour last summer that included the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, which spans the mouth of the channel used by the Navy warships.
"Thirty bad minutes at that tunnel, and we've got half the Navy's carrier fleet, plus all of its East Coast repair and construction [facilities], bottled up for who knows how long," Navy Times reports him as saying.
The admiral and public affairs officials with Fleet Forces Command did not return calls late Tuesday.
The decision about carrier home porting will be made as part of the Quaddrennial Defense Review, a study that looks at the nation's overall defense strategy. The report is scheduled to be released next month. Harvey said he did not know what decision would be in the review, according to the Navy Times.
In early 2009, the Navy signed the record of decision stating that a nuclear-powered carrier would come to Mayport, arriving around 2014. The logic of that decision, the service said at the time, was that doing so "reduces risks to fleet resources in the event of natural disaster, man-made calamity or attack by foreign nations or terrorists."
Three months later, amidst pressure from Virginia politicians, the Pentagon announced it would review the decision. Late last month, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., sent a letter to the Pentagon calling the move "fiscally irresponsible and strategically unjustified."
The Jacksonville area has been campaigning for a nuclear-powered carrier since it was announced that the USS John F. Kennedy, a conventionally powered carrier, would be decommissioned. The ship finished its days in Mayport in March 2007.
Retrofitting the base to accommodate a nuclear-powered carrier will cost upwards of $500 million, with the money going for dredging, wharf upgrades and other projects.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-01-13/story/fleets_admiral_backs_carrier_at_mayport
Sucks for the state of Virginia more and more, and I like it!
I would like to see the rest of those big fleet carriers dispersed. Send one each to Portsmouth, Cherry Point, Jax, Key West, Pensacola... keep ONE at Norfolk, plus the O&R functions. Move the Virginia Master Jet Base to:
Green Cove Springs
Camp Blanding
Kings Bay
Geeze, I wish I WAS THE CNC!
OCKLAWAHA
Back when I lived in Tidewater VA (Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Williamsburg, Yorktown) a woman we knew from church was a Civil Defense volunteer. She went to a training session on post nuclear attack recovery actions. Once there they saw a map of the Tidewater area with a bunch of red shaded circles on it. The circles covered the area several times often overlapping. She asked the instructor what those circles were. The instructor said those were the probable nuclear strikes with complete devastation. The woman then skipped class and went shopping.
The area is target rich with military bases. The navy base with the carriers is just one target. They need to disperse the carriers.
There are quite a few red circles overlapping our area also... :)
Hmmm dont like the idea of a reduction of carriers.
Quote from: Sportmotor on January 14, 2010, 08:30:01 PM
Hmmm dont like the idea of a reduction of carriers.
Where are you getting that from? Dispersing isn't reducing there overall numbers, just the numbers in Norfolk.
Quote from: reednavy on January 14, 2010, 08:33:19 PM
Quote from: Sportmotor on January 14, 2010, 08:30:01 PM
Hmmm dont like the idea of a reduction of carriers.
Where are you getting that from? Dispersing isn't reducing there overall numbers, just the numbers in Norfolk.
*cough*
QuoteBased 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.
*cough*
=o
Quote from: Doctor_K on June 17, 2009, 04:51:40 PM
^ 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.
Yeah, but though China might attack the West Coast, don't forget Russia with a surprise pre-emptive strike on the East Coast; it will be a one two punch since they both are now working together militarily to up end the United States....i.e., while one is working the West Coast, the other will be worrying our nerves on the East Coast and Gulf Coast, so, we should disperse them around and not have them bottled up in one spot.
Oh no, a reduction of ONE. The only one they're talking about getting rid of is the Enterprise, and only retiring it 2-3 years earlier in 2012 or 2013, instead of 2015. That thing has been in commission since 1961, and at retirement will have been the longest aircraft commissioning ever, so far.
Quote from: reednavy on January 14, 2010, 08:47:36 PM
Oh no, a reduction of ONE. The only one they're talking about getting rid of is the Enterprise, and only retiring it 2-3 years earlier in 2012 or 2013, instead of 2015. That thing has been in commission since 1961, and at retirement will have been the longest aircraft commissioning ever, so far.
One carrier alone typically carries more firepower then most countrys...
plus where ever one is brings JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS which this whole country can barrly afford to lose anymore.
Besides its most likely to extend deployment times for those on teh remaining carriers with the reduction of just ONE and that is alot of extra stress on the pilots that fly Needed and important air support for the beloved ground pounders.
:3
I hope they replace the one with a new one.
They are, with the USS Gerald R Ford, for which the Enterprise's retirement/decomm year is dependant upon.
The Enterprise was originally built to last 40 years, but kept extending it, and now repair costs, age, and overall serious lag behind the newer carriers is why they're losing one.
While it has no bearing on what the military does with ships, planes and troops, i sure wish we would go back to some sort of sensible naming system, and get away from the political salutes. Why not continue with YORKTOWN, SARATOGA, TICONDEROGA, etc...
Another class could carry names such as the WASP, and HORNET or perhaps fanciful names like SHANGRALA.
Marine "helicopter" assault carriers are named for famous Marine Battles: WAKE ISLAND, MIDWAY, etc...
Battleships (all retired at the moment) were named after states, with Arizona and Utah having their names retired.
Cruisers were always named for cities of our nation
Destroyers famous American servicemen
Submarines, today the large ballistic subs use the state names, but the smaller use city names like cruisers, totally FUBAR. In the old days, when Green Cove Springs was an active fleet base with 475 ships, the attack subs were named for fish!
When I take over the world, it's going back the way God intended...
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: Ocklawaha on January 14, 2010, 09:49:25 PM
When I take over the world, it's going back the way God intended...[/color][/b]
OCKLAWAHA
Your rain will only last at tops a week untill I take your power and rule with a iron fist for decades
(http://www.rebelreserve.com/images/home_logo.jpg)
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS Y'ALL!
Yep, Ships with proper names, and a STREETCAR in every garage! Actually Sportmotor, I'm willing to allow you world rule as long as I can be Burgermeister of Cleveland. !! DIE YANKEES !!
YAHOO! I got SOCO! AND Rebel Yell!! Yippppppppppppieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
OCKLAWAHA
!! DEO VINDICE !!
QuoteReview ambiguous about Mayport’s carrier chances
QDR provides for alternative East Coast carrier port
* By Timothy J. Gibbons
* Story updated at 7:54 PM on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010
The Pentagon sees the need to spread out its aircraft carrier fleet, according to a draft copy of the report that is to determine whether Mayport Naval Station gets a nuclear-powered carrier.
It’s unclear though if that need means Mayport will become the home port for a carrier, a goal local politicians have been striving for since the conventionally powered USS John F. Kennedy left town in 2007.
The Navy should “provide an alternative port to dock East Coast aircraft carriers,†says the Dec. 3 draft of the Quadrennial Defense Review. The final copy of the document is expected to be released Monday.
Whether “alternative port†means that a carrier is based at Mayport, that the river is dredged to make carrier visits easier or something else entirely is a question vexing politicians both here and in Norfolk, Va., where a carrier would likely come from.
“I don’t know what that wording means,†said U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla. “You can interpret it any way you want.â€
The draft obtained by The Florida Times-Union does seem to support the idea of strategical dispersal, the argument that the nation’s fleet is safer when spread out. Providing an alternative port, the document said, would “mitigate the risk of a man-made or natural disaster.â€
Supporters of Mayport have long used that argument, which the Navy embraced early last year in signing the official decision to bring a carrier there.
Doing so “reduces risks to fleet resources in the event of natural disaster, man-made calamity or attack by foreign nations or terrorists,†the announcement said.
The Navy’s position on that hasn’t changed, said Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., although he acknowledged the ambiguity in the draft isn’t good for Mayport.
“It just delays the process,†he said.
But retired Adm. Robert Natter, who has lobbied on behalf of moving a carrier to Mayport, was a bit more optimistic.
“My read is positive,†he said. “We’ve just got to wait until we hear from the Department of the Navy.â€
Part of the vagueness of the wording may come from the unusual nature of having such a discussion in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The review focuses on the military’s infrastructure and manpower needs, with the goal of laying out the nation’s defense strategy for the next two decades.
Big Navy issues expected to be addressed are how many carriers the fleet should have, how the Navy’s amphibious ships fit into the Marine’s current missions and how ships should handle ballistic-missile defense. The review does not typically address individual ship placements.
With the ambiguous language in the draft, those on both sides of the issues are urging caution until the final version comes out next week.
“I think we need to be really careful in terms of quoting anything out of this document until it is actually released,†said U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.
Because the draft has likely gone through one or two revisions over the past two months, more specific wording may have been found for the Mayport issue.
“If there’s still ambiguity when the QDR comes out, we’ll have to go directly to the White House and the defense secretary for clarification,†McLaughlin said.
And no matter what the report says, the most important statement will come in another document also expected next week: The president’s budget submission.
Unless there’s money slated for the half-billion-dollar project, whatever the defense review recommends will be simply words.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-01-28/story/review_ambiguous_about_mayport%E2%80%99s_carrier_chances
Typical muckraking by the Times Union on a slow news day. Believe me, Mayport will get another carrier, leaving all in Va, is stupid, and even congressmen know this to be the case.
With the work of the 4th fleet out of Mayport, we will see a carrier here.
The need for one closer to the Carribean, Central and South America is obvious...
Along with that, the 4th Fleet is supposedly bringing in a master ASW detachment to Mayport, which is at least a hundred people or more. I would know as I worked ASW for the last 8 months I spent in the Navy.
QuoteI would know as I worked ASW for the last 8 months I spent in the Navy.
That was my entire career... 8)
What is this about?
http://jacksonville.com/news/2010-01-29/story/mayport_to_get_aircraft_carrier
Finally, Military intelligence.
(http://www.murdoconline.net/pics/chinese_carrier_building2.jpg)
Don't worry boys and girls, it's CONCRETE! This is a childrens camp in China, and you are looking at a building! The place is a cross between Military School, Summer Camp and EPOCT, Nothing to worry about here...
(http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/13681624_200610170932347517.jpg)
...and THIS one is NOT concrete... and I bet you thought it was ours!
(http://i50.tinypic.com/21btchi.jpg)
Don't worry about our "friends", they only have the worlds 4Th largest navy.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Rimpac_japanese_navy.jpg)
Pearl Harbor today, and EVERY ship in this photo is Japanese!
(http://i26.tinypic.com/j155om.jpg)
No worry here either, this is NOT an aircraft carrier... According to Japan, it's a new class of "destroyer." This one the Ise, and the earlier one the Hyuga, just happen to be named for two of the most fierce battleships of WWII, subliminal message anyone?
Quote(http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/6249-750618.jpg)
At present, Russia has only one operational aircraft carrier, the Nikolai Kuznetsov, which was commissioned in the early 1990s and has recently re-entered service after a prolonged overhaul. On 14 October 2008 President Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia would launch large-scale construction of aircraft carriers within the next two years. “We need new aircraft carrying warships, this is a very important direction for the development of the Navy,†he said on board Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov. He added that the first aircraft carrier should be built by 2013-2015.
(http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/145065.bmp)
I sure am glad the Russians only have ONE carrier, the ultimate OFFENSIVE weapon... But HEY? If the Kuznetosov is the ONLY carrier, then what the hell is this, recently photographed at a Russian port? NOTE TO SELF: I just MUST learn to be more trusting.
(http://nimg.sulekha.com/Business/original700/russia-india-aircraft-carrier-2009-7-2-11-22-58.jpg)
At least the Russians got rid of this giant, a real hemorrhoid off our... uh... anyway... so guess where they sold it? INDIA, which is rapidly building a military capable of challenging us, China, Russia or anyone else, and they are now building their own fleet of "nuclear super carriers."
Oh hell, leave them all in Norfolk, we are worried about a terrorist attack after all. It would be much easier to defend these ships against a terror bombing if we had them all in one place. We could take other precautions against enemy infiltration, such as storing all larger caliber ammunition, lock up all small arms and ammunition, shut down early warning radar stations and bring those crews in to guard aircraft, and last but not least park all aircraft engine cowling to engine cowling in tight clusters to make patrol easier. You just never know when some short, near sighted, buck toothed foreigner might drop in on us...
The radical war mongers among us keep saying someone will attack, so I translated the names of one fleet of aircraft carriers and could only deduce that they represented a tranquil and peace loving race of people, see for yourself: Akagi ("Red Castle," a mountain), Kaga ("Increased Joy,"a province), Sôryu ("Blue Dragon"), Hiryu ("Flying Dragon"), Shokaku ("Soaring Crane"), Zuikaku ("Auspicious Crane"), hardly sound like a threatening war machine do they?
"Climb Mount Nitaka"
Again? OCKLAWAHA
"Navies That Forget the Lessons of History Are Doomed To Repeat Them...
Ock - sarcasm aside, this is great news for an area that really could use the 500 million in spending to come with making Mayport Nuke ready and dredging to boot. Great news indeed.
Hello all:
Take it from a retired Navy guy:
1) Russia is not only serious about re-starting aircraft carrier construction, but also serious in rebuilding and increasing quantity and quality of all of its Armed Forces.
2) Ditto with China as well. They especially want to increase the superiority of their Navy and make it a blue water Navy capable of challening us around the globe. They have watched us for many decades now stick our chest out and have our way around the globe with our Navy as the foremost, supreme instrument of diplomacy used to ensure we have our way. China is looking to neutralize and even negate that supremacy and "check" us whenever we seek to use that power in the future.
3) India is also "making waves" especially with its Navy. India has always, since shortly after WWII had some kind of aircraft carrier, so they've always dreamed of being a quasi military power or a superpower; they're close but no cigar yet.
4) You would think the European Union would band together all of its military resources, along with its vast potential financial and economic resources and become a military power to be reckoned with nudging America off of her pedestal being that all of those nations are becoming unified and are basically thinking and speaking as one. But they're still kind of sagging in different areas and have not reached total agreement toward being one unified nation; when they do, they will become the world's next premier economic, financial and military superpower.
While we (America) have our thumbs up our bung hole, and are desperately trying to hang on to our superpower status and are only playing superpower, the aforementioned nations are very very close to becoming powers and superpowers, especially militarily, in their own right. The time will come when we will no longer be number one. We need to really focus on what's important and quit spending recklessly where we don't need to spend; our power is being sapped financially and it's getting to the point where we can't afford to field an adequate military (all branches), and our peers, friends, and enemies are surpassing us militarily. The carriers are one of the most important "big sticks" that we have. If we lose the capability and/or the will to send these "big sticks" around the world where and when they are needed, our power will substantially come to nought, and then we will be ripe for a great challenge militarily from our adversaries.
"HU"
so this is pretty huge news actually. multi-billion dollar impact for the city. definitely MJ front page story material.
I am excited for this.
whats the name of the carrier coming to Jax?? will it be brand new?
Quote from: Coolyfett on February 04, 2010, 11:29:39 PM
whats the name of the carrier coming to Jax?? will it be brand new?
We don't know and probabaly won't know for a few years.
Quote from: Coolyfett on February 04, 2010, 11:29:39 PM
whats the name of the carrier coming to Jax?? will it be brand new?
Many say it will be newest carrier, the George H W Bush. That supposedly is also what the Bush family wants, I guess, given Jeb was governor of Florida and fought hard for this project and his family has gotten strong political support from this area. Officially, the DoD and Navy say no decision has been made yet.
USS Bush wont be ready til 2018.......is the USS F'ord going to va??? I really hope its the ford going to jax.
Senator Webb just won't stop. You would think that being the former Navy secretary that he would know having all your eggs in one basket can be bad. I understand he wants to protect his local economy, but this is more than just that, this is national security we're talking about.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/22541586/detail.html
There are darn few U.S. Senators who will put national security ahead of getting pork to their state and Senator Webb is obviously not one of them. More than one carrier needs to be moved out of Norfolk anyway.
I don't even like the idea of having 5 in Norfolk and 1 here, I'd much rather see one each in Portsmouth, Newport or Groton, Norfolk, Kings Bay, Mayport, and Key West or Corpus Christi.
Hell, I don't even want Mayport to have more then 2, EVER! Besides Kings Bay is really the Florida / Georgia coasts deepest natural harbor and river entrance. Which would be why the Government decided to build Fort Clinch there rather then Mayport back in the 1840-50's. It would also be why our first railroad of any consequence ran from Fernandina to West Florida.
OCKLAWAHA
A heap of work to do before something like that shows up.........lots if infrastructure to install, makes me wonder just where the money for that willcome from?
CS, It will come from Virginia! LOL!
More positive news for the base.
Mayport will be home for new Navy LCS ships
Jacksonville base could have 17 combat ships by 2020
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-03-10/story/mayport_will_be_home_for_new_navy_lcs_ships
Quote from: Coolyfett on February 05, 2010, 01:06:36 AM
USS Bush wont be ready til 2018.......is the USS F'ord going to va??? I really hope its the ford going to jax.
Wasn't the Bush just here a day ago getting ready for a training mission?
Probabaly so, it is war games time of our coast right now.
The Bush was delivered last May, the Ford won't be ready until 2015.
*best redneck accent*
USS CHEVY
HELLS TA DA YEA
Quote from: Dog Walker on March 11, 2010, 02:19:01 PM
Wasn't the Bush just here a day ago getting ready for a training mission?
Yes, here is the proof:
(http://jacksonville.com/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/editorial/images/additional/108/met_04USSBush_031010.jpg)
Full photo at: http://photos.jacksonville.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=28411266&event=960127&CategoryID=0
Just heard from a active duty Navy officer today that the assumption inside the Navy is that the Bush is going to be the carrier stationed here.
Seems to be the better option, being the newest baby in the fleet.
But isn't the Bush the last of the "Nimitz" class? I was under the assumption that Mayport was to be prepped for the next generation "Ford" class. Pardon my ignorance, but how is it that the USS Bush is able to utilize Mayport in its current state, however, so much money is needed (i.e. dredging, etc.) over the next few years to accommodate? I understand that the next generation carriers (due in the next 4-5 years) will be similar and maintain a like hull as well.
THE bush that was in Jax is the daddy bush...not W. The Bush that came after Reagan..I think there will be 2 Bush Carriers...I may be wrong. Hope Jax get USS Ford.
No GWB has been considered right now, and likely will not for many, many years.
Yeah - Dubya's not getting a boat. I would expect to see John McCain (III) considered in the near future, however. I didn't reealize that there's a Destroyer already named for his father (& grandfather). The USS Gerald Ford is the only named carrier on the docket for now:
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), (2015)
CVN-79, unnamed (2018)
CVN-80, unnamed (2021)
Quote from: blizz01 on March 12, 2010, 01:45:12 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but how is it that the USS Bush is able to utilize Mayport in its current state, however, so much money is needed (i.e. dredging, etc.) over the next few years to accomodate?
My recollection is that these carriers can currently come into port under the right tidal and load conditions. A permanent carrier would need to be able to come and go at will and not be restricted to certain windows. Thus, the dredging project. Most of the base upgrade money, I believe, is for onshore support of the ship's nuclear reactors, again, something not needed for a temporary visit, but necessary for permanent home basing.
Yes, the George H.W. Bush is the latest Nimitz class carrier.
If we have to name stuff after politicians (and I think we shouldn't) shouldn't we wait until after they die?
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 12, 2010, 05:12:20 PM
If we have to name stuff after politicians (and I think we shouldn't) shouldn't we wait until after they die?
I'd trade naming a ship the USS McCain in exchange for his retirement.
Name it after Cindy McCain. She's done more good for the USA than he has (since his military service ended, that is).
From wikipedia:
Cindy Lou Hensley McCain (born May 20, 1954) is an American businesswoman, and philanthropist, and the wife of United States Senator and 2000 and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona.
She was born and raised in Phoenix, Arizona as the daughter of wealthy beer distributor Jim Hensley. After receiving bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Southern California, she became a special education teacher. She married John McCain in 1980 and they had three children together as well as adopting another. From 1988 to 1995 she founded and ran a non-profit organization, the American Voluntary Medical Team, that organized trips by medical personnel to disaster-struck or war-torn third-world areas. During this time she became addicted to painkillers for several years and resorted to having a physician write illegal prescriptions; she reached an agreement with the government in which no charges were filed against her.
Upon her father's death in 2000, she inherited majority control and became chair of Hensley & Co., one of the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributors in the United States. She participated in both of her husband's presidential campaigns and in 2008 drew both positive and negative scrutiny for her appearance, demeanor, wealth, spending habits, and financial obligations. She continues to be an active philanthropist and serves on the boards of Operation Smile, CARE and HALO Trust, frequently making overseas trips in conjunction with their activities.
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Special%20Effects%20Images/bobsship.jpg)
I don't know fella's, I still think The USS OCKLAWAHA just sounds sweet!
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 12, 2010, 05:12:20 PM
If we have to name stuff after politicians (and I think we shouldn't) shouldn't we wait until after they die?
I can dig it!
Guess the proverbial "fat lady" hasn't sung yet on this issue. By the way, the chart and map with this article show where all the improvements, dollars, and time are designated to go.QuoteJacksonville’s 'done deal’ on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier still a battle
A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is slated for Mayport … but Virginia isn’t giving up
* By Timothy J. Gibbons
* Story updated at 2:03 AM on Saturday, Mar. 13, 2010
(Link to article to enlarge this map and time/money chart:)
(http://jacksonville.com/files/imagecache/story_slideshow_thumb/MayportCarrier0313.jpg)
Three times now local politicians have hailed the Navy’s decision to base a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Mayport Naval Station as a “done deal.â€
Nevertheless, recent rhetoric in Washington sounds like it’s from 18 months ago, the first time the Navy said Mayport would be nuclearized.
“This discussion is clearly not over,†U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said recently during a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing, his comments squashed between remarks from Florida’s two senators â€" both of whom begged to differ.
“At some point we ought to understand that the decision has been made, and it’s been made for the purposes of securing the national defense,†U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said during the committee meeting.
Later, U.S. Sen. George LeMieux noted that everyone who needed to had contributed to the decision. “The U.S. Navy views this as important to our national security,†he said. “Both the Bush and Obama administrations have weighed in with their full support.â€
A few weeks ago, the Quadrennial Defense Review proffered what is supposed to be the final answer when it said a carrier would be based at Mayport.
Final answer or not, the discussion arguably won’t be over for years, until the naval station has taken several steps down the road toward having a carrier tied up pierside.
That may be a long road: According to internal budgeting documents, the Navy isn’t looking to spend the $150 million needed to start building the controlled industrial facility â€" a 31/2-year project â€" until 2015.
If the Navy waits to bring a ship to Mayport until all the work is done, as it as said it will, that means no carrier until 2018 or 2019.
The dates and exact figures in that planning document are subject to change, with movement within the five-year planning horizon not uncommon.
Whatever happens in those future years, it looks like the first steps may be taken in the coming fiscal year. Among the $56 million the Navy wants to use for planning and design in 2011, $2 million is slated for nailing down the details of nuclearizing Mayport.
“The planning and design are really like the foundation,†said U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., who serves on the military construction subcommittee that will have to authorize that money. “They want to figure out the cheapest and most effective way to get it done.â€
As that planning plays out, Crenshaw said, the Navy will decide exactly when the rest of the spending would best fit.
Those funds would come on top of $76 million appropriated and approved last year for dredging and repairs to the pier where the carrier is expected to live when it’s in port.
In the five-year plan, the Navy has scheduled $16 million in 2012 for road improvements and $42 million in 2013 for improvements to Foxtrot Wharf, where the ship’s maintenance facilities will sit, as well as the 2015 controlled industrial facility project.
The $250 million or so needed for other projects isn’t listed on the planning schedule.
Each of those expenditures will have to get through a series of votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with attendant tussles between Florida and Virginia expected.
Last year the dredging and wharf repair money â€" something the Navy said it wanted even if it didn’t bring a carrier to Mayport â€" was shot down in the House but later restored.
Such scuffling might play out each year as a new piece of the project comes up for funding.
“There’s a lot of politics that’s going to enter the picture,†Crenshaw said. “We’ve won a major victory. What you’re going to find is a lot of little skirmishes.â€
Norfolk trying to keep Jax from growing??? The enemy deserves no mercy!! Bring the ships the sailors and their families to Jax!
Well, Virgininians, so focused on the "little" aircraft carrier tussle with Mayport, may have missed keeping their eye on the really big fish. Look at this cost cutting announcement for their area today by the Pentagon. No indications of impact on the aircraft carrier reassignment./b]
QuoteThe most pronounced change, in terms of the number of jobs to be eliminated in one blow, was his plan to close the military’s Joint Forces Command, in Norfolk, Va.
The command includes about 2,800 military and civilian positions supported by 3,000 contractors at an annual cost of $240 million. Its responsibilities, which includes programs to force the armed services to work together on the battlefield, will be reassigned, mostly to the military’s Joint Staff.
While large headquarters have been combined and realigned over the years, Pentagon officials could not recall a time in recent history when a major command was shut down and vanished off the books.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/us/10gates.html
Karma is a bitch, ain't it Virginia?
I think it's nice that the military is cutting it's budget to try and control spending. They are tightening their belts in this harsh economy making sure the fat or waste is trimmed away.
Unfortunately, I think Congress & the people they represent have a different idea........
DOD needs to cut spending, big time. I can't begin to tell you how much waste I witnessed while in.
sure...but even conservative deficit-hawk Republicans aren't willing to agree to that...meanwhile, the U.S. spends as much money on defense every years as the rest of the world combined!
Gates has proposed some minor cuts to command staff and the senators from Virginia have gone completely ballistic.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 10, 2010, 08:07:06 AM
sure...but even conservative deficit-hawk Republicans aren't willing to agree to that...meanwhile, the U.S. spends as much money on defense every years as the rest of the world combined!
42% of our national budget, gotta love it.
Quote from: reednavy on August 09, 2010, 10:24:42 PM
DOD needs to cut spending, big time. I can't begin to tell you how much waste I witnessed while in.
My father would agree. He was a Marine. That was back in 1955-74.
The waste has been accumulating. I'd rather waste money on vote buying schemes.
Defense is 23% of the Federal Budget. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
I would rather not waste money at all. But the last thing I want to do is make our soldiers vulnerable. The fact is, we ARE the world's policeman. Neither Rep's or Dem;s have done anything to change that. It's why we spend more than any other country. As long as we send Americans into harms way then I will stand behind spending the money. Change the politics first before you shortchange servicemen and women.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
[/b]
Unless we wish another Pearl Harbor, we need to diversify the fleet, plain and simple! Consolidation is not only stupid but strategically inept! We are the worlds "Policeman" wether we want to be or not and those in the field today, as well as tomorrow, deserve and need the worlds best hardware and equipment plain and simple! I love it when the civilian side starts try to tell the military what they need to do the job! I can understand watching the dollar signs and that needs to be addressed, but there are limits!
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2010, 07:22:19 PM
As long as we send Americans into harms way then I will stand behind spending the money. Change the politics first before you shortchange servicemen and women.
That would work if military spending is actually spent on useful military items. Unfortunately, today, there are large, very expensive items that are being bought that are completely useless to the military. I know people in purchasing who are wondering why they keep buying very useless expensive parts not because it's needed but because they have to!
I'm going to guess a large portion of the military budget is spent on things the military doesn't need. If I were to take the conspiracy route, I'd say a large portion of Congress tries to designates their special project agenda as "military" so it get's clumped into the military budget. A "military" road project. A factory to produce widgets and jobs for "military" purposes.
If there was a MetroJacksonville on the military, I think most of us would be just as angry if not more angry with what's happening with the money. Think of the King Street Garage or The Skyway or one of the fun city projects but 1000x worse. Just because the spending is designated for the "military" doesn't mean that useful for the military.
I just get worried when I see Congressmen and Senators telling the military they "need" to spend on this project and that they "need this" multi-billion dollar for the safety of the country. Or worse, the military can't buy this great item or that awesome item but must buy the item over there that costs more and is obsolete but provides "jobs" for their constituents.
Simply put...if you don't spend it this year, we won't give you as much next year. That's where a lot of the problem is. You find a lot of unnecessary purchases leading up to the new fiscal year. I see it too, reednavy...it's a problem that will persist as long as we can use the troops in theater and their gear as a blanket excuse.
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2010, 07:22:19 PM
As long as we send Americans into harms way then I will stand behind spending the money. Change the politics first before you shortchange servicemen and women.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Vereor addo veneratio
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: stjr on August 09, 2010, 05:33:21 PM
Well, Virgininians, so focused on the "little" aircraft carrier tussle with Mayport, may have missed keeping their eye on the really big fish. Look at this cost cutting announcement for their area today by the Pentagon. No indications of impact on the aircraft carrier reassignment./b]
QuoteThe most pronounced change, in terms of the number of jobs to be eliminated in one blow, was his plan to close the military’s Joint Forces Command, in Norfolk, Va.
The command includes about 2,800 military and civilian positions supported by 3,000 contractors at an annual cost of $240 million. Its responsibilities, which includes programs to force the armed services to work together on the battlefield, will be reassigned, mostly to the military’s Joint Staff.
While large headquarters have been combined and realigned over the years, Pentagon officials could not recall a time in recent history when a major command was shut down and vanished off the books.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/us/10gates.html
Damn! I had clue Norfolk had so many eggs in the military basket. Thats interesting
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2010, 07:22:19 PM
I would rather not waste money at all. But the last thing I want to do is make our soldiers vulnerable.
that is a bumper sticker...there are many ways to cut defense funding while also protecting the lives of our soldiers.
And why do we have to be the world's policeman? If we stop doing it someone else will certainly step in to fill the gap. Like maybe China. Hmmmm.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 11, 2010, 08:20:59 AM
Quote from: NotNow on August 10, 2010, 07:22:19 PM
I would rather not waste money at all. But the last thing I want to do is make our soldiers vulnerable.
that is a bumper sticker...there are many ways to cut defense funding while also protecting the lives of our soldiers.
"Cut Defense Spending" is a bumper sticker as well. What specific weapons systems, programs, or missions do you propose to cut? Nuclear bombers? Troop levels? Korea? Europe? Each weapon supports a mission. Each mission is also usually an obligation. Which treaties should we abrogate? NATO? SEATO?
It's easy to just say "cut that $100 Million dollar airplane"! It's the best $100 Million the government ever spent when your laying in a foxhole facing three times your number and that airplane holds them back.
Is there waste in the DOD? Yes, there is. Let's identify real waste and eliminate it. Back to the thread though, put the carrier here now...
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa111/Ocklawaha/CRITICAL%20Special%20Effects%20Images/carrierNORFOLK-1.jpg)
Keep em' all at Norfolk and save the money? Didn't we already do that once? Hey, and while their at it, move that master jet base to a revived NAS Green Cove Springs (Lee Field).
OCKLAWAHA
More bad news for the Virginians! First, the carrier for Jax. Then, the loss of the Joint Command. Now, maybe the loss of the Second Fleet! While having the military is great, we need to learn the lesson here to never become overly dependent on a single industry/employer. Nothing last forever and change is always in the wind.QuoteNORFOLK -- The U.S. Second Fleet, which trains and certifies all strike groups before deployment and employs 348 active and reserve military personnel, civilian employees and contractors, is in jeopardy as the Department of Defense continues to trim its budget.
If the Second Fleet were to be shut down, hundreds of jobs could be lost in the Hampton Roads area.
Retired Navy Captain Joe Bouchard says that any potential cost savings would come at a big price.
Captain Bouchard is the former commanding officer of Naval Station Norfolk and now a board member of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance.
"I'm concerned that the Department of Defense is scrambling for savings somewhere in its budget."
He says he thinks that the civilian bureaucrats in the Pentagon may not fully understand the operational impact of shutting down certain commands.
The fleet trains and certifies every ship, sailor, and air wing that heads out to sea, with responsibility over 130 ships and submarines primarily in the Atlantic Ocean.
Security, in addition to the hundreds of jobs, could be at risk.
"We don't even want to think about the degradation of the combat readiness of those forces either to deploy overseas or to carry out their homeland defense role," says Captain Bouchard.
http://www.wvec.com/news/local/US-Second-Fleet-in-jeopardy-as-DoD-trims-budget-101368049.html
Loss of the Second Fleet would hamper operations and preporatory work for east coast workups! stjr I concur!
One step forward....QuoteContractor hired to upgrade Mayport pier
Source URL: http://jacksonville.com/news/military/2010-08-30/story/contractor-hired-upgrade-mayport-pier
By Timothy J. Gibbons
The Navy has hired a contractor to upgrade the pier at Mayport Naval Station that is slated to serve as the homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
Misener Marine Construction Inc. of Tampa will handle the $22.6 million project, which is expected to wrap up in August 2011.
Misener will build a steel sheet pile bulkhead that it will tie to the existing wall structure, install a new concrete cap and foam fenders and pave the adjacent area. The project also includes an option to build a second-deck wharf with mooring hardware, vehicular access ramps and pedestrian stairways.
Work on the wharf is required for a nuclear-powered carrier to come to Mayport, but has been also talked about in general terms as necessary for general operational readiness.
"Improvements to Charlie wharf is a project that has been in the works for many years," said Capt. Aaron Bowman, Naval Station Mayport commanding officer. "This double-decker pier will enhance overall operational efficiency and readiness."
The project was funded last year after tussling between legislators from Florida and Virginia had the money put in and taken out during different stages of the congressional process. That bill also included $46.3 million for dredging the St. Johns River near the naval station.
Double Decker? that sounds pertty cool. Is this a standard for carrier piers?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 29, 2010, 09:27:42 AM
The need for one closer to the Carribean, Central and South America is obvious...
Yea we need the big ships
Uh-oh...
Virginians say Mayport carrier is dead; Crenshaw, Nelson says it's on hold
QuoteThree Virginia congressmen said today that plans to homeport a nuclear carrier at Mayport Naval Station are dead. Two Florida members of Congress says the plans aren't dead, just on hold.
A statement issued by Reps. Randy Forbes, Scott Rigell and Rob Wittman said that President Barack Obama's defense budget announced Monday doesn't include money to retrofit Mayport to accommodate a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier by 2019.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-02-13/story/virginians-say-mayport-carrier-dead-crenshaw-nelson-says-its-hold
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/13/budget-day-brings-cheer-for-virginia-delegation/
http://www.wavy.com/dpp/military/mayport-carrier-move-striken-from-budget