The Virginian-Pilot
©
WASHINGTON
Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave lawmakers a carefully hedged defense Tuesday of Navy plans to relocate a Norfolk-based aircraft carrier to Florida and agreed to consider whether the move is worth its price tag of $600 million or higher.
"I do worry about everything being concentrated in one port on the East Coast, which does receive a lot of hurricanes," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. But any move is "six or seven years in the offing," Gates said, and both he and a new Navy secretary will review the cost and the risk to the fleet before proceeding.
Navy Secretary Donald Winter, who plans to leave office by March, endorsed plans this month to move one of the five Atlantic Fleet flattops to Mayport Naval Station in Florida as a hedge against a natural disaster or terrorist attack on Hampton Roads.
The move would shift about 3,000 sailors from Hampton Roads to the Mayport area, near Jacksonville, and siphon hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the local economy. State and local officials argue that any risk of keeping all the ships together is minimal and that the Navy has other, more pressing needs for its limited funds.
The Navy maintains two carrier ports on the West Coast. Mayport was home to a conventional carrier, the John F. Kennedy, until it was retired in 2007. The $600 million or more needed to move a nuclear carrier to the Florida base - the Navy has no more conventional carriers - would finance construction of special facilities associated with maintaining the ship's nuclear power plant.
In separate hearings Tuesday, Rep. Randy Forbes, a Chesapeake Republican, and Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat, told Gates that the Navy decided to relocate a carrier to Mayport without a detailed risk analysis. An admiral involved in drafting the Navy plan told Forbes informally that the risk of an event in Hampton Roads knocking out the entire carrier fleet is less than 10 percent, Forbes said.
Webb said the Navy's plan is symptomatic of a planning process "so out of control that we're not focusing on the areas that can truly help the country, like rebuilding the fleet and putting aircraft out there into the squadrons."
He said Navy procurement programs for ships and planes "are in total disarray" and noted that the Navy had gone through the most dangerous days of the Cold War with only one nuclear-capable carrier port on the East Coast.
In other testimony Tuesday, Gates warned lawmakers that some of the military's most coveted new weapons programs could face cancellation this year or next as the Obama administration confronts "hard choices" on defense spending forced by the demands of two wars and the nation's economic crisis.
"The spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing," he said.
The defense chief gave no hint of which programs are endangered, but he had kind words for a Navy initiative, the littoral combat ship, that has been plagued by cost overruns. The fast and highly maneuverable ship, designed for close-to-shore missions, "is really needed," Gates said.
Some of the Pentagon's costliest new weapons are being developed by the Navy, including the new Ford class of aircraft carriers - being built at Northrop Grumman's Newport News shipyard - and the DDG-1000 destroyer.
The initial Ford carrier is projected to cost nearly $14 billion, including expenses for research, development and design. Navy officials say costs will drop to around $8 billion per hull, comparable to carriers in the former Nimitz class, with subsequent ships.
The carrier program has subcontractors in more than 40 states, creating a built-in constituency in Congress. But the high cost of the ships, and continuing questions among some lawmakers about whether the Navy needs the 11-carrier fleet now set by federal law, could make the carrier program an attractive target for the new administration's cost-cutting.
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Lots of myths being posted
Myth 1: The Defense Budget does NOT take up half the Federal Budget. Well over half the Federal Budget is spent on social programs.
Myth 2: A weak military is the same as hanging a sign around your neck that says 'kick me'.
Re-read your US History. The first 150 years after our independence were rife with military harassment from Britain, Barbary Pirates and the French. Not to mention the British invaded the United States in 1812. And, all during the US Civil War, Britain and France armed and supplied the Confederacy, hoping to apart the USA for good, then divide it up amongst themselves. What do all these events have in common? They happened during periods of a weakened US military. Korea and Viet Nam both were mismanaged by politicians who had no understanding of military matters. And, Iraq could have been over in 6 months, had it not been for "college educated geniuses" in the Pentagon and State Department, who dissolved the Iraqi Army as soon as the main fight was over.
Third Crossing
Well if we cut the carrier program and put the 8 to 12 thousand workers on welfare there will not be enought traffic to justify a third crossing?? How many sub contractor's are there on the Norfolk/VB side of the river?? They also may be joining the welfare line. ??? Nothing the local goverment/federal govt. do are efficient but they do provide job's. !!
Navy Wastes Money
24 years of active service and now 8 years of civilian work with the Navy and I still say I could run it more efficiently. First off we have how many Admirals? These Admirals all need their staffs, personal assistants, cooks, houses, bands, drivers, etc, etc.. Then we waste millions on paying for college degrees where they really use them out in the fleet, NOT. We see how efficiently they run the Navy, NOT. LCS program, hah, do they really think they can run a Navy ship with a small crew. These people can't get out of port without 30 people on the bridge when a civilian ship can do it with 3 and still run ships aground. They can't fart without having meetings upon meetings.
There's a reason there's going to be cuts to military spending..
...and that's because we're broke and it takes up HALF the federal budget, more than anything other program. If you were cutting costs at home, wouldn't you look at the thing you spend the most on and try to save a few bucks?? And the military isn't exactly the most efficiently run entity at that. There are lots of things that I'm sure could be cut or pared down, and the Navy would be the first place I'd start. The days of the great sea battles are over; the Navy needs to be totally reconfigured and streamlined for fighting battles in the 21st century.
Came across this slide from CSIS
According to this slide, the normal spending for the military as compared to GDP has been constant for quite a while.
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070703def_chall_fy2008.pdf pg 17 adobe. Yup, the military is into out of control spending. Sure glad folks saw this before it got crazy. Like ooo social services/economy? Might want to look at slide 20 adobe. military spending has pretty much stand the same, but social/economic spendings grow. You want to complain about out of control spending? might want to look that direction.
The government is good at military control and monitoring/oversite, but the government is terrible at controlling spending on social and econmic programs.
The military keeps to their budget compared to other intities in goverment.
Carrier Expense
Nuclear aircraft carriers are one of the most complex structures ever built. They are going to be expensive. They are built by skilled workers in the tideater area who make a fraction of civil service salaries with considerably less benefits. Do not compare a carrier to a bridge tunnel, it is apples to oranges. The military needs to better understand its mission and then decide which programs require funding.
Gone are the days of a large enemy navy. We love to think of China as a threat, but the US owes them to much money, China needs us to continue to earn 3% from our Treasury bonds as they are the ones truly funding any economic stimulus package, not the US taxpayer, our money was spent back a long time ago.
Good point!
"Guess what? One new aircraft carrier is the cost of two new crossings in Hampton Roads."
We desperately need a third crossing WAY more than another carrier. The carrier is nothing more than some serious "grease" (payola)for some high-rollers at Northrup Grumman. We absolutely do NOT need another carrier. People in this are need to get off the Federal Government dole. Perhaps Obama can speed this process up.
DEFENSE SPENDING CUTS
Guess what? One new aircraft carrier is the cost of two new crossings in Hampton Roads.
Contractor's Abuse The System
Contractors overcharge the Navy!! Especially in the ASW Training area. They falsify their reports to make money and provide no training. Make the Senior Navy members train there own. Cut out the MIDDLEMAN!!!
Defense Cuts
It's about time we cut spending. We can't afford it any longer. If you look at our history we have always done better when we weren't prepared for war. We went undefeated in our first 150 years or so (right through WWII). Then we started being prepared (keeping a large armed forces) and we have had 1 draw (Korea), 1 loss (Vietnam), 1 win (Desert Storm), and 1 we don't know yet (OIF and OEF). We need to draw down, save the money, and go back to war only when the nation clearly agrees (as indicated by acceptance of a draft). Until then we are just flushing money down the toilet.