Navy backs plan to move an aircraft carrier to Mayport, Fla.

Go JIM!..............

a win win, for both cities. The only thing that doesn't make sense, in the Navy's explanation, is the comment on natural disasters. 1 would think the likely occurrence of hurricane strikes would be higher in Florida, than Va.

Re All Carriers together at the pier at NOB...in the very recent past? when? I've been a regular visitor to the base for 8 years & have never seen them all there at once. I saw a picture on a link someone put on here once. The ship in the foreground was the Stennis. It hasn't seen a Norfolk Pier in over 10 years now. I will say this...If you see all the billions of dollars in carriers sitting here, there will be a democrat in the White house..just like there was when that last "5 carrier picture" was taken.

John McCain didn't win the election but in my opinion his campaign slogan was what this country needs. Instead, we practice "your backyard, my backyard" politics.

To the person who said the politicians have beat the USN in mastering political maneuvering, that was so well said.

Yep it's a big political conspiracy all you knuckleheads. There's no way a decision as important as a carrier homeport would be based on strategic location rather than political corruption. Get real. This is not only a good decision but the right one so quit cryin' about it already. Mayport Naval Station is an important asset to the Navy and needs to be upgraded anyway. This decision has been in the works for years even before the JFK was decomissioned. It shouldn't have even taken this long and hopefully it doesn't take 5 years for it to become reality. More than likely it will be the Bush moving (that's the word in senior military and political circles) but in any event just like anything else that could change. The Bush makes sense for a variety of reasons so do your research before you criticize folks for making educated speculations.

All the non-nuclear carriers are being retired. Unless Mayport is going to be closed during the next BRAC it makes sense to remodel the piers to take the carriers we have now. Distributing our carrier assets to multiple ports also makes sense. The Navy should make the changes they feel are needed.

Terrorism as the greater current threat requiring the concentration of assets for better protection? General Short felt the same way and countered it at Pearl Harbor by concentrating his air assets together as defense against sabotage. The Japanese appreciated that mindset. Now, waves of planes aren't likely inbound for NOB in the near future, but any argument against dispersing assets that cost $6 billion and almost ten years to build is silliness. And Mayport is an excellent choice. The operating areas are nearby (the carriers generally transit down there from Norfolk to operate anyway), many squadrons are based nearby in Beaufort SC, and almost everything about operating in that area is easier. And then all the sailors that don't pay state taxes in VA can still not pay state taxes in their state of residence! And it may not even be the BUSH.

First, many have stated that the GHW Bush will be the carrier that moves to Mayport, but that is incorrect - the article states that the carrier won't be indentified until a year before the move. Saying that is the Bush that moves is pure speculation.
Many have also stated that it's purely political that a carrier might move and that is a possibility.
What I don't really understand is what right do we Virginians have to try to tell the US Government where it can base it's ships? US Gov't trumps State - or Commonwealth gov't any day.
WE are arrogant in thinking that our legislators/Congress people can make the Navy change their mind.
The gov't wants to move a carrier, get over it. Yes, our economy will suffer but the economy in Mayport suffered when the JFK was decommissioned. We're all Americans - let's try to remember that.

"The Navy nevertheless proceeded with a short-sighted, political decision inadequately justified by a supposed need for strategic dispersal" of the carrier fleet, Forbes said in a statement."

As political as the military has become, politicians have a nerve to complain about short-sighted, unjustified decisions. They have that mastered!

I think HR has no one to blame for itself for this kind of decision. It complains of a loss of $600 million, but where have all the previous $600 million/year gone? I certainly don't see it where it should be...

Gunny Go, you must have read my mind on the carrier move. I read that article and was thinking to myself: "If Virginians still had leadership in the US Senate of the kind John Warner provided, this would NOT be an issue". Instead, we've got the likes of Jim Webb and Mark Warner. Oh, and let's not forget about that stellar House pick in Glenn Nye, even Tim Kaine in Richmond! Yeah, with a military-unfriendly lineup from Virginia in Washington and Richmond, why not move them to a more friendly state?

If the voters want VA blue, let them see what happens when it is truly BLUE (Democratic)! VA has not been a good friend to the Navy in recent years, and Va Beach, in particular, nearly caused the Navy to move the Oceana operations - that may still come too.....

I'm sure the nay-sayers out there will say that the two issues aren't connected, Va going DemocRAT and the Navy announcing plans to move a carrier (wonder how many will follow?), but the timing is more than coincidental, don't you think?

Well Tide Water you got you way. No OLF! Those carriers spend a lot of money domestically and militarily training and housing those pilots. I believe the payback, now is to find an area that appreciates this fact. The last 20 years or so Democrats (more so recently) have shown their distain towards the military. Now that Va is considered a Dem state the navy is moving to an area that is more receptive to the needs of its sailors. It looks like Fla won. Sometimes a slap in the face hurts! Next time duck!

This decision should not be made by politicians or by citizens, it should be made by the military. Whenever politics get involved in military decisions, you end up with damage to the military.
As for the 'Pearl Harbor' scenario, it wouldn't take all that much to shut down the port area. A collier-sized vessel loaded with cement going down in the ship channel would do it. A dirty nuclear device going off near NOB, there are a lot of different ways the base could be threatened. Even if not all carriers are in port, the others couldn't get back in for needed work. I do not doubt it is with these factors in mind that the Navy has decided it would be a good idea to have a second nuclear carrier capable port on the Atlantic coast.

We'd still be in deep stuff.

Take them all, and the jets!!!! I can not wait!!!!

Threats in today's world are not from nation states but from terrorism and extremism, and to counter those threats, concentration of resources makes more sense so that a higher level of security can be provided. In fact, that seems to be DoD policy as commands are moved back onto bases instead of occupying space in the regular marketplace. So this decision seems to fly in the face of current DoD policy in regard to the security of assets in this threat environment. Given the cost to duplicate facilities, it just does not make much sense to spend a billion dollars to create redundant facilities. Of course, a billion dollars is not what it used to be, but that is part of the problem as well. Think of this as a Bush earmark for Florida, and remember the tactics employed by Governor Bush to move the Master Jet Base to Jacksonville. Time to fight back.

I hate to see the carrier go but it makes good sense. Come on folks let the Ship go

Carriers in port NOB did not get U/W on 9/11. I know. I was on the TR that day. On average there are no more than 2 CVNs in NOB at any 1 time. CVN concentration not a concern. There is a lot of talk of threat but no one has stepped up to actually name that SPECIFIC threat. Sorry. Saying "Pearl Harbor" just isn't specific enough. Weather? Nope! We get U/W when forecasted predictions warrant. The Bush jobs have been here since 2001. Hint. NNs is considered part of Hampton Roads. I've seen first hand Mayport's ability to support a CV. The JFK relieved us (TR) during OEF and she came over in very bad materiel and operational shape. More money than what is being estimated will be required to support a carrier in Mayport. 3–5K less cars on 564? During normal in port periods a CVN's crew compliment is at or about 2K. Wanting to keep jobs and money in this area is whining? Pull your head out of the sand and look around. The country is in a deep recession and will be for some time to come so wanting to keep what we have is not whining rather smart economics!

Some posters need to check their facts. One said it will cost billions in extra fuel to fly planes to Mayport. Newsflash: many times carriers leaving Norfolk head south to pick up their squadrons stationed in Florida! Billions more for security in Mayport? More newsflashes – it’s already a base and had carriers stationed there before (Kennedy and Kitty Hawk).

Then there’s the lost jobs. That’s more of an urban legend. One carrier leaves while three new ships and two new subs are stationed here. That’s a wash.

Pearl Harbor won’t happen again? Can I get that in writing? Who would have thought 9/11 could ever happen?

This area is a DoD Welfare state? Thanks to the huge presence of DoD, most of Virginia is pretty recession proof.

Payback is heck! Funny Va voted Democrat so the Republicans still in power punish the state by removing a cash cow and sending it to Florida.
Pure Politics!!

Pitching this idea as "a more secure" america is a joke. This isn't pearl harbor. You act as though every tuesday night at NOB Norfolk is "Aircraft Carrier Tuesdays", just dock your carrier and all the sailors eat free!! This is insane, it is not common for multiple carriers to be located in port at the same time. Oh sure, it happens, and it has happened in the very recent past, but if that is your big concern, then the solution is not to move one to mayport at the cost of nearly a billion dollars, but instead to create an opreations and matainence schedule that addresses that concern. The "security" problem could easily be address using logistic techniques, so please, if you want to discuss the positives and reasons for this move, don't say something silly and patently wrong like "we need to do this to improve our safety". Just becuase it's the most expensive option doesn't make it the best.