The Virginian-Pilot
©
During a hearing Thursday, U.S. senators from Virginia and Florida showed their irritation over the continuing debate about moving an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Mayport, Fla.
The disagreements surfaced while the legislators were questioning the Navy and Marine Corps' top officers about their proposed budget during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington.
The exchange began when U.S. Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., asked Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, to restate his past comments that the Navy favors establishing another East Coast nuclear-capable base because of strategic concerns if there were a terrorist strike or a man-made or natural disaster in Norfolk.
Roughead also said the cost of preparing May-port would be just over $500 million, including about $70 million already allocated for dredging a channel and repairing wharves. With the Navy likely to add more nuclear-powered ships, a second East Coast nuclear port is needed, he said.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who followed LeMieux, said there are valid arguments opposing Roughead's statements but said he didn't have time to challenge them in the period he was allotted during the hearing. Webb noted that the Navy has pressing needs to add more ships.
"There is strong agreement that this amount of money would be much better spent in shipbuilding than on building a redundant facility," Webb said. "This discussion is not over."
After Webb spoke, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who has been a proponent of a carrier move, said he wished lawmakers could stop talking about the relocation, noting that the Navy and the Department of Defense support it. "The decision has been made," Nelson said. "I'd like to move on."
But he acknowledged a fight is likely in the Senate Budget Committee, which would have to approve money for the Mayport move. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who opposes the carrier relocation, serves on that panel with Nelson.
Virginia's legislators have said they object to the military's plan because no specific analysis has been provided to justify the concerns about security in Norfolk. If a carrier were to leave, it would take about 6,000 jobs and $425 million in annual revenue from Hampton Roads.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Actions speek louder than words....
If Virginia were serious about the mission they wouldn’t be doing this…
• Spending $228,000 for a study on how to develop 4,700 acres between Oceana Naval Air Station and Fentress.http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/beach-spend-228k-landuse-study
• Demanding the FAA move the radar tower. The Federal Aviation Administration has told city officials that buildings taller than about 10 stories, or 110 feet, at several sites at the Oceanfront would block the radar and threaten homeland security. Beach officials say the only other option is to move the radar, which could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/funnylooking-beach-radar-station-serious-business
• As for the shell game of buying back properties around NAS Oceana, it’s a joke! http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/beach-initiative-oceana-yields-new-homes-less-density
Virginia Politicians have turned out to be the greediest, self centered, egoistical people in congress.
Shouldn’t they be asking if the Outlying Landing Field is justified ? Oh that’s right, the OLF benefits Virginia.
another Pearl Harbor?
How many carriers were lost or damaged in Pearl Harbor?
none!
:-) And of the Battleships hit that day, only one did not fight in WW2, the Arizona, or am I missing one?
What is the probability that kind of attack could happen again? Short of a nuke. Even then, is there a fair chance that unless the bomb is set in close proximity to a ship, it will function afterward? We may have a problem with manning the thing, but it is designed to fight in a nuclear environment.
And Bla already to those who will claim my logic does not take into account this or that. We can what if this to death. But if the Navy wishes to make the dispersing the fleet an issue, then it should also make dispersing the squadrons an issue as well. The JSF NEPA process would address that concern, which has not been a factor in the current or previous reviews for the Navy's east coast fighter/bomber squadrons. That should/must be done along with this carrier decision. Start it NOW!
The phony Pearl Harbor argument
If the Navy was truly worried about another Pearl Harbor, or a terrorist attack cripleing the Navy, the would split up all the assets. A carrier without aircraft is useless. If a carrier moves, Florida should be required to take a carriers complement of jets with it. I say rerquired because when theywere offered the jets, they declined. If some jets left with the carriers, no olf would be needed. To move JUST a carrier is just a prok barrel prject to benifit Florida at the expense of upgrading Navy needs.
No aircraft?
What are they trying to do, move a carrier to Florida and leave the planes at Oceana? Would they do something that stupid? I hope not.
Well, the rational for Oceana to have all these planes
is because the Navy came up with a synergistic approach to aircraft management. They claimed it would be better to consolidate as many of like planes at Oceana for maintenance, training and support issues. They did claim that lessons learned found in the fleet would get disseminated quicker through the aircraft community if all the planes and trainers where co-located. That is the general idea associated with the consolidation efforts during the 1995 BRAC process and that is why so many of our squadrons are home based at Oceana. The Navy has stated that they would keep all the planes in Oceana even if the carrier moves. The Navy and VA fought hard to consolidate the planes at Oceana in 1995. In hindsight, the decision to home base all the planes at Oceana in 1995 and to continue keeping them there in 2003 has been a poor set of choices from their latest "Pearl Harbor" scenario POV. The Navy could easily rectify this in their JSF NEPA process by putting the JSF component at another airfield like CP NC, KIngsville Tx. Lots of wins in that solution as well. Start the JSF NEPA process and lets put some ideas on the table.
Nelson's comments seal it
This wasn't, as Paul Fraim idiotically intimated, a payback for Jeb Bush (who wasn't even governor anymore). This is for Nelson, who's been in Congress pretty much as long as I've been alive. Webb doesn't stand a chance.
Virginia's Congressional delegation have little seniority thanks to the population influx in NoVA and Obama in 2008. Nobody cares what our "representatives" think up there....not the leaders in Congress, and certainly not the President.
Senator Webb
Senator Jim "Born Fighting" Webb really, REALLY ought to stop talking about this!! Why, indeed, oh sage, would you want to have redundancy in your STRATEGIC ASSETS??? Shipbuilding is a better use of the money? I hope to high heaven he doesn't mean just spend it all at Northrup Grumman. The only people there are registered voters...
It's been over Webb
Just go back to D.C. and keep rolling over for Barry when he commands.
Move On, Sen. Webb
Considering the unremarkable performace of Webb as Navy secretary, it is surprising he even knows enough about the issue to intelligently address it.
It is time for Webb and Warner to give up on this and let the Navy and DOD do what they think is best for the national defense. They do not run a welfare department to pay out largess to politicians. Move on to something more important, senators, and get over it.