The Virginian-Pilot
©
Virginia’s two U.S. senators introduced amendments Tuesday to a 2012 defense spending bill that would strip out funding needed to help move a Norfolk-based aircraft carrier to Mayport, Fla.
The measures proposed by Democrats Jim Webb and Mark Warner would eliminate from the legislation almost $30 million that would be used for road and construction projects requested by the Navy to prepare Mayport Naval Station, near Jacksonville, to homeport a nuclear-powered carrier as soon as 2019.
Webb, who introduced the amendments during a Senate floor speech, criticized the Navy for wanting to spending hundreds of millions to establish a second East Coast base capable of handling nuclear-powered carriers instead of on ship maintenance and expanding the fleet.
The actual cost of the carrier relocations could reach $1 billion, Webb claimed; the Navy puts the cost at $538 million.
“Do we really want to spend a billion dollars on a redundant homeport at the expense of building ships and maintaining our fleet?” Webb said.
The two amendments probably will be voted on by the full Senate in the coming days as it considers the spending bill. A similar bill has already passed the House with money for Mayport carrier preparations, but the money has been stricken from a House defense authorization bill.
Webb and Warner, along with other Virginia members of Congress and state leaders, have been fighting efforts by the Navy and Florida leaders to relocate a Norfolk carrier. Mayport once housed conventional carriers but is not equipped to permanently house nuclear-powered craft.
For Hampton Roads, the loss of a carrier would be a significant economic blow because it provides about 6,000 jobs and $425 million in revenue.
The Navy has argued that its East Coast carriers need to be dispersed to lessen the possible effect of a natural disaster or terrorist attack in Hampton Roads.
Webb, a former secretary of the Navy, doesn’t agree.
“Every Navy risk assessment states there is a low risk of such events occurring in the Hampton Roads region,” Webb said, noting that he has supported past improvements to Mayport that allow it to be used as temporary carrier port in an emergency.
Dispersing the fleet to avoid a modern-day Pearl Harbor attack isn’t necessary, he said.
“We have done an extraordinarily good job … in the Norfolk area with high-tech defensive systems,” he said.
Warner said persuading the Senate to remove the funding will be difficult, but rising concerns about federal spending help Virginia’s argument.
Bill Bartel, (757) 446-2398, bill.bartel@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Remember the lobbyist...
A blast from the past:
http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1583777-Webb-Carrier-move-to-Mayport-irresponsible
"Webb pointed out that a key advocate for moving a carrier to Florida, retired Navy Adm. Robert Natter, has received more than $1 million in lobbying fees from the state of Florida and city of Jacksonville, which stand to benefit economically from the move.
"Natter, a former commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command who now runs a lobbying firm based outside of Washington, did not return a call for comment."
Webb's an old Navy Secretary, he knew what this was about from the start. It's nice that he's looking out for us, but how much influence he has on these people, I don't know.
Just move it to Mayport already....
...and the squadrons attached to it. Families the whole kit and kaboodle. Let Florida have some noise too. Warner and Webb will keep screwing around, and the next thing ya know Oceana is no longer a reality. BRAC comes around and takes it away.
The cost!
The cost of the move s likely under estimated greatly. Navy says one thing and the politicians say another. So figure the actual cost higher than either in the long run. The figures are only for the move not the local impact! If the feds waste this money during a time of financial misconduct then we need to examine our priorities.
The local populace will suffer severely with the removal of the carrier/personnel. Yes traffic might be less, jet noise less, and a few jobs created by losing Navy families but, we will be the loser in the end. Businesses will suffer, housing market will suffer, and a large amount of money will disappear from being spent locally. Having all carriers in one spot today is not like it was in Pearl Harbor!
does someone know
As someone below asked, I would like to hear the reasoning for Pacific carriers being at 4 bases and Atlantic carriers at 1 base. I also wonder what information supports jets being based hundreds of miles away from the carriers. Someone who really knows should help those of us not privy to USN thinking to understand this.
In his decision to relocate one carrier to Florida he
explained why he made the decision. The information is available, it is based on the premise of all in one basket is a bad thing. With that, some in VA scoff at his logic, while others in Florida embrace it.
Thus it becomes a matter of politicians/representatives to perform their constitutional duty and maintain our Navy. So Webb and Werner are fighting to keep the carriers in VA while the politicians/representatives are fighting in FL to get a carrier under their constitutional interpretation of needful. Many add jobs and economic incentives to the mix, when the only viable question is is the move based on a need. If yes, provide the Secretary what he is requesting, if no, tell him the request does not meet the needful criterion.
Yes he did explain why he wants to move it
I think a very sound reasoning. What he did not explain is why that reasoning wasn't followed in the last years when they clearly had the awareness of having carriers disbursed on the West Coast. Why were the two coasts operated under what seems to be different philosophies? Is it all politics or could there be something in play that is not obvious?
until the kennedy was decomissioned recently
Mayport had a carrier stationed there. Typically it was called the training carrier to be used for the post OLF FCLP training in certifying pilots. But that carrier could be pressed into service. Placing a carrier in Fl today continues that philosophy of splitting carriers on the east coast. Mayport's basin is capable of supporting a super carrier. It needs the facilities to handle a nuclear vessel. Thats what this hubbub is about. Deepening the channel and building those facilities. The concept is already in place to disperse where possible. It is possible to disperse a carrier to Mayport.
Yes, under this concept, the risk assessment seems to indicate all the fighters squadrons can be in one place, no planes need to go with the carrier.
The secretary of the Navy provides forums for the general
population to ask questions about items like your asking. He provided a forum in 2007 and 2008 for much of NE NC and some rural communities in SE VA. To date, the Secretary has deemed it unnecessary to answer the many questions posed to him in writing. He is allowing public opinion to be his voice and not himself. He has visited small groups of people and has told them different stories depending on what he thinks they want to hear.
The Secretary has provided us with these in the know individuals and a process (EIS) to ask questions. He has not answered our questions. He ignores us. Many have taken to reading his literature and understand the whys. We cannot rely on getting answers from the Secretary, he has proven that.
I missed it
When was there a public meeting in NENC on the basing of a carrier in Florida and addressing the allocation formula of one coast against another coast? I did attend a forum on the OLF and asked and received answers on the OLF, not on carrier locations as that was not even a question for me at that time. My amateur opinion says the carrier should go to Florida. I want what is best for the USN in defending America. While I think they are getting the basing right now I would like to know why they felt it was good for the difference on the two coasts for the last several years.
just like the OLF, moving a carrier takes years. it will turn
into a political nightmare for the Secretary. During the time the Kennedy was decommissioned, the # of carriers was also being reduced. The timing for addressing this was terrible for him. The idea of dispersing on the east coast has been a desire. Yet with BRACs consolidating facilities, for him to try to disperse and build a new nuclear handling facility during consolidation talks would have given ammo to the no crowds. Yes, the Secretary has a need to move a carrier to Mayport for the ideas you support. It will be best for our nation.
Did he do EIS talks for this carrier move in NC, nope. Has he answered our OLF questions given to him 4 years ago? Nope. Is he making harder on himself by ignoring communities, YUP. Is this proper of him?