UPDATE-CVN MOVE

Last week Congress passed the defense authorization bill, which included for Mayport, 46.3 million for dredging and 29.6 million for wharf upgrades a the Naval Station. Headlines in Jacksonville paper, “Vital step towards getting a nuclear powered aircraft carrier based at the Naval Station”. (No mention in the Pilot) Now comes the real test in the decision to move the CVN to Florida. Will the next step be a Navy or political decision. The Navy’s desire to establish a second CVN nuclear facility in the ‘Big’ strategic picture of dispersal is hard to argue against. But in the present budget climate, is it feasible? (I am recovering from rotator cuff surgery and had the time to re-read the FEIS for the CVN move) This is a critical year (FY 2011) to make the target date of 2014 for the CVN move. This years budget will need to identify the; ‘REAL’ requirements and $$, in detail, not the rough estimates and requirements of the FEIS. Will the Navy be able to make the decision on present priorities and requirements or will the politicians have the final say? From the same article “Upgrading Mayport to homeport a nuclear carrier is a sound national security expense” says a letter signed by the state’s two U.S. Senators, George LeMieux an Bill Neilson, and U.S. Reps Ander Crenshaw and Corrine Brown of Jacksonville. “The department (of Defense) MUST make the investment.

F-35 basing no further word, waiting for the EIS to be published. Not sure of the final decision on which east coast bases are going to be evaluated for the home of the Navy F-35C.

OLF requirement is dependent on the F-35C basing decision.

FAA radar questions concerning height of building at the Virginia Beach resort have been submitted to the FAA and the Air Force by Senator Webb and Congressmen Nye. Answers were expected on 16 October. Don’t know how to interpret the delay in the answers.

CONCERN for TRICARE;  “Despite a strong push from MOAA, the American Medical Association and others, the Senate failed to muster enough votes this week to repeal the flawed statutory formula that will impose a 21% cut in Medical and TRICARE payments to doctors this coming January unless the law is changed.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Take Charge of possible CVN move

A recently released study, Economic State of the Region (2009) reported,- although the regions economic growth has declined, DOD funding has increased. DOD accounts for roughly 45% of the gross economic activity, $18.9 billion of direct DOD spending. There are pending actions that could change the upward trend of DOD economic growth. One CVN (USS Enterprise) will be decommissioned and the move of a CVN to Mayport is close to reality. Going from 5 to 3 carriers will definitely impact the region, the study states “Each month an aircraft carrier task force is gone from Hampton roads, this reduces our annual GNP by almost .1%. This translates to approximately $900 million per year”, per CVN. The actual impact is unknown, probably worse then stated, it is impossible to predict the number of businesses that directly and indirectly depend on CVN business.

It’s surprising how little attention has been given the announcement of the funding for dredging and wharf upgrade at Mayport. This is step one of the possible move of a CVN, if the QDR supports the move, it will take immediate drastic region response to stop the homeport change. The efforts the region applied to BRAC need to be started NOW.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Mayport dredging

The Conference Committee approved money for dredging at Mayport. Specifically the report stated the funding for dredging is to allow transient docking, and that it may not be used to support the establishment of a second East Coast homeport. Congressman Glenn Nye strongly denounced the decision to fund the dredging.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Mayport, Will Know Soon

It won’t be long and we should have the decision on the dredging at Mayport. Many think this would be the first steep in permanently moving a Carrier from Norfolk to Mayport FL. The decision is presently being debated in the congressional conference sessions. The house had voted to cut the $46.3 Million, the senate voted to fund the Mayport dredging. Both the Florida and Virginia delegations have made strong arguments in defending their positions. The Navy has continued to fully support the dredging and the move of a CVN to Mayport. The Secretary of Defense had asked the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to evaluate the move of a CVN. The QDR results may not be out prior to the conference decision. The move of a CVN would definitely have a negative economic affect on the region. In the same budget is another action that will also affect the local economy. The Navy has asked to go from the present 11 carriers to 10. They have asked to decommission the USS Enterprise by 2014 leaving a temporary reduction in the carrier force until USS Ford is commissioned, a possible 3-year gap. No word when we will see the approved budget, but the region could receive BAD news.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Radar/VB Resort Future?

ARSR-4 radar at Oceana has been the news lately. (Pilot, ‘What the Radar Can’t See Can Hurt Us’and a letter in the paper from the Virginia Beach Deputy City Manager). The City has met with DOD officials and it does not appear there are any changes in the Air Force/Homeland Defense position. There was a meeting in Senators Webb Office last week, Virginia Beach Officials, Senators staff and DOD officials. Reading the Letter from the Deputy City Manager, it does not sound like the City changed any minds.

The City feels there is inconsistency in the FAA/Air Force positions as described in the ‘Pilot’ City letter, as to the approval of building heights. Need to realize the Air Force (NORAD) is responsible for the Air ‘homeland defense’ and since 9/11 there concern is expanded not only from the North but 360 degrees, sea and land. Their concern is the non-FAA system (transponder) non-identified aircraft at all altitudes. In making decisions for approval they evaluate all structures, not just one or two building and where they are in relations to others, they look for a cumulative affect. The addition of one additional building could cumulatively block the radar. The radar could ultimately lose its efficiency and be unable to supply needed information for homeland defense.

Need to assume the present buildings at the resort do not affect the radar, this needs to be verified. The City needs to do it’s own evaluation of each proposed building. Evaluate the site and height of the proposed building and how it would cumulatively affect the radar. There was a radar survey completed in 1994, no documented problems. On 2 and 3 September the Air Force started a survey, the study will re-evaluate the radar capability relative to existing buildings. If the City has it’s own evaluation it would be able to determine any future building problems. When they say move the radar with their own survey they would have data available to back their recommendations. There is a local Company that has the ability to do this type of evaluation. The City has depended on ‘Policy’ consultants; it is time for technical support. The City is recommending a move of the radar to Fort Story or Dam Neck. Have they investigated (survey) these sites and determined the suitability, 360 degree all altitude radar coverage requested by the Air Force?

Not only buildings, but also an upcoming announcement of a Wind Turbine farm off the coast of Virginia Beach will definitely be a concern of the Air Force. (How will wind turbines affect radar?) Not only the Air Force, but also what is the official position of the Coast Guard and Navy (in writing)? Are the services concerned about a wind farm in the middle of the entrance of one of the east coast busiest ports (Hampton Roads/Baltimore)? It will also be in the center of the Navy and Air Force Sea and Air training areas? Hopefully at the announcement of the project the developer will present documentation covering all concerns presented by constructing the ‘Farm’. (Wind turbines present unique problems to all radars, ducting, unpredicted rotation, angle of intercept of radar waves, and a lot of technical questions). Need to wait and see if all questions are addressed at the announcement.

Before going any further on the radar issue, talking about spending $25M to move a radar, not allowing high buildings, it is time for the City to take the lead and get all the technical facts. Everyone supports Homeland Defense, they set the criteria, but let’s look at all the facts and apply some ‘common sense’. What is the REAL affect of the planned buildings to the mission of the Air Force?

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

F-35/Oceana Facts

I will comment on an article that was in the Sunday Pilot “Oceana’s Fate May Rest Here’ (next to a picture of a F-35) Interesting story, a few ‘Facts’ need to be added. Oceana’s fate, F-35C noise, OLF/FCLP and future noise on Carriers.

Oceana’s future, regardless of the decision of the F-35C basing, is going to continue to be a Naval Air Station; I don’t see Oceana’s future in jeopardy. The only Master Jet Base on the east coast, years from now it may have helicopter, Jet squadrons or unmanned air vehicles; it will remain a Naval Air Station. The F-35C EIS will be conducted to determine the east coast basing of the aircraft. The Navy published a ‘Strategic Laydown for Ships and Aircraft’ in May. The east coast basing requirement for F-35 is for 7 squadrons (6 fleet and 1 reserve squadron). The F-35C will replace the F-18C squadrons presently at Oceana. The F-35C training squadron will be at Lemore CA. The basing requirement will be for approximately 70 aircraft. The present F/A 18E/F (Super Hornet) squadrons and training squadron will remain at Oceana. Presently the first F-35C aircraft are scheduled to arrive on the east coast in 2018. The EIS is scheduled to be out soon and will probably evaluate Oceana, Cherry Point and Beaufort SC. (these are the same bases evaluated for the Super Hornet)

A noise study was conducted by the JSF program office in October 2008. The extensive study concluded the initial analysis and validation shows the F-35 comparable (noise) to current aircraft. The F/A 18 E/F and the F-35 are about the same in similar configurations. (There is a non technical study, looks professional, but was conducted by putting instruments near the base and recording a couple F-35 and F-16 landings, it is being used by an opposition group to basing the Air Force F-35 in Florida.) The F-35 will be noisy, the same as the Super Hornet based at Oceana. Even though the Navy version (F-35C) has not flown, the aircraft has the same engine, same intake and exhaust, no reason not be any different then the tested Air Force F-35. (The Navy F-35 is slightly heavier and larger, having to accommodate larger landing gear, required for carrier landing). Don’t expect any change in any noise studies, and yes the Super Hornet and the F-35 are equally noisy, all modern Fighter Aircraft are noisy.

A little background on the OLF; In 2002 one of the options for basing the Super Hornet  (east coast, chosen option) was to base 8 squadrons at Oceana and 2 squadrons at Cherry Point. Included in this option was the construction of and OLF. The OLF option was to support both bases and would relieve some of the Fentress activity. A site in Washington Co NC was the Navy choice for the field. Opposition to this site caused the Navy to select and review other sites. Since 2002 there have been changes, the way the Navy operates (no Fleet Response Plan), probably no Super Hornets to Cherry Point, and the requirement for a east coast base for the Navy F-35C. The Navy is correct; it’s time to re evaluate the OLF requirement. F-35C base decision and a review of FCLP requirements will determine the need and possible location of an OLF. The Navy is reviewing Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) requirements for the F-35C. Present FCLP is not the way landings are done on the carrier. A more realistic training environment is being discussed, another reason to consider a new OLF. It is not my decision or any retired persons ideas that should determine the Navy requirements.

The article mentioned, there is a study being conducted on the impact of noise on flight deck personnel. This study is a little late; it needed to be done in the 1950’s when the first jet’s operated from a carrier. The 85db level of noise is exceeded on all carriers operating jets. For the old timers, remember the 40 plane (alpha strike) launch, when the RA5C launched it rattled the dishes on the mess decks. The flight deck on the carrier is not only hazardous but is one of the nosiest environments for people to work. There should be a flight deck noise study, but not because of the F-35C.

The Navy has invested a lot in Oceana, and recently the City of Virginia Beach has established a cooperative relationship with the Navy. The EIS is intended to evaluate all areas and options; we need to let the system work. The process allows for all concerns to be expressed, discussion times will be announced soon. 

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

DOD & City Councils

A follow up to my “Take Care of Assets” on Tuesday, 8 September. I went before the Virginia Beach City Council during ‘Open Mike’ to discuss areas I felt should be a concern to the members of Council. (Open Mike gives citizens an opportunity to talk to council on subjects of their choice; I am sure all local councils give citizens the same opportunity,)

My statement had been given to all council members early in the day, giving them the opportunity to read prior to the council meeting. I was given three minutes (normal) to make my points. My intent was to make the council aware of issues that are extremely important to the local economy. Citizens elect the council members, not the staff, and we should expect the members to be knowledgeable of issues that could have a negative economic impact on the economy. (I also showed them the documents, CNO briefs, Strategic Basing study, F-35 noise studies, and a sample of a of a EIS about 600 pages)

Two councilmen, Destepth and Dwer asked questions concerning LCS ships, FAA radar, CVN move they are concerned. Except for the Mayor, no other members spoke, do they understand the issues? Maybe we should ask. The Mayor said he was aware (did not discuss actions) and had been to DC twice to discuss issues. (Why go to DC when Congressman Nye is in the District almost every week)  Does the Council understand the issues and what are they doing to prevent a negative impact? Surprised the Pilot is not asking these questions, these issues are important to the entire region—CVN reduction, LCS homeporting, reduction of NETWARCOM, OLF EIS and EIS for F-35C.

Today there is a meeting in DC in Senator Webb’s office with FAA and Air Force discussing radar and restrictions on the height of buildings at the resort area of Virginia Beach. I took reps from Congressman Nye and Senator Webb office to the FAA radar in question. After the visit new questions were submitted to FAA and Air Force, in time for them to obtained answers. (Were trying to verify findings, we had answers)

Q, Was there a site survey done prior to the installation of the radar in 1995? A. Yes in 1994 and there were NO restrictions to the radar. (There were over 30 building at the resort over 110’ in 95 there have been 5 built since the survey)

Q. Was a recent survey conducted? A. Yes, last Wednesday and Thursday (2 & 3 Sept) results not available, but based on 94 survey and comparing with new construction there should be no problem.

Q. Asked if there was any documentation of any problem with coverage with the present building height?

The Navy and FAA stated they had experienced NO problem with the execution of their mission caused by the height of any building. (Have not talked with AF)

The information obtained from the visit was FREE, did not have to pay a consultant.

Yes, DOD is the economics engine of the region, ALL elected officials need to be aware of the importance and actively “Take Care” of the assets, ask your council members questions about DOD and the economy.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Take care of Assets

Outline of a Open Mike brief to Virginia Beach City Council tonight, will give update tomorrow.

I am here to update the Council on the Naval Aviation Monument. You may have visited the site and may have wondered what is going on the blank 10x17 ft wall? I will also go over the plans we have for the centennial of Naval Aviation at the Monument.

Before doing that I will briefly review issues that should be of concern or at least you should be aware of and the potential negative effect they have on our economy. I read about the Dome site, Town Center, Light Rail and all the other plans for the growth of the City. But, I am sure we all realize how important and a major economic factor DOD is to the region and without it we would not be able to plan some of the projects. We are fortunate to have a large concentration of DOD in the region, 40% of the Region GNP is attributed to DOD, since 2000 80% of new jobs and $18.6 Billion a year for local economy comes from DOD, yes the Defense dept is the economic engine of the region.

I recently attended a meeting in DC, the CNO and his staff discussed BIG NAVY issues and specifically those that will affect the region and Virginia Beach. In addition to CNO issues the Navy recently published a Plan for ‘Strategic Laydown’ of Ships and Aircraft, presenting other plans that need to be discussed. Other regions are aggressively addressing many of these issues, which if they succeed will have a negative affect on the City. Some issues are in the present defense budget, and the decisions are critical to the region. I met with Congressmen Nye twice in August to discuss and made suggestions on critical issues. (Hopefully the City did the same, and not just have the City lobbyist meet with staffs)

Money in DOD budget for dredging at Mayport, 1^st phase of CVN move—USS Enterprise decommissioning, (go from 5 to 3 CVN’s, loss of over 6,000 personnel and possible Air Wing); 4 LCS ships in FY 10 and 4 in FY 11 will the east coast homeport be Mayport or Little Creek (this is a big deal for JOBS); Stand up of Cyber Command 10th Fleet, probably going to Fort Meade. (Loss of jobs from NETWARCOM Little Creek); Identify MILCON projects for VB military installations.

        In addition we discussed; OLF EIS, and issues that caused delay, besides addition of F-35; F-35 EIS, need to get out in front of this issue (consultants cannot help on this), the real DOD noise study and other studies need to be explained. Expect a push from North Carolina to have the F-35 C (Navy) based a Cherry Point. After all the hard work by the City, all could be lost; Discussed all potential growth for all commands in the region.

Current issue, ARSR-4 radar at Oceana; I worked with Congressman Nye and Senator Webb’s staff on the issue. (In another life I was involved in FAA radar issues, still have contacts). After a detailed investigation and visits, recommend specific question be asked of FAA and the Air Force, this will allow them to do research and have answers for upcoming meeting. The staffs (Webb & Nye) are very well prepared for the meeting,

Need to be pro active and take care of the DOD assets you have, take care of your base.

Naval Aviation Monument, Wall will be a mural representing Naval Aviation, Marines, Navy and Coast Guard. To celebrate 100 anniversary, will work with Bobby Mellatti, and tell local story of aviation, Pungo, and Creeds, Oceana, at the monument, next summer.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

JSF/F-35 Facts

In tomorrows ‘Pilot’ there is supposed to be an article concerning the EIS for the OLF and the F-35. Not sure where the paper got the facts. But, if the article says what their pre article said about the EIS and F-35 delay it is not factual. The article will say the delay of the  EIS is because “the issue of whether Oceana should be a candidate to host the new F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, which will be significantly louder that the F/A-18 Hornet”. If referring to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet this statement is NOT TRUE.

Facts; In future planning the Navy is evaluating the basing of the F/A-35C. The East coast option being evaluated (EIS) is to base 7 F/A-35C squadrons (replacing F/A-18C squadrons) starting around 2018. Pre-evaluation is complete and the EIS for this option should start soon.

In April 2009 the JSF (F/A-35) program released a comprehensive report of the F-35 acoustics conducted at Edwards AFB in October 2008. The comprehensive study was conducted comparing noise of the F/A-35 and present Navy and Air Force aircraft. Conditions evaluated ‘near field’ maintenance and operational personnel, it measured worst-case aircraft sound levels. In military power the F/A-35 was comparable to all aircraft. In after burner the F-35 was the same as the Super Hornet, comparable of all aircraft.  In flight at 1000 ft comparable to all aircraft (less then all the F/A 18’s), at military power, comparable to all aircraft (same as Super Hornet). Study said, “Far Field in flight sound levels comparable to current fighter aircraft—the F-35 community acoustics are comparable to the caustics of current fighter aircraft,--examples include the F-22A and F/A-18 E/F”. An exhausted study that used recognized acoustic software predictions for fighter aircraft.

Before the paper comes out in the morning they should check the facts, the study is available to the public, hopefully the Pilot gets the real facts.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Forget COLA

In a recent MOAA update they reported there would be NO COLA for retirees and survivors this year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that inflation dropped 0.2% in July. For the first 10 months of 2009, cumulative inflation has declined 2.3%. Forget Any 2010 Cola. (If inflation did rise to 2.4% in August and September that could change) Need to make sure local elected officials get the word before they start raising taxes.

Facts from MOAA on members in congress; The number of veterans in Congress has significantly dropped over the years. From the 70’s today the number of veterans in Congress has dropped by 75%. According to a recent report published by the Congressional Research Service; There are 121 total legislators who have served in the military. (five less then the last Congress): There are 96 veterans in the House and 25 in the Senate.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.