Senator vows to oppose Mayport carrier move

[unhappycamper]

Sen. Jim Webb
Says Navy should hold off on moving carrier


Senator vows to oppose Mayport carrier move
By Mark D. Faram - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Nov 20, 2008 16:49:31 EST

A Virginia senator and former secretary of the Navy has vowed to fight the Navy’s recent decision to move a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Florida.

“I think the proper thing for this secretary of the Navy to do is to defer the decision to the new administration,” Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., told Navy Times on Wednesday. “This is not something to be dropped on their way out the door.”

Webb, a former secretary of the Navy in the 1980s, said the Navy’s decision to move a carrier to Naval Station Mayport, Fla., does not make sense, given that the service is telling Congress it has $4.6 billion in unfunded requirements and is now announcing it wants to spend $500 million in new construction to make Mayport a nuclear home port — a project Webb says will most likely end up costing more than $1 billion before it is completed in 2014.

“They already say their requirements exceed their available budget, and they have a requirement Navy-wide to improve their existing infrastructure — some of which is in pretty bad shape,” he said.

This includes repairs that he said are needed at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va., where there is a $225 million backlog in repairs.


Rest of article at: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/11/navy_mayport_112008w/%2e

[Lasher]

1. There is a more practical solution.

We have 11 active carriers in the Navy today. Half of them are based in Virginia: Norfolk is the homeport for Enterprise, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Truman. The USS Carl Vinson is based at Newport News.

San Diego has Nimitz and Reagan.

The Washington is based at Yokosuka, Japan.

There are three carriers based in the state of Washington: The Lincoln at Everett, and the Stennis and Kitty Hawk at Bremerton.

In January the Kitty Hawk will be decommissioned and the George H. W. Bush will be commissioned.

My proposal is to immediately and permanently reduce the number of active carriers. We can start by changing planned decommissioning of Enterprise from 2015 to 2009.

Pre-keel laying manufacturing has started on the next carrier, the Gerald Ford, with commissioning planned in 2015. This construction should be immediately cancelled, which would save about $8 billion.

With one less carrier in the fleet we wouldn't need to waste $500 million to $1 billion in new construction to make Mayport a nuclear home port.

This should easily rectify mentioned fiscal shortfalls, while reducing the burden of overall requirement for infrastructure improvement.

[NYVet]

3. And then you run into the old problem of crew and equipment fatigue

With 1 less carrier in the rotation, the other crews and carrier groups would have to stay out longer and have shorter refit times in home port. Less time in port for refit and maintenance, the greater the likelihood that accidents will happen due to the failure of equipment.
It has been shown that the longer a ship is at sea, the harder it is to keep those members of the crew who are eligible for reenlistment. If you lose those crew members, you then have spend the money to recruit and train the replacement, and over the long run, the decision to keep the number of carriers at the current level would turn out to be more cost effective.

Not to mention the economic boost in Mayport that is going to come from the $500 million to $1 billion in new construction to make Mayport a nuclear home port.

[Captain Hilts]

2. I'd be okay with it but for the $500m for new piers. Keep it in Norfolk. nt