Navy picks Florida for carrier, leaving Virginia in wake

Source: Government Executive

Navy picks Florida for carrier, leaving Virginia in wake
By Megan Scully CongressDaily January 15, 2009

The Navy announced its final decision Wednesday to move a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Mayport Naval Base in Florida, but the political battle over where to station the carrier may be far from over.

The ship would be the first nuclear-powered carrier based at Mayport, which was home to conventionally powered carriers from 1952 until the retirement of the USS John F. Kennedy in 2007. Since the retirement of the Kennedy, all East Coast carriers have been stationed at Virginia's Norfolk Naval Base.

In a statement, Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Bill Nelson, D-Fla., stressed the importance of the Navy spreading out its Atlantic-based carrier fleet.

"Keeping all the carriers in just one port is too great a risk," he said.

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said the Florida delegation's next step is to secure funding in the fiscal 2010 budget to upgrade Mayport to accommodate the carrier.

"National security demands we move this project forward," Martinez added.

Read more: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0109/011509cdam1.htm

---

And thus begins a battle royale between Jim Webb/Tom Kaine on the one hand, and the Fla. delegation on the other hand. Read the whole article -- Webb's threatening to go postal on the Navy's budget if they pull the carrier out of Norfolk.

thus making them an easier target isn't the brightest idea. I have no problem with spreading them around to Florida and/or other suitable ports. Getting into a pissing contest over it seems a little dumb to me.

Maybe it should be re-evaluated to determine which carrier(s) are more suitable to relocate? But they shouldn't all reside in that same area.

It'll cost the taxpayer at least $1 billion, and Virginia about 3000 jobs, to move the carrier out. And when they say $1 billion, you can bet it'll turn into a $5 billion+ boondoggle.

Look at WHO may want to do damage to those Carriers AND their ability to do so. The Russian Navy is a shadow of the former Soviet Navy. Furthermore the Russians have the ability to hit both ports with nuclear tips missiles so dispersing them for that point of view is worthless. Keeping them together makes it easier (and Cheaper) to set up defensive perimeter around them if they are together (One perimeter for two ships).

Sorry, when you have a enemy that CAN hit the Carriers in port, then it makes sense to put them in two separate bases, with two separate sets of perimeter defense, but that is NOT the case today. The worse case scenario is more a rowboat with a bomb, and one perimeter defense is all that is needed. Given that situation (Which is that situation TODAY, it is more cost effective to base the two carriers together, one set of defenses, one set of off ship support, one set of means to re-fuel them (I know these are Nuclear Carriers, but they need fuel for their Planes), the best solution is one base for all or most of them, and given that Norfolk is the largest and most important US Naval Base, the ships are better in that location.

These Fuckers spending our money are Criminals

A Fucking aircraft carrier.

Like Osama has a few of these up his sleeve

People forget about that disaster, given we saved the Cole and it is still in service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

In a place it didn't need to be that's where

Careful planning prevents something like the Cole incident, but the debate here is NOT the cole going into an insecure port, but what is the most likely form of attack on the fleet. A rowboat like attack is much more likely then anything else and dispersing the ships will have NO affect on the possibility of such an attack. Ships do need to have a port, a secure port. Norfolk is one of the most secure ports in the world, why duplicate that security in some other Port when we do NO really need to. All the extra security will be is a waste of money,

As to the Cole, I only brought it up as what we have to prepare against, during the next 20 years the biggest threats are rowboats and other small vessels NOT large ships or even Nuclear missiles. Not because such weapons do not exist, but our most likely enemies (Bin laden etc) do NOT have them. You plan for what you most likely enemy can do NOT what can happen, but probably will not (i.e the second most powerful navy in the World is the British Fleet, do we plan for an attack by it? The answer is NO, for it is unlikely, just like an attack by Russian or Chinese Naval Vessels, especially in Norfolk, neither fleet has the ability to sustain a force off the US Coast AND each will lose more going to war with the US then it will gain, so war with either, that involved ships based in the US, is unlikely). Now unlikely does NOT mean it may not occur, but almost any fight with the Chinese Navy and/or Russian Navy will probably be near their coasts NOT ours.

As to the saying, be prepared, while accurate, you can NOT prepare for everything, if you try to do that you be prepared for nothing. Training involves what will likely happen so that when something goes wrong people fall back on their training. Today we have to prepare for attacks by small boats more then large ships, it is just how the world is today and we have to accept it.

Remember Hurricanes hit mostly the Caribbean, they do get as far North as New York City, but with today's satellites any city north of Miami will have days to prepare (and get the fleet out to deep water). One of the reason Norfolk became the main US Naval base was it was while north of most Hurricanes. Thus Hurricanes are rarely a problem IF PLANNED FOR, and the Navy has always have to plan to get the ships to sea if one is coming down.

Again NOT a problem TODAY. In the 1800s yes, but then most fleets stayed out of the Caribbean in the 1700s and 1800s during the main Hurricane Season (One of the reason the Battle of Yorktown occurred when it did was the French still thought it was to early to sail down to the Caribbean, they wanted to wait till October, thus the French Fleet was available to Washington for the Battle of Yorktown, do to the fear of Hurricanes). Norfolk is well North of most Hurricanes and thus a safe port (In fact the main reason the British took Charleston during the Revolution was to have a safe port for their fleet during Hurricane Season, again because it was well North of most, but not all Hurricanes). My point is simple Hurricanes are rarely a factor is the permanent basing of a ship, Hurricanes may be a factor that send that ship out to sea, but not where it is that ship's permanent Port.

Scrap the Bush too!!

While most of the ship has no radiation and can be scrap by conventional means, as you near the reactor Radiation comes up as a problem. The best solution may be to send it to the bottom of the Ocean, like they did the USS America a few years back.

As to the Kennedy, it is the Second Oldest Carrier in the Fleet, only the Enterprise in Older (The US built the Kennedy and its sister ships after the Enterprise but before the present Nuclear Class of Carriers). Sooner or later all ships come to the end of their useful life, and that is approaching for the Kennedy, over 40 years of heavy use. The big question is when they decide to scrap nuclear carriers built after the Kennedy (The Enterprise will probably end up as a museum). No one has even through it though and some of the Nuclear Subs are even older).

:rofl:

The reactor gets buried in Hanford, the other parts scrapped normally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_and_Submarine_Recycling_Program

Nobody would ever look for it there.

Madness.