thedrifter
08-19-07, 05:29 PM
Florida lawmakers lobby Mullen for Mayport flattop
By Andrew Scutro - ascutro@militarytimes.com
Posted : August 27, 2007
For a sailor living in Norfolk, Va., a move to sunny Florida may have its own appeal. For the Navy, it may make strategic sense to disperse its most precious assets. But for lawmakers, ships and sailors also mean a steady stream of money into local economies, and they are loath to cut off the spigot.
During his confirmation hearing for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 31, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen was pressed by Florida senators about his support for moving a Norfolk-based nuclear carrier to Mayport, Fla., following the recent loss of the conventionally powered John F. Kennedy to decommissioning.
The removal of Kennedy from its Florida home port means millions in lost income to the local economy, but relief may be on the horizon.
An environmental study is underway to analyze the effect of moving an assortment of forces to Mayport, from a nuclear carrier to a Marine-carrying amphibious assault ship to surface combatants. A draft of that study is due in the spring.
While the Navy may want to disperse its forces for strategic reasons, committee members from Florida, Sens. Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez — like any elected officials — also have local interests in mind when it comes to where Navy assets and the associated payrolls are located.
Mullen told the lawmakers he agrees with his predecessor Adm. Vern Clark and former Navy Secretary Gordon England that it would be a “serious strategic mistake” to keep a concentration of carriers in one East Coast home port.
“Yes, sir. I was actually working for Admiral Clark when he said that. I agreed with what he said then. I agree with it now,” Mullen told the lawmakers.
His spokesman, Capt. John Kirby said later, “The CNO remains committed to the strategic dispersal of naval assets. He fully supports the environmental impact study that is currently reviewing a range of homeporting options for Mayport. Prior to a final decision, the Navy must review the results of this study, the war-fighting requirement and the associated costs.”
But Norfolk will lose the aircraft carrier George Washington next year when it replaces Kitty Hawk in Japan, and Sen. John Warner, the ranking member of the committee and a former Navy secretary, stepped in during the hearing. In the post-Sept. 11 era, new threats have emerged beyond the Cold War specter of a nuclear strike, but moving a carrier will cost the Navy money.
“So let’s proceed in an open and clear way on that. There are enormous costs involved to equip a port with facilities to handle a nuclear carrier,” he said. “There are other ways to balance the dispersal of naval assets as opposed to moving large carriers.”
Warner’s spokesman, John Ullyot, said later that the senator thinks the Navy needs to complete an ongoing environmental study of moving more ships to Mayport, analyze the infrastructure costs in Mayport and analyze strategic priorities before any decisions are made about moving an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Mayport.
“Senator Warner believes carrier basing decisions should be made not on politics but on a fact-driven analysis of military requirements,” Ullyot says. “He’s always maintained that decisions must be made based on what’s best for the military.”
Frank Roberts is a former naval aviator who now works as the executive director of the Hampton Roads Military-Federal Facilities Alliance, a group that was formed in 2005 to protect the military-heavy Norfolk area from base realignments and closures.
The idea of spreading around strategic assets may seem logical, he said, but it’s outdated and expensive. Building a pier at Mayport that can support a nuclear carrier will cost some $300 million according to some estimates, while some reports put the loss of the George Washington at $450 million in payroll and 8,200 military and civilian jobs in Norfolk.
“The concept of strategic dispersal vis-�-vis Dec. 7, 1941, certainly seems to make sense, but what’s the size of the fleet now? We are significantly smaller than when I was on active duty, and the concept of strategic dispersal, while it makes sense, it isn’t feasible,” Roberts said.
Roberts acknowledged the economic effects of moving an aircraft carrier, taking income away from its former home port and moving all its sailors and their families elsewhere. Aside from the economic effects, he said it’s just too expensive to build the nuclear infrastructure again.
Like Mullen, Navy Secretary Donald Winter remains open to the concepts and has met with Florida lawmakers to talk about shifting home ports.
“Secretary Winter has spoken publicly about his support of the concept of strategic dispersal of naval forces,” said his spokeswoman, Capt. Beci Brenton. “While supportive of the concept, the ongoing EIS is reviewing a range of options for Mayport and Secretary Winter cannot commit to any option until the EIS is complete.”
Ellie
By Andrew Scutro - ascutro@militarytimes.com
Posted : August 27, 2007
For a sailor living in Norfolk, Va., a move to sunny Florida may have its own appeal. For the Navy, it may make strategic sense to disperse its most precious assets. But for lawmakers, ships and sailors also mean a steady stream of money into local economies, and they are loath to cut off the spigot.
During his confirmation hearing for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 31, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen was pressed by Florida senators about his support for moving a Norfolk-based nuclear carrier to Mayport, Fla., following the recent loss of the conventionally powered John F. Kennedy to decommissioning.
The removal of Kennedy from its Florida home port means millions in lost income to the local economy, but relief may be on the horizon.
An environmental study is underway to analyze the effect of moving an assortment of forces to Mayport, from a nuclear carrier to a Marine-carrying amphibious assault ship to surface combatants. A draft of that study is due in the spring.
While the Navy may want to disperse its forces for strategic reasons, committee members from Florida, Sens. Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez — like any elected officials — also have local interests in mind when it comes to where Navy assets and the associated payrolls are located.
Mullen told the lawmakers he agrees with his predecessor Adm. Vern Clark and former Navy Secretary Gordon England that it would be a “serious strategic mistake” to keep a concentration of carriers in one East Coast home port.
“Yes, sir. I was actually working for Admiral Clark when he said that. I agreed with what he said then. I agree with it now,” Mullen told the lawmakers.
His spokesman, Capt. John Kirby said later, “The CNO remains committed to the strategic dispersal of naval assets. He fully supports the environmental impact study that is currently reviewing a range of homeporting options for Mayport. Prior to a final decision, the Navy must review the results of this study, the war-fighting requirement and the associated costs.”
But Norfolk will lose the aircraft carrier George Washington next year when it replaces Kitty Hawk in Japan, and Sen. John Warner, the ranking member of the committee and a former Navy secretary, stepped in during the hearing. In the post-Sept. 11 era, new threats have emerged beyond the Cold War specter of a nuclear strike, but moving a carrier will cost the Navy money.
“So let’s proceed in an open and clear way on that. There are enormous costs involved to equip a port with facilities to handle a nuclear carrier,” he said. “There are other ways to balance the dispersal of naval assets as opposed to moving large carriers.”
Warner’s spokesman, John Ullyot, said later that the senator thinks the Navy needs to complete an ongoing environmental study of moving more ships to Mayport, analyze the infrastructure costs in Mayport and analyze strategic priorities before any decisions are made about moving an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Mayport.
“Senator Warner believes carrier basing decisions should be made not on politics but on a fact-driven analysis of military requirements,” Ullyot says. “He’s always maintained that decisions must be made based on what’s best for the military.”
Frank Roberts is a former naval aviator who now works as the executive director of the Hampton Roads Military-Federal Facilities Alliance, a group that was formed in 2005 to protect the military-heavy Norfolk area from base realignments and closures.
The idea of spreading around strategic assets may seem logical, he said, but it’s outdated and expensive. Building a pier at Mayport that can support a nuclear carrier will cost some $300 million according to some estimates, while some reports put the loss of the George Washington at $450 million in payroll and 8,200 military and civilian jobs in Norfolk.
“The concept of strategic dispersal vis-�-vis Dec. 7, 1941, certainly seems to make sense, but what’s the size of the fleet now? We are significantly smaller than when I was on active duty, and the concept of strategic dispersal, while it makes sense, it isn’t feasible,” Roberts said.
Roberts acknowledged the economic effects of moving an aircraft carrier, taking income away from its former home port and moving all its sailors and their families elsewhere. Aside from the economic effects, he said it’s just too expensive to build the nuclear infrastructure again.
Like Mullen, Navy Secretary Donald Winter remains open to the concepts and has met with Florida lawmakers to talk about shifting home ports.
“Secretary Winter has spoken publicly about his support of the concept of strategic dispersal of naval forces,” said his spokeswoman, Capt. Beci Brenton. “While supportive of the concept, the ongoing EIS is reviewing a range of options for Mayport and Secretary Winter cannot commit to any option until the EIS is complete.”
Ellie