Despite fears that the QDR would dramatically scale back the size of the Navy's aircraft carrier fleet, it says 10 to 11 carriers should remain in operation between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2015. Congress has required the Navy to keep 11 carriers in service -- one of which is customarily used only for training -- but last year gave the service the temporary authority to go down to 10 ships between the retirement of the USS Enterprise in 2012 and the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford in 2015.
The report also recommends that one carrier should be based in Mayport Naval Station in Florida -- a homeport preference that will renew a heated political battle between the Florida and Virginia delegations in Congress.
All carriers assigned to the East Coast are now stationed in Norfolk, Va. after the 2007 decommissioning of the USS John F. Kennedy, which called Mayport home.
"The reason for moving one of the nuclear carriers from Norfolk to Mayport is so they're not all lined up in one place like sitting ducks," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said in a statement after CongressDaily posted the QDR Friday night. "Beyond that, this is huge for the North Florida economy."
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., issued a statement Saturday emphasizing that the QDR is a planning tool that does not have the force of law. "I continue to believe that removing an aircraft carrier from Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, would not be justified on either a strategic or fiscal level," he said.
The issue is a dicey political one for the Obama administration. Obama won both Florida and Virginia, two traditionally Republican states crucial to his 2008 victory - in part, thanks to help from Webb and Nelson.
You notice that Sen Nelson was quick to point out the economic benefit to his local area?
And oddly enough, Sen Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy, is clearly making a play for his local job market, and ignoring the sound strategic option of spreading the fleet around. It'll be interesting to see how the Obamatrons resolve this one...
By: Brant
Posts
2 comments:
Is it really sound to "spread the fleet around" domestic US ports? Are there any realistic threats posed to a cluster of US carriers in a single domestic homeport that would not be faced by a more dispersed force? I would tend to agree with Webb that by concentrating the force they can be better protected and can be protected more cost effectively.
If you let the alternate facilities atrophy from disuse, you have nowhere to put your assets should you need to either (a) ramp up, or (b) move.
What happens if something radioactive hits Norfolk. There's a limit to how much you can protect, and we know that we don't check nearly enough cargo coming thru the ports. Even if only half your carrier fleet is in port, the other half doesn't have a port to come home to anymore.
Post a Comment