Posted on 02/07/2005 8:54:43 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Navy considers retiring JFK and moving another carrier from Norfolk By DALE EISMAN, The Virginian-Pilot © February 7, 2005 Last updated: 11:34 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Navy wants to retire the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy this year, months earlier than had been expected, and is seriously contemplating the transfer of another flattop from Norfolk to the Kennedy's home in Mayport, Fla., according to budget documents released this morning.
The Bush administration's 2006 budget proposal would eliminate the Kennedy and provide $10 million for an environmental impact study on the basing of a nuclear-powered carrier in Mayport, a Jacksonville suburb, Navy officials said. The Kennedy is one of only two conventionally-powered carriers in the U.S. fleet; the second, the Kitty Hawk, is based in Japan.
The Kennedy's retirement at age 37 would leave the U.S. with 11 carriers, the fewest in decades. All five flattops assigned to the Atlantic Fleet would be based in Norfolk unless the service decides to shift one to Mayport to replace the Kennedy.
A Navy official briefing reporters on Friday suggested that service leaders are concerned that reliance on a single port on either coast would leave the carrier fleet vulnerable to surprise attack or natural disaster. The six Pacific Fleet carriers are spread among ports in California, Washington state and Japan.
"We certainly want to have, strategically, our carrier fleet in more than one port," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Though the Kennedy had been expected to remain in service until 2018, budgetary pressures spurred a decision last fall by Navy officials to shrink the carrier fleet. The Navy has never publicly identified the Kennedy as the ship to be retired but officials have been saying privately for weeks that "Big John" is their target.
(Excerpt) Read more at home.hamptonroads.com ...
Ted the Kampfschwimmer will go apoplectic!......
My tax dollars at work, yippee. If the DoD had asked me, I'd have told them I'd rather have an aircraft carrier than an environmental impact study.
Has anyone ever made use of these fictional 'impact' studies? (I mean other than to deny the use of land to a landowner once they use their own funds to find an endangered slug on their property)
The JFK is due for a major overhaul. Might as well retire her now than spend all the $$s on the overhaul. We can sustain our dominance of the sea easily with 11 carriers. It'd rather see the money go into development of the next generation Navy. We are very close to a whole new type of Navy, no use throwing money into the old Navy.
Heck, I can give 'em the impact of moving a carrier to Mayport for free.
- You'll have to build a really big dock.
- You'll have to build more houses.
- You'll probably run over a few field mice while doing it.
There. And I'll only charge 'em $5 million for it.
}:-)4
(I thought the Dread Words of Power were "Bless your bowels, honey"?)
I read somewhere that the Kennedy was the original choice for recovery carrier for Apollo 11. President Nixon nixed that out of spite to the memory of JFK. That's how the Hornet got the job. Anyone else hear that? I'd sure like to go aboard the Kennedy if it's turned into a floating museum.
"Bless your bowels" is the super-secret Dread Words, not to be used for just *any* Niceness emergency.
Enjoy your $5 million!
The JFK was planned as a nuclear powered carrier but LBJ ordered her to be an oil burner.
Retiring FDR's legacy and now the JFK...sweet!
bump
I'd prefer to see her sold (for $1) to Australia or the UK. She has a good 10 years of life left in her. They already have FA/18s, so they have the support structure for them.
I think it's more likely the fact that the Kennedy was an Atlantic Fleet carrier and Apollo 11 landed in the Pacific Ocean that ruled it out as recovery vessel.
The Kennedy gets 6" to the gallon.
I have been on board the Kennedy. Looks just like any other carrier.
What they don't have are pilots trained to operate from a carrier, the 5,000 men and women needed to man it, or the need for the carrier in the first place.
Oh, don't go dumping his little tin-foil chapeau theories with something as irrelevant as facts! :-)
A Great Lakes iron ore carrier gets about 1.5 feet to the gallon of Number 6 oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.