Posted on 02/24/2006 8:47:09 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
Commander says JFK should be retired ASAP
By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
© February 24, 2006
Last updated: 12:04 PM
NORFOLK - The Florida-based aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy should be retired "as rapidly as possible," said Adm. John B. Nathman, the fleet commander here.
That could happen as early as March, with the following three to four months needed to physically place it in retirement, freeing the 2,200 sailors aboard for reassignment, he said.
"It is the right thing to do for the men and women on that ship," Nathman said. "It is actually the right thing to do for the ship because the decision has been made."
Virginia officials are interested in the 38-year-old Kennedy's status because a Hampton Roads-based carrier - along with its economic benefits - possibly could be reassigned to Florida as a replacement.
Nathman, who completed his first year in the Norfolk- based Fleet Forces Command on Saturday, talked in his first in-depth interview about major issues facing the Atlantic and Pacific fleets he is responsible for training and equipping.
It's been a fast-paced year with no let up in sight, he said. The Navy has put more boots on the ground in the Middle East to relieve Army and Marine Corps troops; worked to open an outlying airfield in Washington County, N.C.; tried to create an under-water sonar test range 60 miles off the North Carolina coast; and fought to protect Oceana Naval Air Station as a master jet base.
The actual retirement date for the Kennedy hinges on legislation that would repeal a recent law requiring the Navy to maintain at least 12 aircraft carriers, Nathman said. Retiring the Kennedy would drop the carrier force to 11.
After the release of the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review earlier this month, U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., agreed to sponsor a bill that would take the Navy off the hook for that mandate.
"If we get the language removed, in pragmatic terms, it allows us to make the decommissioning decision sooner, allows us to make it in a very timely way for the Navy and the crew, and allows us not to make big investments in sustaining it," Nathman said.
Trying to sustain the aging oil-fired carrier would be a lo sing proposition in Nathman's view. There is no reason to expose the ship and crew to a deteriorating condition, he said.
Because the Kennedy never received the last portion of a $350 million overhaul, which was to have been done in Hampton Roads in the past year , it began to rapidly deteriorate, he said.
On Wednesday, inspectors were in Mayport, Fla., the Kennedy's home port, where they were expected to decertify half of its boilers, which produce steam for propulsion.
Last week the ship's arresting cable gear was decertified, meaning it can no longer land fixed-wing planes, only helicopters. Two of its four catapults also have been shut down.
"You would have to put almost $200 million to get it back to operational status at sea, and you would still need another $2 billion to get it back to where it needs to be," Nathman said.
That money is better used elsewhere in the fleet, he said.
The Kennedy, built in Newport News between 1964-68, most likely would be taken to Philadelphia to spend its final years in mothballs, said Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington.
It's the only deep-water facility the Navy has on the East Coast to keep such ships, she said.
As to what might replace the Kennedy in Mayport, Nathman said he doesn't know.
The Navy will spend $10 million on an environmental impact statement to see whether it should dredge and renovate the Mayport piers to accept a nuclear-powered carrier.
"Do you want to home-base a nuke there?" he asked. "Do you want to put in amphibious ships, put in surface warfare ships, or do nothing?
"The EIS needs to be done that will allow us to say what is the best case from either a strategic homeporting issue, or what are the best economic values."
Nathman, who previously served as vice chief of naval operation, said the long-term viability of Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach is tied to the need to build a second outlying landing field, referred to as an OLF.
The Navy is under court order to conduct additional environmental analysis on the impact of placing the proposed field in Washington County and has reopened considerations of four other sites for consideration.
The OLF is needed to relieve carrier landing practices at the Navy's auxiliary landing field at Fentress in Chesapeake, Nathman said.
Virginia Beach and Virginia officials are under pressure from the federal Base Realignment and Closure Commission to roll back development around Oceana for it to continue as a master jet base.
"I believe in the long-term viability of Oceana, but you have to have the OLF," Nathman said. The field is opposed by local farmers and environmentalists.
If the OLF is not built, "I don't see how we can be good neighbors in the long term."
The Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets are scheduled to be based at Oceana for 30 more years, he said. He's confident that with the continued efforts by the Virginia Beach and state governments, Oceana will remain.
"I was in the BRAC debates from the service standpoint," he said. "I know the military value of Oceana. I know why the Navy never put it on the list to begin with. I understand why the BRAC Commission went after Oceana, because they saw the encroachment, the training issues and the safety issues."
Reach Jack Dorsey at (757) 446-2284 or jack.dorsey@pilotonline.com.
© 2006 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com
"When I was in the JFK was the New Baby."
The captain's stateroom is pretty impressive with all the wood.
After reading many posts here, its a wonder Bush doesn`t give the Kennedy to the UAE.
Wonder if Hugo Chavez would buy it as the Flag Ship for his Navy.
Ouch!
What about Vincente? Doesn't he even deserve a mention.
Hey, its a thought. The Border Patrol could help him recruit a crew.
India is looking for a full size carrier. Let's sell it to them and get back some of that outsroucing money.
Actually, I think EMK should be retired.
If the non native non North Americans, the Indians want the Kennedy, let`em come and get it. Just bring money.
A carrier like that while valueable, wouldn't do much harm used against us, unless it had state of the art planes on it.
BTW whats to stop whoever we are fighting from just shooting a couple cruise missiles at an aircraft carrier? Aren't they kinda sitting ducks?
That's why they have escorts. Particularly the Aegis cruisers, but other anti-air platforms as well. Plus they have these buddies on board for last ditch self defense,
and they are pretty effective at it, except perhaps against the supersonic cruise missiles that a few more advanced nations deploy (we don't AFAIK).
Hmmmm.....
The only non-nuclear carrier we have - thanks to Jimmah ...takes more support ships to service it than a nuke carrier ...
Better check your history. JFK was commissioned in the 1960s, before Jimmy was President. There's been no conventional carrier commissioned since the USS Nimitz was commissioned. All carriers since then are Nimitz class CVNs. While Carter did try to get a mid-sized conventional carrier off the ground, he was shut down, by the Navy and Congress.
In addition, USS Kitty Hawk (commissioned before USS JFK) is still in service.
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.