ISSUE PAPER Outlying Landing Field (OLF): Impacts of A Worst Case Scenario

PURPOSE

To discuss the impacts of a worst case scenario in which an OLF to support Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana is not located in Virginia or North Carolina.

SUMMARY

The future of NAS Oceana – and to some extent Naval Station Norfolk - is strategically, operationally, and politically tied directly to finding an OLF that meets the Navy’s requirements. Should Navy decision makers not have the benefit of politically and operationally viable sites that meet their mission requirements, they could find themselves in a ‘checkmate’ situation, with no long range alternative other than to find a new east coast master jet base.

Once this situation develops, the ability of the Virginia congressional delegation, the Commonwealth, and the Hampton Roads region to prevent the loss of an aircraft carrier to another homeport and the loss of other capabilities will be seriously hampered – if not fatally neutralized. This IS the worst case scenario.

BACKGROUND

An OLF to augment existing carrier landing practice capabilities at NAS Oceana and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field (NALF) Fentress is required to provide the operational robustness necessary to NAS Oceana’s ability to accomplish its mission.

Strong, well-organized public opposition and the eventual political collapse of the Navy’s preferred OLF site (Site C) in Washington County, North Carolina, changed the dynamics of the OLF identification process, allowing the Commonwealth of Virginia to explore opportunities within the state. North Carolina officials began a parallel process and have offered alternative sites, but there is no indication that a solution exists in North Carolina. At least one of these sites is further south than Site C, extending the distance between the OLF and NAS Oceana which makes it less operationally suitable.

The Navy must soon make a decision regarding the OLF situation. That decision will be based on the results of the alternative site identification processes conducted by Virginia and North Carolina, and the existing environmental impact statement (EIS) that resulted in the earlier selection of Site C. There is a chance that the Navy may re-evaluate the original OLF sites in North Carolina should viable alternatives not be found in Virginia or North Carolina, however there is a low likelihood of this possibility. A Herculean effort would be required to pursue this course of action.

DISCUSSION

For the Commonwealth of Virginia the worst case scenario is a failure to identify any politically suitable, operationally viable OLF sites in Virginia or in North Carolina, thereby providing an incentive to the Navy to move aircraft to other locations. In this worst case scenario, the Navy will be driven by necessity to seriously examine the future viability of NAS Oceana as the east coast master jet base if it cannot meet mission requirements. This opens the door to political suitors to invigorate their efforts to attract the Navy away from NAS Oceana (NAS Kingsville, TX; NAS Pensacola, FL; Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, GA; etc.) and establish a new east coast master jet base.

Further, there is an undisputed relationship between carrier aircraft basing and aircraft carrier homeporting; proximity is preferred.

The following considerations are germane:

• While the cost of constructing a new master jet base from scratch with an adequate OLF nearby is on the order of $1.8 billion, the relocation to an existing base – particularly one with a welcoming political and public environment – is less expensive. State or local incentives could make such a move even more attractive to the Navy.
  
  
• While Fleet Forces Command (FFC) has stated that the immediate challenge is an OLF to support NAS Oceana, it is not unreasonable to believe that a more strategic, longer-term view has long considered the idea of establishing a new master jet base to replace NAS Oceana.
  
  
• The newly nominated FFC Commander, Vice Admiral Greenert – assuming he is confirmed – will be the most junior four star in the Navy. He is a submariner whose operational experience is all with the Pacific Fleet and he has no prior affiliation with Hampton Roads.
  
  
• The current Commander Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Rear Admiral Ruehe retires in October. He is being relieved by Rear Admiral Mark S. Boensel, the current Commander Navy Region Southeast – in whose region many of the potential suitor sites for locating a master jet base exist.
  
  
• The EIS for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is likely very problematic for NAS Oceana given current noise and other issues surrounding NAS Oceana. As the Navy integrates JSF into the force it will need to find more suitable operating bases out of necessity.
  
  
• A second law suit seeking $500 million in damages has just been filed regarding the noise at NAS Oceana; earlier this year the Department of Justice settled a similar law suit for $38 million, setting a potential precedent for the success of a new suit. It is questionable whether or not the settlement of the first suit would support the later basing of JSF at Oceana by precluding a subsequent suit.
  
  
• While Virginia and Hampton Roads are represented on both the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services, and they have thus far been aggressive and effective in protecting existing capabilities, potential opponents both outnumber and outrank our congressional delegation. Further, Hampton Roads is not represented on either the Senate or House Committees on Appropriations. Thus, the Virginia congressional delegation’s ability to continue to protect existing capabilities and advocate for new ones becomes more problematic.

CONCLUSION

Failure to find an operationally viable OLF site in Virginia is the seminal point in characterizing the Navy’s future footprint – and economic and cultural impact of that presence – in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Hampton Roads region. Without an OLF supporting NAS Oceana, the Navy will be pressured to put NAS Oceana on the next Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) list or initiate movement of aircraft to other locations, likely to be accompanied by the relocation of an aircraft carrier. The result will be a dramatically changed military landscape in Hampton Roads in the next 5 to 10 years.

Author: Frank Roberts, Executive Director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFFA) whose mission is to proactively protect, preserve and grow military and federal capabilities in Hampton Roads for the common good and welfare of the residents of the Hampton Roads. Through regional advocacy and influence the Alliance acts to retain and attract organizations, capabilities, and investments owned, operated or funded by the Federal government.

NOTE: The original date of this paper is Oct 2007. RADM Boensel has been Navy Mid-Atlantic Commander since Nov 2007. VADM Greenert has been Commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command since Sep 2007 and is off to become the new Vice Chief of Naval Operations (VCNO), the second highest ranking officer in the United States Navy, this summer.

DoD postpones action on carrier homeport from Hampton Roads

Governor Timothy M. Kaine released the following statement on April 9th regarding the Department of Defense’s (DoD) decision to postpone action on the Navy's Record of Decision regarding moving a nuclear aircraft carrier from Hampton Roads and homeporting it in Mayport, FL:

“Today’s decision by the Department of Defense to postpone acting on the Navy's Record of Decision to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Mayport, Florida -- pending a review -- offers some room for optimism among Virginians. Along with other elected and community leaders across the Commonwealth, I remain committed to maintaining Hampton Roads as the East Coast home base for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.”

DoD decided to delay the decision until it comprehensively reviews the issue during the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.


U.S. Representatives Rob Wittman and Glenn Nye, along with lawmakers from other states are intensifying their efforts to block moving an aircraft carrier to Mayport FL. Wittman and Nye wrote a letter to the acting Secretary of the Navy B.J. Penn saying they'll oppose any requests for money to move the carrier to Mayport. The letter is signed by 18 representatives including 13 Democrats and five Republicans from Washington, Maryland, Ohio, New York and New Mexico.

Nye and Wittman are working to make this a financial issue rather than a Virginia v. Florida issue. It's a smart strategic move considering the current state of the economy.

Congressman Glenn Nye (VA, 2n District) said: “This is not a Virginia versus Florida issue; this is a question of spending our military dollars wisely at a time when budgets are already stretched thin. Members of Congress from both parties, all across the country, have recognized that it makes no sense to spend a billion dollars to outfit a redundant port facility on the East Coast.

Congressman Rob Wittman (VA, 1st District) said: “I am deeply concerned by the Navy’s decision to shift the homeporting of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from Norfolk, VA to Mayport, FL. In fiscal year 2009 the Navy reported unfunded requirements in excess of $4.5B. Building duplicative infrastructure in the current fiscal environment does not make budgetary or strategic sense, especially given the Secretary of Defense’s budget cuts for fiscal year 2010.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, said in a statement, "I am gratified that the Department of Defense has formally decided to postpone the major elements of the Navy's proposal until after a proper strategic review has been conducted, as I have consistently urged." "I look forward to reviewing the rest of the proposal - which includes a request for funds to conduct minimal dredging and pier work at Mayport - on its merits, as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget process."

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., struck a similar tone, "This is a promising development for the taxpayers and for the Navy, and I am pleased the Pentagon has agreed with our request to focus on the fiscal and strategic realities of building an extra nuclear carrier facility at Mayport."

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine was more cautious, saying the decision "offers some room for optimism."


Frank Roberts, director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, said the Navy had more pressing needs than spending $600 million to prepare Mayport Naval Station for a nuclear carrier. "It's definitely the right and appropriate decision," he said. However, Roberts said, "I don't think we're ever safe. We have to be constantly vigilant."

Considering the move as part of next year's quadrennial defense review will delay a decision until at least 2011, he said. This means the Navy will keep its fleet of five operational carriers at Norfolk Naval Station.

The Navy is proceeding with dredging work at Mayport Naval Station, so it can serve as a future homeport or as an emergency location for a carrier. In January, after a 2-1/2-year environmental study, the Navy said that dispersing the East Coast fleet would reduce the risks of a catastrophic attack or natural disaster.

Statement of Senator Webb on the Navy’s Record of Decision Regarding a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

Washington, DC—The following is a statement from Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) on the Navy’s Record of Decision regarding a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier:

“Today’s announcement by the Navy that it intends to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Mayport was a foregone conclusion, given the Bush administration’s attempt to fast-track this process before it departs.

“I intend to bring full scrutiny to this decision in the coming months as it makes its way through the appropriate congressional process. I have yet to receive a proper, intelligence-based assessment from the Navy on this matter, despite the fact that as late as January 12, the Chief of Naval Operations confirmed that he could not identify a threat-based requirement for this proposal.

“This is not a simple turf issue between competing interests in Virginia and Florida. It is a matter of properly identifying strategic and fiscal priorities. I am an American before I am a Virginian, and I have spent my entire life working on issues of military and national security. Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have been homeported in Norfolk since the USS Enterprise was commissioned 47 years ago. The Navy made no effort to duplicate Norfolk’s nuclear-support infrastructure in Mayport at the height of the Cold War, and it has made no compelling argument why it is necessary to do so today.

“If I were serving as Secretary of the Navy today, I would be very worried about where I would be finding $4.6 billion to pay for unfunded requirements in the Navy's existing budget. I would also be worried about where I would be finding the billions of dollars needed to fund procurement for the Navy’s lamentably mismanaged aircraft programs, and the billions that the Navy would need to grow its fleet by more than 25 ships, to its announced goal of 313 combatants. I would not be proposing an additional billion dollars on top of these shortfalls for a non-essential, redundant facility in Mayport, Florida.

“We are consulting closely with the Senate Committees on Armed Forces and Appropriations to ensure that a fully justified cost/benefit analysis and other Navy reporting requirements are completed before the committees consider any appropriation to support the Navy’s proposal.”


To download a copy of Senator Webb’s 24-page critical assessment of the Navy’s proposal to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Mayport, Fla., visit: http://webb.senate.gov/contact/homeport/CriticalAssessmentMayportHomeporting.pdf.

Contact: Jessica Smith, 202-228-5185 or Kimberly Hunter, 202-228-5258

When did Navy philosophy change to dispersal from consolidation?

by C. Grigsby Scifres

Recently, the United States Navy released a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the homeporting of additional ships, including a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, at the Mayport Naval Station in Mayport, Florida. This EIS indicates that the preferred alternative is to homeport a nuclear carrier in Mayport, Florida. If implemented, this recommendation poses a serious economic threat to Hampton Roads.

If a nuclear carrier is moved to Mayport, Florida, then the job losses in Hampton Roads will exceed 11,000 and the annual economic loss will exceed $650 million (some estimates take this up to $1 billion annually).

Our Commonwealth’s federal, state and municipal elected officials will have an early opportunity to work together as one to fight against the regional loss of an aircraft carrier to Mayport. Virginia’s Senators and Representatives need to vigorously debate their colleagues on the merits of Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter’s announced preference for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Mayport, Florida. Governor Kaine should utilize his relationship with the Obama administration to counter the influence wielded by Florida with the Bush administration.

Among the questions that should surface in the debate are:

• how does the required $500+ million infrastructure expenditure measure up against other Navy budget priorities, particularly in the face of the economic challenges facing our government and the nation;
  
  
• how does shifting an aircraft carrier to Mayport reduce security demands on the fleet;
  
  
• why did the maintenance inspections of the conventional aircraft carrier JFK (formerly homeported in Mayport) fare poorly;
  
  
• what is the quality of the public school system in Mayport;
  
  
• when did the Navy change its philosophy to dispersal from consolidation;
  
  
• how much will the entire move actually cost;
  
  
• how rare is it that several aircraft carriers are in port at the same time;
  
  
• what will be the impact on moving thousands of people and housing a crew in geographic limbo for five years; and
  
  
• is it good policy to impose the hardships on Navy families that will come when a Mayport-based nuclear carrier and crew has to come back to Hampton Roads for major overhauls (Mayport lacks the capability to perform such overhauls on a nuclear carrier) lasting 6-12 months at a time?

The announced preference to create a second East Coast homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Mayport, Florida is not supported by operational necessity, nor is it grounded in economic realities. The Navy identified $4.6 billion in unfunded budget requirements in FY2009 for important infrastructure improvements to facilities such as the four public shipyards and Naval Station Norfolk. The taxpayers of these United States cannot afford unnecessary redundancy in facilities or personnel.

A recent headline in the Jacksonville newspaper read “Our Ship Has Come In.” The obvious target is the soon to be commissioned USS GHW Bush CVN-77.

We can not discount the enormity of the impact that this “political” decision will have on our lives in Hampton Roads and on the lives of the men and women who serve our country in the greatest Navy in the world. In many ways, this political decision (not based on economic or military strategic imperatives) is being imposed on the backs of sailors and their families.

We must now have faith in our elected leadership to arrive at a decision that puts the interest of the Nation first and best supports our sailors and the mission of the United States Navy.


C. Grigsby Scifres is a partner in the law firm of Williams Mullen and Chair of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce. A version of this article appeared as an Op-Ed in the Daily Press and the Virginian-Pilot.

Mayport Homeport Strategically Flawed, Fiscally Irresponsible

SENS. WARNER & WEBB, SEN.-ELECT WARNER & GOV. KAINE
CALL NAVY’S PROPOSAL FOR NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIER HOMEPORT
STRATEGICALLY FLAWED, FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE

Washington, DC—Senator John Warner (R-VA), Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), Senator-elect Mark Warner (D-VA), and Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine today called the Navy’s announced preference to create a second East Coast homeport for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at Mayport, Fla. “strategically flawed and fiscally irresponsible.” They called on the Navy to delay its decision until a new administration is allowed to analyze the proposal’s strategic and fiscal considerations.

At a press conference in the U.S. Capitol, the four Virginia leaders cited the “fiscal irresponsibility” of creating a new homeport for the carrier in Mayport—a move that the Navy estimates will cost at least $600 million to complete. The costs may well approach $1 billion when the Navy’s preliminary estimates are refined and all projected expenses documented more thoroughly. They argued that this money could be better directed to the more than $4.6 billion in higher-priority, unfunded budget requirements the Navy has identified for fiscal year 2009.

Among other unfunded Navy priorities is a $791 million backlog in critical restoration and modernization projects at the nation’s four naval shipyards. The nuclear-capable Norfolk Naval Shipyard, which currently has the capacity for repair and maintenance of the Navy’s East Coast nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, has a backlog for such critical projects of $224 million alone.

“This proposal lacks the in-depth analysis normally expected in decisions of this magnitude,” said Senator John Warner, who will be retiring his seat this year to his successor, Senator-elect Mark Warner. “Moving a carrier to Mayport does very little to mitigate risk to the carrier fleet. And the tremendous costs associated with such a move merely duplicate existing capabilities at other naval stations and shipyards. Saddling the incoming administration with a bill for new naval nuclear facilities that could approach $1 billion is simply irresponsible.”

“Based on the briefing we received, we see no evidence that the Navy’s announcement was supported by either economic logic or strategic necessity,” said Senator Jim Webb. “There is no possible justification for the relocation of an aircraft carrier to the tune of an estimated $1 billion when the Navy has identified $4.6 billion in higher-priority unfunded requirements for its personnel, shipbuilding, aircraft procurement, and installations. This decision is fiscally irresponsible and contrary to the best interests of the fleet.”

Webb continued: “The Navy cannot show that homeporting at the Mayport base offers any significant strategic advantage over Norfolk. And the strategic dispersion argument made during the Cold War era is not applicable in today’s strategic framework. There are other suitable nuclear-capable repair and maintenance facilities available for emergency use on both the East and West Coasts, and in Hawaii.”

Senators John Warner and Jim Webb, both former Secretaries of the Navy and members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, sent a letter Wednesday evening, November 18, to Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates requesting that the Navy refrain from publishing its Final Environmental Impact Statement as planned on November 21, and withold issuing any Record of Decision “until the new administration is able to evaluate the Navy’s decision with greater analytical rigor than the Navy has demonstrated.”

“Norfolk has long been the site from which Navy sailors have deployed to protect American interests, and it’s where our shipyard workers and naval aviators and military families have worked for decades to support the Navy. That’s why this effort to have a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier homeported in Mayport instead of Norfolk is so troubling," said Senator-elect Mark Warner. "We also owe it to the American taxpayer not to waste their money building unnecessary infrastructure in Florida when it already exists in Virginia.”

“We remain disappointed with the Secretary of the Navy’s recommendation to initiate the movement of a nuclear aircraft carrier to Florida in the President’s 11th hour. This proposal does not serve the strategic interests of the nation well,” said Governor Tim Kaine. “Moreover, there is simply not enough justification for prioritizing this change. Considering the impacts of the financial crisis on all budgets and the realistic costs of moving the nuclear carrier and developing the necessary infrastructure for a possible new placement, why should the nation incur an unnecessary cost? I will continue to work closely with Virginia’s congressional delegation to address this issue over the coming weeks.”

The lawmakers also noted that in 2006 the citizens of the City of Jacksonville, Fla., voted against returning Cecil Field to the Department of Defense so that it could be reactivated as the Navy’s East Coast Master Jet Base—a function now fulfilled by Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.

Video excerpts will also be posted on Senator Webb’s YouTube page.