News - Archived Page 1

GW Skipper, XO Sacked Following May Fire
Push For New Direction Leads To Sudden Dead End For A 40-Year Naval Career
Merging Bases
First-Family Name May Be Weapon In Carrier Battle
New Imagery At Virginia Beach Park Helps Honor Naval Heritage
Second Carrier Group Deployed To Gulf As U.S. Approves Plans For Iran Counterstrike
Boeing Presses Congress To Have Navy Buy More Super Hornets
Camden and Currituck Counties Oppose The Navy Outlying Landing Field
Russian Navy To Create Aircraft Carrier Groups
Russia To Have 5-6 Aircraft Carriers By 2060 - Navy Commander
DefenseLink News Release: Flag Officer Announcements
Navy Wants F-35C, Maybe More Super Hornets
Lemoore Plan Faces Resistance
US Navy Pledges More Money For Cleanup Of Island Near Puerto Rico

GW Skipper, XO Sacked Following May Fire

Investigation Blames Blaze On Unauthorized Smoking, Poor Storage Of Flammables

(NAVY TIMES 30 JUL 08) ... Gidget Fuentes

SAN DIEGO — The skipper and executive officer of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington were relieved Wednesday, Navy officials said, two months after a major at-sea fire raced through 80 spaces on the ship. Investigators determined that the blaze was started when unauthorized smoking ignited improperly stowed flammables nearby, the Navy said

The Navy’s Pacific Fleet commander, Adm. Robert F. Willard, in his final endorsement of an investigation into the fire, directed that Capt. David C. Dykhoff and his executive officer be relieved of command.

Dykhoff was fired “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command and his failure to meet mission requirements and readiness standards,” Navy officials said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon.

That same day, Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm. Thomas Kilcline relieved Dykhoff and also fired the ship’s executive officer, Capt. David M. Dober, “for substandard performance,” according to the statement.

Capt. J.R. Haley, who recently commanded the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, has replaced Dykhoff, and Capt. Karl O. Thomas, the executive officer of the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, has been reassigned as GW’s executive officer.

Willard’s recommendations came as he finalized the PacFleet investigation. Navy officials did not provide details on additional actions or punishment of other crew members recommended in the investigation report.

The investigation found that the likely cause of the fire, which caused $70 million in damage, “was unauthorized smoking that ignited flammable liquids and other combustible material improperly stored in an adjacent space,” officials said in the statement. “The fire and the subsequent magnitude of the fire were the result of a series of human acts that could have been prevented. Specifically, the storage of 90 gallons of refrigerant compressor oil in an unauthorized space contributed to the intensity of the fire.”

Navy officials did not release a copy of the report or Willard’s endorsement. However, Capt. Scott Gureck, a Pacific Fleet spokesman, said a redacted copy of the investigation probably would be released in a few weeks, once all disciplinary and administrative actions have been completed.

Rear Adm. Richard Wren, who commands Task Force 70 aboard the Kitty Hawk, “has been directed to consider administrative and disciplinary actions he deems appropriate for those individuals involved in the fire,” Gureck said.

The fire broke out near the auxiliary boiler room shortly before 8 a.m. on May 22 as the carrier began an underway replenishment with another ship near the Galapagos Islands. It quickly spread to nearby exhaust and ventilation trunks and supply spaces, burning in 80 spaces for 12 hours before firefighting teams doused the blaze. In all, 37 sailors were treated for minor injuries, including one sailor who suffered first- and second-degree burns.

George Washington had left its previous homeport of Norfolk, Va., in the spring for its new home in Yokosuka, Japan, where it would replace the conventionally powered Kitty Hawk and join the Forward Deployed Naval Forces, becoming the first nuclear-powered carrier to be based in the region.

The fire has forced the delays in the turnover of both ships and crews in San Diego, now scheduled to begin Aug. 7 when the Kitty Hawk arrives in San Diego, Navy officials said.

George Washington is slated to leave San Diego on Aug. 21 for Japan, where the ship is expected to arrive in late September, they added.

Back To Top

Push For New Direction Leads To Sudden Dead End For A 40-Year Naval Career

(NEW YORK TIMES 31 MAY 08) ... Elaine Sciolino

FLORENCE, Italy--HIS friends call him Fox, and for years William J. Fallon was considered one of America’s most successful four-star admirals, serving most recently as the commander of military operations in the territory stretching from the Horn of Africa across Central Asia.

Now, the 63-year-old former aviator is struggling with reinvention, nudged into early retirement in March after a 40-year naval career because of his blunt talk that left the perception he was disloyal to his commander in chief.

Breaking his silence since his departure in an hourlong interview, Admiral Fallon said he had felt the pressure building for several months. He had, after all, taken public positions favoring diplomacy over force in Iran, troop withdrawals from Iraq that were greater than officially planned and more high-level attention to Afghanistan.

But the catalyst for his departure was not a policy disagreement with the White House, he said; it was an article in Esquire magazine this year that portrayed him as the man standing between President Bush and war against Iran.

If the admiral’s comments had been kept behind the closed doors of the White House and the Pentagon, he might have survived. The problem was that in the highly hierarchical world of the military, in which the cardinal rule is to salute — not break ranks with — the president, his dissent was simply too public.

The admiral claims not to have been misquoted, but to have been misunderstood.

“There was a huge perception that I was publicly at odds with the president, which was not true,” he said. “I had serious concerns that my subordinates — my soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines — had that perception. It put me in a difficult position. I felt very uncomfortable.”

But he acknowledged that he had shaken Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., after he arrived in March 2007, both by making crystal clear that he, and not the battlefield commanders, was in charge and by making changes that rankled people in and out of the military.

His management style was criticized; his on-the-record comments about policy raised eyebrows.

Some of the issues were petty: the injection of ceremonial Navy traditions to a gritty command never before headed by an admiral, including the designation of the command’s main stairwell as off limits to all but generals and admirals, and the creation of a private dining room where office space had been.

Others were more substantive, like an ambitious job-reduction effort aimed at slashing the command’s staff of 3,400 and assigning his own people to review others’ decisions.

“I wanted us to get focused on Iraq and Afghanistan at a high level, not just rubber-stamping every request, or whatever that was coming out of Baghdad,” he said. Acknowledging a streak of impatience, he added, “This was not the time to be sitting around clinking teacups.”

He was not helped by the fact that he was a Navy man with overall responsibility over two wars involving American ground troops, and a commander with a reputation for liberal leanings in a hawkish administration.

AS commander of the Pacific Command between 2005 and 2007, he had been criticized by conservatives for cozying up to China at a time when the country was rapidly modernizing its armed forces.

During his one-year tenure as head of the Central Command, he proposed a navy-to-navy relationship with Iran as a way to begin a sustained dialogue with the country after nearly three decades without diplomatic relations, Bush administration officials said, speaking anonymously according to normal diplomatic rules.

The proposal was not revolutionary; other commanders had floated such an idea before. But it was quickly rejected by the White House as rewarding Tehran, the officials said.

Admiral Fallon declined to discuss the initiative, although he acknowledges that he favors dialogue and patience, not war, with Iran, and that the Navy could provide a way to begin the process.

“In the conduct of daily business, we routinely have excellent communications with the Iranian Navy,” he said. “When the conditions are right, it might be a reasonable way of interaction — to build on existing maritime communications.”

Even now, he defends his public statements on Iran that stress diplomacy over the use of force. “People tend to look at things in black and white — we’re going to love Iran or attack Iran,” he said. “That is a very simplistic way to approach a complex problem.”

He said he found it impossible to convince people that stories about disputes with David H. Petraeus, the four-star Army general who was the top commander in Iraq and replaced him at the Central Command when he retired, were overblown. “He’s a smart guy,” Admiral Fallon said.

But then he acknowledged that there had been differences, and he did not contradict reports that at one point General Petraeus had wanted as many troops on the ground in Iraq as possible, while he had favored substantial reductions.

“Did we agree on everything? No,” he said of their relationship. “Did he want everything? Yes. And that’s just the way it is. But we talked just about every day.” He added, “He’s an Army guy, a bit more rigid, less risk.”

As the operational commander with day-to-day responsibilities for Iraq, General Petraeus enjoyed a direct line of communication with the White House, which Admiral Fallon, the strategic overseer, did not. So there was also the pecking-order problem.

The admiral’s departure from the military was so abrupt that he veers between the present and the past in discussing his old job.

“I was Petraeus’s boss,” he said. “I asked a lot of questions, which is my nature. And the answers better match up with what I have seen.”

Asked about a Washington newspaper column that said he had been squeezed out because he was “rigid” and “overbearing,” he replied: “I don’t tolerate fools. I challenge every briefing and pitch. If people present me with only one solution to the problem, I’m the type to reject it immediately.”

This is, he said, “a no-nonsense business. I’m not getting paid to be a nice guy.”

ADMIRAL Fallon started his military career through the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps, which he joined to pay his way through Villanova University. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded a carrier air wing in the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and later led the naval battle group supporting NATO operations in Bosnia. Along the way, he developed diplomatic skills, taking the unusual step in 2001, for example, of apologizing to Japan and to the relatives of those killed in the accidental sinking of a Japanese fishing trawler by an American submarine.

The rawness of his transition into private life was revealed in his public coming out as the keynote speaker at a terrorism conference hosted by New York University’s Center on Law and Security in Florence last week.

He admitted that he finally understood the indecision of his daughters over what to wear and the challenge of deciding what personal effects to move to a new home in the Washington area after keeping most things in storage for 20 years.

“I have to confess to — how should I put this — a bit of uncertainty in my own future, because until a few weeks ago I had things pretty orderly in front of me,” he said. But those in the audience who said they were expecting insider-tells-all revelations about the terrorist threat came away disappointed.

In the interview, he declined to directly criticize current policies, although he urged the next administration to focus more on strategic planning. “We need to have a well-thought-out game plan for engagement in the world that we adjust regularly and that has some system of checks and balances built into it,” he said.

He is thinking about writing a book, but jokes that such a project could pose a challenge. In his Catholic high school in Camden, N.J., he opted for third-year Latin instead of typing. So he may have to learn how to type.

Back To Top

Merging Bases

A Pentagon initiative will turn Pearl Harbor and Hickam into a joint base by 2010

(HONOLULU STAR-BULLETIN 18 MAY 08) ... Gregg K. Kakesako

The fence line between Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Hickam Air Force Base is coming down.

It's all part of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's transformation proposal to create 12 joint Navy, Air Force and Army bases out of 26 by 2011.

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission mandated consolidations of 26 military bases by 2011, including:

*The Navy will command Pearl Harbor Naval Station and Hickam Air Force Base; Guam Naval Base and Andersen Air Force Base; Anacosta Naval Annex and Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, D.C.; and Norfolk Naval Station and Fort Story in Virginia.

*The Army will take over the operations of Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base in Washington state; and Fort Myer and the Marine Corps' Henderson Hall in Virginia.

*The Air Force will manage Charleston Air Force Base and Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina; McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix and Lakehurst Naval Air Station in New Jersey; Andrews Air Force Base and Engineering in Maryland and Naval Air Facility in Washington, D.C.; Elemendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardson in Alaska; Lackland and Randolph Air Force bases and Fort Sam Houston in Texas; and Langley Air Force Base and Fort Eustis in Virginia.

The requirement goes back three years when the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission mandated that the Air Force will manage six joint bases, the Navy four and the Army two.

At Pearl Harbor, Navy Capt. Taylor Skardon, who heads the naval station, said "joint basing is a partnership, not a takeover."

Under the consolidation plan, Skardon and his successors will be the overall commander of what will be called Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam.

Air Force Col. J.J. Torres, currently commander of the 15th Airlift Wing at Hickam, would assume the role of the deputy of the combined facility. Both Skardon and Torres will leave their posts this summer for other assignments.

During a recent interview, Skardon said the Pentagon looked at bases that were near each other "and came up with the idea of joint bases with the hopes of more efficiency and cost savings."

Air Force and Pearl Harbor officials don't have the exact number of civilians who may lose their jobs because of the consolidation.

Hickam has 6,500 personnel, of which 1,344 are civilians. At Pearl Harbor, there are 1,175, of which 721 are civilians.

In some parts of the mainland, the consolidation of services has caused clashes.

In North Carolina, elected officials are fighting a BRAC 2005 initiative to close Pope Air Force Base and transfer its authority to the XVIII Airborne Corps headquartered at neighboring Fort Bragg, which has been the headquarters and main base of the Army's airborne forces.

Torres said until a study is completed on "the work requirement is needed by the two bases, we can't make a determination" on how many civilian jobs could be eliminated at either Hickam or Pearl Harbor.

The two military leaders said studies are now under way to compare how the Navy and Air Force run the two bases, with the intent of identifying and applying the best alternative and putting it into operation by October 2010.

For instance, Hickam maintains a civil engineering squadron of about 500 people, half of which are civilians, Torres said.

At Pearl Harbor, similar construction and maintenance work are done by its public works center, which employs about 1,500 people, Skardon said.

Both military bases maintain similar services such as plumbing, electrical work, food service, recreation, lodging, community and morale programs, police, fire, chapel, youth activities, transportation, finance, public affairs and housing.

Torres this idea of joint bases is centered around two goals -- "gain efficiency where we can for the taxpayers" and "preserve the warfighting capabilities" of the Navy and Air Force here.

"If we do it right," Skardon added, "this joint base should enhance and support our warfighting capabilities."
Back To Top

First-Family Name May Be Weapon In Carrier Battle 

(THE HILL 13 MAY 08) ... Roxana Tiron 

Jeb Bush traveled to Newport News , Va., in 2006 to do more than honor his father at the christening of the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier. He came with a bold pitch as the governor of Florida — to bring the ship back home with him.

Most of the Bush clan was on hand for the ceremony, and Virginians now fear the weight of the first family could be the difference in a bidding war for the newest nuclear-powered carrier.

Each state wants the right to house the aircraft carrier: Florida at the Mayport Naval Station in Jacksonville; and Virginia at the Naval Station Norfolk, the world’s largest aircraft carrier base.

The decision on where to place the carrier lies with the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of Defense. But this time it could be complicated by a lawsuit threatened by Virginia community leaders, who charge the Navy is dismissing their concerns and speeding along the process.

The stakes are high for both states, with both fearing they could lose at least $1 billion in annual economic activity, scores of jobs and support industries that typically blossom around the massive carrier.

The carrier will be commissioned on Jan. 10, 2009, a mere 10 days before President George W. Bush, the namesake’s other well-known son, leaves the White House. 

“I hope the president does not get tied around the fact that his brother is former governor,” said outgoing Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who as the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee put the new carrier’s name into law.

But Warner and the state’s other senator, Jim Webb (D), oppose the carrier’s move to Mayport, a naval station not designed to house nuclear carriers. That could require an investment of upwards of $500 million to prepare the station for the Bush carrier, the senators argue.

The Florida delegation argues the cost would be lower, while Virginia’s warns that the cost could escalate. 

“It is a very costly thing to put in all the infrastructure to take the big carrier,” Warner told The Hill. “At any one time in Virginia there is only one carrier, maybe at most two for a period, so there is more than adequate infrastructure to take care of it. So why do we have to duplicate it in Florida?”

But Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Warner’s and Webb’s colleague on the Armed Services panel, is convinced that Jacksonville will house the carrier as a measure of national security: dispersing the carrier fleet along the East Coast.

“I know we will get a carrier,” Nelson said in a short interview. “The testimony that we have received over and over and over [is] that you have to disperse the Atlantic fleet for security purposes.” 

Having too many carriers in one port could create a strategic target for an enemy of the U.S., much like Pearl Harbor, Mayport supporters argue.

Mayport has also recently been designated the home of the 4th Fleet with responsibility over the southern hemisphere. That designation bolsters not only Mayport’s military role but also its chances of getting a nuclear-powered carrier.

Mayport was home to the conventionally powered John F. Kennedy carrier until it was decommissioned last March. To house a nuclear-powered carrier, the base would need special maintenance facilities, road improvements and dredging.

Back To Top

New Imagery At Virginia Beach Park Helps Honor Naval Heritage

(WVEC-TV (VA) 09 MAY 08) ... Mike Gooding

VIRGINIA BEACH -- The Naval Aviation Monument Park underwent big changes that will help people who visit learn a lot more about the history of flight with the Navy.

The Hampton Roads Squadron of the Association of Naval Aviation launched the Naval Aviation Monument Project back in 1997 with the goal of creating a lasting tribute to their profession.

The former fliers wanted the civilian public to get a better feel for the sacrifice and the dedication required to launch flying machines into combat from ships at sea.

The Naval Aviation Monument Park on 25th and Atlantic avenues opened in 2006, and was commissioned and paid for by the Hampton Roads Squadron of the Association of Naval Aviation. Now, the imagery at the park brings the story of Hampton Roads’ rich naval aviation heritage into even sharper focus.

Etched into new marble panels are both the glories and tragedies of what it means to return from war.

“To me, it’s a look back from when my family greeted me,” said retired naval aviator Maury Unger. “So, just wonderful.”

Also new is a salute to Prisoners of War and to those still missing in action. Plus, there is a giant, new mural with a modern-day Super Hornet blasting off the deck of an aircraft carrier, surrounded by Navy planes and helos, old and new.

“When someone asks or commissions us to do a piece of artwork to memorialize this type of work, it’s a real honor,” said artist Jim Smith.

“I just hope there’s a ‘wow’ factor that makes them want to tell other people about it and have other people to come and see the whole memorial and get the whole feeling for what it’s all for,” added artist Sean Donahue.

Retired naval aviator Fred Mitz said the project was “world class” while retired naval aviator Jim Joyner added his opinion that it “exceeded any of our expectations.”

“It just makes me extremely proud of the volunteers that we’ve had,” added retired naval aviator Pete Koch.

To date, the cost of the Naval Aviation Monument Park has been $2 million.  The ANA says the next phase of the project will involve paying tribute to Navy SEALs.

Back To Top

Second Carrier Group Deployed To Gulf As U.S. Approves Plans For Iran Counterstrike
(WORLD TRIBUNE 01 MAY 08)
LONDON — The U.S. military has drafted and won approval for attack plans in response to an Iran attack..

Western diplomatic sources said the U.S. military's Central Command has submitted plans for an air and naval strike on Iran. The sources said the plan envisioned escalating tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against U.S. military assets in the Gulf.

Meanwhile, on April 29, a second American aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, steamed into the Gulf in what officials termed a show of force. They said the U.S. Navy plans to withdraw a carrier group, USS Harry S. Truman, from the region.

"There is tremendous tactical benefit to us to operate the two side-by-side in restricted space," Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday. "We can generate more sorties, some of them strike, some of them reconnaissance, some of them to perform other operations."

"This is not some grand scheme to destroy the Iranian regime and its nuclear program," a source said. "It is a practical plan on how to respond to an Iranian strike or a provocation."

Officials said the Defense Department has sought an update for plans to attack Iran amid what they term its "increasingly hostile role" against the United States. The officials cited the weapons flow to insurgency groups in Iraq as well as confrontations with U.S. ships in the Gulf.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our navy and our air force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said.

Under the plan approved by the Defense Department, Central Command would be allowed to retaliate for an Iranian attack with U.S. air strikes. The sources said the plan contained a series of options that range from a limited to full-scale attack.

"We are not taking any military elements off the table," Mullen said.

The most comprehensive retaliation would target all Iranian military assets in the Gulf. The sources said the aim of Central Command was to prevent any Iranian attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz, the passage of 40 percent of global oil.

In the second stage, the U.S. Navy and Air Force would strike missile centers and command and control facilities deep in Iran. Much of the strikes would be conducted from the two U.S. Navy carrier strike groups in the Gulf.

If the second stage of the plan is implemented, the sources said, the U.S. military would also target Iran's nuclear weapons program. The sources said all major facilities, including Arak, Bushehr and Isfahan, would be destroyed.

The sources said the Pentagon has not approved a Centcom option to initiate a U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear program. They said that at this point the Pentagon was concern with protecting the huge U.S. Navy presence in the Gulf.

"I believe recent events, especially the Basra operation, have revealed just how much and just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability," Mullen said.
Back To Top

Boeing Presses Congress To Have Navy Buy More Super Hornets
(CONGRESS DAILY 29 APR 08) ... Megan Scully
The Navy is facing a strike-fighter shortfall and Boeing Co. officials believe they have the answer to the service's problems: Buy dozens more of the proven F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

Despite no formal request from the Navy for more Super Hornets than they now plan to buy, the Chicago-based aerospace firm has been lobbying Congress to give service leaders the option to buy more of the fighters at a reduced price.

Doing so, Boeing officials say, will help the Navy avert the shortfall in its carrier-based fleet of strike fighters that the service expects to peak in 2017 at 69 aircraft and continue until Lockheed Martin's F-35C Joint Strike Fighter comes fully online in 2025.

Bob Gower, vice president of Boeing's F/A-18 programs, said that the company does not want to stand in the way of the Navy's purchases of the F-35C. The decision, he emphasized, isn't an "either/or" scenario.

But with the Pentagon's ever-increasing procurement budgets expected to flatten or even decline, Boeing's efforts could potentially set up a clash with F-35 advocates who fiercely guard that program's budget.

"The budget isn't going to grow, so this is coming out of the same pot of limited strike-fighter funding," said Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft analyst at the Teal Group.

The debate over the Navy's arsenal of strike fighters will almost certainly play out this week when the Senate Armed Services Committee marks up the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill.

Boeing officials hope the panel adds language in the Pentagon policy bill that would allow the Navy to pursue a third multiyear contract for Super Hornets to begin in fiscal 2010 and last through fiscal 2013. A multiyear agreement would allow the Navy to sign a long-term contract for a fixed price, providing stability for Boeing and reduced prices for the Navy.

Although not necessary this year, congressional approval of a multiyear pact in the fiscal 2009 bill would allow Boeing and the Navy to maximize savings by redesigning parts and otherwise cutting costs, Gower said.

The Navy already plans to buy 89 Super Hornets through the traditional procurement process after the current multiyear contract expires. But Boeing has given the Navy an unsolicited offer for 170 aircraft at $49.9 million apiece - a 7 to 10 percent cost savings per aircraft, Gower said.

Several lawmakers, including Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin and House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, have raised concerns about the shortfall. Others, especially lawmakers representing areas with Boeing manufacturing plants, have suggested that buying more Super Hornets may be the best solution to bridging the fighter gap.

The Super Hornet "is under budget, on time, and it has been a great aircraft for its purpose," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said at a Feb. 28 Armed Services hearing. "And, frankly, having a few more of them around during this transition period of time, I think is not something that we should shy away from, particularly realizing the gap that's coming."

An aide to House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ranking member Todd Akin, R-Mo., said the St. Louis congressman is weighing all options, including buying more Super Hornets.

But Boeing could encounter several procedural hurdles, not the least of which is stricter language in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill governing multiyear procurements. Lawmakers have been concerned these deals hinder congressional oversight and obligate future Congresses to pay for the programs.

The fiscal 2008 bill also states that multiyear contracts should yield a 10 percent cost savings. Multiyear proposals offering smaller savings "should only be considered if the [Defense] Department presents an exceptionally strong case," according to the conference report.

Meanwhile, the Navy will not complete a comprehensive assessment on the state of its current F/A-18 inventory until early this summer - well after the House and Senate panels mark up the fiscal 2009 bill. The analysis will provide more details on the impact and extent of the shortfall.

The Navy believes it can eek out 10,000 flying hours on its older Hornets, the precursor to the Super Hornets, a service spokesman said. Those aircraft initially were designed to fly for 6,000 hours, but later underwent overhauls to keep them flying for 8,000 hours.

But Gower said breathing new life into the older aircraft would require time-consuming and expensive maintenance and repairs. "That's part of the tradeoff they'll have to make as they go through the analysis," he added.

For its part, Lockheed Martin says it could accelerate the Navy's purchases of the JSF, but declined to provide details of how it would do so.

"Capacity does exist in the current program of record to increase procurement quantities in earlier production lots if the Department of the Navy decided to make that adjustment," Lockheed Martin officials said in an e-mail.
Back To Top

Camden and Currituck Counties Oppose The Navy Outlying Landing Field
(WAVY TV 10 NORFOLK 28 APR 08)
NEWS RELEASE: The following information was released by the Currituck Co. Board of Commissioners

Currituck County, NC (April 28, 2008) - The Camden and Currituck county boards of commissioners publicly announce their opposition to the proposed U.S. Navy Outlying Landing Field (OLF).

"We support the Navy, but we do not want the OLF in Camden County," said Gene Gregory, vice chairman of the Currituck County Board of Commissioners. "This airfield would devastate the agricultural industry, economy and quality of life of the county."

Camden and Currituck counties are home to valuable North Carolina farmland and have economies that are dependent on the agricultural industry. The proposed airfield could condemn 26,000 acres and an additional 25,000 acres would be bound by agricultural restrictions. The use of this land as an OLF would also remove it from both county tax bases.

"With all benefits going to Virginia, both Currituck and Camden counties would experience tremendous economic loss," said Gregory. "It is our recommendation that the OLF be located in Virginia"

The location currently being considered by the Navy for this facility also poses a public safety risk to county residents. The site at Hale's Lake has a natural presence of peat bogs that creates a unique environmental hazard. By nature, peat bogs are susceptible to catching fire spontaneously and could create a significant fire risk if combined with the OLF.

In May, the boards plan to hold a public meeting to address concerns of the OLF. Earlier this year, the Navy scratched plans to locate the OLF in Washington County following strong opposition from residents and local government.
Back To Top

Russian Navy To Create Aircraft Carrier Groups
(ALL HEADLINE NEWS 05 APR 08) ... Jupiter Kalambakal
Moscow , Russia - The Russian military disclosed Friday it is developing a new naval strategy centered on the creation of aircraft carrier joint task groups.

In a news conference, Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky told local press that the military should focus on building integrated systems instead of separately building combat ships, aircraft or spacecraft. He added that the navy is planning to build five or six naval aircraft carrier groups by 2050-2060.

These joint task groups, he told Russia 's Novosti news agency, will be made up of combat ships, various aircraft, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), satellites and submarines.

The construction of new aircraft carriers is expected to begin in 2012-2013. Vysotsky further said that the existence of these joint task groups will increase the combat effectiveness of the Navy by 60 percent, and in some respects up to 300 percent.

Novosti reported that at present, Russia has only one operational aircraft carrier, the Nikolai Kuznetsov, which was commissioned in the early 1990s.
Back To Top

Russia To Have 5-6 Aircraft Carriers By 2060 - Navy Commander
(RIA NOVOSTI (RUSSIA) 04 APR 08 )
MOSCOW- Russia is developing a new naval strategy which envisions the creation of 5-6 aircraft carrier joint task groups by 2050-2060, the Navy commander said on Friday.

"We should not separately build combat ships, aircraft or spacecraft - everything must work as an integrated system," Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky told a news conference in Moscow. "This applies to aircraft carriers as well. We are planning to build five or six naval aircraft carrier groups."

These joint task groups will comprise combat ships, various aircraft, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), satellites and submarines.

"The existence of these joint task groups will increase the combat effectiveness of the Navy by 60%, and in some respects up to 300%," Vysotsky said.

The construction of new aircraft carriers is expected to begin in 2012-2013.

At present, Russia has only one operational aircraft carrier, the Nikolai Kuznetsov, which was commissioned in the early 1990s and has recently re-entered service after a prolonged overhaul.

The ship, also known as Project 1143.5 heavy aircraft carrier, is capable of carrying up to 26 fixed-wing fighters and 24 helicopters.

The Nikolai Kuznetsov is currently deployed with Russia's Northern Fleet and has recently participated in a two-month tour to the Mediterranean as part of Russia's plans to resume its continual presence in different regions of the world's seas.
Back To Top

DefenseLink News Release:  Flag Officer Announcements
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced today that the President has made the following nominations:               
       Navy Capt. Douglass T. Biesel has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Biesel is currently serving as director, platforms, manpower policy and budget, N871, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.              
      Navy Capt. Barry L. Bruner has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Bruner is currently serving as chief of staff, Carrier Strike Group Five, Yokosuka, Japan.              
      Navy Capt. Jerry K. Burroughs has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Burroughs is currently serving as major program manager for special operating forces and undersea mobility, Program Executive Office for Submarines, Washington, D.C.                 
      Navy Capt. James D. Cloyd has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Cloyd is currently serving as special assistant to the Commander, Naval Air Forces, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, Va.                
      Navy Capt. Cynthia A. Covell has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Covell is currently serving as the executive assistant to the assistant secretary of the Navy (manpower and reserve affairs), Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.              
      Navy Capt. Thomas A. Cropper has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Cropper is currently serving as deputy director for operations and plans, N31B, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.              
     Navy Capt. Dennis E. Fitzpatrick has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Fitzpatrick is currently serving as head, Fleet Warfare Requirements and Program Planning Division, N80, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Va.               
     Navy Capt. Michael T. Franken has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Franken is currently serving as chief of staff, Third Fleet, San Diego, Calif.        Navy Capt. Donald E. Gaddis has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Gaddis is currently serving as the program manager for presidential helicopters, Program Executive Office for Aviation, Patuxent River, Md.              
       Navy Capt. Bradley R. Gehrke has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Gehrke is currently serving as chief of staff, Submarine Group Seven, Yokosuka, Japan.              
      Navy Capt. Robert P. Girrier has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Girrier is currently serving as executive assistant to the commander, Allied Joint Forces Command, Naples, Italy.               
      Navy Capt. Paul A. Grosklags has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Grosklags is currently serving as major program manager for H-60 programs, Program Executive Office for Aviation, Patuxent River, Md.              
      Navy Capt. Sinclair M. Harris has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Harris is currently serving as assistant deputy director for international affairs and military affairs, J5, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.              
      Navy Capt. Norman R. Hayes has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Hayes is currently serving as the commander for Center of Naval Intelligence, Virginia Beach, Va.               
      Navy Capt. David C. Johnson has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Johnson is currently serving as the major program manager for Virginia (SSN 774) class submarine programs, Program Executive Office for Submarines, Washington, D.C.              
      Navy Capt. Margaret D. Klein has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Klein is currently serving as commandant, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.              
      Navy Capt. Terry B. Kraft has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Kraft is currently serving as commanding officer, the USS Ronald Reagan, San Diego, Calif.              
      Navy Capt. William E. Leigher has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Leigher is currently serving as commanding officer, Fleet Information Warfare Center, Norfolk, Va.              
      Navy Capt. Patrick J. Lorge has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Lorge is currently serving as chief of staff, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, Bahrain.              
      Navy Capt. Brian L. Losey has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Losey is currently serving as director, combating terrorism, National Security Council, Washington, D.C.              
      Navy Capt. Michael E. McLaughlin has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). McLaughlin is currently serving as chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command Special Activities Atlantic, Norfolk, Va.              
      Navy Capt. Thomas J. Moore has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Moore is currently serving as the major program manager for aircraft carriers, Program Executive Office for Carriers, Washington, D.C.              
      Navy Capt. William F. Moran has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Moran is currently serving as executive assistant to the chief of naval operations, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.              
     Navy Capt. Samuel Perez Jr., has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Perez is currently serving as assistant deputy director for regional operations, J3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.              
     Navy Capt. James J. Shannon has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower Half). Shannon is currently serving as executive assistant to the assistant secretary of the Navy (research, development and acquisition), Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.              
      Navy Capt. Clifford S. Sharpe has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Sharpe is currently serving as division director for the surface warfare officer career management division, PERS 41, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, Tenn.         Navy Capt. Troy M. Shoemaker has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Shoemaker is currently serving as executive assistant to the commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.              
      Navy Capt. Dixon R. Smith has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Smith is currently serving as commanding officer, Naval Base San Diego, San Diego, Calif.               
       Navy Capt. Robert L. Thomas Jr., has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Thomas is currently serving as director, training and readiness, N3/N5, Naval Special Warfare Command, San Diego, Calif.              
       Navy Capt. Douglas J. Venlet has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Venlet is currently serving as deputy director, Maritime Security Cooperation Division, N52B, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C.          Navy Capt. Maude E. Young has been nominated for appointment to the rank of rear admiral (lower half). Young is currently serving as the major program manager for National Reconnaissance Office and National Remote Sensing System, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Space Field Activity, Chantilly, Va.
Back To Top

Navy Wants F-35C, Maybe More Super Hornets
Although the biggest problem facing U.S. Navy aviation is the looming shortage of strike fighters, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead says he is not tempted to sacrifice the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter - specialized for carrier operations - which congressional researchers say is running into projected cost increases and schedule delays.

"The issue I deal with... is the shortfall I'm going to face in 2016," Roughead said Tuesday morning in Washington. "It begins to set in then as some of the earlier Hornets age out. We predict for the Navy [that it] will bottom at about 69 aircraft. That's something we're going to have to look at in the fiscal 2010 budget."

But the CNO says he won't sacrifice the carrier-version of the JSF even if it is delayed.

"How do we mitigate that [strike fighter shortage]? I don't see a skip over F-35C," Roughead says. The option, proposed by Boeing, of buying more, additionally upgraded F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to fill the gap "is something we'll just have to take a look at. Those are things that we're going to have to focus on [in the next budget]."

But aerospace industry officials contend the Navy's current figures for the strike fighter shortfall are only about one-third of the actual numbers that will be released in a new report due out in June. They contend the real shortage will be about 200 aircraft (Aerospace DAILY, March 19).

"There are a couple of numbers," Roughead agrees. "When I say 69, that's the Navy shortfall. When we bring the Marines in, that goes up. If 200 or so has been predicted, I've not seen that number. Right now, the information I have is 69."

Roughead is adamant about not providing his new EA-18G Growlers to add airborne electronic attack capabilities to the Expeditionary Air Forces once his elderly EA-6B are withdrawn from that U.S. Air Force mission in 2012.

"We've sized the Growler purchase to provide for our carrier air wings. The Air Force is to pick up the standoff jammer. I think that is the plan that has to be pursued."

But Air Force officials, failing twice to produce a B-52 Stand Off Jammer program, acknowledge they will not meet the deadline.

"The Navy is going to be out of the EA-6B business," says Navy Capt. Steve Kochman, manager of the EA-6B program. "There are ways the [Air Force need] can be filled, [but] I'm not endorsing any of them." So, for now the program of record has the Navy stepping out of the Air Force mission with no replacement in sight. "Something will have to be worked out," he says.

"If you begin to pull Growlers off carriers, that means you are leaving an electronic attack capability gap for our air wings. Our program has us buying to the carrier requirement and I look to the Air Force to build the standoff jamming capability.

"I tend to be an effects guy, so however you can suppress and negate an adversary's capability [including the use of unmanned aircraft], I'm open [to that]," he says. "But what I'm providing for is the electronic attack associated with my carrier airplanes."

In fact, Navy plans already include more unmanned aircraft.

"I believe as we look to monitor the maritime environment, unmanned aircraft are well suited for broad area surveillance working in conjunction with our new P-8A aircraft," Roughead says. "That's a combination I find very attractive."

It also may help meet another Navy shortage. "Another issue we're facing in the current operational environment is the fact that we've had to ground a significant number of P-3s because of some cracking."  
Back To Top                                       

Lemoore Plan Faces Resistance
Most At Meeting Against New Homes Near Base
(FRESNO BEE (CA) 24 MAR 08)

LEMOORE -- An overwhelming number of people who attended Monday's Lemoore Planning Commission meeting spoke in opposition to the city's proposed 2030 general plan, which calls for some homes to sit directly beneath an established flight path east of Lemoore Naval Air Station.

For the second time in a month, commissioners delayed their recommendations on the general plan after four hours of public comment and a flyover of two Super Hornets at Lemoore's West Hills Community College campus.

Discussion will continue at the commission's next meeting April 14.

As the jets soared 1,600 feet above the ground, voices were drowned out by the aircraft for at least 30 seconds.

"See, the jets are already getting pretty noisy and they're not even over us yet," said Lemoore resident Richard Plummer, who is opposed to the general plan.

Lou Martinez of Hanford also attended the flyover. He said, "That was pretty loud. I wouldn't want to live here."

Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the Lemoore air station, said before the meeting began that it was important to provide commissioners a better understanding of the noise level with jets flying in the exact flight path and altitude.

"People talk about the noise level ... and we just wanted to provide an objective 'Here it is and this is what it sounds like,' " McGrath said.

Commissioners said Monday the decision is not an easy one. Their decision to recommend or modify the general plan will go to the City Council, which will make a final decision.

"Somebody's going to be upset and somebody's going to be happy," said Kimberly Moss, chairwoman of the commission, during the meeting. "I think we're doing the best we can with the information we have."  Commissioner Lisa Elgin opposed the plan to build home west of Highway 41. "I think building residential homes out there is absolutely irresponsible," she said, adding that residents in the area would be in a flood zone and give up legal rights to sue over noise issues.

The city's environmental impact report -- which was approved by commissioners at a March 10 public hearing -- projects about 23% of the 7,000 new residents would be exposed to noise levels that would be expected to cause residents to be "highly annoyed."

The proposal has met repeated objections by the Navy. Officials have contended that if residential areas are built under a flight path, the Navy could face lawsuits or be forced to make changes to current flight operations because of complaints about noise levels from residents.

The air station was built in 1961 seven miles west of downtown Lemoore and houses the West Coast fleet of fighter jets.

City officials said they have worked hard to mitigate noise by reducing the number of homes close to where most of the noise would occur and requiring extra insulation in homes.

Complicating the issue is the city's 1997 annexation of land reaching toward the air station. The Lemoore campus of West Hills College opened shortly after the annexation and now a developer is working to build 350 homes just north and west of campus.

City officials said the Navy stayed silent and did not make any objections at the time.

"If we didn't build the college out there and we didn't have an existing subdivision ... it would be easy to say, 'OK, let's go in a different direction," Holly Smyth, Lemoore's planning director, said before the meeting.

But several community members told commissioners it isn't too late to reverse the decision made more than 10 years ago.

William Bowen, a Navy veteran, was one of them. Bowen was a member of the Planning Commission that approved the annexation. He said he approved the plan at the time because there were no objections and he wanted a community college in the area.

"I can accept my part of the blame," Bowen said. "We didn't know this was going to be a big deal."
Back To Top

US Navy Pledges More Money For Cleanup Of Island Near Puerto Rico
(ASSOCIATED PRESS 26 MAR 08)

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico: The U.S. Navy has set aside US$200 million (€129 million) for the removal of military waste in Vieques island, just east of Puerto Rico's main island, authorities announced Tuesday.

The money will be used in the next seven years to remove explosives in the island's eastern region, the site of most previous military training exercises, said Richard Mach, with the Navy's environment office.

More than 9,000 acres (3,600 hectares) of the almost 23,000 acres (9,300 hectares) that the Navy occupied for several decades will be scanned for contaminants, he said.

The Navy previously used Vieques as its main Atlantic training site, combining air, sea and land maneuvers. It ended them in 2003 following years of local protests after an errant bomb killed a civilian guard.

About 775 acres (315 hectares) have been cleared since the cleanup began in 2005, with officials uncovering nearly 15,000 live munitions and recycling about 1,900 tons (1,724 metric tons) of scrap.
Back To Top