Letter from the Hampton Roads Military Affairs Commission
March 9, 2010

The Honorable Raymond E. Mabus, Jr. Admiral Gary Roughead, USN
Secretary of the U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations
1000 Navy Pentagon 2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-1000 Washington, DC 20350-2000

Dear Secretary Mabus and Admiral Roughead:

We are the Hampton Roads Military Affairs Commission, a newly formed group from Virginia’s Hampton Roads area, one of the largest military areas in the world. Our more than 30 members are experts and leaders in their respective fields, including elected officials, retired military officers and business leaders. In today’s fiscal environment, we recognize that you encounter difficult tradeoffs as you seek to balance competing priorities and ensure necessary funding for aircraft procurement, building and maintaining our naval fleet, military construction, and taking care of our sailors. Like you, we fully support the Navy’s goal to build a fleet of no fewer than 313 ships.

We care deeply about national security and the future of our Navy. For this reason, we write today regarding the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and its recommendation to construct facilities to support homeporting a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport. We respectfully request that you provide us with a business-case analysis that objectively addresses the financial and operational tradeoffs of this proposal, as well as the threat assessment that warrants such an undertaking. We believe a more comprehensive public accounting is necessary before any change in East Coast homeporting is considered. We hope you will provide answers to our questions in the following areas:

Creating a CVN homeport at NAVSTA Mayport is estimated to cost between $600 million and $1 billion when all one-time and recurring annual costs are calculated. In the current economic climate and with today’s high operating tempo, the Navy has numerous unfunded priorities. If the cost of homeporting is $600 million to $1 billion, what specific elements of current year and out-year projects will be decremented from the budget to provide the money?”
There is a pressing need for a more comprehensive strategic-risk assessment. The DoD has extensive capabilities to quantify risk and empirically evaluate the trade-offs and cost-benefit factors associated with any major investment. With respect to the proposed carrier homeport at NAVSTA Mayport, we have yet to learn of a strategic assessment or rigorous risk-based analysis that would identify the specific reasons for executing what is potentially a $1 billion decision. To date, in seeking to justify this project, the Navy has said that the risk that a catastrophic event could close Hampton Roads is “low.”

The phrase “strategic dispersal” has been used by many as an intuitive argument to justify the creation of an additional East Coast homeport for a CVN. However, we are concerned this argument also creates a slippery slope akin to a “reverse BRAC”. Under Secretary for Policy Michelle Flournoy, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, recently said that the logic of strategic dispersal also applies to other singularly based assets and infrastructure, to include fleet ballistic missile submarines. The immense cost and time of carrying out this additional dispersal would be extraordinary. What specific guidance has the Navy received, if any, to provide for strategic dispersal of any high value assets and infrastructure (carriers, subs, facilities)? Would this dispersal philosophy apply to other critical infrastructure such as the Pentagon or the U.S. Capitol?

Even with one less CVN, NAVSTA Norfolk would remain the world’s largest Naval Station and should be protected as such. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent since 9/11 to improve port and base security in the Hampton Roads region. What security improvements are required in Mayport to accommodate a CVN and at what cost? Secondly, the Navy has cited the concern over possible blockage (either by natural or manmade causes) of the Norfolk channel. If harbor blockage of current CVN ports is considered a risk, are there any plans to mitigate the risk?

Significant increases in personnel, both military and federal employees, will be required to accommodate a new CVN homeport. Have the corresponding billets been identified for funding? What is the manning increase required for 2013 and 2014 when the CVN is scheduled to be home ported at Mayport? What is the overall manning plan for the CVN move? Specifically, is there a plan detailing the station manning and the requirement for temporary additional duty (TAD) sailors? What is this recurring cost? What is the impact of such temporary assignments on the ability to support remaining CVN activities at Norfolk and what will the quality of life impact be on sailors and shipyard workers who will be away from home for additional periods of time if a CVN is homeported at NAVSTA Mayport?

When the USS Kennedy (CV 67) left NAVSTA Mayport in 2007, much of the existing carrier-support infrastructure was decommissioned. If creating a new CVN homeport is of strategic importance, as some have indicated, why would the Navy decommission existing support infrastructure at Mayport only to rebuild much of it a few years later? What specific capabilities must be re-established and at what cost?

Precisely what CVN maintenance will be supported at NAVSTA Mayport after all facilities have been constructed? How often and for how long will the Navy need to return the CVN to Norfolk for maintenance availabilities that are beyond the capability of fly-away teams?

The Navy’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) proposes building nuclear propulsion repair facilities, but there is no mention of conventional requirements such as catapult and arresting gear maintenance. What conventional maintenance will be done by the maintenance personnel at NAVSTA Mayport?

While the FEIS addressed possible local economic impacts at Mayport, why did the FEIS neglect a corresponding socio-economic evaluation of Norfolk? With the decommissioning of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) and a follow-on change in homeport for another Norfolk-based carrier to Mayport, why didn’t the FEIS evaluate the negative impact on Norfolk’s local housing market, schools, jobs, and small businesses?

Thank you for taking the time to look into these queries. We commend you for your leadership. As this process evolves, we look forward to developing a better dialogue to ensure the concerns and issues we have identified are addressed in a timely, responsive way.

The Commission’s point of contact is John Panneton, Military Liaison for Congressman Glenn Nye, who can be reached at 757-326-6201, or 4772 Euclid Road, Suite E, Virginia Beach, VA 23462.

Sincerely,

Congressman Glenn Nye
Senator Jim Webb
Senator Mark Warner
Congressman Randy Forbes
Congressman Bobby Scott
Congressman Rob Wittman
Congressman Owen Pickett, Former Member of Congress
Governor Robert McDonnell, Governor of Virginia
Senator Frank Wagner
Senator Ralph Northam
Delegate Matthew James
Delegate Paula Miller
Will Sessoms, Mayor of Virginia Beach, VA
Paul Fraim, Mayor of Norfolk, VA
Molly Ward, Mayor of Hampton, VA
Joe Franks, Mayor of Newport News, VA
Vice Admiral Joe Donnell, USN Ret.
Rear Admiral Fred Metz, USN Ret.
Rear Admiral Phil Olson, USN Ret.
Captain Roger Whiteway, USN Ret.
Major General Jon Gallinetti, USMC Ret.
Rear Admiral Tom Steffens, USN Ret.
Vice Admiral Dick Dunleavy, USN Ret., Chairman, Military Economic Development Advisory Committee (MEDAC)
Read Admiral Ray Taylor USN Ret., President, Future Hampton Roads
Frank Roberts, Executive Director, Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance (HRMFAA)
Cam Ingram, President, Hampton Roads Navy League
Gary Cox and Mike Barrett, Virginia Beach VISIONS
Mark Mansfield, Chief, Planning & Policy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dana Dickens, President & CEO of the Hampton Roads Partnership
Dr. L.B. McCluney, Academic Dean, Joint Forces Staff College National Defense University
Ira Agricola, Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce
Barry Bishop, Executive Vice President Greater Norfolk Corporation
Luke Hiller, CEO, ADS Tactical

Cc: Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Cc: Admiral John Harvey, Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command

Washington, DC –With the Navy still refusing to answer questions about the strategic rationale behind moving a nuclear aircraft carrier out of Norfolk, Congressman Glenn Nye (VA-02) announced today that he will call a meeting of the Hampton Roads Military Affairs Commission next Monday to discuss the issue.

“This is the third hearing in a row in which the Navy has flatly refused to provide any risk-based justification for creating a redundant East Coast carrier homeport, and it’s becoming clear that they simply don’t have one,” said Congressman Glenn Nye. “I have called a meeting of the Hampton Roads Military Affairs Commission to ask the tough questions about this decision that the Navy has been unwilling to address. Our defense spending needs to be based on real strategic assessments, not judgment calls or old clichés like ‘keeping all your eggs in one basket.’”

Read more at http://nye.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&itemid=369

By Bill Bartel
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 2, 2010

Defense officials made clear Monday they’re backing the Navy’s desire to relocate a Norfolk-based aircraft carrier to Mayport, Fla.

Whether the Navy is successful may come down to a nasty fight in Congress, say some Virginia legislators, who argue the military hasn’t provided any solid research to justify the relocation.

“This is not a done deal,” U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said Monday. “I would be curious to see where the Navy believes that it can take a billion dollars away from shipbuilding, weapons procurement, ship maintenance and repair, and building a fleet in order to construct an alternate port which, on all accounts, doesn’t seem to be needed.”

The Defense Department released Monday its four-year review of defense strategy, which promotes the carrier move. The Quadrennial Defense Review declares: “To mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack, accident, or natural disaster, the U.S. Navy will homeport an East Coast carrier in Mayport, Florida.”

All five nuclear carriers on the East Coast are currently based in Norfolk.

Top Navy officials have been pushing the move for a couple of years, arguing that it is dangerous to keep all the East Coast carriers in a single location.

Several Virginia members of Congress said Monday that despite the Navy’s claim that Hampton Roads carries a higher risk of terrorist attack, accident or disaster, the military has not provided any classified or unclassified analysis to back their statement.

“What we have constantly come back to is the realization from almost every independent analysis that this is a poor decision by the Navy – if not a scandalous decision,” said U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-4th District, which includes Portsmouth and Chesapeake.

Moving a carrier will be driven by “pure political clout,” said Forbes, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “I was in the White House when President Bush looked over to the Florida delegation and said, ‘We’re going to get you that carrier.’… It’s been carried on to this administration.”

What Norfolk loses and Florida gains from a carrier move was enthusiastically explained Monday by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

“The economic impact is going to be terrific,” Nelson said during a Florida media briefing. “You think about a carrier is a flagship of a carrier battle group. This then will likely enable us to have additional ships that will be homeported here…. Just the carrier itself with a half-a-billion dollars of construction, 4,000 sailors, their families and all the attendant businesses that go along with that is a huge economic shot in the arm for Jacksonville.”

Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce officials have said losing a carrier would cost the region 11,000 jobs and $650 million.

Given the recession, said U.S. Rep. Glenn Nye, D-2nd District, which includes Virginia Beach and part of Norfolk, the state’s delegation will press the Navy to explain how it can afford the Mayport project “particularly at a time when we’ve seen the administration propose the smallest pay increase for our armed forces in many decades.”

Nye said he has asked the Government Accountability Office to examine the relocation effort.

The next step in the process is congressional hearings, which begin today when the defense budget and the four-year review are taken up by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Webb, who serves on the Senate panel, anticipates asking about the Mayport project, Jessica Smith, his spokeswoman, said.

Blocking movement of a carrier will be difficult, Forbes said.

“I think we keep having to pound away that this is a terrible decision and where are they gong to get the money,” he said. “I think it’s going to come down to raw power.”

Bill Bartel, (757) 446-2398, bill.bartel@pilotonline.com

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/02/quadrennial-review-says-navy-will-base-carrier-florida