US Navy wants to homeport carrier in Hawaii or Guam

[[email protected]]

That's what the below article says. Looks like the Navy is leaning
towards Hawaii. That means the Airwing would have to move also.
Let's see..The Navy wants to move another carrier to be foward
deployed..Ok ..but at the same time decommission the JFK..According
to this article the east coast carriers would be responsible for the
majority of the deployments to the Persian Gulf. Simply because of the
distance traveled....Let's see what happens!!

Gerry Hamm USN/retired

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Navy pushing for addition of second aircraft carrier in Pacific
Hawaii favored as home base; Guam also considered

By Jon R. Anderson, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, March 31, 2005

ARLINGTON, Va. - The Navy wants to base a second carrier in the
Western Pacific - either in Guam or Hawaii - but debate remains on
when, or even if, that will happen, said one of the Navy's top
leaders at the Pentagon.

"The discussion has been about Hawaii and Guam, but it has centered
principally on Hawaii," Vice Adm. Joseph Sestak, the deputy chief of
naval operations for warfare requirements and programs, told
reporters Tuesday.

"The specifics of that are interesting, in that the ability to be in
the Western Pacific like we are in Japan gives us speed and
response," said Sestak. Stationed in Yokosuka, the USS Kitty Hawk is
currently the Navy's only carrier based overseas.

"The issue now has to continue to be worked, but there is a
commitment to look at putting another one out there."

Clarifying Sestak's comments, an aide added, "The Navy has decided
that it wants a second carrier homeported overseas, but the final
decision on if that will happen and then where it will go will
happen through the Quadrennial Defense Review."

The review, which is mandated by Congress every four years, is the
Pentagon's top-to-bottom scrub of the long-term roles, missions,
manning, programs and posture of the four services. The QDR, which
is just getting started, is due to be wrapped up later this year.

Going into the effort, Sestak said officials are leaning toward
Hawaii over Guam as the likely choice for the home of a second
forward-based carrier.

"I think they both - in the studies that were done - portended
advantages, but we are very familiar with Hawaii," said Sestak. "I
think Hawaii always lent itself to have a fairly well-settled
infrastructure."

Guam, on the other hand, is closer to potential hot spots such as
the Koreas, the Taiwan Strait and the Middle East.

Still, he added, most of the Navy's carrier presence in the Middle
East would likely come from the Atlantic-based fleet.

"A lot of it can come from the Atlantic side," said Sestak. "If you
look at the distances by which you have to travel back and forth,
it's a long deployment to go to the CENTCOM (Area of Operations)
from the Western Pacific."

The debate on a second forward-deployed carrier comes even as the
Navy is wrestling with how it will continue to maintain a carrier in
Japan while also downsizing from a 12-carrier fleet to 11 flattops.

Service plans call for decommissioning both the Kitty Hawk and John
F. Kennedy, the Navy's last two conventionally powered carriers, in
the coming years.

Officials hope to swap out the Kitty Hawk with a nuclear-powered
replacement but are keeping their options open because of Japanese
concerns over nuclear power.

"We're going to mothball the Kennedy," Navy Secretary Gordon England
told reporters recently, but he added, "if you need the Kennedy to go
to Japan we can always make the Kennedy available."

Meanwhile, maintaining forces that are immediately available -
either forward-based or able to surge forward quickly - will be the
hallmark of the Navy's strategy to make up the difference in fewer
carriers, said Sestak.

"If you don't have the speed to get to the conflict when you really
need to be there, you're interesting, but irrelevant," said Sestak

[Dave Morris]

> Navy pushing for addition of second aircraft carrier in Pacific
> Hawaii favored as home base; Guam also considered

I'm in Hawaii, just got out of the Nav after 6 yrs when they wouldn't let me
stay here. They've been talking about this as long as I've been here (4.5
yrs). The biggest conflict I've heard is the fact that they sold Barber's
Point to the state, Ford Island is housing, and K-Bay can't handle a whole
carrier wing.

What is the point of having a carrier forward deployed without an airbase to
supply her planes?

Do you know any more to this story? I know that it would mean approximately
30,000+ new people where ever she goes (families, support activities, etc.)

[[email protected]]

Dave since you are in Hawaii I guess you have your pulse on the
situation...somewhat. I you sure that the Navy sold Barbers Pt. to the
state? I was wondering about that myself..Anyway I have a friend on
active duty in Hawaii that wrote me this about the whole situation
there..

""In reference to a CVN in Guam or Hawaii, I personally think Hawaii is
the better choice. It's easy to provide security to the ships, the
infrastructure(primarily for nuclear work) is in place, there are at
least two piers already sturdy enough and long enough (K-10, B-22
through 26, for those who may have been here at some point). The piers
are all being upgraded/rebuilt (yes, still original WW2 piping etc). It
appears, just from observing from the deckplates (call them deckplate
rumors, to be honest), that a carrier is coming to Hawaii. The Kilo
piers are being strengthened beyond a purely supply ship requirement,
rehab work at the former NAS Barber's point has just started in a big
way on the hangers there, and there are rumors that the military
housing at Iroquois Point and Barber's Point (currently
civilian/military) will be reverting purely back to military. To me,
these rumors account for the housing and air wing issues. Again, just
rumors from what I observe here"".

[Mike Kanze]

Dave,

>The biggest conflict I've heard is the fact that they sold Barber's Point
>to the state, Ford Island is housing, and K-Bay can't handle a whole
>carrier wing.

I'm not sure the Air Wing needs to stay in the Hawaiians with the boat. It
might work as well for the Air Wing to stay on the mainland, with its
training opportunities like NAS Fallon not available in the Hawaiians. This
is different from being forward-deployed to Japan and having access to
Misawa, etc.

Another option might be for the Air Wing to be forward-deployed elsewhere in
the Pacific basin: Japan or Guam, if space permits. They could pick up the
ship in transit from Hawaii to whatever hot spot she's headed.

--
Mike Kanze

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?"

- Lily Tomlin


"Dave Morris" > wrote in message
...
>> Navy pushing for addition of second aircraft carrier in Pacific
>> Hawaii favored as home base; Guam also considered
>
> I'm in Hawaii, just got out of the Nav after 6 yrs when they wouldn't let
> me stay here. They've been talking about this as long as I've been here
> (4.5 yrs). The biggest conflict I've heard is the fact that they sold
> Barber's Point to the state, Ford Island is housing, and K-Bay can't
> handle a whole carrier wing.
>
> What is the point of having a carrier forward deployed without an airbase
> to supply her planes?
>
> Do you know any more to this story? I know that it would mean
> approximately 30,000+ new people where ever she goes (families, support
> activities, etc.)
>

[Dave Morris]

> I you sure that the Navy sold Barbers Pt. to the state?

The old Barber's air strip is now a municipal strip renamed Kalaeloa. I
fly into it whenever I'm practicing touch and go's in a Cessna. The Coast
Guard and the Hawaii National Guard also use it, but they have their own
facilities located on the strip. The Navy originally retained just over
1,000 acres and about 540 housing units on the base. They have a few MWR
facilities such as a golf course, a gym, a bowling alley, a NEX mini-mart,
and a comissary. There are also a very few scattered offices such as CB
maintenence and DRMO, but these are all scattered in between state national
guard facilities.
There is now a youth boot camp program run out there. Some of the land
is being used for horses. Slowly, the land is becoming more privatized
and/or overgrown. The fences and gates are falling down. All of the
housing units and the land under them were sold about a year ago to a
private company that leases to anyone, not just military. Reopening the
base would require displacing these local families. There is talk of
spreading the air wing out over Barber's, Kaneohe MCAS, and Wheeler AAF, but
it mostly comes down to the politics. Hawaii's government realizes that it
would bring jobs and money to the state, but there is also a lot of concern
with the locals about bringing more military to this already crowded island.
If they complain enough, Hawaii's senators won't buy off on it.

> there are at least two piers already sturdy enough and long enough (K-10,
> B-22 through 26)

It is true that they are revamping the piers, Kilo piers would be an
excellent location assuming FISC is willing to give them up permanently.
The bravo piers, on the other hand, would require more than just
strengthening. I believe that it would require making the berths deeper.
It is my understanding that B22-26 are too shallow for an aircraft carrier.
They put the LHA's over there all the time, but their draft is less than
that of DDG or CG (31-33'). CVNs have a draft of 37-42'.

> rehab work at the former NAS Barber's point has just started in a big
> way on the hangers there, and there are rumors that the military
> housing at Iroquois Point and Barber's Point (currently
> civilian/military) will be reverting purely back to military. To me,
> these rumors account for the housing and air wing issues. Again, just
> rumors from what I observe here"".

As for the deckplate rumors about housing and hangars, I don't know
anything specific about either. What I've seen while living in the newly
privatized housing, is that despite a lot of talk about bringing in a
carrier, most of the action on the site is geared toward redevelopment as
private/state-owned lands. If the Navy wants to bring a carrier out here,
they need to make up their minds. If they want that land, they need to get
it back before too many people invest money into it for private use.

[Dave Morris]

> I'm not sure the Air Wing needs to stay in the Hawaiians with the boat. It
> might work as well for the Air Wing to stay on the mainland, with its
> training opportunities like NAS Fallon not available in the Hawaiians.
> This is different from being forward-deployed to Japan and having access
> to Misawa, etc.

As for this option, it wouldn't make any sense. Basing a carrier in
Hawaii puts it outside the range of some of the aircraft it would be
carrying if they were based on the mainland. If the carrier would have to
backtrack, even if she could meet them half-way, what would be the point of
a having the carrier forward deployed in the first place? When traveling
with escorts (not at top speed) it takes a carrier approximately 5-7 days to
reach Hawaii from the west coast and vise versa, basing the aircraft on the
mainland would defeat the purpose of having her forward deployed and surge
ready.

> Another option might be for the Air Wing to be forward-deployed elsewhere
> in the Pacific basin: Japan or Guam, if space permits. They could pick up
> the ship in transit from Hawaii to whatever hot spot she's headed.

This makes a lot of sense. You could even possibly spread the aircraft
squadrons throughout the Pacific (Hawaii, Guam, and possibly Japan). The
only issue with this becomes that of training. In order to do
pre-deployment workups, the aircraft need to be onboard. It may prove
difficult to make rounds out to Guam and Japan to pick everyone up.
Especially because most Hawaii based ships currently do pre-deployment
training between Hawaii and the West Coast. It would only make sense
then to base more escorts in Hawaii, Guam, and Japan and do training in the
Western Pacific instead. We wouldn't exactly be playing in our own backyard
anymore, but on the plus side this would provide greater opportunities to do
international training with our Pacific rim allies (Australia, Japan, s.
Korea, etc.) and provide a stronger "presence" in the Pacfic.

[[email protected]]

Dave ..Excellent post. Very well presented. I honestly think that the
Navy will homeport a carrier in Hawaii. Some sort of arrangement for
housing the Airwing..somewhere..even Hickam AFB may be explored. I
think this {homeporting} will happen as the Chinese ratchet up their
Navy and continue the sabre rattling towards Tiawan and the rest of the
Pacific rim.

Only time will tell what will really happen.

Gerry Hamm USN/retired

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Dave Morris" > wrote:

>> Navy pushing for addition of second aircraft carrier in Pacific
>> Hawaii favored as home base; Guam also considered

>I'm in Hawaii, just got out of the Nav after 6 yrs when they wouldn't let me
>stay here. They've been talking about this as long as I've been here (4.5
>yrs). The biggest conflict I've heard is the fact that they sold Barber's
>Point to the state, Ford Island is housing, and K-Bay can't handle a whole
>carrier wing.
>
>What is the point of having a carrier forward deployed without an airbase to
>supply her planes?

Last I heard, but haven't kept up with it, the USN plans to
locate all of its F/A-18 squadrons on the right coast, so it
means that even for a left coast home-ported carrier, those
squadrons would have to fly to CA, aircraft, equipment and
people, for a CV/CVN deployment. Since you're planning on doing
that, going on to HI is a minor consideration. Few more hours in
the cockpit and probably another AR for the pilots, a few few
more hours in the C-141s for the ground crew, spare pilots, and
the gear. Aren't all Navy EA-6s on the left coast? So they're
already doing it for deployments for right coast CV/CVNs.

Breaks of Naval Air. They've always been sort of gypsies, now
they're going to be a little more gypsy-like. ;->

>Do you know any more to this story? I know that it would mean approximately
>30,000+ new people where ever she goes (families, support activities, etc.)

Well, AIUI the CVW makes up almost half the people on a carrier,
so you can reduce the load caused by their families, support
activities, etc. ;->
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Mike Kanze]

Dave,

>As for this option, it wouldn't make any sense.

Your good points made me realize I had forgotten to include a key
assumption.

Yes, there is a time / distance penalty (compared with a forward deployment
to Japan or Guam), but we already have a boat there. Presumably the Japan
boat would sortie immediately while the Hawaii boat gathered its Air Wing as
expeditiously as it could, and then move out to wherever. Like an Alert 15
backing up an Alert 5.

Now if we also plan to do away with any boat deployed west of Guam I would
be much more inclined to agree with you.

Distance and time certainly matter, but these are also times when the
Japan-based Air Wing deploys to Iwo Jima for bounce practice. More
importantly, a US based Air Wing does not incur the same premium cost (in
terms of incremental additional support, moving families, etc.) as one
forward deployed.

If our objectives could be enhanced as well with a boat forward deployed to
Hawaii without its Air Wing (and the Japan boat / Air Wing still in place),
then as a taxpayer I know what I would choose.

--
Mike Kanze

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?"

- Lily Tomlin


"Dave Morris" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm not sure the Air Wing needs to stay in the Hawaiians with the boat.
>> It might work as well for the Air Wing to stay on the mainland, with its
>> training opportunities like NAS Fallon not available in the Hawaiians.
>> This is different from being forward-deployed to Japan and having access
>> to Misawa, etc.
>
> As for this option, it wouldn't make any sense. Basing a carrier in
> Hawaii puts it outside the range of some of the aircraft it would be
> carrying if they were based on the mainland. If the carrier would have to
> backtrack, even if she could meet them half-way, what would be the point
> of a having the carrier forward deployed in the first place? When
> traveling with escorts (not at top speed) it takes a carrier approximately
> 5-7 days to reach Hawaii from the west coast and vise versa, basing the
> aircraft on the mainland would defeat the purpose of having her forward
> deployed and surge ready.
>
>> Another option might be for the Air Wing to be forward-deployed elsewhere
>> in the Pacific basin: Japan or Guam, if space permits. They could pick up
>> the ship in transit from Hawaii to whatever hot spot she's headed.
>
> This makes a lot of sense. You could even possibly spread the aircraft
> squadrons throughout the Pacific (Hawaii, Guam, and possibly Japan). The
> only issue with this becomes that of training. In order to do
> pre-deployment workups, the aircraft need to be onboard. It may prove
> difficult to make rounds out to Guam and Japan to pick everyone up.
> Especially because most Hawaii based ships currently do pre-deployment
> training between Hawaii and the West Coast. It would only make sense
> then to base more escorts in Hawaii, Guam, and Japan and do training in
> the Western Pacific instead. We wouldn't exactly be playing in our own
> backyard anymore, but on the plus side this would provide greater
> opportunities to do international training with our Pacific rim allies
> (Australia, Japan, s. Korea, etc.) and provide a stronger "presence" in
> the Pacfic.
>
>

[Jim]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> a few few more hours in the C-141s for the ground crew, spare pilots, and
> the gear.

You're dating yourself OJ. Those 141s are history from the active
squadrons and may soon be from the reserves as well. IIRC only two
reserve stations may even have them anymore.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 10:49:28 -0700, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Dave,
>
>>The biggest conflict I've heard is the fact that they sold Barber's Point
>>to the state, Ford Island is housing, and K-Bay can't handle a whole
>>carrier wing.
>
>I'm not sure the Air Wing needs to stay in the Hawaiians with the boat. It
>might work as well for the Air Wing to stay on the mainland, with its
>training opportunities like NAS Fallon not available in the Hawaiians. This
>is different from being forward-deployed to Japan and having access to
>Misawa, etc.

Well, maybe.

It seems to me that a carrier without it's airwing close at hand is
just a very large, not very well defended target.

>Another option might be for the Air Wing to be forward-deployed elsewhere in
>the Pacific basin: Japan or Guam, if space permits. They could pick up the
>ship in transit from Hawaii to whatever hot spot she's headed.

This works, unless the "hot spot" is in South America or other points
east.

Bill Kambic

[Ogden Johnson III]

Jim > wrote:

>Ogden Johnson III wrote:

>> a few few more hours in the C-141s for the ground crew, spare pilots, and
>> the gear.

>You're dating yourself OJ. Those 141s are history from the active
>squadrons and may soon be from the reserves as well. IIRC only two
>reserve stations may even have them anymore.

Sigh. Tempus fugits like hell when you're having fun.

[We were deployed in 196mumble to NAS Atlanta {located on one
corner of Dobbins AFB, which had Dobbins AFB itself on another
corner, a (then) major MATS setup on another, and the
Lockheed-Marietta plant on the corner across from NAS Atlanta}
with our UH-34Ds for some mountain training in the Chattahoochie
National Forest. The first C-141s were in, IIRC, early
production at Lockheed-Marietta, and it was the first time anyone
of us had ever seen it other than in photos. Impressed the hell
out of us to see that big plane lifting off with such a short
take-off run. Maybe I'm brainwashed, but Lockheed had a great
run of three fine aircraft with the C-130, C-141, and C-5, even
if the latter two had some teething problems.]
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Henry J Cobb]

wrote:
> That's what the below article says. Looks like the Navy is leaning
> towards Hawaii. That means the Airwing would have to move also.
> Let's see..The Navy wants to move another carrier to be foward
> deployed..Ok ..but at the same time decommission the JFK..According
> to this article the east coast carriers would be responsible for the
> majority of the deployments to the Persian Gulf. Simply because of the
> distance traveled....Let's see what happens!!

San Diego is the farthest port from the areas of operation for the ships based
there.

We should annex Australia and homeport three out of nine carriers there to
cover both west Asia and east Asia more effectively with a smaller force.

-HJC

[Matt Richards]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>
> We should annex Australia and homeport three out of nine carriers there to
> cover both west Asia and east Asia more effectively with a smaller force.
>
> -HJC

They way John Howard sucks up to GWB, all you'd have to do is ask.

I certainly don't have a problem with homeporting a few carriers here.

Matt.

[Diamond Jim]

"Matt Richards" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > We should annex Australia and homeport three out of nine carriers there
to
> > cover both west Asia and east Asia more effectively with a smaller
force.
> >
> > -HJC
>
> They way John Howard sucks up to GWB, all you'd have to do is ask.
>
> I certainly don't have a problem with homeporting a few carriers here.
>
> Matt.
>
>
Hummmm.... Homeport one group in Perth, the other two in Sidney with some of
the escorts from these two groups in Brisbane. All escort Subs a Tender and
a Naval Support center (air and surface repair facilities) in Melbourne.
AO's/AOR's, AKA and AE's etc. in Darwin.

In other words help spread the economic benefits, around for better
acceptance by the fine citizens of OZ.

[Dave Kearton]

"Diamond Jim" > wrote in message
om
|||
| Hummmm.... Homeport one group in Perth, the other two in Sidney with
| some of the escorts from these two groups in Brisbane. All escort
| Subs a Tender and a Naval Support center (air and surface repair
| facilities) in Melbourne. AO's/AOR's, AKA and AE's etc. in Darwin.
|
| In other words help spread the economic benefits, around for better
| acceptance by the fine citizens of OZ.




You've missed all the high tech support facilities available in
Adelaide.....

The DSTO, RAAF Edinburgh (home of the Maritime Patrol group), the
Australian Submarine Corporation, the air and ground combat ranges at
Woomera as well as the shipyards to be built for the new air warfare
destroyers. The port facilities at Port Adelaide have some capacity
(they're almost always empty) for the smaller boats with up to 13m draft.
I think the carrier would probably choke the channel and would need some
sort of valet parking at the outer harbour.

Housing is cheaper than all of the other cities mentioned, with the possible
exception of Darwin. The Adelaide climate and lifestyle is better
for families however, a little comatose for single randy sailors.



--

Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Jim Herring]

Diamond Jim wrote:

> In other words help spread the economic benefits, around for better
> acceptance by the fine citizens of OZ.

Spreading the fleet around would probably be a good idea. After all, the last time a
USN task force showed up in Perth the local working girls complained about too much
work. ;)

--
Jim

carry on

[[email protected]]

I feel so old. Used to live in Makai housing (got in as an E5 on
fluke...mostly it was E6 and above) at Barbers, and could walk from my
house to the VP hangar there in less than 10 minutes.

Of course, these were the Regan evil empire years, and open-ocean ASW
was a booming business.





Dave Morris wrote:
>>I you sure that the Navy sold Barbers Pt. to the state?
>
>
> The old Barber's air strip is now a municipal strip renamed Kalaeloa. I
> fly into it whenever I'm practicing touch and go's in a Cessna. The Coast
> Guard and the Hawaii National Guard also use it, but they have their own
> facilities located on the strip. The Navy originally retained just over
> 1,000 acres and about 540 housing units on the base. They have a few MWR
> facilities such as a golf course, a gym, a bowling alley, a NEX mini-mart,
> and a comissary. There are also a very few scattered offices such as CB
> maintenence and DRMO, but these are all scattered in between state national
> guard facilities.
> There is now a youth boot camp program run out there. Some of the land
> is being used for horses. Slowly, the land is becoming more privatized
> and/or overgrown. The fences and gates are falling down. All of the
> housing units and the land under them were sold about a year ago to a
> private company that leases to anyone, not just military. Reopening the
> base would require displacing these local families. There is talk of
> spreading the air wing out over Barber's, Kaneohe MCAS, and Wheeler AAF, but
> it mostly comes down to the politics. Hawaii's government realizes that it
> would bring jobs and money to the state, but there is also a lot of concern
> with the locals about bringing more military to this already crowded island.
> If they complain enough, Hawaii's senators won't buy off on it.
>
>
>>there are at least two piers already sturdy enough and long enough (K-10,
>>B-22 through 26)
>
>
> It is true that they are revamping the piers, Kilo piers would be an
> excellent location assuming FISC is willing to give them up permanently.
> The bravo piers, on the other hand, would require more than just
> strengthening. I believe that it would require making the berths deeper.
> It is my understanding that B22-26 are too shallow for an aircraft carrier.
> They put the LHA's over there all the time, but their draft is less than
> that of DDG or CG (31-33'). CVNs have a draft of 37-42'.
>
>
>>rehab work at the former NAS Barber's point has just started in a big
>>way on the hangers there, and there are rumors that the military
>>housing at Iroquois Point and Barber's Point (currently
>>civilian/military) will be reverting purely back to military. To me,
>>these rumors account for the housing and air wing issues. Again, just
>>rumors from what I observe here"".
>
>
> As for the deckplate rumors about housing and hangars, I don't know
> anything specific about either. What I've seen while living in the newly
> privatized housing, is that despite a lot of talk about bringing in a
> carrier, most of the action on the site is geared toward redevelopment as
> private/state-owned lands. If the Navy wants to bring a carrier out here,
> they need to make up their minds. If they want that land, they need to get
> it back before too many people invest money into it for private use.
>
>