US Navy wants to homeport carrier in Hawaii or Guam

"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.]

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.

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.]

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

"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.

"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.

"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

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