US Navy wants to homeport carrier in Hawaii or Guam

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

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

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.