A Navy commander who has been a key planner in the Navy's press for an Outlying Landing Field in the region has penned a letter to his commanders at U.S. Fleet Forces Command that calls into question the sense and expense of the Navy using the Emporia-Greensville Regional Airport for training purposes.
The Navy put out a request for proposals early in the year, and the local airport commission responded with a letter of interest. The Navy seeks a regional airport within 90 miles of Naval Station Norfolk so that aircrews there could train closer to home -- they are currently flying to bases as far away as Florida for pre-deployment work ups. The type of training the Navy would conduct would be touch-and-go landings that simulate aircraft carrier landings.
Cdr. Matt Baker wrote the letter to Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr., Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. The command serves as the unified voice for Fleet training requirements and policies to generate combat-ready Navy forces. In addition, he cc'd the e-mail to several news media sources -- including the Independent-Messenger.
Baker, a Navy aviator, is known to many in the region as a Navy presenter and information source for the Navy's proposed Outlying Landing Field. The Navy has identified five sites it's considering for placement of a $100 million, plus, facility that would serve as a training facility for Navy fighter pilots flying out of Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach. Baker has made several presentations to citizens groups and civic groups with regard to the Outlying Landing Field (which is currently stalled by the need for additional environmental studies).
Baker's letter had nothing to do with an Outlying Landing Field, but is specific to the possibility of the Navy's use of the Emporia-Greensville Regional Airport for touch-and-go landings of Navy carrier-based E2 and C2 aircraft.
In essence, he states that the cost to the Navy to utilize the regional airport would be prohibitive and would cause the need for too much maintenance on the aircraft. Currently, aircrews fly their aircraft to airfields in Florida and train there for several weeks at a time. The use of the regional airport would allow them to stay in the Hampton Roads area and fly from Norfolk to Emporia-Greensville.
Baker points out that while training in Florida, aircrews put minimal flight time on their aircraft and consume less fuel than they would in flying the 90 miles from Norfolk to the local airport.
The move to regional training in Emporia, Baker points out would add $500,000 annually to fuel costs, and $1.11 million to aircraft maintenance costs, Baker estimates.
Additionally, if the Navy chose the Emporia field, Baker points out that the sea service would shell out up to another $700,000 annually for airport rental, and also incur added costs improvements and equipment that would be required at the airport.
Baker estimates that the cost to the Navy for use the Emporia-Greensville Regional Airport for flight training could be $31.1 million over the next 10 years. Whereas, the cost for continuing training the way the Navy is currently doing it -- sending aircraft and crews to Jacksonville, Fla., for extended periods of time -- would cost the Navy only $14 million over the same period of time.
Baker points out that another airfield, owned by the Federal government might be better suited for the Navy's needs and expenditures.
He writes:
"A brief analysis that shows the current flight hour requirement and the requirement if the Navy chooses to use Emporia-Greensville Airport. It is clear that this project will increase overall cost to the Navy in a time of shrinking budgets. It is clear that fuel consumption will increase while the Navy and the nation demand conservation. It is clear that burden on our sailors will increase to support the additional flying hours while the Navy continues to reduce military billets.
"For the last several weeks, our civilians leaders in Washington have highlighted the alarming trend of wasteful spending. I am led to the conclusion that pursuit of this project at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer with no corresponding increase in readiness is wasteful and is not in the best interest of the Navy or the nation.
"At about the same time the RFP (Request for proposals) was made public, the Director of Wallops Flight Facility contacted (Fleet Forces Command) to discuss the possibility of conducting FCLP training at that airfield. The Director then met with USFF N46, and was immediately dismissed. The reason for eliminating any thoughts of using Wallops were likely discussed between you and N46, however, I don't believe you were given the full story.
"Wallops is capable of providing the training we need while significantly reducing our training costs. The FRS currently uses Wallops regularly for basic pattern training, and this federally owned facility already has firefighting equipment and personnel and scheduling personnel on staff.
"I recognize the politics involved in this program, and I also recognize that Wallops suits the Navy's training needs politically and financially. While detachments would still be necessary, the detachments would go to Wallops, a Virginia airfield. Transit costs to complete FCLP training would be reduced from the current level of approximately 168 flight-hours per year to approximately 17 flights-hours. The fuel and maintenance savings of 151 flight-hours are approximately $770,000 per year, or $7.7M over the next ten years. Including the reduction in airframe life (1510 hours over ten years, or $12.75M) results in avoidance savings of over $19M.
"Using current practices, the E-2 FRS will spend approximately $14M over the next ten years to complete FCLP training. If the Navy commits to a contract with Emporia-Greensville Airport, those costs will increase to no less than $31M without an increase in training capacity or quality. Wallops Flight Facility, which has been offered as an alternative, would significantly decrease costs from the status quo without degrading capacity or quality.
With regard to the Request for Proposals process, Baker suggests that the Navy command had a special regard for possible use of the Emporia-Greensville Regional Airport when it put out the request.
He states:
"Rather than writing the RFP to require a transit distance that would save the Navy money, the RFP was written to ensure Emporia-Greensville Airport met the requirement."
Baker's letter to Admiral Harvey and its simultaneous release to the Independent-Messenger came as news to Fleet Forces Command personnel. When asked by the Independent-Messenger for comment, command public affairs personnel were unaware of the letter. They said they'd research it and get back to us.
Locally, no one associated with the Emporia-Greensville Regional Airport was aware of the letter or the issues contained therein until contacted by the Independent-Messenger.
Rick Franklin, Executive director of the Airport Commission, said as far as he is aware the process and the decision by the Navy are still a year away if not more. "Once the Navy makes a decision on which airport it wants to use, then negotiations for the airport's use will be conducted." Additionally, he said, "Environmental impact studies have to be conducted, and those would take about a year to complete."
Aside from that, Franklin points out that should the Navy ultimately want to use the local airport, Airport Commission members have expressed concern about the scope of Navy activities to be conducted, and about the overall impact Navy flight operations could have on the airport and surrounding area.
Even if the Navy chose the Emporia-Greensville Regional Airport for training, Franklin said there's no guarantee that the Airport Commission would sign off on the deal.
As for Baker's communications to Admiral Harvey, a source close to the Emporia-Greensville Airport Commission said it's an in-house matter for the Navy.
Attempts to reach Baker for comment were unsuccessful. A call to the Navy's Fleet forces command on Friday brought the following response on Monday afternoon:
"Adm. Harvey has received the letter sent to him by Cdr. Matt Baker. He takes these allegations seriously and has asked the Navy IG office to conduct an investigation to review all the issues raised by the letter. USFF will hold in abeyance all further work on the RFP while the investigation is conducted," said Lcdr. Mike Kafka, spokesman for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
Source: http://vancnews.com
Source: http://vancnews.com
No comments:
Post a Comment