Mayport in line for new fleet command quarters

As Rough As It May Seem,It's Still Steady As You Go...

The Navy will announce in "a matter of days" the creation of the 4th Fleet at Mayport Naval Station, a Jacksonville military expert told the Times-Union on Wednesday.

While it won't mean an influx of ships or a lot of new personnel, the command will raise the city's naval prominence.

"It portends good things for the future of Mayport," said John Meserve, a former Mayport commanding officer and the current military issues chairman for the Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Meserve said he learned of the decision from congressional and Navy sources.

A Navy spokesman said he could neither confirm nor deny that a decision to re-establish the Navy command would come by the end of this week or early next.

"But I can say that we think it's a good idea," said Lt. Sean Robertson, Navy public affairs officer in Washington.

The idea is to create a fleet command responsible for conducting naval operations in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and southern Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

In this case a "fleet" denotes not a group of ships but a hierarchy responsible for a certain region of the world. The new organization would join five other existing Navy fleets: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th. The former 4th Fleet was shut down shortly after World War II.

The modern incarnation would be part of U.S. Southern Command, an inter-service headquarters based in Miami.

Naval operations in that part of the world currently fall under U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, which is based at Mayport and led by a one-star admiral. A new 4th Fleet, if established, would be led by a two- or three-star admiral, the Navy has said.

Meserve, who also is the mayor of Atlantic Beach, said 4th Fleet will boost Mayport's clout because that higher-ranking admiral would attend naval strategy meetings in Norfolk, Va., and Washington.

"Those people are part of the decision-making process of where to base and disperse forces, where they see threats coming up and the immediate response to those threats," Meserve said. "For us to have a Mayport flag officer seated at the table, putting in his two cents worth, is important."

Basing 4th Fleet at Mayport doesn't guarantee a nuclear aircraft carrier will be homeported at the base, but it certainly doesn't hurt the city's chances of landing a flattop, either, Meserve said.

Mayport hasn't had a tenant aircraft carrier since March 2007, when the oil-fired John F. Kennedy was decommissioned. A mix of cruisers, destroyers and frigates remain at the base, located at the mouth of the St. Johns River.

The Navy is expected to make a decision by year's end on whether to replace the Kennedy at Mayport with a nuclear-powered carrier, other kinds of warships, or both.

Dan McCarthy, the city's military liaison, declined to comment Wednesday but previously has said a 4th Fleet presence at Mayport would create "a greater opportunity to station a carrier here."

Not all of the Navy's fleets have carriers. The 5th Fleet in Bahrain and 6th Fleet in Italy have no bases where carriers are homeported

Hole Found In Nuclear Submarine

SAFETY fears have been raised after a hole was discovered in the hull of a nuclear submarine berthed in the Firth of Forth.

The hole – about the size of a fist – was found during routine checks on the decommissioned sub HMS Revenge at Rosyth Dockyard.

The vessel is one of seven redundant nuclear subs stored at Rosyth by the Royal Navy since the early 1980s.

Google Satellite Photo

The breach, discovered during a routine inspection in February, was in one of six external ballast tanks of the Polaris submarine, and was immediately sealed by Navy engineers.

Although weapons and high-level radioactive fuel have long since been removed from the submarines, successive governments have failed to come up with a safe way of disposing of the radioactive reactor compartments, which remain at the centre of the subs.

Navy chiefs today said the hole had been caused by microbes in the water and was repaired immediately, with no danger to the public.

Environmentalists today said the incident was a reminder that a long-term solution for the ageing subs was needed.

John Large, a leading UK nuclear consultant, said: "This is a significant incident as it will force the MoD finally to make a decision on this after years of humming and hawing.

"The indecision and incompetence shown by the Ministry of Defence and Royal Navy over what to do with these boats has been absolutely staggering.

"They've had no strategy and just to leave them afloat to rot really beggars belief.

"You have to remember that up until 1985, the Royal Navy's policy on what to do with these old nuclear submarines was simply to dump them at sea.

"I would imagine that when they take Revenge out of the water it will be like a car's MoT – once they find one thing wrong, they'll find others."

The hole on HMS Revenge was discovered on one of six external ballast tanks, which are about half an inch thick compared with the inner hull, which is an inch and a half thick.

The vessel will be moved to a dry dock next month to allow the vessel's hull to undergo a thorough examination.

Pete Roche, an anti-nuclear campaigner and energy consultant, said: "This is very worrying news, but the problem is that nobody is coming up with any ideas on what to do with them."

In April 1983, Britain's first nuclear sub, HMS Dreadnought, was towed into Rosyth at the end of her service and six others have followed.

Stuart Hay, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "This just goes to show the madness of going ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK."

Royal Navy spokesman Neil Smith said: "The hole was immediately plugged. There was no chance of the boat sinking and absolutely no risk to the environment or wider community."

Forth U-boat to be protected war grave

CAMPAIGNERS have won their battle to have the wreck of a German U-boat, sunk off the Firth of Forth, declared a protected war grave.

U-714 was sunk in March 1945 by depth charges from South African frigate HMSAS Natal and the British destroyer HMS Vivern. All of the ship's 50-strong crew were lost.

Roger Williams, who was 18 when he dropped the depth charges, and Axel Schwebcke, the son of the 27-year-old German skipper who died, have campaigned for the wreck to get protected status.

The wreck of the U-boat was discovered by divers from South Queensferry Sub Aqua Club 18 months ago.

Mr Williams, who lives in South Africa, said his campaign was not about guilt or regret. He said: "It was the circumstance of the time. We have respect for seamen of all nations; that is part of the brotherhood of the sea."

Stevie Adams, from South Queensferry, who helped find the site, said he kept its location secret so it was not disturbed by looters. He said: "This protected status is great, because it does mean that people are told they can look but not touch anything at the site."

Nelson's decision Sealed his Fate: This Day In History

This naval battle was one of a series that was fought during the wars against France between 1793 and 1805, culminating in the Battle of Trafalgar.

Britain did not have a presence in the Baltic Sea under normal circumstances but in 1800, Czar Paul resurrected the League of Armed Neutrality. This comprised Russia, Sweden, Denmark and Prussia joining against Britain because of her "stop and search" tactics, intended to prevent trade with France.

Czar Paul detained British merchant ships in Russian ports; the British decided that an attack on Denmark would break up the League. Denmark was closer to Britain and therefore the most vulnerable to attack. It was decided that a fleet should sail for the Baltic under the command of Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, with Lord Nelson as second-in-command.

The expedition sailed from Yarmouth on 12 March, having embarked the 49th Regiment, two companies of riflemen and a detachment of artillery under Colonel Stewart. The Rt. Hon. Nicholas VanSittart went ahead of the fleet in an attempt to persuade the Danes to adopt a friendlier policy towards Britain. The fleet approached the Cattegat; dropping anchor to see what diplomacy could achieve. It is possible that the Danes would have seen reason if the envoy had appeared with the fleet behind him.

Instead, the fleet was out of sight. If Copenhagen was to be attacked, the approach could be made in more than one way. A Council of War was held which Nelson ended by saying

"I don't care a damn which passage we go, so that we fight them.� "

He was anxious to end the affair before the Russians could arrive.

At a further Council of War on the 31 March he offered to annihilate the Danes with ten sail of the line. After some further hesitation, Sir Hyde accepted Nelson's offer, but gave him two 50-gun ships as well, together with some frigates and other vessels, including bomb ketches and fireships, numbering twenty-four vessels in all. Sir Hyde Parker retained eight ships as a reserve, apparently to guard against the possible appearance of the Russians or Swedes.

The harbour, arsenal and docks of Copenhagen lay in the city of Copenhagen itself, the entrance being guarded by the formidable Trekroner Battery. There were other batteries lining the shore to the southward and the Danish fleet was drawn up in shoal water covering the city front. It comprised a number of two-decked men-of-war interspersed with rafts and other improvised batteries. While they remained intact the bomb-vessels were effectively kept out of range, as was at the Nile. This time Nelson was faced with an enemy fleet at anchor but this time he was outnumbered. The Danes would stand their ground; they could be reinforced from the shore, more men rowing off to replace the casualties.

However, the enemy fleet was at anchor, which made it possible for the attacking fleet to concentrate on a part of the enemy's line, leaving some of his ships without an opponent. Nelson decided to sail past Copenhagen by the Holland Deep and then attack from the south, engaging the weaker end of the Danish line. His squadron was in position by 1 April and the battle took place on the following day. Ironically, Tsar Paul had been assassinated on 25 March; his successor Alexander I adopted a different foreign policy and the Northern Alliance began to disintegrate before the battle took place.

On 2 April the British squadron moved into the attack. There was immediate disaster, the Bellona and Russell running aground and the Agamemnon failing to gain her proper position in the line. Nelson took the remaining ships into battle and was soon engaged with the Danish ships and floating batteries. After three hours of cannonade on either side the battle was still undecided.

Seeing this and finding that ships he sent to reinforce Nelson were making slow progress against the wind, Sir Hyde Parker signalled "discontinue the action" to the fleet as a whole. Each ship was obliged to obey the signal without waiting for the signal to be repeated from Nelson's flagship, the Elephant.

For the ships to have obeyed the signal would have been virtual suicide: placed opposite their opponents, they could not withdraw until the enemy's fire had been silenced. Withdrawal would have meant ceasing fire and sending the men to make sail, presenting each ship's stern to the enemy's guns and to a raking fire which would have redoubled when the Danes saw the British retreat. It would have involved appalling casualties and damage and would have allowed the Danes to claim a victory. It would have destroyed British prestige in northern Europe.

It is said that at this point of the battle, Nelson put his telescope to his blind eye, saying

"I really do not see the signal!"

He kept his own signal flying for closer action and the ships of the line all obeyed him and ignored the Commander-in-Chief. It was 12.30 p.m. when Nelson decided to ignore the signal, and the cannonade continued for another hour or so.

By then it was apparent that the British had won the battle as more and more of the Danish ships ceased fire or surrendered. By about 2 pm, the bombardment slackened and Nelson sent in a flag of truce, suggesting that hostilities should cease.

Simultaneously he wrote a letter addressed to the Danish government.

Amongst the demands in this letter, Lord Nelson promised that he would spare the captured Danish sailors, should the resistance and battle be brought to an end.

If not he would show no mercy and burn all the captured ships. Hereby leaving no chance of saving the defending sailors on board.

Nelson later on claimed the letter was written out of his human compassion. But in reality it was a clever trick.

In no other way could the lives of many Danes on board the floating batteries be spared. Firing died away and at 3.15 pm, Nelson's flagship hoisted a flag of truce. The battle was over.

There is no known account of how Sir Hyde Parker received Lord Nelson after the battle. He could have demanded a court-martial on Nelson for having disobeyed an order. Parker may have been aware that his own contribution to the victory had been negative and potentially disastrous.

His authority, such as it was, weakened from the moment he began to lead from the rear. However, the example made of the Danes, who had suffered very heavy casualties, was not lost on other potential antagonists.

Negotiations proceeded at Copenhagen and the truce turned into an armistice. News of the Tsar's death was officially confirmed and it was rumoured that the new Tsar would be willing to release all British ships that had been detained.

Soon afterwards orders arrived from the Board of Admiralty ordering Sir Hyde Parker to hand over his command to Lord Nelson and return to England. Once ashore, he was to stay there. Sir Hyde Parker was never employed again.

Nelson was now Commander-in-Chief in the Baltic. Once contact had been made with Alexander I, Nelson was assured that the embargo on British merchantmen would be lifted and that friendly relations would be resumed between Russia and Britain.

US Navy seeks to revive troubled ship program

(AP) Portland,Oregon The Navy is moving forward with construction of a new type of smaller, speedy warship after upending the program by canceling contracts last year, officials said.

The Navy's formal requests for proposals issued to General Dynamics Corp.'s Bath Iron Works and Lockheed Martin Corp. on Tuesday call for construction of three Littoral combat ships to be carried out over the next several years.

The Navy envisions a competition in which the winning bidder is awarded contracts for two of the ships while the other gets to build just one ship, Navy Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield said Wednesday.

The Navy, which hopes to build 55 Littoral combat ships, wants the smaller warships capable of operating in shallow, coastal waters to meet threats including modern-day pirates and terrorists. The ships are a key element of the Navy's goal of increasing the size of its fleet to 313 ships.

"The Navy, as it exists today, was designed mostly for fighting in the middle of the big blue ocean. The Littoral combat ship is designed to take the fight right up to the enemy's coastline, and into the country if necessary," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.

He described the program as the most significant Navy shipbuilding program over the last decade: "It is the one thing that the Navy is doing that is directly responsive to how the threats have changed."

But the shipbuilding program has been plagued by cost overruns, and the Navy's handling of the fast-tracked program has come under criticism.

Two competing versions of the ship are under construction at shipyards in Wisconsin and Alabama. But the Navy put the brakes on the program last year, canceling two additional ships, after costs of the original ships grew from early estimates of about $220 million (€141 million) to more than $300 million (€192 million) apiece.

The Navy now is operating under a congressional cost cap of $460 million (€294 million) per ship, a reflection that the original cost estimates for the ships were too low.

Lockheed Martin's LCS-1 is being built at Wisconsin's Marinette Marine Corp., while LCS-2, overseen by Maine's Bath Iron Works, is being built at the Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Alabama.

Lockheed Martin's version resembles a traditional frigate or destroyer but features a sleek, semi-planing hull, while General Dynamic's version is an all-aluminum three-hulled vessel. But both are powered by steerable waterjets and can reach speeds of about 50 mph (80 kph).

The Navy envisions them chasing down terrorist speedboats, as well as engaging in mine removal and anti-submarine operations in nearshore waters.

The Navy took the unusual step of ordering one of both types of ships, instead of settling on a single design, and by having them built at smaller shipyards.

So far, production of the first two ships has fallen behind schedule, and it remains to be seen whether either design is capable of achieving the Navy's goals, said Winslow Wheeler, a defense analyst at the Center for Defense Information.

Wheeler questioned why the Navy insists on building more ships before the first two designs are put in the water and run through sea trials.

"The proof will be in the pudding when we see a system that passes operational testing ... for a reasonable price," he said. "That is a long way off."

Hosilities Heat Up Territorial Waters of Lebanon

Israeli military denies warship violated Lebanese waters earlier this week


The Israeli military has denied claims by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) that one of the Jewish state's warships violated Lebanese territorial waters earlier this week.

The denial was carried late Tuesday evening by several Israeli Web sites, including those of the Haaretz and Jerusalem Post newspapers.

In a statement issued Tueday, the LAF said an Israeli warship briefly entered Lebanese waters on Monday but was intercepted by an Italian ship operating as part of the naval component of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).



"An Israeli Saar-class warship entered Lebanese territorial waters at 7:30 a.m. yesterday morning before being intercepted by the Italian Navy's Bettica, which is part of UNIFIL," an LAF spokesman told AFP.

The Israeli vessel traveled 5 kilometers before leaving, according to the LAF statement.

Israeli jets regularly violate Lebanese airspace, but it is rare for warships to enter Lebanese territorial waters.

Yasmina Bouziane, spokeswoman for UNIFIL said an investigation was under way.

"We received a report saying a ship coming from Israel entered the maritime area of operation without proper procedures, violating Lebanese territorial waters," she said.

"UNIFIL is investigating this issue and UNIFIL command has contacted the Israeli Army."

The overflights, which are in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 have drawn criticism from Lebanese authorities and the international community.

Tensions have risen along the Lebanese-Israeli border since Hizbullah's leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, warned that his group would "not remain silent" following the February 12 assassination of top Hizbullah commander Imad Mughniyeh, which it blames on Israel. The Jewish state denies any involvement.

Wikipedia Info About These Forces




As usual peace keepers are targets. Use them to protect the general population in any capacity while the particular governments sort it out.