What the military wants, and why it wants it - July 15, 2008
What's going on?The Navy wants to build an outlying landing field, or OLF, where pilots can practice for landings on aircraft carriers — setting down a jet going 150 mph on a less than 500-foot strip surrounded by the ocean at night.
Now, pilots are using Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake. Problem is, if you've got to get a lot of troops up to speed, it can be like a traffic jam, said Cmdr. Rich Catoire of U.S. Fleet Forces Command and an OLF project officer.
Landing in a developed area provides visual reference points at night that you wouldn't have at sea, Catoire said.
But many rural residents don't want an OLF in their community. "Have you stood next to an airport lately?" said Jay Randolph, Southampton's assistant county administrator.
Concerns range from safety to environmental degradation to loss of the tax base, Randolph said. "And nobody has really pointed out what the positives will be," he said.
How did we get here?
The Navy has been trying since around 2000 to build an outlying landing field to suit the new F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter planes, which will be stationed at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C.
The Super Hornet is replacing the F-14 Tomcat.
Where do we go from here?
The Navy is in the process of a full-blown environmental impact study. Officials will also consider a no-action alternative, examining the impact if an OLF isn't built, Catoire said.
A draft is expected by summer 2009, followed by a public-comment period and public hearings that will help shape the final report, which is expected to be done by June 2010. A decision is expected after a 30-day comment period for regulating agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Acquiring property and property rights and building the OLF will take about two years.
The earliest the airfield would be operational would be the end of 2012 or the beginning of 2013, Catoire said.
— Veronica Gorley Chufo
Navy landing in a controversy - July 15, 2008
The Navy says pilots need somewhere to work on aircraft carrier landings, but locals say not here.
By ALICIA P.Q. WITTMEYER and VERONICA GORLEY CHUFO | 247-4741SOUTHAMPTON - There are no headstones or footstones, but all the signs are there: the sunken hollows in the ground lined up in a row; the vinca minor, or cemetery ivy, flourishing in the woods nearby.
The farmer who owns the property next door thinks he attended a funeral there once.
Yep, these are graves, says Bill Hancock. It's another red mark on a map of Southampton County that, Hancock says, "looks like it's got a case of the measles." It's a map Hancock and his wife, Felice, hope will change the Navy's mind about potentially putting a landing field in their county.
Residents of Southampton, Surry and Sussex counties have been scrambling to mobilize against the Navy's plans to consider their region for an airstrip where jets can practice takeoffs and landings. They've hired a lawyer, put up signs, pushed for elected officials to take up their cause.
In the midst of all this, the Hancocks are looking for graves. They're hoping that the nearly 50 Southampton sites they've found so far — roughly 28 in the crash zone of the jets, five or six that stand to be demolished if the field is put in place — will convince the Navy to put its landing field somewhere else. But that's only part of the battle, Bill Hancock said.
On the surface, this is a fight over an 8,000-foot-long slab of concrete, and some jet noise.
In the minds of some residents whose families have called the area home for generations, though, the landing field is just a prelude to a more fundamental — if nebulous — change from what the county's always been, clearing the way for strip malls, maybe, or subdivisions on the other side of the James River.
Opponents scrambling
For Bill and Felice Hancock, these sites need to be documented for posterity, before they're lost, to whatever's coming. "Once they get a foot in the door, they can pretty much do what they want," Bill Hancock said.
Opposition to the outlying landing field, or OLF, came quick. Just weeks after Virginia officials suggested a few potential sites in July 2007, for example, the boards of supervisors in Southampton and Sussex counties passed resolutions opposing an OLF in their counties.
The Navy in January narrowed the list of possible sites to five — three in southeastern Virginia and two in North Carolina.
That pushed local opposition full steam ahead.
Even Isle of Wight and Greensville counties are pitching in, offering to help offset the costs Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties will pay a law firm to fight the landing field.
The Navy says it needs a new field to relieve some of the pressure on the Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing Field in Chesapeake, and to demonstrate its commitment to preserving Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach. The Navy's master jet base has been threatened with closure several times in recent years because of encroaching development.
A new field in a rural area would also provide better practice for pilots who have to train to land in the dark on aircraft carriers, generally not surrounded by streetlights or shopping malls, said Cmdr. Rich Catoire of U.S. Fleet Forces Command.
"This new OLF, located in a more rural area with less development, would provide a more realistic training environment to what they would experience at sea," said Catoire, the OLF project officer.
State officials have mentioned taking a different approach to installing a field this time around, to avoid the same kind of ire as its first proposal for a field, in Washington County, N.C. There, the proposal was scrapped after it met stiff resistance from those who said the field should not be placed next door to a national wildlife refuge.
Big buffer sought
This time, the Navy is saying the land around the landing field will be left undisturbed. They plan to buy development rights to keep the land from ever being developed. The Navy's looking for about 30,000 acres, but only 2,000 acres will be developed.
The rest will be left in the condition it's in for perpetuity, Catoire said. But some folks will have to abandon their land — and that's never welcome news.
"Many of them have been there for awhile and have a connection with the land, and we understand that," Catoire said. "It's really hard to find any new place for development that people aren't already established at. There's just no more wide open spaces." Those who won't have to move out may continue to farm or timber the land, as they've done for years.
"If this would've been done in Oceana years ago, you would've had a 30,000-acre preserve in Virginia Beach," Catoire said. "The OLF is not the blight on the landscape that it's made out to be."
The OLF will create 62 jobs, and, it could be a revenue source for the county, if the federal government leased the land instead of buying it, Catoire said.
The OLF also could attract industry that's compatible with an airfield, such as businesses that don't require a lot of nighttime lighting. That, too, would be an economic benefit, Catoire said.
That's exactly what has people like the Hancocks worried.
The Hancocks live on one of Southampton County's century farms, which means Bill's family has owned and farmed the same land for over 100 years. The two have always had an interest in history.
When Bill was younger, he made a living by assisting archaeologists, bouncing from project to project.
"I was a dig bum," he said.
The couple, who married 25 years ago, met while working at a small museum surrounding an American Indian village in Memphis, Tenn. But they soon grew sick of the city. So they moved back to Bill's family farm, located near Sedley, between Ivor and Franklin. Bill works as a historic reconstructionist for the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, and Felice, who stayed at home to raise the kids, at times taught college courses and worked as a grant writer.
Southampton, Sussex and Surry counties form the western barrier to Hampton Roads. The largest employers are in agriculture, agriculture-related manufacturing, and wood products.So far, the counties have remained pretty much untouched by the growth that has hit the rest of the area. That, however, is starting to change.
Slow growth
Folks like the Hancocks, who are trying to escape the suburbs, are moving to these rural areas.
Growth at the ports has increased traffic on U.S. Route 460, which cuts through Southampton and Sussex, and it's only projected to increase more in the years to come.
In an area not used to change — since 2000, Southampton's population has only grown by about 200 people, and it only had about 17,500 to start with — these signs aren't exactly welcome.
Rumors swirl that the OLF is just the first step, that the Navy's real goal is to move Oceana out to Southampton.
"There's a mind set that the countryside should be turned into something else," Felice Hancock said. "We have to be protective of it."
Bill Hancock said, "one thing precedes another."
Catoire said the Navy is planning only to build an outlying landing field — a strip and a few support buildings, just like at Fentress.
"The Navy is building an outlying landing field," Catoire said. "It's not for anything else."
Some of the graves Bill Hancock marks on his map are easy to spot, just off the side of the road. For others, he and his wife have tied plastic markers to trees in order to find them again. They planted a large wooden cross over one grave.
The sites they found just off of Jack Pond's farm were probably the final resting places of poor farmers who had no money for marble grave stones. Wooden markers would have rotted away over the years. Same with the pine boxes in which people were buried — hence the pockets on the ground, where dirt has filled where the box once was. These people aren't buried in cemeteries, Hancock said, and they don't have family members who care for their graves. This was their last mark on the land, the only record they left behind.
He makes another dot on his map. The couple said they plan on submitting what they find to the Department of Historic Resources in Richmond, and to the local historical society, so that regardless of what does happen with the OLF, the information can be on file.
Meanwhile, OLF officials are doing their own studies into the area's history and ecology. "That's all part of the stuff we will examine ourselves," Catoire said.
Landing field is essential to the 'sound of freedom' - Opinion - June 12, 2008
As a retired naval aviator and the father of a current naval aviator, I believe I am more qualified to comment on the issue raised by your correspondent in her letter "No need for OLF," June 9, than she is.Her penultimate paragraph demonstrates that she is woefully uninformed on this issue.
The precise reason the proposed outlying landing field sites are near rural communities is their remote locations. To land a jet on a relatively small area of an aircraft carrier, at sea, at night, requires training in the most realistic nighttime conditions. Landing at sea at night is a critical procedure in almost total darkness at about 140 miles per hour.
Due to the urban encroachment of Virginia Beach around NAS Oceana and the suburban encroachment around Fentress Field, nighttime simulation is being compromised because of all the lights from the sprawl of the developments in their vicinity.
If our country thinks it is perfectly all right that untrained pilots land $100-million-plus jets on aircraft carriers worth billions of dollars with 6,000 or so sailors and Marines on board without the benefit of practice in actual conditions of night flying, then so be it.
I believe it will be difficult to find pilots willing to man those jets, and I'll bet that many taxpayers who pay for these weapons systems and whose loved ones are aboard them would also take exception to that situation.
Your correspondent says that she has never heard a top commander state that his forces were not ready. That is precisely the point for the need for the new OLF. Top commanders are asking for these fields now because they foresee a time in the near future when conditions will render training inadequate at the current fields for their forces to maintain readiness.
The writer states that rural communities are composed of hard-working people who have spent their whole lives obtaining what little they own.
How does that make them different from urban and suburban people?
The reality from the beginning of time is that most humans spend their lifetimes working hard to make a living for their families and themselves. Rural people have no exclusive claim on the hardships of life.
The reality is that this chauvinistic woman would rather not have her rural peace and quiet disturbed, and I can sympathize with her to some degree. I have lived near airfields and under airport flight paths most of the 40 years or so of my adult life. Sometimes jet noises can be a nuisance, but it does not take long to adjust to this noise.
However, I prefer to hear those jets making the "sound of freedom" than to contemplate the results of an unprepared U.S. military in the hostile world of the 21st century.
Baumgartner is a retired naval aviator. He lives in Yorktown.
Comments
No2OLF writes:
Mr. Baumgartner seems to have missed the underlying point of the OLF issue.I don't think anyone will argue that pilots don't need practice. But Mr. Baumgartner himself touches on the real problem, and I quote "Due to the urban encroachment of Virginia Beach around NAS Oceana and the suburban encroachment around Fentress Field, nighttime simulation is being compromised because of all the lights from the sprawl of the developments in their vicinity." This is what makes us - third, fourth and fifth generation landowners different from the urban and suburban people who in their own generation have moved or built in an area that should have been made off limits, either by the Navy with restrictive easements or by Chesapeake and Virginia Beach with zoning laws.
I would rather not have my rural peace and quiet disturbed. Not to mention my property value diminished or having someone tell me what I can grow on or do with my property. Or in the worst case have the Navy take my property. The fact that my taxes will increase is also unpleasant. Mr. Baumgartner fails to mention that the Virginia Beach and Chesapeake areas will not suffer from the construction of the Outlying Landing Field; they will keep the revenue generated by the Naval Installations in their areas, and enjoy a respite from the noise of practicing jet pilots. Why should we pay for someone else’s shortsightedness, because it is patriotic? Let the people who made the original mistakes be responsible for fixing the problem, or at least involve them in the solution.
This is not a solution anyone in Southampton County would be happy with, but why hasn't Virginia Beach offered to pick up the bill for the land the Navy takes out of the rural communities tax base? We rural folk don't feel it is "Patriotic" to protect the way of life of shortsighted urban people who now cry victim and refuse to fix their own problems.
No need for OLF - Opinion - June 9, 2008
This is a rebuttal to Adm. David Anderson's article, "Landing field aids security," June 5. I live in the Sandbanks site in North Carolina, which has been targeted for an outlying landing field, and I have not been shown the need for an OLF.Have you ever heard a top commander state that his squadrons or command were not ready for action when needed? Never have I heard those words.
Practice flights for East Coast wing carrier squadrons are currently being performed at NAS Oceana. Fentress Airfield is already under-used, and the Navy wants to waste taxpayer dollars to destroy thousands of acres of precious farmlands, forests and wildlife habitats, not to mention forcing generational families from homes and lands.
There are so many options available to the Navy to utilize and reduce wasteful spending and add support to their operations without destroying so much of our nation's environment. The military forces must learn to work together rather than trying to maintain their status quo of which branch is the best –– only then can we be strong and capable for whatever the future brings.
Most of the five proposed OLF sites are rural communities with hard-working people who have spent their whole lives obtaining what little they own. We are simple country people, but we are not ignorant and will not stand by and absorb all the misrepresentations being heaped upon us.
Ask Anderson, "Are your forces ready for deployment?" Find the true answer, not just Navy propaganda.
Elaine Herring
Gates, N.C.
Landing field aids security - June 5, 2008
I would like to once again relay to the public why the Navy requires an additional outlying landing field, or OLF, to support field carrier-landing practice and why this new facility is vital to our national security.The OLF is needed to ensure we can meet our responsibility to defend our country. After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Navy was directed to completely change the way it trains, maintains and deploys its forces. These changes — a truly revolutionary shift away from traditional rotational deployments — make the OLF a requirement due to a lack of adequate capacity at Fentress Airfield in Chesapeake.
Regardless of where the new OLF is located, it will enable the Navy to better accomplish its core mission of defending our nation and preventing future wars.
Some have suggested using a decommissioned carrier, an offshore training platform or more simulators for training. Whether for the new pilot first learning or the senior pilot returning to carrier operations, a safety margin is required that wouldn't be possible on an offshore platform or ship.
The very demanding task of landing an aircraft on the deck of a carrier must be practiced with an adequate margin for safety before attempting to perform that task at sea. We have learned over many years how much training can be accomplished in simulation and how much is required in land-based practice to achieve that proper safety margin. Those well-meaning individuals who suggest we don't truly need this facility don't understand the challenges of landing on an aircraft carrier.
Our goal is to create a win for the Navy, a win for the nation and a win for the community ultimately hosting this facility. The Navy will continue to work closely with state and local officials and residents to identify opportunities that will provide benefits to the Navy and the surrounding communities.
Other organizations are contributing to this process, including various environmental groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and a variety of state agencies in Virginia and North Carolina. This collaboration has resulted in a number of ideas to bring economic benefits to the localities, which include development of commercial distribution centers, industrial or office parks, or community forests.
Enacting these and other ideas could bring hundreds of jobs and other economic benefits to the local communities. They also offer tremendous environmental benefits for threatened and endangered species, as well as their habitats. The ensuing environmental impact statement process will continue to allow us to explore all options. We look forward to working with all concerned parties to achieve a mutually advantageous solution.
We all owe America's sons and daughters our best efforts to find this solution.
Anderson holds the rank of rear admiral. He's vice commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk.
Put OLF on existing federal lands - Opinion - April 21, 2008
In response to the letters of Edward Fritsch ("Pilot training requires an OLF," April 10) and Charlie Sapp (An OLF is essential," April 17), I encourage all to read the 1961 "military-industrial complex" speech of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. I have never been a carrier pilot, so I defer to the experts who contend that an outlying landing field is necessary.However, the current plans have consequences that can not be lightly dismissed. The projected cost of $250 million will be borrowed from the Chinese against the labors of our grandchildren. The Navy wishes to take thousands of acres off the tax rolls. The OLF will most likely lower land values in its area, further reducing tax revenues.
Americans should never consider as secondary the wishes of the farmers whose lives have gone into making the land productive. In many cases, they have the labor and sacrifices of four and five generations invested in their farms.
I suggest the Navy look into placing its field in land already owned by the federal government. Possibilities include the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Cheatham Annex, Camp Peary, Camp A.P. Hill, Fort Lee, Quantico or even in the middle of one of the national forests.
The cash-strapped government could take a lesson from the cash-strapped farmers and learn to make the best out of what is already on hand.
Mark Fletcher
Smithfield
An OLF is essential - Opinion - April 17, 2008
In response to Larry Milloy's suggestion ("Training carrier," April 11) that a training carrier be used instead of an outlying landing field, OLF, let me expand on Edward Fritsch's excellent letter ("Pilot training requires an OLF," April 10).The problem is that field training is a prerequisite to landing on the ship, whether that ship is a fully operational fleet carrier or a training carrier. And the Navy has some pretty accurate figures on what it would cost to operate a stripped-down ship that focused on a training mission only.
The Navy used to operate USS Lexington (CVT-16) out of Pensacola, Fla., as a training carrier for qualifying new Navy pilots as well as seasoned fleet aviators. My squadron, based at NAS Cecil Field in Jacksonville, qualified on the Lex in preparation for our deployment to Vietnam in the early '70s.
The event was preceded by countless hours grinding around the landing pattern at an OLF by pilots, many of whom already had thousands of hours of flight time and hundreds of carrier landings under their belts.
Attending a lecture or reading a how-to book beforehand simply won't do. You don't just fly out and land on the ship.
Charlie Sapp
Hampton
OLF costs to county - Opinion - April 12, 2008
Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field must remain vigilant. Our opposition to an OLF is based on many factors, including the obviously negative environmental and quality-of-life issues. Those living in an area directly affected by a landing facility are well aware of the possible consequences if the Navy has its way.For those who do not live in one of the proposed sites, please consider the economic impact that our community would suffer should an OLF be located in one of our counties. Massive amounts of land would be removed from the property-tax rolls. To make up for the ensuing revenue shortfalls, county governments would likely have no choice but to increase tax rates to continue funding current services, including public education and other social services.
The impact would not stop there. Property values around the sites are also likely to decrease due to restricted-use ordinances and a general lack of desire to purchase land near the facilities. This would cause further revenue shortages and the need to increase tax rates even further.
If you think you do not live on land that would be directly affected by the Navy's use of land for a fighter-jet practice facility, consider that these jets have to fly over someone's home to get to the landing sites. If you live somewhere between Virginia Beach and western Tidewater, how do you suppose these planes will get to their intended practice facility? And, these are intended to be nighttime practice sites.
This is an issue that affects all of us in Southside Virginia and western Tidewater.
Tony Clark
Chairman, Virginians Against the Outlying Landing Field, Capron
Pilot training requires an OLF - Opinion - April 10, 2008
Reference the first sentence in Cody Byrum's letter "Use JFK carrier," April 6: "My family's farm in Surry County is one of several that the proposed landing field would take over." So much for any objectivity in his following comments.Let's review some ABCs for Byrum. A strong military is necessary to protect our freedoms. Navy aircraft carriers are a key element in our military defense strategy. Operating carriers in all kinds of sea and weather conditions requires a high level of expertise in its carrier pilots.
A carrier pilot's "elementary school" includes training in making carrier-type landings on runways ashore, first in daylight and then at night. When his skills develop to rigorous performance standards, his final exam is administered and graded by many times being catapulted off and landing at sea, on an under-way aircraft carrier requiring more than 5,000 crew members to operate.
Then during his flying career, he is required to regularly practice and requalify to keep his proficiency up to high standards. The JFK is mothballed because it's too old and too costly to maintain. Our pilots cannot operate from "towed" or "anchored" mothballed ships.
Byrum's comments follow the classic NIMBY approach to national defense: Do it anywhere, but not near me (or on my family's farm). But please, Byrum, don't use that trash phrase "government and military waste" on intelligent people. Best he leave comments about aircraft carriers and carrier pilots' training to those who know what they are talking about.
Sign me a "retired Navy carrier pilot."
Edward Fritsch Jr.
Williamsburg
A Reasonable Response to Your Jet Noise Editorial. - Opinion - April 5, 2008
What follows is the actual letter to the editor written by Helen Eggleston, the Opinion article which appears on the dailypress.com site appears to have been edited. It is headlined as VB's Chioce with a date of April 7, 2008Dear Editor,
This is for “reasonable person” in Governor’s Land across the river. The key word sir, is “allowed”. Oceana was once an OLF for Naval Air Station: NAS Norfolk and it was out in the country much like Surry County. There was no nothing near Oceana, except for the Oceanfront. But the Virginia Beach City Council, in its uninformed and reckless wisdom, deemed, over the past 30 years, that development was needed on every single patch of land surrounding Oceana, and against the advice of naval officials proceeded to create shopping centers, housing developments, fast-food places, etc.
Please note; “. . . development has been allowed to encroach so much that it threatens to compromise the Navy’s operations. And all the surrounding lights of streets, shopping centers and neighborhoods make it hard to simulate the landing pilots most need to practice. . .” These were your words, sir. “Has been allowed. . . “ By whom? Virginia Beach and its’ Mayor and City Council?
Being a reasonable person myself, I have to ask, “If the great city of Virginia Beach allowed this to happen; apparently even aided and abetted this situation; why on earth should they expect the quiet peaceful counties of Surry, Sussex or Southampton to quietly accept the fallout from their irresponsible decisions? Then there are those persons who chose to buy or build houses near Oceana, in its noise zone, they must have been blind as well as deaf not to realize they were moving next door to the “master jet base”. I believe there are very legible signs to that effect. Surely their property listings mentioned little things like noise and crash zones. They chose to build their dream homes where they did and then they have the unmitigated nerve to try and export their noise pollution to our peaceful countryside. I don’t think so!
You think we are anti Navy? You think we are unpatriotic? My late husband proudly served his country in the Army. My present husband served in the engineering department on the nuclear submarines Roosevelt and then the Bergall. My brother served two tours of duty in Vietnam. This issue is not about patriotism or the lack thereof. WE are eternally grateful to every man and woman who has chosen to serve in our military. It is because of their sacrifice and bravery I am able to sit here tonight and write this letter. Never doubt our patriotism. But this is an issue of money and politics. The cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake have a much larger population; hence many more votes than our small counties. They consequently have more wealth and political power than we do and because of this they are attempting to use their political ties and votes to export their noise pollution to us.
You say, “Someone has to hear jet noise.” Yes they do and my answer to the foolish people who allowed and encouraged development around Oceana and Fentress and the foolish people who of their own free will bought and built there, is to buy yourselves some good earplugs, an amplifier for your home entertainment system and accept the consequences of your own actions.
No, Surry is not the right spot. Virginia Beach is the right spot. You yourself said Virginia Beach planners, developers and city leaders made the decisions to make it so. It’s been my observation that many people in the city buy or build and stay for a few years and then move on with a few exceptions. Out here we have farmers who are farming the land their great-grandfathers farmed. Some cultivate farms that existed before the Civil War. People have restored and lovingly care for homes that were built in the 1700’s. We are for the most part quiet, peace loving people but we respectfully ask you to never underestimate the determination of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.
Helen Cooke Eggleston
Surry
Taking the fall -Opinion - April 5, 2008
Your editorial "Jet practice," April 1, hits a strong nerve for those of us who have lived all of our lives in this rural community that the governor has chosen to offer to the Navy. The issue is not so much about jet noise. You make the real point when you say "Virginia owes the Navy one for allowing the existing arrangement to be so compromised, largely by the short-sightedness of Virginia Beach's planners, developers and elected leaders."Several years ago, Virginia Beach constructed a water pipeline that travels through our counties. Harmless, of course, but when asked by our local elected officials if Virginia Beach could help our counties, the reply was emphatically "no."
More than one-half of the 51 miles of the proposed Route 460 corridor will pass through Sussex and Southampton counties. Major need: the expansion of the ports. Minor need: evacuation of Hampton Roads citizens.
Dominion Resources is planning a new 500-kilowatt power line that will pass through Sussex and Southampton counties.
The economic base in Southampton, Surry and Sussex counties is agriculture, including forestry. All of the above are reducing our natural resources and our economic base. Why do we have to give up our economic base to help the rich land to our east?
The real issue is all about money. Virginia Beach and Chesapeake receive huge financial benefits from the Navy. The outlying landing field, or OLF, offer has virtually no economic long-term benefit to our area. Our land is cheaper than the land in Hampton Roads, and the same planners, developers and elected officials from Hampton Roads want to continue to expand. They just need a way to keep the Navy but get rid of the noise.Virginia Beach and Chesapeake and perhaps their neighbors need to find the land to satisfy the Navy's need for a training area.
Finally, I believe that the Navy could find land suitable to their needs on land presently owned by some branch of the military or other federally owned land.
William B. Savedge
Wakefield
Beach's blood lust - Opinion - April 5, 2008
Reference "Jet practice," April 1. It became immediately obvious that you hadn't done much research on the problem of jet noise in Surry County. The Department of the Navy's Final Environmental Statement for the Introduction of F/A-18 E/F (Super Hornet) aircraft to the East Coast states that although an OLF is not required to support the home-basing alternatives at NAS Oceana, the Navy is considering construction and operation of a new OLF to provide operational flexibility and to mitigate the noise impacts. In addition, although NALF Fentress is and will continue to be used, training there is less than optimal because of residential growth around the airfield.Just who is responsible for the residential growth other than the mayor and City Council of Virginia Beach in their blood lust for a larger tax base? These people stood before the Base Closing and Realignment Commission that was threatening to close Oceana as a master jet base and said they would start buying up and removing structures in the crash zone. Actions speak louder than words.
Before you go questioning someone else's patriotism, it would be best if you had all of the facts. North Carolina has several sites closer to Oceana than Sussex and Surry.
Have you ever been to this side of the river in the area that you so blithely call wide-open spaces? Did it ever occur to you that these wide-open spaces are just how we like them?
Unnecessary OLF - Opinion - April 5, 2008
I am a resident of Surry County. If the new naval landing field is built in Surry County, our family farm would be beneath concrete. Adm. Gary Roughead has stated "that it is needed to simulate carrier landings in a near total darkness environment." I fail to see how concrete can simulate the rise and fall and the pitch and roll of a carrier flight deck on the open sea. I also fail to see how 2� miles of white concrete can simulate a near total darkness environment.It seems to me that the technology of auto-darkening lenses used in the welding industry could be used on the canopies of these practicing aircraft. This could be done for a fraction of the $250 million needed for the new airfield. The aircraft could employ this technology and land at the same base they took off from. There are also forts and bases recently closed that could be used. Why build another airfield?
It is a sad day in America when the invading force threatening to take our homes and land is the U.S. military. The decision-makers are so out of touch with reality that civilians are nothing more than a dot on the map.
Rep. Bobby Scott has shown backbone by standing with us in opposition. Is he the only elected official who has one?
H.E. Byrum
Spring Grove
Jet practice - Editorial - April 1, 2008
Would some residents of James City County hear jet noise if the Navy builds a landing practice field in Surry County?"No," says the Navy, if they're more than four miles away.
"Yes," says the Surry County administrator and a Surry landowner, both of whom oppose the selection of Surry out of the five sites the Navy is considering. The Surry resident tried to drum up opposition in Governor's Land, which lies across the river from Surry County, by fanning fears of noise.
"So what?" says the reasonable person.
Someone has to hear jet noise. The Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps — or the Coast Guard, for that matter — can't put their practice landing strips on islands in the ocean (aircraft carriers excepted), or out on the tundra somewhere.
And the pilots who take off and land from aircraft carriers can't do so safely unless they practice, practice, practice. They've been doing so at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach and the existing outlying landing field in Chesapeake, but development has been allowed to encroach so much that it threatens to compromise the Navy's operations. And all the surrounding lights of streets, shopping centers and neighborhoods make it hard to simulate the landing pilots most need to practice, the one that requires touching down on a small deck in a rolling sea in the dark.
You might say Virginia owes the Navy one for allowing the existing arrangement to be so compromised, largely by the short-sightedness of Virginia Beach's planners, developers and elected leaders.
Maybe Surry is the right spot. Or maybe one of the other sites — in Virginia's Southampton and Sussex counties and two North Carolina locations — is better. All offer what the Navy needs: big, empty spaces away from population centers. They also offer the greatest protection for ground-bound civilians: big, empty spaces away from population centers.
If there's some noise spillover, so be it. At the risk of sounding cavalier, it must be said: Why shouldn't the citizens of James City County or Surry County, or any city or county that enjoys the advantages of our military, help pay some of the price, and not just financially?
Meanwhile, the last thing we need as the Navy works through its evaluation of the sites is local members of Congress trying to undermine it. Members of the Virginia delegation who claim commitment, expertise and influence on armed forces issues — Sens. John Warner and Jim Webb and local Reps. Thelma Drake and Randy Forbes among them — must be careful, in this case, to put national interests ahead of parochial ones, however close to home.
In that light, Forbes' statement that he won't support a landing field in his district is distressing, especially from someone who sits on the House Armed Services Committee. He's even on the Readiness Subcommittee. There's no reason his district should be immune from the inconvenience that citizens might have to accept to ensure that readiness.
And that responsibility should also be apparent to his constituents and others, too. No matter who would hear jet noise, it ought to be easy to be grateful for the skills Navy pilots would hone at a Virginia-based practice field.
Comments
Buddy Faison
Poquoson, VA
Tuesday Apr 1
Maybe a REASONABLE person would also realize that the location of an OLF would be better located on already government owned property such as Fort Pickett that has for many years faced the possibility of being closed down and would cost us taxpayers millions to clean up, already has the acreage way out in the country but not so far that these jets could fly to. Maybe a REASONABLE person would also realize counties such as Sussex, Southampton and Surry already carry the burden of regional land fields, state prisons and corporate hog farms that Hampton Roads cities don't want but don't mind imposing on the rest of us who don't want any part of their developments. Maybe a Reasonable person would realize that people are attempting to escape such noise by moving to the counties. That we also need areas close to the Hampton Roads areas to escape such things. I worked many years building these aircraft carriers and many of these people who will lose land and have this noise forced on them also served in our armed forces. To trivialize their dilemma by making them sound like they have not shared in the experience of defending the homeland reeks of arrogance.
JML
Newport News, VA
Tuesday Apr 1
t's funny thatnobody wants to hear the jet noise, but they want to keep this country safe. People always have some to complain about. People shouldn't mind it, it's not like they do a lot at night, most of the time it's during the day when people are at work anyway. We need to do what we need to do to protect this country. Get over the noise.
JTP - Isle of Wight
Mc Lean, VA
Tuesday Apr 1
Government owned land such as Fort Pickett, has for years been a firing range for Howitzers and light tanks. The Fort has impact areas, that can't be used for anything else. Fighter pilots practice at night also, just ask anyone who has lived in the Tabb area of York County. We did. The noise will have an impact on area wildlife and farm animals also. Why should the Navy take private land, that was bought, cleared and improved by a lot of sweat and hard labor. There are better solutions. This isn't the American way I served to protect. Maybe NN can use an OLF.
Buddy Faison
Poquoson, VA
Tuesday Apr 1
JML wrote: t's funny thatnobody wants to hear the jet noise, but they want to keep this country safe. People always have some to complain about. People shouldn't mind it, it's not like they do a lot at night, most of the time it's during the day when people are at work anyway. We need to do what we need to do to protect this country. Get over the noise.Actually JML the flights will all be at night. The site is supposed to be used for practicing night landing operations. READ THE ARTICLE AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
marcaurelius
Virginia Beach, VA
Tuesday Apr 1
Buddy Faison wrote: Maybe a REASONABLE person would also realize that the location of an OLF would be better located on already government owned property such as Fort Pickett that has for many years faced the possibility of being closed down ....Blackstone is already a military town. And with all the shells that have been fired there since WW I, Ft. Pickett will never revert to agriculture.
It would seem that in this age of 'jointness' Air Force C -130s and Navy F-18s could coordinate their 'touch and goes' at the landing strip.
LCE
Logan, IL
Tuesday Apr 1
So many of you seem to think this is a patriotic issue. Not so. It has to do with money and politics, not the Flag and patriotism.Virginia Beach has the wealth, the people - thus the votes and political influence. As usual the big and powerful are trying to step on the small and less powerful. Virginia Beach is trying to shift the results of their mismanagement and irresponsibility to us. Well, they are going to have a fight on their hands.
plantsup
Logan, IL
Tuesday Apr 1
I am amazed that you called in to question someone else's patriotism when you didn't bother to give your own military credentials or your name. This OLF is a want by the Navy , not a necessity as stated in their own Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 12-1. I also think that you are uninformed on the subject matter. This is about money and politics and you are trying to wrap it in the flag and play on people's emotions. Shame on you.
I LOVE JET NOISE
Cary, NC
Wednesday Apr 2
I agree with the first half of your comment. Yes they will be night flights but it is not like a space shuttel blast off...OMG the price we pay for freedom.IN NC, it is the poor birds who will be homeless, they can fly to a new home.
In VA, snobs dont want the noise.
Get over it.
I have lived at Langley AFB, Charleston AFB and Pope AFB and near Cape Canaveral, FL
I know that it sounds like, you get used to it
Make noise elsewhere
Alexandria, VA
Wednesday Apr 2
Take one of those mothballed aircraft carrieres and park it out in the ocean for landing practice.This would be much cheaper than running multiple airfields.
And there would be no noise to complain about.
Joe Jet
Hampton, VA
Wednesday
Not only will they hear it but it will sound like its in their neighborhood. Trust me.
dkintigh
Virginia Beach, VA
Thursday
Please pass the word on and NOT reelect Forbes!!!
The Walkers- Capron
Thursday
You are completely wrong!!! They ONLY practice at night(hence the darkness of the country). And from my understanding, it will be after dusk until 10 pm. But in the summer, it does not get dark until after 9 pm. Are they going to get 40+ landings in before 10pm? I don't think so. They also will only be practicing Sunday- Thursday, not on the weekends when most people are up late. You should get your facts straight!
Susan
Hampton, VA
Thursday
As the spouse of a retired sailor I think that Surry County or anyone else with the space available should allow the Navy to build a practice landing field. It is not as if the noise would be heard 24/7/365! Our sailors need to practice their landings, where it is actually dark, so we don't loose our valuable assets in landing on the real aircraft carrier deck. And Randy Forbe's needs to resign right now from his elected office if he does not support one of his regions largest employers.
justin
Washington, DC
Thursday
not sure where folks got the idea that forbes is against the olf. i was on the conference call when he said over and over that he understands the need for the navy to have an olf and he hoped the governor would keep his word that they wouldn't force it on an area that doesn't want it. plus it'll be more than a year before the navy even finishes the report they have to do before they can make the decision. it seems to me folks need to calm down and wait to see how things shake out
common sense
Basel, Switzerland
Thursday
I live right across the river from Langley and they have been doing night drills for a few weeks. Complete with alarms smoke and small explosions. They scramble the jets at all times of the night. We close our windows and it no big deal.It is worth it to hear the jet noise at night as long as I can hear to National Anthem at 5:30pm everday and not the call to bow to allah.
Richard Dougherty
Murphysboro, IL
Yesterday
It's incredible that you would trivialize the issues regarding the OLF as a matter of inconvenience. An OLF in the Surry location would result in lowered property values and tax revenue, lossof income to farmers because of restrictions on what they can grow, loss of historic homes, loss of homes that have been in families for generations, sleep deprivation, learning impairment and possible adverse impact to the environment. Our Navy is not always right, That's why the law requires an environmental impact study. I did not find this editorial cavalier, I found it vacuous.
marcaurelius
btwn L Erie and Ohio R.
ISP Location: Virginia Beach, VA
18 hrs ago
Richard Dougherty wrote: ...An OLF in the Surry location would result in lowered property values and tax revenue, lossof income to farmers because of restrictions on what they can grow, loss of historic homes, loss of homes that have been in families for generations, sleep deprivation, learning impairment and possible adverse impact to the environment.....Ft. Pickett was once listed as one of the alternatives. They already do that stuff there: artillery fires, mortar fires, weapons quals, C- 130 'touch and goes,' demolition training .... A lot of noise in an isolated rural part of Virginia. It encompasses most of one,and part of another, Virginia county.
AP Hill subsumes almost all of Caroline County. Half of York County is the Naval Weapons station and Camp Peary.
How much of Virginia should be turned over to the military?
What is the difference between Surry and Ft. Pickett-- a few minutes?
And if someone brings up 'coordination problems,' well -- that describes the conditions our forces fight under.
Pickett would just serve as another outstanding training opportunity in 'jointness.'
common sense
Basel, Switzerland
5 hrs ago
Richard Dougherty wrote: It's incredible that you would trivialize the issues regarding the OLF as a matter of inconvenience. An OLF in the Surry location would result in lowered property values and tax revenue, lossof income to farmers because of restrictions on what they can grow, loss of historic homes, loss of homes that have been in families for generations, sleep deprivation, learning impairment and possible adverse impact to the environment. Our Navy is not always right, That's why the law requires an environmental impact study. I did not find this editorial cavalier, I found it vacuous.It's not trivialized it really is just an inconvenience most of the issues you bring up are extreme and unresonable.
It's typical of the American public to say we want your tax base , we want more jobs, we want to be safe in our own country but don't inconvenience us do that some where else. When ever I hear jet noise I am just thankful the jets are ours!
Richard Dougherty
Murphysboro, IL
5 hrs ago
Unfortunately, the things I listed are true. My wife and I would loose my home which was built in the 1700s and is on the national historic register. I have neighbors who would loose homes where their families have lived for 0ver 100 years. The county can not tax federal land and development would not be allowed on 30,000 acres resulting in loss tax revenue. Land values in the area around the OLF would go down resulting in lossed tax revenue. The Navy would restrict what crops that would attract birds. The Navy's record of decision in 2003 for the need for a new OLF sites lists sleep deprivation and learning imparement plus a lot more problema as reasons why they need to move away from Fentress. Their record of decidsion is available on line. I wish the problems were trivial but they are not to those of us who are directly impacted.
Hampton Handyman
Hampton VA
ISP Location: Basel, Switzerland
4 hrs ago
Richard Dougherty wrote: Unfortunately, the things I listed are true. My wife and I would loose my home. I have neighbors who would loose homes. The county can not tax federal land and development would not be allowed on 30,000 acres resulting in loss tax revenue. Land values in the area around the OLF would go down resulting in lossed tax revenue. The Navy would restrict what crops that would attract birds. The Navy's record of decision in 2003 for the need for a new OLF sites lists sleep deprivation and learning imparement as reasons why they need to move away from Fentress. Their record of decidsion is available on line. I wish the problems were trivial but they are not to those of us who are directly impacted.So with all the land in Surry they want to land in your yard?
I'm sorry if this is true but I still think sleep deprivation and learning imparments are a stretch.
Taxes will come from employees spending money in the county and like I said I live right across the river from Langley and my assessment went up $60,000 last year.
Navy moving forward on landing strip - March 31, 2008
• WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Navy's top officer said last week that the service will make its case for construction of a new practice landing strip in southeastern Virginia or northeastern North Carolina by emphasizing to nearby residents the importance of pilot training for night landings aboard aircraft carriers."We have to have a place where pilots can go fly that best replicates the environment that they're going to experience" at sea, Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, told reporters.
The Navy wants the landing strip placed in a remote area where pilots can fly in and out in near-total darkness, but still relatively close to Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach, its East Coast master jet base.
Roughead acknowledged that the Navy is facing serious local opposition to the proposed outlying landing field but said the service intends to press ahead with environmental and other studies of five potential sites announced in January. All are within 65 miles of Oceana.
• Those sites, three in Virginia and two in North Carolina, were announced after the Navy abandoned a three-year effort to place the $250 million facility in Washington County, N.C. Local opposition similar to that which derailed the Washington County plan has sprung up near the new sites, each of which is located on timberland or farmland.
Comments
sillywilly
Hampton, VA
Monday Mar 31
I am all for it. I live by the bases and LOVE the jet noise. It means many things, one is FREEDOM so when everyone complains, REMEMBER, we serve our country because u didnt! We need practice!GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Joe Ford
Logan, IL
Monday Mar 31
The Navy is just looking for a currupt county official to bribe. They wont reimburse me for my property value crashing, or my insurance rising. The Navy has 3 airfields in the area and bases all over the country . Many that are closing why waste money building a new one. You wanna practice landing on an aircraft carrier land on a frikking aircraft carrier. Seams you could build a non engine driven aircraft carrear floating platform off shore.
Buddy Faison
Poquoson, VA
Monday Mar 31
sillywilly wrote: I am all for it. I live by the bases and LOVE the jet noise. It means many things, one is FREEDOM so when everyone complains, REMEMBER, we serve our country because u didnt! We need practice! GOD BLESS AMERICA!What a stupid comment. Many of the people whose land will be taken for the Air Strip were veterans too. Most are not arguing the need for such a strip they would just like to see it go to someplace like Fort Pickett that has the land and has for many years bearly escaped being closed. The land is already owned by the government, would cost a fortune to clean up if closed and just a few more miles inland. Why buy more land to destroy if the people don't want it. Let's not forget that the reason that the navy is looking inland is that people around Oceania don't want it either.