THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 9, 1994 TAG: 9407080023
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 41 lines
Your series ``Bases Under Siege'' addresses some serious concerns dealing with base realignment in the Navy today, but fails to answer one important question: Why did the Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommend closure of Cecil Field?
From your report it seems obvious that the Navy has decided its aircraft of the future will be the F/A-18 Hornet. Why, then, would a facility housing the A-6, soon to be out of service, and an F-14 fleet that is half its former size be the facility of choice to remain open?
Why would the Navy recommend that it's people move to Cherry Point? The location is not adequate for handling new aircraft, nor is it prepared for the onslaught of new personnel. It lacks schools and housing, with an economic structure that does not afford the much-needed jobs of Navy spouses.
Your positive arguments for Oceana can be just as well argued for Cecil Field. Unrestricted airspace, good weather and the capacity to launch and recover aircraft. Encroachment is not a factor. The only buildings under the landing traffic pattern at Cecil Field are located on the air station itself. A practice-bouncing facility similar to the Fentress field in Chesapeake is located five miles north of Cecil and is also available at all times.
Additionally, no new hangar facilities, ramps or barracks are needed. The engine-test cells, maintenance facilities and trainers all peculiar to the F/A-18 are all in place.
However, since by law it now appears that Cecil Field will close, the citizens of Virginia Beach and Norfolk can ill-afford to lose Oceana. The economic impact to small businesses will be devastating. Just ask the citizens of Jacksonville.
KEVIN C. DYE
Virginia Beach, June 22, 1994 by CNB