The U.S. Navy, forced to trim its budget, would like to retire the aging aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy rather than eliminate more modern weapons it considers more vital to national defense.

	Online Graphic See a charte of current and projected Navy aircraft carriers.

But the Navy's proposal has steamed into just the sort of turbulent political waters that so often scuttle Pentagon plans to make cutbacks based strictly on security considerations.

In this case, the politics works like this:

Florida politicians want to keep the Kennedy on active service because it is the only carrier based in Mayport, Fla., where it creates thousands of jobs.

Florida politicians would acquiesce in mothballing the Kennedy, but only if it were replaced by one of the carriers now resident in greater Norfolk, Va. -- the only other place on the Atlantic coast where carriers are based.

Virginia politicians don't want to let go of any carriers based in their state, and at least one of them is trying to cut a deal with Florida to push for a law that says the Navy must keep 12 carriers in service, so that neither state would have to lose one.

The Navy would prefer not to retire the Kennedy, which had been scheduled to remain inservice until 2018. But the Office of Management and Budget has ordered cuts made, and Navy Secretary Gordon England and his admirals decided taking the Kennedy out of service was the least painful way of making the reduction.

Retiring the Kennedy would reduce the number of aircraft carriers to 11, the first time in more than half a century there would be fewer than 12. "Every single assessment by the Defense Department until last December showed the need for 12 carriers," said an aide to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But a diminished naval threat and a vast increase in the capabilities of carrier-based aviation indicate this is no longer true, said retired Marine Col. Robert Work, who analyzes naval issues for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. "Every carrier you have forward is like having six 1990 carriers," Work said.

In 1990, the maximum number of targets that could be engaged in a day by an aircraft carrier air wing was 162, he said. Thanks to precision-guided weapons and an increase in the speed with which fighter-bombers can be refueled and rearmed, a carrier air wing can now strike 1,000 targets in a 24-hour period.

Work said he thought the number of aircraft carriers could be reduced to 10 without endangering the Navy's ability to perform its missions.

Peter Brookes, a commander in the Navy reserve who analyzes national security issues for the Heritage Foundation, disagrees.

"I think going down below 12 is problematic," Brookes said. "The first thing the president asks when there is a crisis is: 'Where are the carriers?' "

But Brookes said he didn't know where else the Navy could get the $1.2 billion it expects to save over the next six fiscal years by retiring the Kennedy.

Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and George Allen, R-Va., have introduced legislation to require the Navy to maintain at least 12 carrier battle groups. The powerful Warner hasn't joined them, but he has said a decision on reducing the carrier force should be postponed until after a major defense strategy review scheduled for this year has been completed.

"When we are at war, this is not a time to reduce carriers," Nelson said.

"Now is not the time to do anything that will weaken our strategic military capability of responding quickly and decisively to project our power," Allen said.

But the bill sponsored by Nelson and Allen -- both of whom are up for re-election next year -- has more to do with protecting local economies than with national security.

The Kennedy is the only aircraft carrier based at Mayport. The Kennedy's 2,900 sailors and their families pump an estimated $250 million into the local economy each year.

The loss of the Kennedy could trigger even greater economic misfortune for Mayport. In May, the Pentagon will make its recommendations for base closings to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. If the Kennedy and a significant portion of its battle group are retired, it could be hard to justify keeping the base open.

The Navy says it has no plans to deactivate other ships in the Kennedy battle group. If the Kennedy is retired, Florida politicians -- including the president's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush -- want one of the five carriers based in Norfolk transferred there to replace it.

Adm. Vernon Clark, the chief of naval operations, is sympathetic. He doesn't want all of his Atlantic carriers clustered in one port, lest there be another Pearl Harbor.

But there is a problem. The Kennedy is one of only two conventionally powered aircraft carriers left in the Navy. Mayport is not equipped to handle a nuclear carrier. It could cost north of $140 million to upgrade facilities.

The Kitty Hawk, which also is conventionally powered, also figures in the Kennedy saga. The Kitty Hawk is based in Yokosuka, Japan. The Navy plans to replace the Kitty Hawk in 2008 with the USS George H.W. Bush, a new nuclear carrier scheduled to go into service then.

But the Japanese public is strongly opposed to having a nuclear warship based in Japan.

Some in the Pentagon think that if forced into a choice between a nuclear carrier or no carrier, a Japanese government increasingly concerned by growing Chinese military might will opt for the nuclear carrier. But others think the Japanese may insist the Kitty Hawk be replaced by the Kennedy.

That would resolve the 12 carrier issue, but not Mayport's problem, or Virginia's. Each of the carriers based in Norfolk pumps about $250 million into the local economy, which Virginia's politicians are loath to lose. Even if a Virginia carrier isn't moved to Florida to replace the Kennedy, Virginia still loses if the Kennedy is retired.

The Kennedy was put on the chopping block because it is the most expensive of the carriers to maintain, and because it is scheduled for a major overhaul to begin later this year. If that overhaul were done, it would be done at the shipyard in the Norfolk area, and the skyrocketing cost of shipbuilding is the chief source of the Navy's financial woes.

"Shipbuilding cost increases have grown beyond our ability to control," Clark told Congress. The projected cost of the George H.W. Bush is $5 billion. The carrier built before that, the Ronald Reagan, cost $4.6 billion.

The Bush is the last of the Nimitz class carriers. The next carrier to be built, the CVN-21, is estimated to cost $10.5 billion. (The Navy notes that it will be more capable than the Nimitz class carriers, and that inflation is built into the cost estimate.)

The costs of submarines and frigates are going up even faster.

"We're caught on the horrible horns of a contradiction," said Harlan Ullman, a retired Navy captain who is now an analyst for the Center for Naval Analyses. "Big decks are very valuable, but we have a horrendous budget problem."

The solution, Ullman said, is to decommission the Kennedy and another carrier, as well as other ships in their battle groups, but to keep them maintained with skeleton crews so they could be recalled to duty if there were an emergency.

But politicians will resist this solution, he predicted. "Congress is going to be on the side of maintaining ships [in active service] and the shipbuilding base, but we don't have the money to do that," Ullman said. "The huge debate is between what the Navy thinks it needs and how Congress represents its constituents."

"If Congress is going to coerce the Navy to keep the Kennedy, it should provide the additional money," said retired Vice Admiral J.D. Williams. The Navy shouldn't be forced to take it out of hide."