Posted on 07/05/2005 9:35:52 AM PDT by Paul Ross
Sometimes The BRAC Process Gets It Wrong
Over the past 12 years there have been five Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) commissions leading to the elimination of some bases and other military facilities. The process for determining which facilities to close or realign is relatively straightforward. The Department of Defense (DoD) proposes a list of bases that is reviewed by an independent commission that passes the final set of names to Congress which must vote to accept or reject the list as a whole. In general, if a facility is on the Pentagon’s initial list its fate is sealed; but not always. Historically, about 15 percent of the initial recommendations are changed or rejected by the Commissioners.
The decision to close the submarine base at New London, Connecticut, is an example of the one-in-seven cases in the BRAC process where the Pentagon gets it wrong. DoD wants to save money by consolidating all East Coast submarines at two facilities, Norfolk and King’s Bay. But just moving the 16 boats at New London would not save much money. The "answer" was to close the entire facility.
The recommendation is wrong on two counts. First, it is inconsistent with the 2005 BRAC criteria. In particular, closing New London will negatively impact the operational readiness of the submarine force. New London is home to more than just its three submarine squadrons. It also houses the Submarine School and the Naval Submarine Support Facility (NSSF). The Naval Undersea Warfare Center which develops new operational concepts for submarine operations is close by at Newport, RI. Next door is the General Dynamic’s Electric Boat Division (EB) that both builds nuclear submarines and designs future boats. The value for readiness of co-locating submarine training, concept development and design work with a nuclear submarine shipyard cannot be over estimated.
Second, it incorrectly assesses the savings from New London’s closure. A synergy exists between the base and the shipyard. Skilled personnel from EB provide maintenance support for New London. This maintenance work is critical to keeping a large and capable workforce at EB. Advanced submarine design work at EB, such as the Tango Bravo program, benefits from the close proximity of the Submarine School and Undersea Warfare Center. Submarine crews, who go on board their boat a year or more before it is launched, make use of the facilities at the naval base. Without the base, the cost of servicing their needs will inevitably rise. New London is one half of a sophisticated, complex and world-class submarine design/build/repair capability. One will not do well without the other. It is not simply a matter of dollars saved but of capabilities potentially lost.
The BRAC Commission should easily recognize that closing New London is a bad idea. Any savings gained are likely to be offset by such tangible losses due to increased maintenance costs and the intangible costs associated with destroying a unique network of capabilities. Weakening the U.S. strategic advantage in undersea warfare is not worth a few hundred million dollars of savings.
|
|
Shipyard's Fate Hangs In Balance Tomorrow
(Union Leader, N.H., July 5, 2005)
The fate of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard could be decided Wednesday when four members of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission hold a hearing in Boston to decide whether to accept the Pentagon's recommendation that the yard be closed. The session is one of four hearings at the same location. Each will be crucial to determining the fate of other military bases in New England, including the Submarine Base at Groton, Conn., the Brunswick Naval Air Station in Maine and the Defense Finance Accounting Service center in northern Maine.
Florida netted a gain of 4,000 plus jobs as a result of this recent BRAC process. Maybe there are reasons, but how can you expect others to sacrifice when the President's brother's state gains 4000?
We've already closed far too many bases. Time to start reactivating some.
Thanks for the ping!
Do you have a source for this? If so, amazing.
The BRAC hearing for Eielson AFB was a month ago. The presentation was good, attendance was good. Will it matter? If every base has equally good testimony, everything will cancel and the list will stand.
Sarcasm aside, there are some good points in the article but let's take it one step further, then. Why not relocate ALL of those facilities to a lower cost state and save money in the long run?
My wife's sister says that the base closings are punishment for the "blue" states. She uses Fort Monmouth here in New Jersey as an example.
If I understand what they do there correctly (communications & electronics R&D) they could move just about anywhere, and doing so would move their people out of one of the highest cost of living areas of the country.
Closing military bases in a time of war.
I really believe the pentegon messed up with this whole concept.
Georgia gained 7,423 jobs. Does the President have a brother in Georgia? Texas lost over 3,000 civilian jobs. The Florida total is 2,757 gain -- not 4,000. In addition, the Florida military gains were offset by a reduction of over 1,000 existing civilian jobs. The far left state of Maryland has almost 10,000 jobs gained. Just who is being rewarded there?
You are trying to make something that went out of the way to be non-partisan and non-political into something that you think is politically motivated. It's just not true. The facts prove otherwise.
So you think the Department of Defense is a jobs program? Or that it exists for the sole purpose of providing high-paying jobs to states that you approve of?
DoD personnel as placed where they can best accomplish their mission -- not where they can best support the local economy.
Sounds about right to me!! Glad to know that you survived the holiday!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.