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.
|
|
I'd kind of like to hear the other side of the story before considering this person't comments amazing.
There is obviously a good fit between a shipyard, and sub school, and a defnese contractor's site.
However, if the base is being close I suspect it's likely that the sub school is also going to be relocated, and it's likely that General Dynamics has another location where the ships going.
This does mean that the area is likely to take a big hit financially if the base closes. However, our defense dollars should be spent cost effectively on our defense needs, not to provide jobs in certain areas.
It's definately possible that BRAC screwed up, but that's why there's going to be a hearing to review their decision. I doubt the facts are as one sided as this article implies.
One example will refute that: the 90% closure of Eielson AFB will knock Fairbanks back to the 1993 economic level, and Fairbanks is the most Conservative part of a Conservative state.
I don't believe it is about jobs [in spite of lip service] or about political pork or about political reward. If that were so, Alaska would not be getting nicked. I do believe it is about military strategy and planning.
It often seems the case that when the government starts spending money on you, you're in line for a hit. That seems illogical to me, but this is government spending policy we're talking about.
The General Dynamics shipyard is almost a neighborhood business. The industrial area and the residential area share the same streets. The sub base could be anywhere since it has little to do with actual submarines. Whether GD keeps the ship yard open would be a business decision, but submarines aren't the hot item they once were.
It's not a matter of the President's brother's state gaining 4K+ jobs.....Kings Bay Naval Base is in Georgia, by the way.
It is a matter of downselecting without the benefit of the opinions of materially interested parties. Personally, I could give a rat's patootie about EB, Connecticut, or the rest of the excuses that now are cropping up because the local unions and libbies are afraid they'll lose more of the government teat.
Maybe it IS time to shake up the establishment (e.g., where the bases are now) and to get them to think about how just exactly what they've been doing--or not doing. Last time I looked, I didnt' see any Russian FBM boats floating up the coastline. Where they need to be positioning the sub/nuke force is nearer to China instead of quick and easy reach of France ---they never have been a threat.....
Sorry, I misspoke. It is not the schools that are coming back, it is NETC. The Command is going to be coming in a couple of years.
sounds like a great place for an I.C.E. detention facility/city. they just need to contact the right department.
The sub base is already half golf course.
Dang straight. Six words: Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York.
The concern is that we are not mereely relocating...but unavoidably downsizing and losing our actual present capability... And we won't even save any money, because that kind of change ...driven by penny-wise-pound foolish OMB thinking...will actually represent a dramatic INCREASE in 'transactional' costs. And where in the budget is the extra money for these new transactional expenses? Nowhere. Hence:
We're eating not just seed-corn but our own muscle and bone, and getting nothing deployed while messing about with this funding musical chairs. Too much "churn" caused by the arbitrary orders out of the White House, as noted in the following:
Defense Dept. Looking for $30 Billion in Cuts
Aviation Week & Space Technology 07/04/05
author: David A. Fulghum
author: Amy Butler
Foreboding
Pentagon planners are beginning to quietly voice their alarm at what appears to be up to a $30-billion shortfall that could threaten a host of weapon programs--including aviation projects.
And as they begin to forge a budget for Fiscal 2007 and beyond, they anticipate vicious fights over funding resembling those that started off this year as the Pentagon finished the Fiscal 2006 request. Many Defense Dept. officials returned from vacation early this year to a sweeping series of last-minute budget cuts now dubbed the "Christmas surprise." Program budget decision (PBD) 753 signed Dec. 23 by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sliced $30 billion from the defense budget from 2005 to 2011. One military official says "PBD 753 was the first of the $5-billion whacks" as officials look to balance the budget in future years.
A small group of defense civilians mandated the cuts, including reductions in the F/A-22 and termination for the C-130J and Joint Common Missile. Some of the cuts were redistributed to the Army, which needs cash to modernize into a modular and digital force in the future. However, several officials say the cuts were merely made at the last minute to balance the books per the White House's direction.
Unsure of what to cut in Fiscal 2007 and 2008, Pentagon accountants inserted what officials call the "negative wedge," an $11-billion cut to both years, in the existing budget. They did not identify programs to be docked, and they are now faced with that dubious task.
Upcoming cuts are likely to have more teeth and, perhaps, staying power than those in Fiscal 2006, which begins in October. Because so many key programs were cut or terminated last year, officials at the Pentagon are still trying to grasp the technology and fiscal impacts of the decisions. For example, cutting the Joint Common Missile--which itself was developed to replace a host of existing systems with a lower cost new one--could actually cost more by pouring life-support cash into legacy projects.
At the time of the cuts, speculation was rampant that the tight fiscal environment would force senior officials to invest in new technologies like UAVs, combat drones and Special Forces equipment at the expense of new manned and space systems (AW&ST Jan. 10, p. 20).
If it comes to pass, the cuts would continue to leave unfulfilled the pre-election White House plans to add $10 billion annually to defense spending. It also will renew pressure to cut more F/A-22s and F-35s and slow any momentum in the Air Force's beleaguered E-10A intelligence-gathering aircraft and tanker recapitalization program.
An unknown for the Air Force is the actual cost of the C-130J program, which was terminated in the December decision. Senior Pentagon officials have since said they will restore the program. It's unclear where the money will come from to revive the effort; the original termination freed up nearly $5 billion through 2011. One Pentagon source says money went to the Navy's shipbuilding budget and officials may have to pull it back out. Regardless, another Pentagon source says the understanding in the Defense Dept. is that officials are "starting off in the hole" as they assemble next-year's budget.
Meanwhile, amid pressure from the Senate, USAF is renegotiating the contract with C-130J manufacturer Lockheed Martin to end its status as a multiyear buy and recast it as a traditional yearly purchase order. The renegotiations could generate more costs.
There also is concern that the Air Force--whose civilian leadership was left tattered by the tanker leasing scandal and underwent a number of resignations as President Bush began his second term--could suffer as the Pentagon presses on with the Quadrennial Defense Review, a sweeping look at military requirements and priorities. Without a heavy-handed advocate in the QDR, some Air Force program advocates fear the service will fare ill in the process. The final QDR is expected in Congress in February.
OTHER AREAS or programs that may be vulnerable to further reductions include missile defense, advanced satellites, maritime patrol aircraft and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship.
Some Air Force planners are already getting a dose of the new reality. Air Combat Command's 2007 budget proposal was "laughed out of the room" when it was presented to the Pentagon-based Air Force headquarters staff, according to one witness. It was reportedly billions of dollars over what the budget could possibly bear. Navy officials admit that much planning continues to be predicated on peacetime spending levels while wartime costs continue to accumulate.
The services must submit their final budget plans to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in September.
Also expected to influence the budget are some external pressures. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently got an earful of complaints from the Norwegian government about its investments in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. He has passed the word to his staff to attend closely to the needs of JSF's foreign participants in order to keep them involved.
Also expected to profit from the budget shakeup are the payloads to be carried by unmanned aircraft including new generations of hyperspectral sensors (for detecting chemical and biological weaponry), active electronically scanned array radars (that can produce weapons effects) and directed-energy weapons (with high-power microwave devices expected to mature at least as quickly as laser weapons). Ground-based HPM has already been used to shoot down shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles in tests, and the first laser designed as a weapon for an unmanned airborne payload is under contract, say officials attending a Baltimore UAV conference.
Affecting all these calculations will be the demands, both financial and technological, of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon has been spending about $5.6 billion per month to continue operations in both areas, and the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq continues to climb. More than $202 billion had been obligated for both as well as defense-related homeland security missions as of March 2005. During a speech last week on Capitol Hill, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), a member of the powerful appropriations committee, acknowledged the impact operations are having on procurement programs. In the post-Sept. 11 climate, he said, officials "get so enthralled with the immediate needs that we forget about the future."
Financial pressures are expected to force existing aircraft to remain in service longer than planned with the addition of improved engines, sensors and weapons. New aircraft purchases are likely to be cut and stretched out, and costly space systems will also likely suffer. Major Aviation Programs/Cuts From 2005-11
V-22 $1.3 billion
Joint Common Missile $2.4 billion-termination
Missile Defense Program $5 billion
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser-Extended Range $403.7 million
NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance Program $476 million
Transformational Satellite Program $400 million
E-10A $600 million
C-130J $4.9 billion-termination (decision rescinded)
F/A-22 $10.5 billion
Joint Unmanned Combat Air System $1.1 billion
(c)2005 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive, LLC. Trading as Factiva.
Or maybe in fact, none of the above. It appears to be that domestic spending priorities of the President's OMB are destroying the vaunted managerial integrity at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Fidelity to maintaining our defense capabilities is not the priority.
See the Aviation Week article reprinted above.
That is always in question. If the military never got a chance to try out their weapons and techniques it would be a big question. We sure do rely on military power a lot considering we haven't been invaded lately. Yeah, I know, we have interests abroad, the country has been oriented to the international since the beginning.
See the Aviation Week article up above. This is not about an orderly, efficient and reasonable cost-savings. This is a last-second, willy-nilly slash-and-burn of the Pentagon's long-term projects and core basic infrastructural elements for the phantasml savings of, as Goure puts it, a savings on paper of several hundred million dollars. Now multiply that level of managerial chaos issuing from the White House by the $30 billion they are demanding be cut...
Anyways, as an aside to your point: There is also a geographic requirement for some facilty placement. You don't launch ships and subs from North Dakota. Nor do you want all of our airbases relocated to, say, Nebraska, as the cheapest state? Remember how there were no fighter bases in easy reach to defend the 9-11 targets? Even at Washington D.C. thanks to Xlinton's previous cuts. If we followed your principle to the extreme, leaving no bases at the "expensive" periphery of the U.S. or defending anything of any importance along the coasts...because its too expensive, we would have...no defenses where they could do any good.
Another factor that is ignored in the BRAC process is the fact that if the U.S. is attacked by a premeditated first strike as in Pearl Harbor, there is a lot of safety in numbers. More bases, makes for easier recovery/reconstitution of the military capability. It also makes for greater "surge" capability which we may in fact need if we are up against 1.2 billion Warmongering Chinese Communists. It is extremely unwise to assume that there will be no great power wars, or classic engagements, as did the Xlintonian Disinformation Agent, Thomas Barnett ("The Pentagon's New Map". Fortunately, Rumsfeld got him fired at the end of last year).
I think that depends on your defintion of invasion!
Do you remember this little news flash?
According to the Press Release of Associated Press on March 8, 1997, COSCO ships have been involved in the following recent incidents in the United States: Oakland California: Summer 1996, Smuggling of 2000 AK47s on a COSCO ship.
The Clinton-Administration speculation at the time, was that perhaps these may be the same weapons destined for Miami Street Gangs. WHERE IS THE REALITY CHECK? That is enough to arm a brigade!!!
And they use alternate agencies as well...their buddies down in Vietnam:
Smuggled Guns Linked to Long Beach:
San Diego Union Tribune, 3/14/97. Two cargo shipping containers holding thousands of grenade launchers and M-2 carbines. The largest source for M-2s outside the US military is Viet Nam (We left a few in the depots there.) The containers were labeled "strap hangers" and "hand tools". Discovered by accident, they had already been shipped from Long Beach to a warehouse in Otay Mesa waiting for transhipment.
Thousands again. H'mmm.
What if these aren't weapons destined for U.S. buyers at all...but for Chinese agents and accomplices? What could they be planning? They believe profoundly in the efficacy of "asymmetric warfare." Thinking outside the box...hit the enemy where he isn't looking for you. Consider that many of the Chinese students here are ex-PLA. just need to hook up with their weapons, maybe??
During the 2003-2004 academic year, 61,765 Chinese students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities, according to the Institute of International Education’s “Open Doors 2004” report.
And then there are there other visitors. As reported by the FBI Counterintelligence deputy, China's spies use as many as 3,200 front companies -- many run by groups linked to the Chinese military -- that are set up to covertly obtain information, equipment and technology. Additionally, the Chinese use hundreds of thousands of Chinese visitors, not just their students, and other nonprofessional spies to gather valuable data, most of it considered "open source," or unclassified information.
Thanks for posting the reminder of this incident.
The media around here speculated that 'gangs" were going to purchase those firearms, but I suspect otherwise.
And this is not merely a book idea for Jeff or Travis!
There are quite a number of scenarios...but just thinking along the lines of really going "out there." What if, oh, 5 brigades of well-armed and trained Chinese special operations forces suddenly materialized in Washington, D.C. one day, and captured everyone of note, President on down, and sacked the Pentagon, and killed all personnel therein? Would we be checkmated from the get-go? A Fait accomplice? They may not expect to keep the country subjugated long, just distracted while they do other big things...like occupy Taiwan. Invade Australia and the Phillipines. Etc.
Who in the national chain of command would be left then to mobilize either domestic resistance or perhaps safeguard or use our strategic forces? We don't have Operation Looking Glass running anymore. And even if flying, what could they do? Would they be able to command the military assets surviving effectively? Particularly with all the civilian leadership held "hostage" so to speak? Would they, and even could they, retaliate directly against China?
Likely Not! with China now having ICBMs which can easily reach Chicago and the Twin Cities, not to mention all points further West.
Meanwhile, additional Chinese special forces could also be attempting to 'knee-cap' other critical defense installations...such as those important to our National Missile Defense, etc.
And then let's consider that they may be doing a number of other asymmetrical assaults simultaneously. The possibility of a major EMP attack is one that gives me sleepless nights. The Dept. of Homeland Security is "too busy" to be bothered with that one. More proof of the Peter Principal?
It was thought that intercepting ships and regulating foreign trade would be relatively easy, nothing like the difficulty faced by European powers who had land borders. France alone had 20,000 employed in watching the roads for goods coming in and ducking the tariffs. This was one of the strong arguments in favor of setting up the federal system. Of course that was before the second ocean was reached and the border with Mexico reached by civilization.
I went to school across the river from the whole complex. You have to see it to understand why relocation is plainly stupid - especially to people that build subs for a living.
The Thames River area is a big laboratory for building good subs. It's like a giant college for sub-building. And the area surrounding this college have people who used to be the very best at sub building helping even better people remember some of the things they don't want to forget about ship building.
Moving all those pieces to various places is like breaking up a baseball team that has won 20 world series in a row. It doesn't make sense.
The only reason for doing this is that subs may not play the role they once did in our defense posture.
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.