Sometimes the BRAC Process Gets it Wrong

Sometimes The BRAC Process Gets It Wrong
Dr. Daniel Goure, The Lexington Institute
6/27/2005

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.

And it may be hitting the fan sooner than we think...based on this information, just Posted 07/06/05

China and Russia to Hold Joint Military Exercises Aug 18-26: Report
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, BEIJING

China and Russia will hold rare joint military exercises involving up to 8,000 service personnel from August 18-26, a state newspaper reported July 6.

”Peace Mission 2005” will involve China’s army, navy and air force, while Russia will dispatch its navy and air force, said the Global Times, citing Russian press reports.

China’s Defense Ministry has not announced the exercises. But Russian President Vladimir Putin said June 30 during a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao that joint exercises would take place later this year.

”Cooperation in the military-technical sphere and cooperation in the purely military sphere is in the process of expanding,” Putin said.

”This year we expect for the first time for many years to have joint military exercises.”

According to the Global Times, which is run by the official People’s Daily, final arrangements for the exercises were agreed on July 1, when Major General Qian Lihua of China’s Defense Ministry visited Moscow.

The paper said the joint maneuvers will begin on August 18-19, when the two sides hold military and political consultations at chief of staff level near Russia’s Pacific Fleet headquarters at Vladivostok.

From August 20-22 the exercises will move to the Yellow Sea and the area off the Jiaodong peninsula in eastern China’s Shandong province, it said.

These exercises will involve China’s army, air force and navy, and Russian paratroopers who will jump on to the peninsula, while Russian ships engage in amphibious landing exercises, it said.

? Air force exercises involving Sukhoi Su-27 fighter planes and Tupolev TU 95MSs and TU 22M-3s will round out the drills on August 23-26, with long-distance bombing runs and cruise missile attacks, it said.

The exercises could also involve China’s nuclear submarine fleet and anti-submarine warfare, the Global Times said.

Comments? Off hand, this sounds like it has coordinated "Taiwan Invasion Plans" written all over it...

Paul,

With all due respect, I'll just say this. On my last operational tour I ran a production workcenter where 34 personnel shared one 486 PC. The 486 was an upgrade to our 8088, which we creatively "procured" it from Air Force DRMO. We routinely ran out of fuel/parts money as well as cleaning supply money nearly every quarter.

I transfered to a staff job at one of the SYSCOM's. Life was good! I was greeted with TWO pentium's on my new desk, a laptop and civilian contractor support of about $225K a year. The contract support arranged by the GS-13(she was promoted out of the job) I replaced basically performed notetaking duties at meetings. One of my first duties was killing an $800K trainer project for a system which didn't exist. On the next years budget drill when I voluntarily cut my own contract support, the career civil servants looked at me like I had three heads and actually tried talking me out of it.

Now we just deployed people into combat without sufficient body armor and have people going on third combat tours in just over 2-1/2 years. It's obvious we cannot fight a two theater war paying for a bloated infrastructure.

CUT! CUT! CUT THAT FAT!!!!

I leave it to the brass to determine which procurements get cut in order to meet the rising chinese dragon with it's puny $60 Billion defense budget. Remember the HSA is also vies for "Defense" dollars with their mission.

I leave it to the brass to determine which procurements get cut in order to meet the rising chinese dragon with it's puny $60 Billion defense budget. Remember the HSA is also vies for "Defense" dollars with their mission.

I would leave it to the "brass" too, if they were the ones making the call. But, in fact, the brass did not advise any of these particular cuts. In fact, President Bush campaigned on increasing procurements $10 billion. Now he is seeking to cut $30 billion. Do the math.

And last I checked we are still at war.

The Brass is only implementing "Triage". Desperately sacrificing long term needs for the immediate. Doing the least damage with the arbitrary cut that is being cavalierly ordered from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I really wish we could line up the guys in the OMB responsible for this in front of a firing squad. We could lose the entire country in the looming war with China...made inevitable by their picayune interference.

That body armor thing wasn't a result of "fat" in the budget competing and taking the necessary funding. Rather, it shows the very adverse impact of CONGRESSIONALLY-MANDATED BIDDING REQUIREMENTS. Tedious and inordinate delay are its middle names. To repeat: Before these cuts, the money was never at issue. But the legal process giving PERMISSION to PROCURE was. Now it will only get that much worse. Gotta make sure those minority firms get their fair share of the pie, you know.

Many of the procurement programs being eliminated were ones that he previously pushed for ("transformational") when he was a candidate...the Administration is now cutting the long term stuff for short-term ephemeral, extraneous concerns. They are not trying to IMPROVE the military. Just reduce it. Plain and simple.

Think we are going to get all that body armor and IED jammers now? Don't count on it.

Anyways, as to China, where do you think your computers are made? Most of their chips, power supply, keyboards, display, muffin fans, and likely their case and circuit boards?

Where do you think all of our super-magnets are now made after Xlinton and now GWB let all of the U.S. Magnequench technology and plants get shipped to.....___________ [fill in the blank, its a five-letter name].

You should know, being in the military, how much further your defense budget could go if you only had to pay the soldiers and support staff the Chinese going wage in their high-buck export sector: 27 cents an hour...Do you think their soldiers get even that much? I don't. And they likely don't pay widows benefits or serious retirement benefits either.

So for a "puny" defense budget of $60 billion...which is only your guess, their rmimbi/yuans go far indeed. They are currently producing four times as many ships and submarines as we are, and they are only getting started. How many fighters, cruise missiles, and Russian-designed 4th generation SAMS are they manufacturing for themselves and deploying on the cheap because they CAN? They are deployingthe DF-31 a land and sea-mobile variant ICBM system which can easily hit the center of the U.S. and are about to test a much bigger model yet, the DF-41 which can function in FOBS mode...and may have other stealth features.

With all due respect, Utilizing Purchasing Power Parity calculations, what do you think that $60 billion is really equal to? $180 billion? $280 billion?

P.S. Thanks for your service. Keep up the money savings. But don't automatically assume that "fat reduction" is what is going on. It sure wasn't under Cheney or Xlinton. Read those thread posts above as previously iterated.

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.