don't forget working on the water in the lovely new england winters too... 8^)
As a retired Chief of the Boat (COB) on a fast attack submarine operating out of Groton, CT, I disagree with the findings of the BRAC Commission. I believe that the decision to keep the Submarine Base open was made strictly on political and economic grounds.
My reason for dissent is operational. A submarine is most vulnerable when it is transiting on the surface. It has no defense against an aerial attack. To defend against a surface attack, it would have to expend a Mark 48 torpedo, which is designed to sink aircraft carriers or other submarines. Because of the way the bottom of the ocean slopes gradually up, we were required to do a 13 hour surface transit to reach the “Dive Point”. This same transit in San Diego would take about 1 hour. This is an awful long time to be a target.
The other primary reason that we would not want our submarines home ported there is the fact that the base is located up the Thames River past the bridges crossing the river for Interstate 95. All an enemy would have to do to bottle up a large portion of our east coast submarine force for the duration of a war would be to drop one or both of the large bridge spans into the river.
I don’t believe the BRAC Commission has served our country well with this decision.
good analysis. thank you for the perspective.
how much of this was to save the career of Rep. Simmons is anybody's guess.
Good analysis Chief. When I was listening to the delegation from CT arguing to keep the base open, I concluded that the reasons were entirely political.
Excellent analysis from one of the many experts on FR. I love this board!
don't forget working on the water in the lovely new england winters too... 8^) Worth repeating.
Geopolitically, too, isn't it more likely a sub out of the West Coast would be closer to a probable trouble spot than a sub out of the East Coast? If I want to go to Taiwan on the double I don't set sail from New England.