GovernmentExecutive.com

Defense policy experts and industry representatives expect the Pentagon's recommendation to close 33 major U.S. military installations to have a positive effect on the agency's transformation efforts during wartime, but stressed that affected Northeastern states will likely wage major fights to keep their bases open.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Friday sent to Capitol Hill his recommendations calling for 5 percent to 11 percent cuts in excess military infrastructure. He expects the recommendations to result in $5.5 billion in annual savings and slightly less than $50 billion over 20 years.

"Industry all along has said that base closures are good because it frees up money for procurement," said Pete Steffes, vice president of government policy for the National Defense Industrial Association. He acknowledged the upfront costs of shutting down bases, but said in the long term the savings would be realized. The reduction in bases will help provide long-term savings needed to fund the military's transformation efforts, Steffes said.

But another industry source said he does not see this BRAC round as a great step toward the Defense Department's transformation plan, which strives to make the services work together to create efficiencies. "For example, the Air Force has three bases that handle primary flight training and the Navy has two bases that do the same thing. One of the Navy bases in Florida can train more people so why not take one of the Air Force squadrons and train them at the Navy base?" he said.

"The largest fight will be in the Northeast region," said Barry Rhoads, who heads a defense lobbying group. "Groton [Conn.] will lose 8,460 personnel, Portsmouth [Maine] will lose 4,500, and Ft. Monmouth, N.J., will lose over 5,000 employees."

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said Friday that he would ask the commission to retain the Groton-New London base because of its military value. During the 2004 campaign, Hunter visited the New London area and said he had asked the Pentagon to keep the base off the closing list. His appearance was an effort to bolster Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., who was in a close re-election contest.

But Stephen Pietropaoli, executive director of the Navy League, a civilian advocacy group, said the submarine base in Connecticut is not needed. The Navy says the diminished size of the submarine force and the efficiency of on-line training are reasons it is not worried about losing Groton.

The Navy's submarine force has diminished from 100 attack submarines and 40 ballistic submarines at the height of the Cold War to its current 55 attack and 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines. The Navy can use virtual training on the waterfront or on board in lieu of using a "brick and mortar school house," Pietropaoli said.

COMMENTS

• Chief, thanks for your service. You make good points, and obviously know about this issue firsthand. My question is about access. I trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Brunswick, Ga., and had to fly in to Jacksonville, and then take a government bus to the base. Kings Bay is also quite a distance from any commercial airport, and Jacksonville is not a big one, with limited service to most parts of the US. It seems to me that Groton is nearer to major transportation facilities, as well as to Washington, which would make it easier and perhaps less costly for service personnel to travel on assignments, training, TDYs, etc. Also, Groton is in a more developed area, and nearer to major industries and manufacturers, many of which I assume supply the Navy. In your opinion, should this have any bearing on the proposal to close Groton in favor of Kings Bay? GovExec.com reader Posted May 19, 2005 12:51 PM
• Sorry but it does make sense to move out of Groton and to Kings Bay. I've been stationed at both and the better facility is in KB. Groton is totally land-locked, KB has room for growth even though it will be difficult due to environmental laws regarding wetlands. Groton has access restrictions because the 726 class cannot get to it at all. Politically, Groton keeps the sub building capabilities of EB (for now) so it doesn't lose everything while KB would be total loss of industry if closed (shouldn't be a concern, but reality says it is). As to infrastructure - Groton is rivaled by both KB and Bangor in capabilities. But while Bangor and KB can be modified to accomodate the subs currently in Groton, the reverse is not true which is one of the primary reason they didn't get them when they were first put into service. Sub school can be taught in the training facilties at any base. The only main reason to keep Groton, in this retired Chief's opinion, would be history. Common sense says the Navy made the right choice, but I'll shed a tear when Groton Subase closes - I spent a lot of my career there. Submariner Posted May 18, 2005 11:03 AM
• Groton has 3 times as many submarines based there as Kings Bay, Ga., which is where the subs from Groton are supposed to go as per the BRAC recommendations (18 compared to 6). Meanwhile, Kings Bay has only existed for about 20 years, while Groton, an historic base, has been around for almost 100 years. Groton has much more invested in permanent infrastructure, and is home to the Navy Sub School, as well as other facilities, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to replicate elsewhere. In addition, to clean up Groton would cost an enormous amount of money before it could be turned over for civilian use. Lastly, Groton is right next to Electric Boat, which is where they build subs! If anything, Kings Bay should be closed and those subs moved to Groton! Looks like the Georgia Congressional delegation pulls more weight than the Connecticut delegation, right Senator Lieberman? GovExec.com reader Posted May 17, 2005 12:44 PM