GovernmentExecutive.com

Members of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission pressed Navy leaders Tuesday on their decision to shutter the Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, Conn., the largest single base-closure recommendation on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's list.

Commissioners quizzed officials on what alternatives they considered when weighing whether to close the facility, a decision that would affect 8,500 military and civilian jobs. They also questioned how much closing the base would cost, and what it ultimately would save.

The decision comes as the Navy scales back its attack submarine force from about 100 subs several years ago to about 50 today. The diminishing fleet moved the Defense Department to suggest consolidating its sub bases, leaving the East Coast with Norfolk Naval Station, Va., and Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, Ga.

"Where do we want to be in 20 years? What do I want this to look like?" Adm. Vernon Clark, chief of naval operations, asked the commission. "We believe this is the right choice."

Navy officials said they considered, among other options, moving the submarines stationed at Norfolk to Kings Bay and New London. However, such a move would result in few cost savings at Norfolk, an expansive installation that is home to 78 ships and 133 aircraft.

"If we moved all the subs out of Norfolk, what happens? We don't close the base, and we only marginally affect the public works on the base," Clark said. The Navy doesn't "save large resources until ... you close the fenceline."

The Navy expects closing New London to cost $679.9 million, which includes investing $238 million to expand Kings Bay to accommodate roughly 3,200 personnel the service would relocate from Connecticut. Service officials, using "conservative" estimates, said they hope the closure eventually will save $1.6 billon.

Commission Chairman Anthony Principi voiced concern that relocating personnel to Kings Bay might flood the local community and overwhelm schools, housing and roads. "The last time I was there, [there was] limited infrastructure on the base and in the county," Principi said.

Navy officials countered that the base's commander worked with the commission and they concluded the base and community could handle the additional personnel.

"In all of our moves, we looked at both ends of this," said Navy Secretary Gordon England. Norfolk also would absorb some of the New London personnel.

Despite the advantages the Navy sees in closing the Connecticut facility, Clark conceded the decision to shut down New London was a difficult one, given the base's legacy as the birthplace of the military's submarine force.

"New London is a perfect example to raise when we talk about very, very difficult choices," he said. "We have a heritage in New London."

The Pentagon's recommendation, announced Friday, provoked an immediate backlash on Capitol Hill, where the Connecticut delegation decried the decision.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.,likewise said he opposes the decision because of the base's close proximity to Electric Boat's submarine manufacturing facility.

Connecticut Democratic Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Christopher Dodd, attended the hearing, as did Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., whose district encompasses the base.

"We believe the answers that have been given on military value and the cost of closing and moving are not right," Lieberman told reporters as he left the hearing for a vote. The savings generated from closing New London have been "grossly overstated," he added.

Both senators said they were encouraged that several commissioners had asked the Navy questions about the New London recommendation.

COMMENTS

• To the last poster, My guess is you are a civilian in Groton from the tone of your post. Costwise, you are partly correct - it will cost more to move all those in Groton to Kings Bay than the reverse if that could be done. It can't, so the point is moot. Groton simply cannot support the subs from KB. They don't have expansion ability for the new facilities that would be required - explosive handling wharf's are totally different than what is required for the subs in Groton. The facilities in KB CAN support the fast attacks, it is primarily just a matter of new supplies and new CAD/CAM machining software/hardware. Any required machinery can be transported at minimal expense. Kings Bay buildings will have to be expanded a minor amount, but they have room to grow for crews that are primarily assigned to ship. Groton would have to expand quite a bit for crews that are assigned to ship 55% of the time. Groton facilities are older and a significantly larger construction/maintenance expense. Utilities are significantly higher in CT. Dropping the bridge in CT is a bigger strategic threat for access closure than bombing/mining the egress for KB. Hurricane/natural closure is a significantly bigger threat in KB than Groton. Small advantage to Groton, except that it cannot be reached by the Tridents, even with a massive dredging operation. KB is a warm-water port, Groton is not. Norfolk is, but the infrastructure in Norfolk does not rival either Groton or KB. But the main non-political reason it wasn't the closure target is that it wouldn't close an entire base, just a few buildings. Not a large enough savings. Overall, the only reason to keep Groton is history. During tough economic times, it seems that this simply isn't enough. Submariner Posted May 23, 2005 7:22 AM
• We don't even need the 3 remaining sub bases on the east coast! Close the base because it is as unnecessary as welfare payments were. We do we eliminate welfare payments and then continue to subsidize defense workers, farmers and agricultural workers, the department of education and energy? Government at the federal level totally is out of control thanks to Congress! taxpayer Posted May 19, 2005 6:40 AM
• It would cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to build sufficient additional infrastructure at Kings Bay, a newer, smaller base than Groton, in order to bring that installation up to Groton's level. Also, what would be the cost of moving thousands of military personnel and their dependents, as well as civilian workers? Regarding vulnerability, the Brooklyn Navy Yard was a major base in World War 2, despite being between several bridges. The same for San Francisco, San Diego, and other current and former naval bases. Also, Kings Bay, like any harbor, could be mined, thereby restricting access, especially considering the sorry state of our minesweeping capability these days. It would make more sense to close Kings Bay, a smaller installation, and move those 6 subs and personnel to Norfolk and Groton. It would cost less, and inconvenience a smaller number of personnel. Of course, that would upset the Georgia Congressional delegation, which is what this is mostly about anyway, political power and influence rather than the good of our nation. GovExec.com reader Posted May 19, 2005 12:33 PM