GovernmentExecutive.com

Connecticut lawmakers have only two weeks to persuade the independent commission evaluating the Pentagon's base-closure recommendations to save the massive New London Submarine Base and more than 8,500 jobs in the state.

Their strategy, as the base-closure process winds down, is to argue that the Pentagon dramatically overestimated cost savings for shutting the installation and relocating its assets.

When Pentagon officials announced their recommendation to close the installation and move its assets to bases in Georgia and Virginia, they projected $1.6 billion in savings in the next 20 years.

But an analysis compiled by the team working to save the base contends the closure would cost $1 billion in the next two decades, said a congressional source.

The analysis contends the Pentagon low-balled one-time construction costs to relocate the New London submarine school and the base's subs by at least $269 million. The Connecticut cost figures also note that the Pentagon overestimated personnel savings by $84 million a year, largely because the department's analysis did not take into account a workforce reduction at the base by more than 200 positions since 2003, with additional cuts planned through 2011. Those cuts have saved the Navy $19 million, the source said.

The Connecticut analysis also said the Pentagon failed to account for $31 million for one-time moving costs and another $42 million needed annually for "unique" costs. The analysis was presented at a meeting with Base Closure and Realignment Commission staffers last week.

Over the last several months, Navy officials have stuck by the recommendation to close New London, stating that it makes economic and strategic sense to consolidate the Navy's East Coast underwater assets at Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia and Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia.

The service has cut its submarine fleet from 100 several years ago to about 50 Tuesday, with more reductions planned. Navy officers have said they had considered, among other options, moving the submarines stationed at Norfolk to Kings Bay and New London. That move, however, would save little money at Norfolk, already home to 78 ships and 133 aircraft. The commission will take up its recommendations later this month, with their base-closure list due to the White House by Sept. 8.

COMMENTS

• I have been sorting thru the various stuff/crap that shows up in the Mailbag for a couple of years. In Submariner we finally have someone who has cut to the chase, the partisan bickering, we/them, and union/non-union trash that normally populates this forum is of little value in the real world. He is right on the money when it comes to BRAC, the larger issue is our country, and our national defense. There seems to be an opinion out there that the primary purpose of this forum is for people to vent, not offer studied opinions or alternatives, but to simply vent. It is refreshing to see a well thought out comment..... Mike Page Posted August 11, 2005 1:57 PM
• Interesting responses to the proposed BRAC closures. Intense denial of any legitimacy on the part of potential losing locals. A strong sigh of relief from those that weren't mentioned at all. A gleam of avarice by the potential gaining locals. But very little acknowledgement on anyone's part that many of these potential moves makes sense. To the poster worried about a dirty bomb - that's a fear now. Steps are in place that may/may not work to prevent, recover and take retaliatory actions. Hopefully we'll never need to find out whether they will work or not. But as a nation we need to figure out where our priorities lie. If we are going to insist on continually cutting the size of our naval forces, then we simply do NOT need that many bases to service them. Which make the most sense in the lonog run? The same is true for our air and ground forces. One of the stupidest ideas I've heard forwarded is to move the Master Jet Base from Oceana to Cecil Field. I live in the Jacksonville area, and would welcome the economic boom, but really! Cecil was shut down once. What could possibly make that a smart move to restore it? If we need to close Oceana due to residential encroachment (lived there also and think that a good idea) then move it to the center of the nation somewhere and zone from the beginning so that it cannot happen again. But we need to look at the good of the nation, not just the smaller local issues. I don't question anyone's patriotism, but we have to get past this partisan bickering and name calling that floods this forum! Each of you has served your nation in some way - armed forces, civil service, or contracted expertise. It is NATIONAL defense, folks, and we need to remember that above all else. Submariner Posted August 11, 2005 8:28 AM
• What happens if a terrorist detonates a nuke or a dirty bomb at Norfolk? Will all the so-called experts then change their tune, and call for dispersion of our military assets? Of course, but by then it will be too late. What will they say then, "Oops, we goofed?" It makes no sense to put all your eggs in only one basket. This is not difficult, folks, it's just common sense. GovExec.com reader Posted August 10, 2005 1:22 PM