Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Connecticut Counterattack (Continued)

No, this isn't the start of alliterative post titles... but it looks like things might be going SUBASE NLON's way. Senator Lieberman has a decent editorial in the New York Post (annoying registration required; a full version is found about halfway down yesterday's Ron Martini's Daily SONAR briefing, which also includes three articles about the new Naval Academy commandant, who I worked with when he commanded USS Asheville), but the biggest news comes from an article by Bob Hamilton in The New London Day. Excerpts:

"The Pentagon has finished a study of military requirements that concludes the Navy needs at least 45 to 50 submarines, not the 37 to 43 that the Navy found in an internal study, Navy sources said Tuesday.
"The Connecticut congressional delegation said the new study, which is classified, could help overturn a Navy recommendation to close the Naval Submarine Base in Groton.
“If these numbers are true, they would be more dots that –– when connected –– add up to a rationale for not closing sub base New London,” said U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn. “Our nation needs more submarines and not less, and these numbers –– if true –– would seem to indicate that the Navy's arguments are based upon shaky assumptions, and that is highly significant.”...

"...“And we were concerned that the earlier study was a Navy study, and may not have looked at all the requirements of the warfighting commanders and all the agencies outside the Department of Defense,” Downey said. “We have suspected all along that a complete analysis, taking into account all the requirements, would reflect a higher number.”

This is the type of argument the Connecticutters (Connecticutlians? Connecticites? Geez, I lived there over six years and I have no idea...) need to be making. Raising the planned future submarine numbers from 37-43 to 45-50 could be the justification the BRAC Commission needs to remove SUBASE NLON from the closure list. I'll be interested to see what, if any, public comments the commissioners make when they visit Groton next week.

Staying at PD...

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the new appointment to commandant of the Naval Academy, I had a chance to work with Capt Grooms while on the NPEB. Great guy, great choice! rbp

5/25/2005 9:45 AM

 
Blogger Chap said...

I'll second that. He's a good man, and exhibited grace under pressure when I knew him. Right choice for a public and "people person" job, too.

5/25/2005 9:47 AM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

I was always told it was 'nutmeggers.' Not sure on that, but the better half's fam was from there, and that is what they insisted on.

Glad to see someone is finally talking about the number of boats required in the fleet - has been an element that has really needed talking to for some time.

5/25/2005 11:12 AM

 
Blogger submandave said...

It astounds me that an "internal" Navy analysis of submarine requirements failed to identify National tasking levels and joint operations. Way back in '95 both of these were items of daily interest at CSG7. It tells me that whomever in the Navy was doing that study either ignored input from the 1120 community or intentionally uncounted in order to match projected force levels based upon new construction rate.

5/25/2005 3:28 PM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

I guess that's what happens when you put skimmers in charge of things. Need more Bubbleheads on top, then we can get some logical decisions.

(The WY Bubblehead)

5/26/2005 8:01 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home