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.)

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Subase NLON Drawdown Plan

The Sub Report has essentially everything of interest today in the submarine world available in one place, so I won't try to copy what you can find there. I was interested to read the new article by Bob Hamilton of the New London Day that details the Navy's timeline for pulling out of Groton:

"According to a 124-page report released by the Navy, 1,471 military and civilian workers would leave in 2008, when a squadron of attack submarines would move to the base in Kings Bay, Ga. Another 1,600 employees would leave in 2010, when two squadrons of submarines would transfer to Norfolk, Va., and 4,678 would be transferred right before the base closes in 2011, when the Naval Submarine School would move to Kings Bay."

The story also answers a question I had since the announcement, as far as what will happen to the Submarine Force Museum and the Nautilus:

"The only good news for base supporters is that the Navy would leave behind five officers, 34 enlisted people and 15 civilians to run the Historic Ship Nautilus and the Submarine Force Library and Museum, which would stay, as would the Navy Supervisor of Shipbuilding office at Electric Boat."

It also looks like the Navy might not have had someone take a critical look at the money part to see that it all made sense:

"Markowicz said many details in the report are confusing. One listing puts the cost of new military construction for sub school students in Kings Bay at $286 million, but the “total cost” at just $51 million.
“I have no idea what the difference is between the two numbers, or the methodology they used to come up with those figures, based on what was released,” Markowicz said."

My take: It looks like someone in Groton is getting their ducks in a row; hopefully they won't be drowned out by the "environmental cleanup extortionists".

Staying at PD...


Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

TWO squadrons moved down to Norfolk? Are they planning on building more piers, because I don't remember Norfolk having that much space to spare? The subs are squirrelled away there as it is...

I guess the squardon moving to King's Bay is CSDS-12, the squadron moving there has almost as many people as the two going to Norfolk.

5/26/2005 8:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, at Norfolk the D&S piers are a little to the south of the piers for the rest of the fleet. And they are limited in their capacity. My guess is that there are plans to moor more submarines on the piers to the north, and I'll bet this requires some infrastructure improvements.

5/26/2005 1:20 PM

Blogger G-Man said...

I was stationed on the Baton Rouge and spent 2.5 years in Virginia attached to her there. I say move Virginia's sub assets rather than Groton. It just makes more sense to me.
I also belive that the sub fleet should not be touched by cuts at all. If anything, more submarine assets and property should increase. China may be another Russia someday and we need to be ready. There are other countrys that might be a threat as well.

5/26/2005 10:53 PM

Anonymous Vigilis said...

Well, Guettler.D .
What;s the skinny on this:

1) Pentagon sees need for more submarines than the NAVY; for background, visit Bubblehead's Connecticut Counterattack and read about Senator Dodd's concern that a Navy study was incomplete and resulted in a projected need for far fewer subs (37-43) than thePentagon study (43-50);

2) Groton SSN squadron transferred to a non-submarine base (surface admiral command) ;

3) Women sailors assigned with men to those submarines ;

4) No more sub pay.

Only surface admirals could think this way.

After the guff taken from the Air Force over the NAVY JAG experience, the world of Navy admirals is collapsing on them, budgetarily at least. Have submarines lost again?

5/27/2005 6:52 PM

Blogger Skippy-san said...

Test comment to see if the OPM Blakilist thing kicks in

6/01/2005 7:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Pentagon said they wanted two submarine bases on each coast. Lets see.... San Diego and the base in Washington state (forget the name)
is two for the west coast. Kings Bay and Norfolk could be the two for the east coast --- but wait.... D&S piers at Norfolk - one pier and a Submarine Tender to maintain those subs. That does NOT sound like a submarine base to me. Sounds like military politics to me.

retired bubblehead

6/11/2005 8:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"D&S piers at Norfolk - one pier and a Submarine Tender to maintain those subs. That does NOT sound like a submarine base to me. Sounds like military politics to me."

What Teneder? There's only two - one at Guam one at LaMad. - the rest are gone (except for the ones we're trying to save - and they'll be "civilian" if we do).

9/18/2005 5:42 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home