THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, January 9, 1995 TAG: 9501090058
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JACK DORSEY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Long : 116 lines
As Hampton Roads braces for word on the next base-closing list, two installations that officials are most nervous about seem now to be ``less at risk,'' says the head of a state commission fighting for Virginia's bases.
Oceana Naval Air Station, a worry because it is losing jets, and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, criticized as redundant in the last round of base closings, should pass the test of military value, said retired Adm. Harry D. Train II of Norfolk, co-chairman of the base retention commission.
That may not be the case with Fort Eustis in Newport News and its subordinate command at Fort Story in Virginia Beach, Train said.
All the guessing may be over in as little as 10 days, when chiefs of the military services are scheduled to submit recommendations on base closings and realignments to their civilian secretaries. The Navy already has turned in its list, and the contents should be made public soon, said one congressional source.
From there, the lists go to the defense secretary, the base closing commission, the president and Congress.
``We had reason to believe both Oceana and the shipyard were medium risks until recently,'' Train said. ``But the more you analyze the value of those two bases . . . the less concerned we become that they are at risk.''
Train and Robert T. Skunda, secretary of state for commerce and trade, share leadership of thestate Commission on Base Retention and Defense Adjustment, created in June by Gov. George F. Allen to prepare for the 1995 round of base closings.
So far, said Train, there are no military installations in Virginia that the commission would identify as high risk.
Concurring in that assessment is Rep. Owen B. Pickett, who one year ago sounded an alarm after it appeared Oceana might be eclipsed by Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in North Carolina.
``In recent months I have begun to feel much better about Oceana than I did six to eight months ago,'' said Pickett, a Democrat representing parts of Norfolk and Virginia Beach.
He bases that optimism on discussions with uniformed and civilian military personnel at high levels in the Pentagon.
Pickett said he spoke with Vice Adm. Stanley Arthur, the vice chief of naval operations, on Thursday.
``He didn't tell me they weren't going to close (Oceana), but you gather inferences from his tone of conversation,'' said Pickett.
He also spoke to Robert Pirie, the assistant secretary of the Navy.
``I continue to get vibes that lead me to believe Oceana is secure,'' he said.
Pickett said some of the smaller moves likely to be made during the 1995 round - base realignments - may hurt Hampton Roads.
``Even one job, if it's yours, is major,'' he said. ``But there will be nothing that will materially alter the size of the military presence in Hampton Roads.''Oceana Naval Air Station
Train, who commanded the Atlantic Fleet and NATO's Atlantic forces from his Norfolk headquarters between 1978 and 1982, said Oceana seems particularly secure.
``It would take someone certifiably insane to make the moves that have been postulated - specifically, closing down Oceana and leaving all that existing infrastructure behind, then go down and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new infrastructure at Cherry Point,'' said Train.
The 1993 base closing commission recommended that the Navy's fleet of F/A-18 Hornets be moved from Cecil Field, Fla., which was ordered closed, to Cherry Point. Without those jets, the Navy feared, Oceana would close because it is losing its fleet of A-6 Intruder attack planes. Coupled with a reduction of F-14 Tomcat fighters at Oceana, the Virginia Beach installation would have a hard time justifying its existence.
But recent studies have indicated that it would cost up to $650 million to move the F/A-18s to Cherry Point, where new hangars, maintenance buildings and other airport facilities would have to be built. The cost of moving them to Oceana, which already has such facilities, would be less than $100 million.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
At Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, versatility should spell salvation in a battle that may involve the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, Train said.
``We have made the point to the legislators . . . that it would be ludicrous to close a shipyard such as Norfolk Naval Shipyard that was capable of maintaining and repairing and taking care of any ship in the U.S. inventory - from the largest nuclear aircraft carrier to the smallest ships - and leave open the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard . . . that has the capability of overhauling and maintaining only smaller submarines,'' he said.
There is every indication that the Navy wants to maintain one public shipyard on both the East and West coasts, Train said.
The Norfolk Naval Shipyard is in the middle of a dense concentration of naval activity in Hampton Roads, he said. There is no need to relocate crews during overhauls, or send ships elsewhere, because many of the crews already live in the area.
``But in the case of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, no one lives there. So spare us the expense of having to send the crews there.''
The commission is more concerned about Fort Eustis and Fort Story, Train said, ``because you can't make the exquisitely logical case for either of those bases that you can make for Oceana and the Norfolk Naval Shipyard.''
Fort Eustis, on the east bank of the James River near Williamsburg, is home to commands including the Army's 7th Transportation Group, often one of the first units deployed to world hot spots such as Somalia and Haiti.
Train said the Army's evaluation team uses one criterion in determining military value: a base's designated mission.
At Fort Eustis, despite the many roles it has acquired through the year, the stated mission is training. That's an important function but not as important in military value as a base designated for operational purposes such as an infantry or airborne battalion.
So unless is the mission is changed, the base cannot score points for its history of quick deployment, which dates back to World War II.
``That complicates the defense of a base such as Fort Eustis,'' he said, ``because when they have a data call, Fort Eustis can only respond with those things that are related to its mission. It can't say, `We do all this other work.' '' ILLUSTRATION: Photo
Harry D. Train II
KEYWORDS: MILITARY BASES BASE CLOSINGS by CNB