|
||||||
|
|
|
Navy's Reasons for Portsmouth Closure
By Jon Greenberg on Monday, May 16, 2005.
The Pentagon report that contained the base closure list also included an explanation of why each base was on that list. In the case of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the decision came down to a choice between facilities in Portsmouth and Pearl Harbor. NHPR's Jon Greenberg has more. Through the lens of the Navy strategists, the universe of shipyards similar to the one in Portsmouth is actually pretty small. There are only four places that can manage extensive overhaul work on ships and submarines -- they are in Norfolk, Virginia, Bremerton Washington, Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and Portsmouth. In the full base closure report, the navy said that overall, it had too much capacity but to close either Norfolk or Bremerton would reduce the number of berths too much and so, reductions had to come from either of the remaining two shipyards. Jack Spencer, a defense analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says there's no dispute that the Navy has more shipyard space than it needs. CUT Jack Spencer with the Heritage Foundation says, in the Navy's eyes, the need for a shipyard in the Pacific trumped other considerations that would favor keeping the Portsmouth shipyard open. In the words of the Pentagon's base closure report, closing Portsmouth was the only move that quote – could both eliminate excess capacity and satisfy retention of strategically placed shipyard capability. – unquote. For NHPR News, I'm Jon Greenberg. Post a comment
|
Support FromHighlights | ||