Community Correspondence - 144 Letters from Concerned Citizens - Crane Page: 1 of 144
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
08 July 2005
Admiral (Ret.) Harold Gehman JUL 4 2!3
Base Realignment and Closure Commission
2521 South Clark Street, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202
Dear Admiral Gehman,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your attention to the
delegation from Indiana during the recent BRAC Hearing in St. Louis. As a concerned
taxpayer I support the work you are doing to ensure that our Military operations remain
as effective and affordable as possible. I hope that the testimony helped you realize how
important Indiana Military installations like Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC)
Crane and Crane Army Ammunition Activity (CAAA) are to our Nation's Defense and
the Global War On Terrorism.
I am growing increasingly concerned that the DOD has not properly followed the
selection criteria in making its re-alignment recommendations. One of the main criteria
of the BRAC process seems to be the creation of joint centers of excellence in order to
improve our efficiency while maintaining the quality of service provided to our war
fighters. NSWC Crane is ajoint activity providing products and services to all branches
of the military. Another key criteria of the BRAC process centers on Military Value.
The Military Value scores for NSWC Crane in the area of Sensors, Electronics and
Electronic Warfare (S, E and EW) are higher than almost every other DOD activity.
One example of a recommendation that does not make sense is the re-alignment
of Army S, E and EW work from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
According to the Technical Joint Cross Service Group Analysis and Recommendations
document dated 19 May 2005, which is available on the DOD BRAC website
(www.defenselink.mil/brac), NSWC Crane has much higher Military Value scores than
both Fort Monmouth and Aberdeen Proving Grounds. In addition, NSWC Crane already
has a close working relationship with the Army since it is co-located with CAAA. If the
BRAC criteria are followed properly, this workload should be re-located to NSWC Crane
instead of Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Additionally, this same logic applies to the Army
S, E and EW work being relocated from Fort Belvoir to Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The
Fort Belvoir workload should be re-aligned to NSWC Crane since NSWC Crane has
existing joint S, E and EW capability as well as higher Military Value scores.
Another example of a recommendation that does not make sense is the re-
alignment of S, E and EW workload from Space and Naval Warfare sites at Charleston
and San Diego to NSWC Dahlgren. NSWC Crane has higher Military Value scores than
Charleston, San Diego and Dahlgren and should have been designated as the receiving
site for this workload.
Here’s what’s next.
This letter can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Letter.
Community Correspondence - 144 Letters from Concerned Citizens - Crane, letter, July 27, 2005; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc18809/m1/1/: accessed March 26, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.