A version of this paper was presented at the USNA’s 2017 McMullen Naval History Symposium
- Overton is the writer/editor for the Naval Undersea Warfare Cen- ter, Division Keyport. He was previously an adjunct instructor in the Naval War College Fleet Seminar Program and the Marine Corps Com- mand and Staff College Distance Education Program. He served in the
U.S. Coast Guard and has worked in other public affairs and historian positions for the Navy and Army. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government.
Introduction
The Pacific Coast Torpedo Station, a Washington state facility for testing and maintaining torpedoes for the U.S. Navy, was commissioned in 1914. During the following century, the base underwent drastic chang- es in personnel strength, had additional facilities and subordinate units added and subtracted from its parent Command, changed names five times, and eventually even stopped testing torpedoes in-water at the original base site, thus seemingly negating the reason it was brought into being.
But survive it did, and does, today as the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division Keyport. As the technology it supported evolved, so too did the organization which supported that technology. There were times of growth and real estate acquisition that clearly aligned with Keyport’s mission, and periods of mutation, where Navy lands and infrastructure were put under Keyport’s ownership or control simply because it was closest geographically or was, mission-wise, a close-enough fit.
That evolution –the word evolve is used to imply a frequent lack of consistent intelligent design in the Command’s life – which allowed the Command to survive, is, I believe, as worthy of study as are the reasons behind why a ship succeeds in battle or a combat unit wins or avoids annihilation. The following explores this organization’s particular evo- lution, articulates some enduring trends over its 103-year history, and attempts to define its Center of Gravity, that elusive, nebulous something that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.1
An Ideal Location
Like the commissioning of a ship or any other military unit, bases are not spontaneously generated: they are conceived by some uneven combination of world events, internal politics, technological change, and topographic features. The Pacific Coast Torpedo Station, at Keyport – it will be referred to from here on as just Keyport, to avoid confusion with its numerous name changes – although begun nearly simultaneous to the outbreak of World War I, was established in response to an expanding
U.S. Pacific Fleet and an emerging technology, the automobile torpedo. 2 In the early years of the 20th Century, the U.S. Navy’s inventory of, and expertise with, torpedoes was struggling to keep pace with other rising powers. Because the effectiveness of even rudimentary torpedoes is based on complex mechanisms for assuring proper guidance, depth, speed, and range, they need to be tested in the water before being issued for Fleet use. This was especially time consuming and expensive for the
U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet, which had to ship their torpedoes across the country to Newport, Rhode Island, then the Navy’s only depot for testing and repairing torpedoes.
To remedy this situation, in 1908 a group of naval officers was sent to search from “San Diego to British Columbia” for a new U.S. Navy torpedo station. The ideal location, they were directed, was to be a “clear water site on the west coast, not over 10 fathoms deep and not under five, with a sandy bottom and virtually no current.” It should also “… have little tide and must not be too cold.” 3
The isolated peninsula of Keyport, Washington and its adjacent wa- terway, a part of the much larger Puget Sound called Port Orchard inlet, was chosen as that perfect place, although other Western Washington cities, and Los Angeles, California, lobbied to be chosen. The 88 acres of land which the Navy wanted was described as a “… peninsula [lying] in the shape of a flask with a narrow neck…almost entirely surrounded by tidewater, which at no point is less than quarter mile wide…it affords an ideal location for secrecy.” 4 Much of the needed land was already occupied by small farms, and when those farm families refused to sell to the Navy, the land was condemned, and the owners given a set amount of money to vacate. They were at least allowed to stay until harvest time in the autumn.5
The first Commanding Officer took possession of the land in No- vember 1914, and began hiring a small, local workforce to build basic infrastructure. A minimal Navy contingent also was brought aboard, as was a Marine Corps security detail. The adjacent in-water test range was already being used for torpedo testing by Pacific Fleet ships during their stays at nearby Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. 6 In 1916, the local news- paper reported: “As soon as sufficient trained men are available the new torpedo station will be a busy place as everything is in readiness for operations. The first shipment of 32 torpedoes arrives this week and the testing range has been laid out.” 7
America’s entry into World War 1 had no noticeable impact on the station, other than a slight increase in military manning. After the war, construction and infrastructure improvements continued, including building a pier, laying a narrow-gauge railway for transport of torpe- does, clearing land for building, and getting adequate water, electricity and sewage for the growing Station. In 1920, a torpedo school was es- tablished at the young base. Sailors were sent from “all over the fleet” for torpedo instruction and trained to qualify as 2nd class divers. 8 That year’s [1920] workforce size of 80 civilians, 30 enlisted Sailors, and 18 Marines didn’t change significantly for the next 17 years.
No base is an island, even if it is actually an island, but Keyport is a peninsula on a peninsula, and was not easy to reach with the civil infra- structure in the area during the 1920s. Although this isolation was one of the benefits of Keyport’s location, it also made workforce retention and travel between the area’s other Naval base, Puget Sound Naval shipyard, about 10 miles away, difficult. Water transportation, via private ferries and personal watercraft (including rowboats and canoes) was easier than using the mostly-unpaved roads (which with Western Washington wet weather often became impassible).
The Navy and community, as it was, took measures to make life eas- ier in this near-wilderness. Decades later, a woman who was a young girl in 1920’s Keyport recalled the Sailors taking donations to buy Christmas presents for the local children, and the children reciprocating by per- forming Christmas plays in the Sailors’ barracks.9 In 1925, Keyport’s Commanding Officer successfully lobbied the Secretaries of Navy and Agriculture to fund a State highway to connect his base with the city of Bremerton, about 15 miles to the south, where the Shipyard was located.
In 1928, enough buildings were built and operations in place that the first landscaping was begun, and in 1929, the station’s first real estate expansion was brought about when an adjoining 61 acres were bought and used for storing torpedo warheads in igloo-type magazines. The next year, the base’s name was changed to Naval Torpedo Station-Keyport. 11 In 1935, some of the first aerial photos of the Station made clear how
the magazine area was noticeably visible from the air, and groundcover was planted. New Deal emergency jobs program’s employees spent 15 months on infrastructure projects at Keyport, beginning in 1937, and by 1938, they outnumbered the Station’s 125 Navy civilians. As much of Europe and Asia became engulfed in what would be World War II, Keyport’s 1939 workforce stood at 170 civilians, 10 officers, 55 enlisted Sailors, one Marine officer, and 42 enlisted Marines.
Growth Spurts and Mutations
In 1940 President Roosevelt ordered a “speed-up in torpedo produc- tion, overhaul, proofing and issue…” and Keyport began a rapid increase in personnel, facilities, and operations. 12 By 1941, the civilian work- force was up to 600, and Keyport sponsored 300 Navy housing units to be constructed for these new employees in the nearby city of Poulsbo. The work schedule went to three shifts, seven-day workweeks, with the eighth day off. The next year, following U.S. entrance into World War II, Keyport purchased another adjoining parcel of land, 62 acres, including 10 farmhouses. An army anti-aircraft unit was stationed on base, with anti-aircraft gun emplacements atop two buildings, and other guns and barrage balloons at nearby off-base locations. Civilian employment rose to 1100. The most pressing challenge was hiring enough employees, as area military bases and industrial facilities like Boeing competed for wartime workers. 13
The initial rush of build up for the war and local defense resulted in numerous bases and naval facilities being constructed with seemingly little overall direction, such that by the Spring of 1943, the 13th Naval District Commander (which included the Pacific Northwest), pushed for consolidation and efficiency in his subordinate Commands, and had his District Commanding Officers justify their own Command’s uniqueness or explore ways in which those Commands could combine with others of similar mission or geographic proximity. A Memorandum from Key- port’s Commanding Officer to the 13th Naval District Commandant, dat- ed 15 April 1943, regarding consolidation of Shore Establishments and Units Ashore of the Operating Forces, stated: “The Torpedo Activities of this Station are not related to any other activity in the District. There appears to be no other activity with which they could be consolidated, nor other activity which could be consolidated with this station.” 14
This appears the first time in the Command’s short history when it was threatened with being swallowed up by other Commands. There would be others.
In 1943, the workforce was up to 1500 civilians, 200 additional housing units for Keyport personnel were built in Poulsbo, and the work “week” went to 13 days on, one day off. The next year, Keyport reached its peak Wartime employment with 2000 civilians, 44% of whom were female. That year a partnership with the University of Washington Ap- plied Physics Lab formed to work on an acoustic in-water range. 15 This advanced the accuracy and types of in-water testing which the Command could perform and would be one of many partnerships Keyport would have with academic institutions.
After the landing at Normandy on June 6, 1944 (D-Day, or Opera- tion Overlord), and especially after Victory in Japan Day (September 2, 1945), the base newspaper ran notices railing against rumors that spoke of mass layoffs and workload reductions. But then, in December 1945, that newspaper, the Warhead, ceased publication, and Keyport’s civil- ian workforce dropped from nearly 2000 at War’s end to 275 people by 1946.16
In October 1945, the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance released the following information about the Station: “Keyport as is generally known here was not established as a torpedo manufacturing plant al- though during recent war years it did accomplish assembly manufactur-ing from parts manufactured elsewhere. No torpedo manufacture can be undertaken until research and development offer a torpedo so markedly superior to those now on hand as to warrant a request for funds. When such occasion arises, pure manufacture will probably be concentrated at Naval Ordnance Plants…as the Navy’s largest torpedo station, differen- tiated from ordnance plants…Keyport will continue its former function of overhaul, store and issue for ships on the west coast; also, to proof and test certain torpedoes and to perform ensuing post-range overhaul together with the re-loading of igniters.” 17 That awkward description of Keyport’s mission and duties helps explain its post-War survival and continued existence: too many torpedoes had been made for the war, and afterwards were simply scrapped, but the drumbeat of maintenance and testing of the existing torpedoes in service continued, if at a very reduced pace for Keyport. 18
The post-war years would begin one of two periods, following a War’s conclusion or more specifically, the perception that US forces were the sole superpower and had established unopposed sea control, of simultaneous downsizing of the workforce and growth, or perhaps mutation, of Keyport’s physical footprint and duties. Keyport was given ownership or cognizance over other Navy installations’ real estate and began performing functions corresponding to the Navy’s post-war ef- forts to explain or defend its own continued existence. 19
In 1946, the Naval Radio Station adjacent to Keyport (and in care- taker status during World War II) was decommissioned, and from that decommissioning Keyport received its leftover houses and buildings. That year also ended with Keyport receiving the Bureau of Ordnance Naval Ordnance Development Award, and in conjunction with the Ap- plied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington, won the Navy “E” Award for developing a new type of torpedo exploding mechanism.
20 Keyport had won several commendations for its War bond drive par- ticipation, and the reduced post-War employees continued that tradition, receiving awards for time without accident, for Savings Bond purchas- es, and for other worker activities like 100% participation in Red Cross drives. 21
In 1948, with a civilian workforce of 351, Keyport held its first open house, and hosted community and civic leaders for tours. A Mobile Div-ing Salvage Unit, which grew from a wartime initiative of Keyport’s Navy Divers, was established to provide diving support outside of the base (performing what now would be called “mutual assistance” with interagency and community groups). 22
Within three years of its Wartime employment and production high point, Keyport’s energy had largely shifted from the test and repair of a single type of weapon’s technology, the torpedo, to something vagu- er but more vital for the time. The emphasis on providing value to the U.S.’s contemporary version of sea or national power – in communi- ty service and providing a localized answer to what America needed a Navy for – allowed Keyport to maintain itself with a skeleton crew and physical footprint around which to again grow.
In the late 1940’s, Keyport’s existing adjacent in-water range, which had 30 years earlier been the main reason for establishing the facility there, was deemed too shallow for testing the newer types of torpedoes. A nationwide survey to find suitable replacement waterways ended in Dabob Bay, off of the Hood Canal area, about 15 air and 40 water miles away. 23 Had nearby land not been found, Keyport likely could not have kept functioning. The movement of in-water testing to Dabob, and the simultaneous neglect of the acoustic range equipment in the original range, show that at this point, the original dryland physical footprint was not as vital to Keyport’s mission as simply maintaining access to in-wa- ter ranges with particular topographic and oceanographic characteristics, and fairly close to Pacific Fleet assets. 24
The workforce went up to more than 600 civilians, and 100 Sailors and Marines, during the Korean War. In 1950, to save Navy money, Key- port consolidated with the ammunition depot at Bangor, 10 miles to the west on the Hood Canal, with Keyport’s Commanding Officer retaining overall Command. The new command, called the U.S. Naval Ordnance Deport (Keyport-Bangor), would last only two years, when the bases would go their separate ways.25
During the 1950’s, Keyport worked with the University of Washing- ton to develop and install a 3-dimensional tracking range at Dabob Bay, with state of the art in-water equipment and an on-site digital computer making it “… the world’s first fully instrumented deep-water tracking range…” which was able to be of far more uses than originally planned.26
In 1958, Keyport’s mission statement changed to include more em- phasis research and development in order to “strengthen the Station’s po- sition in Bureau [of Ordnance] thinking and planning.” 27 This prompted, or perhaps caught up with, with the Station’s workforce becoming more white-collar. It also prompted, or again caught up, with Keyport doing more non-torpedo, but still undersea technology work. In 1959, Keyport began working with the first Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine, and after tests on the Dabob Bay Range revealed errors in the sonar of several US Navy ships, Keyport developed a program, later adopted Navy-wide, for testing a vessel’s total Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities.28
In 1961, Keyport explored other areas in Alaska and the Puget Sound for in-water range suitability, commissioned an undersea tracking range in the Canadian Straits of Georgia, and in 1965 the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges (CFMETR), a joint operation range shared between NUWC Keyport and the Canadian military, was established near Nanoose, British Columbia. It grew in size and com- plexity over the years, and in the 1990’s Naval Sea Systems Command’s Program Executive Officer for Undersea Warfare said of it: “The single most important core facility is the instrumented underwater test range facility at Nanoose, British Columbia, operated by NUWC Division, Keyport.” 29
In 1964, the base’s 50th anniversary, a bi-weekly base newspaper was started, this time with the name “Keynotes.” That year Keyport’s work- force of 1200 civilians and 300 military members performed, amongst other duties, more than 4000 torpedo test runs, and 263 test runs of other undersea vehicles. 30
The post-Vietnam drawdown did not markedly impact Keyport’s workforce or operations, but other Commands, either downsized or or- phaned when their parent commands were disestablished; had their fa- cilities, land, and missions transferred to Keyport. In 1970, Keyport took over Indian Island, an ammunition depot in Western Washington, as a caretaker, and several smaller commands at the nearby Bangor base. In 1974 it gained a Hawaii Detachment, when Naval Ammunition Depot Oahu was closed, and its Anti-Submarine Warfare unit was left needing a parent Command. In 1976, detachments in San Diego, Hawthorne, Ne- vada, and Indian Island, Washington, were established, giving Keyport cognizance over nearly all undersea warfare-related technical capability support and maintenance infrastructure in the Pacific Area of Operations. In 1978, Keyport’s official name changed from Naval Torpedo Sta- tion to Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station (NUWES) Keyport, a change which openly and perhaps psychologically showed its shift from a particular technology, torpedoes, to a field of expertise direct- ed towards an entire operational domain. It also returned to performing some tests in its Port Orchard inlet range that year and was testing in ranges off of the Washington coast, by San Clemente Island, in Southern California, and in Hawaii; as well as at temporary ranges using portable equipment. In the next 12 years Keyport, as with most of the U.S. Navy, grew to match an expanding Fleet, expanding budgets, and a revised strategic emphasis on both sea control and power projection against the Soviets. That growth was not linear or consistent: monetary issues still impacted some Keyport programs, and while workload and work- force were reaching all-time highs, Keyport was engaged in (sometimes award-winning) work in fields not strictly related to its mission, such as dining facility quality, environmental remediation programs, and build- ing an auto-hobby shop for base employees.31 The work of 1988 was de- scribed as follows: “Utilizing a comprehensive set of three-dimensional underwater tracking ranges in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and South- ern California, the Station [Keyport] continues to perform its original and primary function of underwater weapon proofing and testing.” 32
At its Cold War pinnacle, Keyport had a workforce of more than 3300 civilian and military members at its main base and four detach- ments, higher than that even during World War II. 33 The 1990 Command History stated, “Fiscal Year 90 was a banner year; perhaps the best busi- ness year ever.” 34
Near Extinction, Survival of the Fit
Change came quickly. The end of the Cold War meant a greatly-re- duced need for the U.S. Navy’s roles and platforms then in existence. Over the next decade, Keyport underwent a managed but drastic re- duction in workload and workforce, and myriad threats to its existence. Workforce downsizing and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds began shortly after the completion of Operation Desert Storm, in the spring of 1991, and in 1992, a Naval Strategy whitepaper gave a substantial course correction to the direction Keyport had been track- ing for more than 40 years. “From the Sea…” begins, “The world has changed dramatically in the last two years, and America’s national secu- rity policy has also changed. As a result, the priorities of the Navy and Marine Corps have shifted, leading to this broad assessment of the future direction of our maritime forces. Our ability to command the seas in ar- eas where we anticipate future operations allows us to resize our naval forces and to concentrate more on capabilities required in the complex operating environment of the “littoral” or coastlines of the earth. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the free nations of the world claim pre- eminent control of the seas…” 35
Keyport’s official name was changed in January 1992, to Naval Undersea Warfare Center-Division, Keyport, one of two subordinate Commands under the newly-formed Naval Undersea Warfare Center, headquartered in Newport, Rhode Island. Keyport underwent this name and chain-of-command change while experiencing what the Command histories repeatedly refer to as a “volatile” operating environment. As in the downsizing after World War II, however, there were some gains.36 The Indian Island Detachment, never really aligned with the core respon- sibilities, was transferred to another Command, but Keyport then took over the Arctic Submarine Laboratory, as part of a Navy-wide Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation consolidation plan. 37
Between 1991 and 1994, Keyport’s workforce lost 779 people, and by 1997, the torpedo workload had declined by two-thirds. 38 During those years, Keyport’s excess energy was again directed towards non-mission critical National and Navy priorities areas like environmental restoration and preservation, workplace improvement, partnerships with non-de- fense private industries, and efficiency and innovation. 39
In 1997, the Arctic Submarine Lab Detachment in San Diego was transferred away from Keyport, but Keyport gained responsibility for Pacific Fleet Magnetic Silencing Facilities. The boats used to perform work at the in-water ranges are this year handed over to contracted civil- ian operators rather than Navy sailors, bringing Keyport’s military com- plement from 180 down to 34.40
Regionalization, the Navy-wide effort to transfer and centralize Navy base real estate and facilities functions, began in the Northwest in 1998. While met with some alarm in Keynotes, turning some buildings over to Regional management allowed Keyport’s more limited work- force the ability to pour less energy and money into non-mission related activities.41 And as usual, as some functions and infrastructure died off, others emerged. In 2000, the original torpedo firing pier at Keyport was demolished, the Pacific Fleet’s Torpedo Intermediate Maintenance Facil- ity in Hawaii was transferred to Keyport control, the CFMETR range in Canada grew in area, and Keyport’s traditional operations were adapting as they could to the changes in naval strategy and operating environ- ments.42
The NUWC Keyport Business Plan from the summer 2001 noted that since the end of the Cold War, Keyport’s end strength had been re- duced by 63%, customer funding reduced by 44%, overhead reduced by 50%, and square foot usage by 30%. 43 Concurrently, a BRAC Emeritus Day was held at Keyport, the purpose of which was described as “To Proactively Plan for, and Win the Next BRAC War” and to “Pursue De- fensive, Offensive, and Outreach Strategies to Increase Keyport’s Value to the Fleet,” a seemingly very aggressive approach to the public in- formation initiatives that had been pursued, with less foresight, in late 1940’s and mid-1990’s. 44
The Regionalization trend came to fruition in 2003 with the stand-up of Commander, Navy Installations (CNI), when all Navy real property, including of course that of Keyport’s original headquarters base, was turned over to the ownership and cognizance of CNI.45 The next round of Base Realignment and Closure did impact Keyport, though not in as negative a manner as has had been feared. In 2004, the establishment of Naval Base Kitsap consolidated shore facilities at what had been in- dependent bases of Bremerton, Bangor, and Keyport, in Kitsap County, Washington. With that, and similar Regionalization efforts at Keyport’s detachments and sites, Keyport no longer owned most of the ground on which its buildings stood, nor most of its buildings, and was now a tenant on its namesake base. Yet it remained, and actually continued to grow in personnel numbers and in business from its mid-90’s slump.
In 2011, another subordinate Command was added; the Naval Sea Systems Logistics Center, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, which though not obviously tied to Keyport’s raison d’etre, was similar to many evolutionary growths it had undergone in the past.
The most recent, significant evolution as of this writing was the opening of an Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) homeport mainte- nance space, Barb Hall, at now Naval Base Kitsap-Keyport, in partner- ship with Submarine Development Squadron Five and Applied Research Laboratory-Penn State. This facility leverages existing infrastructure, and most importantly, nearness to the Fleet (in the form of submarines at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor) and the original in-water range by Naval Base Kitsap-Keyport. 46
The century-old criteria for the base’s location, although long unsuit- able for torpedo testing, works well for testing modern UUVs, arguably the next evolution in the species that began with torpedoes, and is still close to the necessary supported Fleet assets.
After 103 years, evolving technology, evolving strategy, and an evolving Command continue to reinforce the value of Keyport’s origi- nal, humble, unique attributes. 47
Conclusion
Surveying the long evolution, the times of threats and times of thriv- ing, some enduring trends emerge:
– Testing and improvement on existing equipment and technology, rather than manufacturing from scratch or creating completely new tech- nology, has always been dominant in Keyport’s corporate culture and mission.
– During reduced conventional workload years, when that mission wasn’t as necessary or as obviously valuable, the workforce emphasis shifted to varying degrees towards community and public relations, showing that the people who work at Keyport are responsible stewards of resources and good community partners.
– A certain sticky power is caused by the base’s presence – off-base housing, roads, and utilities, and economic contributions in the form of salaries, services, and contracts – that give it a value apart from the spe- cific mission or technology support, or even from the deliberate efforts of the leadership and workforce.
– That localized value and support helped with self-preservation, but outside forces – at the highest levels, U.S. national and Naval strategy –ultimately drove the evolution.
-While Command identity still focuses on torpedoes and the com- munity of Keyport, Washington, the Command has been diversified in location and technology supported since 1950, thus for most of its his- tory.
– And lastly, to return to the battle unit analogy, the Command’s Cen- ter of Gravity doesn’t appear to be either torpedoes or the Keyport com- munity, or even the knowledge and skills of the workforce, as significant and necessary as these are. Since its founding, through wars and BRACs and consolidations, Keyport’s Center as an organization has been its ac- cess and ownership of unique locations and spaces whose use or control is in some way necessary for the sustainment of contemporary U.S. sea power: its in-water ranges and co-location with supported Fleet assets.48 They have survived when much else was sloughed off, and even in ways that may seem disparate or unrelated to its identity, still facilitate Key- port’s growth and evolution, and the growth and evolution of the tech- nology it supports. 49
Appendix
Timeline of significant events and evolutions, information compiled
from Command Histories, Operational Reports, and newsletters
1908 – Navy calls for establishment of torpedo station for the Navy’s
Pacific Fleet.
1913 – Land selected and purchased (88 acres), through condem- nation proceedings, for said base, in the unincorporated community of Keyport, Washington.
1914 -The Pacific Coast Torpedo Station (PCTS) is established for repair and ranging of torpedoes in support of the Pacific Fleet.
1916 – First torpedo tested by PCTS in the adjoining Port Orchard narrows range, the characteristics of which were the main reason for the base’s location being chosen.
1919 – Workforce consists of 65 civilians, 31 enlisted sailors, and 18 Marines. A Naval Affairs committee of 12 Congressmen visited and, a local newspaper reported, were impressed by the large area of adjacent water available for torpedo practice.
1920- Torpedo school and 2nd class dive school begin. 1922- First parking lot constructed.
1925 –Keyport Commanding Officer lobbies to get funding for a state highway between Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in Bremerton, and Keyport/PCTS.
1929 –First real estate expansion: 61 additional acres for warhead storage
1930- PCTS name changed to Naval Torpedo Station Keyport (NTS
Keyport)
1935 –Groundcover planted after aerial photos reveal easily-seen warhead storage magazines.
1937 – Civilian Conservation Corps workers help build base infra- structure.
1938 – NTS Keyport’s 125 Navy civilians are outnumbered on base
by New Deal emergency jobs program employees.
1939 – Workforce is 170 civilians, 10 officers, 55 enlisted Sailors, 1 Marine officer, 42 Marines
1941 – Civilians workforce grows to 600, prompting Navy to spon-sor 300 housing units to be constructed in nearby Poulsbo. NTS Keyport
workforce begins round-the-clock work days, with 7-day workweeks.
1942 – NTS Keyport buys additional adjoining 61 acres, includ- ing 10 farm houses. An Army anti-aircraft unit is stationed on base, to protect it from possible air attack. Workforce grows to 1100 civilians. Transmitting equipment for the Naval radio station on a hill next to NTS Keyport is removed.
1943 – Workforce of 1500 civilians work 13 days on, one day off,
and spur 200 additional housing units to be built in Poulsbo.
1944 – NTS Keyport’s 2000-person civilian workforce is 44% fe- male. NTS Keyport begins work with academic institutions on creating an acoustic range, which can track torpedoes through sound equipment installed on the sea floor.
1945 – A railroad spur is completed at nearby Naval Ammunition Depot Bangor, making Keyport no longer reliant on barges for torpedo deliveries. The Torpedo School is discontinued. Workforce drops from 1800 to 275 by 1946.
1946 – Adjacent Naval Radio Station, in caretaker status during World War II, is decommissioned, with land and buildings transferred to NTS Keyport.
1948 – Workforce is down to 351 civilians. First “open house” held, hosting community and civic leaders for tours. NTS Keyport’s divers es- tablish and man the Mobile Diving Salvage Unit, performing what now would be called mutual assistance.
1948-49 -Keyport ranges are deemed too shallow for modern tor- pedoes. Nationwide Survey to find suitable replacement ends in nearby Dabob Bay/Hood Canal area. Navy already owned some shorefront and facilities in that area (Bangor).
1950-52 – Naval Ammunition Depot Bangor and NTS Keyport are
consolidated in Navy initiative to save money. New command is called
U.S. Naval Ordnance Deport (Keyport-Bangor), with Keyport maintain- ing Commanding Officer and oversight of most operations.
1951 – Consolidated Command’s workforce is 625 civilians, 50 sail- ors, and 50 Marines.
1951 – As a public safety measure, U.S. Naval Ordnance Deport (Keyport-Bangor) begins publicizing torpedo test firings.
1952 – U.S. Naval Ordnance Deport (Keyport-Bangor) deconsoli- dates, again becoming two separate Commands.
1953-54 – Dredged seabed from around NTS Keyport’s Pier I added
to north lagoon of existing base to create more land.
1955 – Workforce up to 980 civilians and 300 military.
1957 – Idea floated to re-consolidate with Bangor but cancelled. A 3-D tracking range, the first of its kind in the world, is installed at Dabob Bay.
1958 – NTS Keyport’s mission statement changed to include more emphasis on research and development.
1959 – First Fleet Ballistic Missile work began. Tests on the Dabob Bay Range reveal errors in the sonar of several U.S. Navy ships, leading Keyport to develop a program, later adopted Navy-wide, for testing a vessel’s total Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities.
1961 – Commissioning of range in the Straits of Georgia adjacent to the Canadian border.
1965 – Establishment of Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges (CFMETR), a joint US/Canadian operation range near Nanoose, British Columbia.
1970 – Naval Ammunition Depot Bangor disestablished, functions transferred to NTS Keyport. Naval Ammunition Depot, Indian Island (Washington State), in reduced operating status, is also transferred to NTS Keyport. Marine Barracks Bangor, Polaris Missile Facility Pacific (at Bangor), and Naval Ordnance Engineering Facility (at Bangor) all become tenant commands of NTS Keyport.
1973 – Keyport receives special recognition for their work during a nationally-direction torpedo production speed-up in response to the Yom Kippur War.
1974 – Hawaii Detachment (now Pacific Detachment) established. 1975 – Civilian workforce of 2595, 443 military members.
1976 – Southern California (San Diego), Hawthorne (Nevada), and Indian Island detachments established. Keyport has cognizance over nearly all undersea warfare-related shorebased technical capabilities in the Pacific Area of Operations.
1977 – Subase Bangor established. Most real estate at Bangor trans- ferred to Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet ownership.
1978 – Name changed to Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Sta- tion (NUWES) Keyport.
1979 – Establishment of Naval Museum of Undersea Warfare. 1985 – Separate, off-base building for Naval Museum of Undersea
Warfare established.
1990 – Keyport workforce at 3300 military and civilians, highest
ever.
1991 – Workforce and workload reductions begin as Cold War ends. 1992 – Stand-up/name change to Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division-Keyport (NUWC Keyport). Indian Island Detachment trans- ferred to Seal Beach, California. Arctic Submarine Laboratory trans-
ferred to NUWC Keyport as part of the RDT&E consolidation plan.
1994 – Vice President Al Gore presents NUWC Keyport Command- ing Officer with Quality Improvement Prototype Award.
1996 – NUWC Keyport wins two categories of the FY95 Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Awards. Keyport range craft recovered a crashed medevac helicopter that went down in 700ft water in Puget Sound. First Torpedoman “C” school held at NUWC Keyport.
1997 – Arctic Submarine Lab Detachment transferred to Submarine Development Squadron 5.
1998 – Regionalization efforts begin Navy-wide. Some buildings on NUWC Keyport’s base not tied specifically to mission, such as barracks, are turned over to the newly-formed Navy Region Northwest. The Key- port Chapel is deconsecrated.
1999- Workforce of 1,264 civilians, 27 military members, and 600
contractors, is down 63% since 1990.
2000 – Pacific Fleet Torpedo Intermediate Maintenance Activity is transferred to NUWC Keyport. Pier 1is demolished.
2002- NUWC Keyport’s new Pier 1 (near dive locker) is dedicated. 2003 – Commander, Navy Installations (CNI) stood-up, all Navy real property comes under cognizance and ownership of CNI and local Region (Navy Region Northwest). Naval Undersea Museum transferred
from NUWC Keyport to Navy Region Northwest.
2004-05 – Naval Base Kitsap established, consolidating Navy shore facilities at Bremerton, Bangor, Manchester, and Keyport, in Kitsap County, Washington. NUWC Keyport no longer in charge of most shore installation management functions.
2005 – NUWC Keyport hosts the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
Fest.
2011 – Naval Sea Systems Logistics Center, in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, comes under NUWC Keyport as an Echelon 5 command. 2014 – Keyport commemorates 100 years of existence. Workforce is
1,943 civilians, 27 military, and several hundred contractors.
2017 – NUWC Keyport, in partnership with Submarine Development Squadron Five and ARL-Penn State, begins operating a new Unmanned Undersea Vehicle homeport maintenance space, Barb Hall, located with- in NUWC Keyport’s Vehicle Integration Prototyping Experimentation and Reconfiguration facility. Named after famed World War II subma- rine USS Barb, the facility is the first of its kind in the Navy. NUWC Keyport and Submarine Development Squadron Five Commanding Officers issue intent for NUWC Keyport to become the Navy’s UUV Homeport.
Endnotes
1 The most recent and official definition of this oft-cited term is in Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Planning, June 2017, xxii, available at http:// www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp5_0_20171606.pdf. See also Mili- tary Review Online-Exclusive, “The Center of Gravity; Still Relevant After All These Years?” by Dale C. Eikmeier, May, 2017, available at http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Ex- clusive/2017-Online-Exclusive-Articles/The-Center-of-Gravity/.
2 “Plans have been prepared for a torpedo station on the Pacific coast of the United States, and it is hoped that an appropriation to pur- chase the necessary land will be provided by the next Congress.” From the Annual Report of the Bureau of Ordnance to the Secretary of the Navy for Fiscal Year 1909. 12
3 Lisa Poole, with Diane Robinson. Torpedo Town, USA: A His- tory of the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, 1914-1989. (Keyport, Washington: Diamond Anniversary Publishing, 1989) 13
4 Ibid, 13.
5 Ibid, 13-17.
6 In 1914, the Bureau of Ordnance debated as to whether New- port, the Washington Navy Yard, or commercial interests would be the Navy’s primary manufacturer of torpedoes, but Keyport was from the start meant to test and support, not manufacture. Annual Report of the Bureau of Ordnance to the Secretary of the Navy for Fiscal Year 19. 11- 12.
7 A. Carpinella. History: U.S. Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, Washington. (1959) 5.
8 Ibid, 12.
9 Evelyn T. Rangvald Kvelstad, Elnora Parfitt, Fredi Perry, Vir-ginia Stott. Kitsap County History: A Story of Kitsap County and Its Pioneers. (Seattle: Kitsap County Historical Society,1977) 167.
10 Carpinella, 17.
11 Ibid, 18.
12 Ibid , 25.
13 Performance issues with U.S. torpedoes during this time period are well-documented. A short description of the problem is in A Century of Progress: A History of Torpedo System Development (Published by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center) 74-77.
14 Commandant, 13th Naval District U.S. Naval Administrative History, World War II, Commandant, 13th Naval District Appendices.
15 Carpinella, 30.
16 “And Now It’s ‘30’” from the base newspaper Warhead: Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport, December, 1945. 2.
17 Carpinella, 33.
18 A Century of Progress, 77.
19 In 1950, Keyport’s Commanding Officer was directed by the District Commandant to give speeches to community groups on the im- portance of the Navy in the development of Kitsap County (in which Keyport, Bangor, and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard are located). From Carpinella, 38.
A chapter-long explanation of this time period can be found in George W. Baer’s One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U.S. Navy, 1890-1990 (Stanford University Press, 1996) 275-313.
20 Carpinella, 34.
21 Ibid, 30-39.
22 Ibid, 36.
23 Ibid, 35-38.
24 “At 600 feet, [Dabob] was the nation’s deepest protected body of salt water in the continental United States.” Charles R. Gundersen, The History of the Naval Torpedo Tracking Ranges at Keyport (Prepared for the Naval Undersea Museum, Keyport, 1998) 10-12, 24.
25 In 1957, the idea was-refloated to re-consolidate with Bangor, but cancelled after a visit by Undersecretary of the Navy. Carpinella, 47.
26 Gundersen, 26-29.
27 Carpinella, 49.
28 Poole, 73-74.
29 Gundersen, 43.
30 History; Naval Torpedo Station, Keyport Washington, 1909 to 1969 (internal publication) 92.
31 Command History, Calendar Year 1988; Naval Undersea War- fare Engineering Station, Keyport Washington 10-15
32 Command History, Calendar Year 1988; Naval Undersea War- fare Engineering Station, Keyport Washington 2.
33 1988 Station Overview, Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station. 21.
34 Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station Command Histo-
ry, Annual Year 1990. 3.
35 Available at http://www.navy.mil/navydata/policy/fromsea/ fromsea.txt.
36 “Many operations goals and objectives were achieved despite an extremely volatile work environment” resulting from defense cuts and civilian workforce ‘rightsizing.’” Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Division-Keyport, Command History, 1993, 1.
37 From the NUWC Keyport Command History, 31 January 1991 – 31 December 1992, 2.
38 Keynotes: A Special Millennium Issue (published by NUWC Keyport, 2000) 8-28.
39 In 1993, the still-shrinking Keyport was named “Large Em- ployer of the Year” by the Washington State Governor’s Committee on Disability Issues and Employment and began its first Command Awards ceremony. In 1994, Keyport won the Quality Improvement Prototype Award, presented by Vice President Gore, and in 1996, won two cate- gories of the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Awards. Some individual departments also earned ISO standards certification for their processes. From Keynotes: A Special Millennium Issue (published by NUWC Keyport, 2000) 13-35.
“With ‘defense conversion’ a top priority of Congress and President Clinton, and with its workload steadily shrinking, the Keyport instal- lation sees an opportunity to help itself and the community hosting it. Although its primary mission still will be torpedo and undersea warfare work, the defense conversion program will benefit from the high-tech equipment needed to support that mission. All that’s needed from the budding entrepreneur is a good idea on how to put the equipment to profitable use…and, as an added benefit, the program will help preserve Keyport’s light industrial capabilities in case the nation ever needs to re- arm.” From Bremerton Sun, July 1993 “Naval Undersea Warfare Center at Keyport – Generator of New Jobs?”
40 Keynotes: A Special Millennium Issue, 26-35.
41 “The end of an era,” in Keynotes, July 24, 1998, 1.
42 The NUWC Keyport Overview of 1997 mentions their focus as “… transitioning from global threat to preparing for regional challeng- es…” which included work with Chilean diesel submarines on the Da- bob Bay range in response to the “From the Sea…” emphasis on littoral, non-peer threats.
43 The NUWC Keyport Business Plan, (Summer, 2001) 1.
44 Briefing notes from 23 July 2001, BRAC Emeritus Day “Pur- pose & Expectations.”
45 Regional Shore Infrastructure Plan, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (2005) 1, 5.
46 “NUWC Keyport Opens New Home for Unmanned Under- sea Vehicles” from CHIPS: The Department of the Navy’s Information Technology Magazine , January 31, 2017, available at http://www.don- cio.navy.mil/chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=8655.
47 For the use of UUVs and the importance of Keyport’s supported technology and the undersea domain, and Navy views on the modern strategic environment, see “A Design for Maintaining Maritime Supe- riority” available at http://www.navy.mil/cno/docs/cno_stg.pdf . For a deliberation on the US Navy’s current ability and need for sea control, see “Surface Force Strategy: Return to Sea Control” available at http:// www.navy.mil/strategic/SurfaceForceStrategy-ReturntoSeaControl.pdf.
48 Keyport’s senior civilian from 1969 to 1987, Edward Lesinski, had a goal for Keyport to be steward of the “world’s best undersea rang- es,” Keynotes, Aug. 4, 1989, 12. Lesinski also described Keyport … “As a station which is unique in that its waters would allow us to do things that other stations couldn’t do…” Poole, 96. Also, comment in Gundersen, 43, cited above.
Here, and in Keyport’s entire complex of undersea support,” said [NUWC Keyport Commanding Officer Captain Doug] LaCoste, “we’ll help explore and improve the vast capabilities and missions of UUVs. We’ll work with their end-users to see how they could be used, and how they could be made better, and we’ll work to develop and pro- vide those capabilities. Our workforce and warfighters of the 1940s would be amazed at the technology on display here today. But I believe they would easily understand the basics of what we do, and why we do it.” From “NUWC Keyport Opens New Home for Unmanned Undersea Vehicles” in CHIPS: The Department of the Navy’s Information Technol- ogy Magazine, January 31, 2017, available at http://www.doncio.navy. mil/chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=8655
The ranges at Nanoose and Dabob have come under threats in re- cent years, though not due to a perception that they’re obsolete. “And a seemingly unlikely partner, the U.S. Navy, has been proven to be a tremendous ally in Dabob’s green quest. The Navy, whose West Coast base for Ohio-class Trident submarines is a short distance to the east, at Bangor in Kitsap County, set aside outer Dabob’s deep waters as a non-explosion missile test range long before conservation status came to the inner bay. Sub fleet commanders have an interest that dovetails with conservationists: keeping the area undeveloped, and the submarine test range isolated, for the most part, from people.” “On Dabob Bay Man and Nature Nurture Preservation” Seattle Times, November 16, 2012. Available at http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/on-da- bob-bay-man-and-nature-nurture-preservation/.
For more on issues that impacted the range at Nanoose, Canada (CFMTRE), see “Canadians End Blockade In Salmon-Fishing Dis- pute” New York Times, July 22, 1997, available at http://www.nytimes. com/1997/07/22/world/canadians-end-blockade-in-salmon-fishing-dis- pute.html.
And “Stakeholders fly to secretive torpedo testing range” – De- cember 17, 2015, Canadian Forces news page, available at http://www. forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=pacific-region-update-decem- ber-2015/iietdx13.
