Weapons Testing Chief Headed to China Lake

The new commander of the U. S. Navy weapons testing division based at Point Mugu will be stationed at China Lake beginning sometime this summer, U. S. Navy Adm. William E. Newman said Thursday.

When Newman, who now heads the testing division and is stationed at Point Mugu, moves into another command, his replacement will be assigned to a testing facility at China Lake, he said.

“There are more functions, more technical functions and projects ongoing for which the center of gravity, if you will, is at China Lake,” Newman said.

In January, 1992, the Navy integrated the commands of the two bases and small testing sites at Albuquerque and White Sands Missile Range, N. M., into one command under Newman, a move meant to streamline weapons development and save taxpayers $115 million by 1995.

The command shift from Point Mugu later this year will come in anticipation of a possible increase in staffing and contracts at China Lake that could follow some base closings planned in the United States this spring, Newman said.

China Lake now has about 4,900 civilian employees and 500 military workers, Newman said, while Point Mugu employs 3,900 civilians and 812 military personnel.

Because the commander spends time at both bases, it makes more sense to station him at the larger base--China Lake--and the vice commander at Point Mugu, he said.

But this is not a signal that Point Mugu will be closing or reducing its staff, Newman said, adding, “not significantly and not in the near term.”

Far too many important tenants work out of Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station--such as the California Air National Guard, naval reserves and a variety of testing squadrons and defense contractors--to close the place, he said.

On hearing rumors of a Point Mugu closure denied by base officials, Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) fired a letter off to Acting Secretary of the Navy Adm. Frank B. Kelso II last week, asking for clarification.

“Quite frankly, I’m much more concerned about a hard-copy answer from the secretary than an answer from the public affairs person,” Gallegly said. “I’m going to accept it on its face value at this point that what they are saying is accurate. But at the same time, we’re going to continue to see that no stones are left unturned until we’re satisfied we’re getting absolutely the straight facts.”

Kelso has not replied yet, he said Thursday.