WASHINGTON (AP) – As communities brace for next week’s announcement of proposed military base closings, few want to talk about Plan B: privatization.

They recoil at talk about contingency plans if their bases are on the dreaded list, and just insist they are concentrating solely on staying off it.

But for a number of vulnerable facilities, including Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Mass., quiet murmurings about possible privatization of the base’s high-tech research jobs could be a benefit in the long run.

According to several defense consultants and analysts, removing the Defense Department as owner and operator of the base, and shifting the research and development into private hands could save many of the civilian jobs if a base realignment is ordered.

“It can very much be a positive,” said Steve Sorett, a lawyer with McKenna, Long & Aldridge in Washington who does consulting on base closure issues. “If it’s done correctly, you can take the work force and double it.”

The Pentagon is preparing to release its fifth and latest round of recommended base closings next week. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said the amount of excess base capacity is as much as 20 percent.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst for the Lexington Institute, said Hanscom is ripe for privatization. The military, he said, doesn’t really need the base or the air space.

“A lot of these conduct important missions, but they don’t really need to be on a base,” he said, adding that the Pentagon could save a great deal of money by closing the base and shifting the operation into commercial hands.

Hanscom, said Thompson, “could easily close in a beneficial way. The jobs and the mission could stay in commercial space.”

Members of Congress and state and local officials have been lobbying tirelessly to keep the base open, and have proposed a $410 million, state-funded expansion at Hanscom to make it more indispensable to the military.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and Reps. Edward Markey and Marty Meehan, all Massachusetts Democrats, along with Republican Gov. Mitt Romney have met with numerous Pentagon and Air Force officials, pressing their case that Hanscom provides critical research and development for cutting edge military technology, including electronic systems, flight management and avionics.

“We’re making the argument that without Hanscom, we couldn’t have achieved the precision air capability that has been demonstrated in Iraq,” said Meehan.

But behind the public argument is a very quiet nod to contingency plans.

“If we have to adapt, we will do so,” said Alan MacDonald, executive director of the Massachusetts Defense Technology Initiative, which is coordinating the Hanscom effort. “But if the core technology jobs stay, that starts out as a big win. The next step would be ensuring that the community and the Commonwealth’s interests are worked out in a mutually beneficial way with the Pentagon.”

Right now there are about 3,000 workers at the base, and about half are military personnel. If the Air Force pulled its people out, MacDonald noted, some of those jobs would have to be filled by people from the area. The proposed state expansion, however, could add up to 4,000 more jobs at the base, if the plan is accepted, he said.

Analysts said a number of military sites, including maintenance facilities and other support activities, are prime targets for privatization.

Christopher Hellman, policy analyst for Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said it would fit into Rumsfeld’s enthusiasm for already privatizing a wide variety of functions at the bases. He has pushed to have private developers take over military housing, as well as other jobs including food or maintenance services.

Hanscom, however, could be a challenge, since it is spread across four communities; Lincoln, Bedford, Concord and Lexington provide various necessities, including water, power, and schools.

“Right now we are focused on keeping the base off the list, and if we’re on the list, our number one job is to get off the list,” said Lincoln Selectman Sara Mattes. Asked about privatization or contingency plans, she said, “We will cross that bridge when we need to cross bridge.”