[Scan-DC] Base Closures

[john wilson]

   This BRAC posting is somewhat off subject, but as a retired civil service employee who
worked for the Army for 35 years,  I have some reality comments.  The major opposition to
most closures are sourced in the local and regional economy that benefits financially from
the money that the military operations provide.  This translates into pressures on their
congressional representatives to fight any base closures.  No doubt each service would like
to see some financially burdening locations shut down.  I can speak personally in regard to
Ft. Buchanan in San Juan, PR.  I was in the Navy in 1961 tdy to Puerto Rico.  Most of the
fort is a beautiful golf course that actually goes through part of El Morro castle.  The
other attraction is the PX.  It is inundated with Puerto Ricans whom are in the National
Guard.  It has been kept active because of political pressures.  It easily could be
transferred to the National Park Service and the PX closed.  As for Roosevelt Roads NAS,
consider it gone along with 3,000 local jobs.  Because of the continuing hostile attitude of
the Puerto Ricans toward the US, the previous administration gave in and agreed to stop
bombing practice on Vieques Island.  The NAS at San Juan is a small facility and cannot
support any significant mission.  The Puerto Ricans did not learn the lesson of the
devastating impact on the Philippine economy when the US left there.  It's too late now.

  As for transferring any more federal civil service employees into the NCR, unless things
have changed, Congress caps the maximum number of civil service employees who can work in
the NCR.  In 1972 our command was over strength and a number of employees were transferred
to Ft. Eustis and Ft. Hood Support Groups.  At that time we also had a Support Group at Ft.
Shafter, Hawaii.  Our command had wanted to close it for years and eventually did in 1978.
I was tdy on a transition team to transfer the mission to the Ft. Lee Support Group.  We
were told by our management that only supervisors were authorized to talk to the Ft. Shafter
employees.  Why?  P O L I T I C S!  The closure eliminated 100+ positions of LOCAL hawaiians
who were beyond mad.  At that time Alaska and Hawaii were considered overseas assignments
and additional pay was authorized.  It was a very, very tense time.  So, it's not always the
military's fault.  Congress shares much of the blame.

  In most military organizations there is "empire" building.  Job positions both military
and civilian are supported on an inverted pyramid.  Lower grade employees support higher
grade positions.  If a  military or civilian position is reduced or removed, then the
supervisory grade structure is reduced appropriately.  Conversely, employment and
advancement opportunities must be available in the system for eligible and qualified
individuals.  Actually outsourcing...contracting out  is a more significant to federal civil
service than BRAC closures.  I can speak to that.
For my last 14 years I was a Contracting Officer Technical Representative on a $55 million,
then a $44 million renewal on a software support services contact with a major software
government contractor.  The deliverables often were unacceptable and rejected for corrective
work.
The contractor's deliverables in time improved, but either way the contractor eventually got
his money.  Contacting out has its advantages for some situations, but it is not the answer
all.  Through mainly retirements our command lost some really technically competent
individuals.

 Some military facilities have physical infrastructure that is unique to a specific training
mission, i.e., submarine underwater training facility, petroleum/fuel handling, etc. and it
would not be cost effective to duplicate the infrastructure at another location.

The BRAC will examine EVERY military facility irregardless.  This is done for a reason.  For
example, if Base A is not reviewed in the process and Base B is reviewed and targeted for
closure, then Base B then has grounds to appeal the closure based upon Base A not being
reviewed in process.  So, don't be upset by media publicity about a particular facility
being on the BRAC list.

Finally, military and civilian government headquarters want to be in the NOVA/DC area.
Why?  Because the Pentagon is there.  Service/command funding disbursements are made in the
Pentagon.  Why is there not pressure to relocate the many federal government non-military
headquartered to other parts of the country.  The answer here is they within driving
distance of Congress.

  On paper life is simple and plans work.  Reality is a different matter and often common
sense is a stranger.



Rapbep@aol.com wrote:

> All,
>
> Sorry for the confusion.  Evidently my AOL doesn't like attachments, etc and
> didn't include it in the original e-mail.  So here it is via the good old cut &
>  paste.
>
> RON
> ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD (NEAR BWI)
> Pro-2045/BC-895XLT w/Discone
>
> U.S. Army base closure list
>
> The Army has done the worst job at closing excess bases, only closing one of
> its 30 largest bases in the four previous rounds - Fort Ord, Calif.
> It just trimmed its World War II system of depots and arsenals, which have
> massive excess capacity. The Army claims that it must maintain room in case
> units are brought back from overseas. However, the Army has plenty of room in the
> United States for its seven brigades based overseas; and has no intention of
> withdrawing them anyway. Meanwhile, the Army spends billions of dollars a year
> to maintain excess bases and civilian employees.
> Ideally, the Army will return to its traditional role of defending the United
> States and re-deploy combat units to the Mexican border, a mission it
> abandoned after World War II. An infantry division can guard remote areas and detain
> anyone seen crossing the border illegally. By shifting a few units during the
> 2005 round, the Army can easily accommodate a brigade at Fort Bliss, Texas,
> one at Fort Huachuca, and a third at Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona.
> This list may seem long, but it includes no major bases, no training areas,
> and will affect none of the Army's combat brigades. It closes a third of the
> arsenals/depots and a few small "ivory tower" posts.
> This will eliminate enough military and civilian positions to man two more
> combat divisions, and save enough money to train and equip them.
> Carlisle Barracks, Penn. - A small base with just the Army War College. It
> will be far less costly if the War College moves to Fort Levenworth and shares
> facilities and staff with the Army's Command and Staff College, similar to the
> arrangement of other service war colleges. It could also move to the
> Washington, D.C., area and share resources with one of the DOD colleges. The Carlisle
> campus can immediately become a community or state college.
> Detroit Arsenal, Mich. - This tank factory was shut down in 1999, yet the
> base remains with a huge staff of 128 military and 3,479 civilians personnel in
> Detroit just to support the headquarters of the Army's Tank-Automotive and
> Armaments Command. This command can join its proponents at Fort Knox or to
> Anniston Army Depot were much of the work is actually done.
> Fort Belvoir, Va. - Critics often note there are over 100,000 servicemen in
> the Washington, D.C., area, and not a single combat unit. Housing costs are
> high and traffic gridlock common. This is not place for an army base, which is
> why Belvoir has been downsized, with one-third of the base now a nature
> preserve. The three small commands here may relocate to any Army base. Most of the
> federal activities will continue in place, except the land will revert to Fairfax
> County as the Army sheds the burden of running a base and shuts down support
> activities. Some Army activities may remain as part of the Army's Military
> District of Washington.
> Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico - This small base with more than 2,000 civilian
> employees has little military function whatsoever and can be turned over to the
> National Guard. The naval base and airfield at nearby Roosevelt Roads can
> support any military activity on the island.
> Fort McPherson/Gillem, Ga. - McPherson is an old, tiny base in Atlanta which
> is mostly a golf course with three headquarter units.
> The Forces Command can co-locate with the new Northern Command in Colorado,
> the Joint Forces command in Norfolk, or Army headquarters in Washington, D.C.
> The 3rd Army Headquarters is unneeded; it can downsize to fewer than a dozen
> soldiers and merge into the Central Command headquarters in Florida. (During the
> 1991 Persian Gulf, General Schwartzkopf determined it was much easier for
> CentCom to control Corps directly.) The Reserve Forces command can move anywhere.
> The sub-post called Fort Gillem can be turned over to the National Guard
> while reserve units, MEPS, and the AAFES distribution center remain there.
> Fort Monmouth, N.J. - This base has 552 active duty troops and 5,198
> civilians just to host the Army's Communications and Electronics command. This
> headquarters can relocate with just a few hundred people to Fort Huachuca where
> related testing is performed, or Tobyhanna Depot where related equipment is
> repaired. Fortunately, private sector businesses are eager to develop the prime real
> estate at Monmouth.
> Fort Monroe, Va. - This is a small, historic base which is costly to
> maintain, but could become a luxury resort or a National or State Park. TRADOC can
> move to any other fort in Virginia, or Fort Levenworth where it can rejoin with
> the Forces Command. The ROTC command can move anywhere while the Joint Warfare
> Center can be deactivated with no loss.
> Fort Polk, La. (to realign) - The Army desperately needs a major urban
> warfare training center, and the north half of this base is ideally suited. North
> Fort Polk should be shut down and become a huge urban training area for the
> Joint Readiness Training Center. This will allow brigade size units to arrive by
> sea or at Polk's large airfield to conduct lengthy urban warfare exercises in a
> real city 10 times larger than the quaint artificial villages used today.
> This may require some tenant units to move to other Army bases. Perhaps the
> 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment can move elsewhere and a permanent urban ORFOR
> unit established.
> Fort Richardson, Alaska - The Army does not need three bases in Alaska for a
> single brigade, especially since housing and operational costs are the highest
> in the USA. This small base does little except support the Alaskan National
> Guard, so turn it over to the state of Alaska and move the NCO academy and
> airborne battalion up to Fort Wainwright or elsewhere. Adjacent Elmendorf AFB may
> annex some buildings and family housing.
> Fort Sam Houston, Texas - This is a old base in an old run down part of San
> Antonio with no training areas. The new Brooke Army Medical Center located on
> the edge of the base may be transferred to the Air Force or VA. Basic medical
> training can be performed at any Army base. Reserve units can move to Camp
> Bullis 15 miles away where they already train.
> Fort Shafter, Hawaii - The "US Army Pacific" doesn't need its own base with
> 1,400 soldiers and 2,000 civilians in expensive Hawaii. It should be eliminated
> or cut down to a dozen soldiers and based within the Pacific Command
> headquarters at Camp Smith. I Corps in Washington state can "command" the few army
> units in the Pacific.
> Lima Army Tank Plant, Mich. - This is run by General Dynamics which does
> similar work at its Sterling Heights Complex in Michigan.
> Tank work is declining and there is no reason for the Army to own a plant
> used by private industry. Sell the plant to General Dynamics if they want it, or
> close it if they prefer to do work elsewhere. The Anniston Army Depot can also
> do future tank upgrades.
> Natick Soldier Center, Mass. - This small facility is located in an expensive
> Boston suburb which is tasked with developing personal equipment for
> soldiers. Better work can be done at a major base where soldiers can help test gear
> and provide direct input; Fort Benning is ideal.
> Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. - Very little is done there nowadays. Anniston,
> Aberdeen, Watervliet, and Red River have plenty of excess capacity to fill whatever
> need might arise. One Colonel who worked there stated they could turn out the
> lights and send everyone home tomorrow and the Army wouldn't notice. This
> will allow the base to retain its appropriate mission as a Moth Sanctuary.
> Redstone Arsenal, Ala. - This is left over from when the Army was involved in
> the large missile business. The Army turned over that business to NASA, which
> runs the Marshall Space Center there. The Army's Aviation and Missile command
> remained as private contractors took over research and development. This
> command should move to Fort Bliss or White Sands where development and testing
> actually occurs, or to Letterkenny Depot where missiles are repaired. The Army's
> Material Command can move to another arsenal or depot while the missile
> ordnance school can move anywhere.
> Rock Island Arsenal, Ill. - Very little is done here nowadays. Anniston,
> Watervliet, Aberdeen, and Red River have plenty of excess capacity to fill
> whatever need might arise. Most non-Army activities aboard this Arsenal will remain.
> Sierra Army Depot, Calif. - This was mostly shut down since the 1995 BRAC
> declared it excess and environmental clean up began. However, the Army retained
> it to help burn off surplus munitions from the Cold War. Since this produces
> toxic fumes, nearby citizens are furious and want it closed for good. The
> depot's burn mission should be complete by 2005 and Tooele Depot in Utah can burn
> what's left.
> Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz. - Aberdeen does the most "proving" for the Army,
> while Dugway has newer facilities and a huge test area with special equipment
> to test chemical and bio weapons. The little work done at Yuma can be easily
> done at Dugway, Fort Irwin, White Sands, or elsewhere, as was demonstrated with
> the recent Stryker program.
> The test ranges may be preserved as part of nearby MCAS Yuma or transferred
> to the Arizona National Guard, but an active Army base is not needed unless the
> Army puts troops there to help defend the border.
>
> U.S. Navy base closure List
> The U.S. Navy has done the best job in closing excess base capacity. It has
> shut down two major base complexes: San Francisco Bay and Charleston. However,
> the fleet has shrunk since the 1995 base closing round, so a few medium size
> bases and several small bases can be closed to save a couple billion dollars a
> year in overhead. Current Navy plans are to shrink further, from 313 ships in
> fiscal 2002 down to 291 ships in fiscal 2004.
> Ingleside Naval Station, Texas - This is an underdeveloped base where the
> Navy banished its unwanted mine warfare ships. However, the Navy now acknowledges
> that it is very difficult for combat ships on each coast to train with mine
> warfare ships based in South Texas. Realizing these small, slow ships cannot
> rapidly deploy, the Navy has moved several overseas. In addition, the only large
> ship at Ingleside, the helicopter carrier USS Inchon, was recently
> decommissioned and nothing will take her place. The Navy should move the remaining ships
> to a major base on each coast to join the rest of the fleet.
> Monterey Naval Postgraduate School, Calif. - This is a major hotel complex in
> scenic Monterey which the Navy acquired during World War II and never left.
> t is far from Navy bases and exists solely to operate a military
> post-graduate school. This can be done at any major base with none of the overhead costs
> of operating an entire base. However, an article appeared Naval Proceedings in
> 2000 which questioned why the Navy runs its own post-graduate school when it's
> much cheaper to send students to the finest graduate schools in the United
> States, which offer the same courses and would provide officers healthy contact
> with outside institutions.
> Naval Air Station Meridian, Miss. - Over the past few years, the Navy and
> Marine Corps have reduced the size of squadrons and will soon eliminate several
> because skyrocketing aircraft prices do not allow all older aircraft to be
> replaced. As a result, they will need to train fewer new aviators each year. NAS
> Meridian is a small aviator training base that was on the 1995 closure list
> because its bad weather limits safe flying days. Unfortunately, Admiral Borda
> succumbed to political pressure from Mississippi congressmen and told the
> commission it was mistakenly put on the list. These training squadrons can move to
> the other three naval aviator training bases, or perhaps the joint/reserve NAS
> Fort Worth in arid Texas. Naval Aircraft Engineering Station Lakehurst, New
> Jersey - This is an old base left over from the era when the Navy developed most
> of its aircraft "in house". The Navy wanted to close this base in 1995, but a
> close commission vote kept it open. Its difficult to determine anything of
> value of done there today. Any important activity can move to the larger naval
> aviation development base at Patuxent River, Md., or the testing center in China
> Lake, Calif. Lakehurst, N.J., is adjacent to Fort Dix and McGuire AFB so the
> problem of local retiree support and civilian job transfers are nonexistent.
> Naval Recreation Station Solomons Island, Md. - This is an old unused base
> which evolved into a hidden navy resort. There are thousands of choices for
> private sector recreation in the Washington, D.C., area, the Navy shouldn't spend
> millions of dollars each year to run an exclusive resort at taxpayer expense.
> Money is better spent improving recreational facilities at fleet bases where
> regular sailors can use them daily.
> Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Ind. - This is left over from World War
> II when the Navy and Marines once developed their own weapons. This is now done
> in the private sector or at operating bases. Whatever relevant work can be
> found is best done near naval forces and not in a remote spot a thousand miles
> from any ship.
> Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Va. - NAVSEA is an amazing
> large organization with 37 R&D facilities in the United States. It employs an
> army of engineers and scientists, yet awards huge contracts to private
> corporations to design future ships and aircraft. In addition, the Naval Research
> Laboratory has several facilities spread around the country. Since the Navy now
> prefers to outsource its R&D, there is no need to retain this massive in-house
> capability. Dahlgren is tucked away in the middle of Virginia and far from any
> ship. Its traditional mission of munitions testing is very limited due to the
> rapid growth of nearby communities, so most all weapons testing is done at
> China Lake. Important activities and tenants can be merged into bases elsewhere,
> or just eliminated. The Navy has over a dozen "research" facilities in the
> Washington, D.C.,-area and around Virginia which should be consolidated. In the
> September 2002 Naval Proceedings, Rear Admiral Rowland G. Freeman III (ret)
> noted: "focus got lost as the laboratories strove to become more like academic
> campuses [where] ferocious competition for dollars between the laboratories
> downgraded the technical and scientific effort." If the Navy fails to recommend
> some smaller "lab" closures in this region, Dahlgren should be axed to force
> change and save money.
> Navy Supply Corps School, Ga. - a small base in Athens, which is in an odd
> location for the Navy. It can be moved to any base to save money and manpower.
> New Orleans Naval Support Activity, La. - During the 1960s, the Navy and
> Marines banished their reserve commands to decaying buildings at an old Army base
> in downtown New Orleans. These commands will be more effective and less costly
> at major bases where they can support reservists directly and interact with
> active forces.
> Pascagoula Naval Station, Miss. - This tiny base has just three old cruisers,
> two old frigates, and few base facilities. It is isolated from the fleet and
> its ships must steam for several days to participate in exercises off the
> Atlantic coast. The Navy can easily accommodate these ships at larger east coast
> bases, but they will be decommissioned within a few years anyway.
> Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, N.H. - The Navy has far more shipyard capacity
> than it needs. Portsmouth was to be included in the 1995 base closure list, but
> President Clinton was said to have exerted inappropriate pressure on the
> commission to spare it since the important New Hampshire presidential primary race
> was underway. Portsmouth only works on attack submarines, work which can be
> done by several underutilized public and private sector shipyards.
> Saratoga Springs Naval Support Unit, N.Y. (includes Ballston Spa, Scotia) -
> This small, inland base was overlooked in previous base closure rounds. Nuclear
> power training can be consolidated in Charleston since the number of nuclear
> powered subs has been cut, while the regional recruiting office can move to
> any Navy base along the New England coast.
>
> U.S. Marine Corps base closure list
> Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Ga. - This Korean war era base is far
> from any major air or seaport, and far from any Marine units. As a result, the
> Corps built a seaport logistics facility at Blount Island near Jacksonville,
> Fla., in the 1980s. Albany should close with its activities moved to Blount
> Island, Camp Lejeune, and Quantico to save money and provide superior support. The
> manpower and money saved should allow the Corps to open a spare parts facility
> at a U.S. Navy base in Italy and another in Bahrain to greatly improve
> support in those regions, and replace its two ageing aviation maintenance support
> ships in Baltimore.
> Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, Calif. (realign) - This World War II
> base is far from any major air or seaport, and far from any Marine units. It is
> actually three bases, the Yerma maintenance and storage area, the main base
> eight miles away at Nebo, and a rifle/pistol range complex. Logistical activities
> can provide superior support at Camp Pendleton or 29 Palms, or if
> forward-based in Guam. However, the desert air is ideal for storage of excess equipment.
> Therefore, the base may "realign" becoming the Yerma Annex of Marine Corps
> Base 29 Palms with a dozen Marines supported by a hundred civilians. This annex
> will be for storage, although some maintenance work may still be done.
> The Nebo complex and rifle range area can transfer to the U.S. Army. Fort
> Irwin is nearby and needs the family housing and some buildings. It is also an
> ideal location for a heavy Army Reserve or National Guard armor unit. The rest
> of Nebo can become an urban warfare training center which Fort Irwin needs as a
> modern National Training Center, which it can share with the Marines.
> Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif. - Budget problems caused by
> high-priced aircraft will force the Corps to eliminate over a dozen flying squadrons
> during the next decade.
> While Miramar is a beautiful base, it is surrounded by a booming urban area
> whose vocal residents complain about noise, which is why the Navy happily left
> in 1999. It has the highest off-base housing costs of any air station, and
> training is limited by congested civilian air traffic and quiet time for the
> locals. Moreover, San Diego desperately needs a new airport and Miramar is the
> only practical location. Dispersing Miramar aircraft to other Marine Corps and
> Navy Air Stations will save the Corps millions of dollars each year. If such a
> move is considered too costly, the Corps can "sell" Miramar to the city to fund
> new facilities elsewhere.
> Since 10 Marine F/A-18 squadrons are now permanently assigned to Navy carrier
> wings, the Navy has plenty of room at NAS Leemore in central California to
> host Marine F/A-18 squadrons. F/A-18 squadrons can also return to MCAS Kanehoe
> Bay, and two must move to MCAS Iwakuni in Japan if the Corps wishes to maintain
> three squadrons there since the new carrier commitments make squadron
> rotations impractical. The two helicopter training squadrons can move the MCAS New
> River, while others will be disbanded as helicopter shortages caused by the V-22
> program require several deactivations. Remaining squadrons can be squeezed
> into MCAS Camp Pendleton, MCAS Kanehoe Bay, MCAS Yuma, or NAS El Centro. Other
> options are Edwards AFB where two Marine reserve helicopter squadrons are
> based, or build hangers and landing pads at 29 Palms and move a few squadrons
> there.
> Marine Corps Mountain Warfare School, Calif. - This tiny base in the midst of
> a huge national forest was founded during the Korean war to prepare Marines
> for mountain warfare. It was mothballed during the Vietnam war as the Corps
> determined it was no longer needed. For unknown reasons, the base was later
> reoccupied even though the Corps hasn't been involved in mountain warfare since
> Korea. This school absorbs funds and manpower needed for new urban warfare
> facilities elsewhere. Marines can attend U.S. Army or foreign mountain/winter
> warfare schools on occasion, but such training should be a low priority. Marines are
> a rapid reaction force, which always involves urban areas. The rare mission
> of chasing guerrillas or terrorists in mountains should be left to specialized
> Army units. The base should be mothballed and returned to the US Forest
> Service again, or possibly transferred to the California National Guard for urban
> warfare and mountain training for all armed services.
> Marine Reserve Support Unit, Kansas City - This is a tiny base with 200
> Marines which somehow ended up in Kansas City. It should move to any Marine base,
> probably co-located with Marine Forces Reserves, which will also move from New
> Orleans.
> Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, Calif. (realign or close) - This small,
> concrete base is the worst place to train new recruits. The roar from the
> adjacent airport is constant while tourists roam about gawking at recruits and
> taking photos. Training facilities are so limited that recruits must move 40
> miles north to Camp Pendleton for their final three weeks.
> There are three options: 1) move MCRD up to Camp Pendleton; 2) move MCRD to
> Nebo at Barstow (see Barstow above); 3) expand MRCD Parris Island, which
> already has the capacity to double its load, although facilities would need to be
> modernized. The U.S. Air Force trains more airmen recruits each year at one base
> in Texas, and the Navy trains twice as many at a single location. A major war
> would quickly empty most of Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejuene, providing ample
> facilities for another MCRD to support a major war.
> The city of San Diego wants this base to expand its airport. However, if the
> Marine Corps closes MCAS Miramar instead, it may keep "Marine Base San Diego"
> because of its ideal location near the Navy. It could accommodate the Reserve
> Support Unit from Kansas City, reserve headquarters from New Orleans, a small
> Marine Corps Logistics Facility (from Barstow), or any Navy or Marine unit
> which needs space in the San Diego region. Another option would be a small Marine
> Corps Air Facility which uses the runway at adjacent civilian Lindbergh
> field. This could accommodate the VIP aircraft from Miramar and maybe a reserve
> F/A-18 squadron.
>
> U.S. Air Force base closure list
>
> The Air Force conducted a 1998 study which concluded it could cut its
> overhead costs in half by consolidating into 20 megabases.
> The average Air Force base is less than half the size of a typical Army, Navy
> or Marine Corps base (based on active duty population). As a result, these
> small bases become dysfunctional whenever their operational wing deploys
> overseas because it takes many airmen which the base itself needs, like security
> personnel.
> In addition, the Air Force must eliminate half its fighter and attack
> squadrons in the coming years to afford ultra-expensive F/A-22s and F-35s. The number
> of B-1B bombers was recently cut by one-third, and the number of aerial
> tankers will be cut as some old KC-135s are replaced by larger tankers based on the
> Boeing 767. Finally, fewer aircraft require fewer pilots, so fewer pilot
> training bases are needed. As a result, the Air Force will have twice as much base
> capacity than it needs. Some of this problem is easily solved by closing
> outdated bases overseas, but dozens of smaller domestic bases must also be closed.
> In addition, consolidating Air National Guard squarons into nearby bases of
> any service can yield tremendous savings and improve security.
> The Clinton administration attempted to minimize base closures in 1995, due
> to that President's view that our military is a jobs program. Fortunately, the
> 1995 commission closed two of the Air Force's five huge air logistics bases
> despite objections from the Clinton administration and powerful Senators. Most
> all of the bases on this list are recommended for closure simply because they
> are the smallest Air Force bases in the country. In addition, the Air Force
> will move a bomber squadron and at least one tanker squadron to Guam. It may also
> move some flying squadrons to the three large Air Logistics Centers.
> This looks like a big list, but includes no major air force installations and
> doesn't cut even half of what is needed for the 20 mega-base concept. In
> fact, the number of airmen at all bases on this list is fewer than the number of
> soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. Keep in mind that moving Air Force wings may be
> unnecessary as the Air Force will deactivate several wings in the coming years.
>
> Altus AFB, Oklahoma - A small base whose transport training wing can move to
> a larger base, possibly Tinker.
> Brooks AFB, Texas - A tiny non-flying research base in an old area of San
> Antonio which is virtually shut down. The Air Force wanted to close it in 1995,
> but it was spared because the commission chose to close the large Kelly Air
> Logistics Center nearby.
> Cannon AFB, N.M. - A small base whose fighter wing can move to a larger base,
> or may be deactivated.
> Columbus AFB, Miss. - A tiny base whose training wing can move to a larger
> base with better flying weather.
> Ellsworth AFB, S.D. - A small base whose bomber wing can move to another
> base. Since the Air Force has just cut one-third of its B-1Bs, it may be best to
> deactivate that wing.
> Goodfellow AFB, Texas - A tiny and remote non-flying base used for skills
> training which can move to a larger base.
> Grand Forks AFB, N.D. - A small base whose refueling wing can move to a
> larger base. Tankers from this base require two or more hours of flight time to
> support operations along the coast or overseas deployments.
> Hanscom AFB, Mass. - A small research base with no aircraft. The Air Force
> may continue to fund research with MIT, but there is no need to keep 2000 airmen
> running a "base". Any pure Air Force work can be moved to other underutilized
> Air Force Research labs.
> Kirkland AFB, N.M. - (to realign or close) Special Operations activities will
> move to Hurlburt Field, Florida or perhaps Moody AFB. The base will gain
> other activities or close.
> Los Angeles AFB, Calif. - A small base whose only tenant is the Space and
> Missile Systems Center. However, there are no space facilities or missiles nearby
> because it's located in a crowded and expensive section of Los Angeles
> county, which is why it has been considered for closing in past rounds. This could
> free up virtually miles of prime beachfront real estate as Fort MacArthur base
> only purpose is to maintain affordable housing for LA AFB workers.
> McConnell AFB, Kansas - A small base whose refueling wing can move to a
> larger base. Tankers from this base require two or more hours of flight time to
> support operations along the coast or overseas deployments.
> Nellis AFB, Nev. - (to realign) This is a key medium-size base whose tenant
> units are better off elsewhere. The rapid growth of Las Vegas has encroached
> the airfield causing community conflicts due to noise and demands for connecting
> roads through Nellis. Security is poor since the airfield is close to a major
> road with dozens of aircraft parked outdoors during exercises, while
> thousands of tourists visit the "Thunderbirds". In addition, the federal government
> has restricted growth in Las Vegas because air pollution becomes trapped in that
> valley, while Air Force jets at Nellis spew out tons of pollutants. However,
> this could cut into the much needed 2408 airspace, which is dedicated to test
> flights. As encroachment issues continue unabated, these challenges will
> continue to escalate.
> Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C. - (to realign) The F-15 fighter wing can move,
> probably to Eglin, while an active KC-135 tanker wing is added. This base is much
> better located for tanker ops than those in the Mid-West.
> Shaw AFB, S.C. - This is a medium-size base, but the Air Force will cut its
> fighter squadrons in half and something must be shut down. This base may be
> preserved if a fighter wing based overseas returns.
> Vance AFB, Okla. - A tiny base whose training wing can move to another base.
>
> So what's California doing?
> Senate committee to take on military base closures
>
> On the heels of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's pledge in his State of the State
> address to fight the closure of California military bases, Sen. Roy Ashburn
> (R-Bakersfield) has scheduled a special Senate hearing to aide the governor
> with his commitment to protect California's military installations during the
> 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closures.
> The Senate Select Committee on Defense and Aerospace Industry will meet in
> the State Capitol Jan. 21 to highlight the economic and job impact of Department
> of Defense installations on California families and the state as a whole. The
> Committee will also hear from a panel of regional organizations formed to
> fight the closure of local military bases. This panel will update the committee
> on the current risk of closure or downsizing California installations because
> of the recently published DOD criteria that will be used to rank base
> viability. The panel will also be asked to recommend changes to the criteria that would
> improve the selection process and local base rankings.
> Joining Ashburn for this hearing will be former vice commander of Edwards Air
> Force Base, State Sen. Pete Knight (R-Palmdale) who will provide the
> Committee with his insight and advice on military operations and the BRAC process.
> The hearing will conclude with Ashburn combining all the proposed changes to
> the BRAC Selection Criteria into a single document that will be forwarded onto
> the governor and Congressional Delegation for further action in Washington,
> D.C.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> The reason this message is shown is because the post was in HTML
> or had an attachment.  Attachments are not allowed.  To learn how
> to post in Plain-Text go to: http://www.expita.com/nomime.html  ---
> _______________________________________________
> Scan-DC mailing list
> Scan-DC@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc

--