[Scan-DC] Re: Scan-DC digest, Vol 1 #301 - 3 msgs

[Eric]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <scan-dc-request@mailman.qth.net>
To: <scan-dc@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:21 PM
Subject: Scan-DC digest, Vol 1 #301 - 3 msgs


> Send Scan-DC mailing list submissions to
> scan-dc@mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> scan-dc-request@mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> scan-dc-admin@mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Scan-DC digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. JUST UP IN DC (The Emissary)
>    2. 2 UP on 127.275 (The Emissary)
>    3. Re: Base Closures (john wilson)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: "The Emissary" <phonepatrol@hotmail.com>
> To: scan-dc@mailman.qth.net, milcom@mailman.qth.net
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:24:19 +0000
> Subject: [Scan-DC] JUST UP IN DC
>
> Washington, DC.. just up
>
> ANGRY 1  (UHF SIDE OF 125.65)
>                Contact Departure on 317.425
>
> MARINE 102   (125.65<133.9)
>
> ?  (Missed the c/s but caught the tailend .. was to to switch to 281.4
from
> the UHF side of 125.65)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the
max!
>    http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: "The Emissary" <phonepatrol@hotmail.com>
> To: scan-dc@mailman.qth.net
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:29:01 +0000
> Subject: [Scan-DC] 2 UP on 127.275
>
> 2 up on 127.275 a/a
>
> either low alt. or far away..
> from the dc area
> =)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find high-speed 'net deals - comparison-shop your local providers here.
> https://broadband.msn.com
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:18:38 -0500
> From: john wilson <jwilson9@erols.com>
> To: Rapbep@aol.com
> Cc: scan-dc@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Base Closures
>
>    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
>
> --
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> End of Scan-DC Digest
>
> End of Scan-DC Digest
>