Wake up, save Eielson (AK)

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner ^ | May 15, 2005 | Opinion

[Jet Jaguar]

Related link.

Eielson AFB slated for realignment (Alaska)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402785/posts

[samtheman]

The defense department isn't a jobs program. If it makes military sense to close the bases on the list, then we have to close them. If Alaska wants more jobs, it should drill for more oil.

[Jet Jaguar]

Thing is, it doesn't make sense. The plan is to remove the fighters (F-16's and A-10's) to the lower 48.

This leaves Elmendorf's F-15's as the only fighters in the area.

Alaska itself has many strategic targets, including the oil pipeline, the oil transfer station in Valdez, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile site in Delta Junction.

In addition, if the Korean War was to heat back up, Eielson Forces are the closest, behind those in South Korea and Japan.

Bad idea. I say.

[gulfcoast6]

You are so right. I was stationed at Eilson in 56-57-58, stayed an extra year because I like being there so much. I hate to see it closed but the folks must learn that we live in another world now, got to change with the times.
Back then the worlds longest runway was at Eielson.

[samtheman]

Thing is, it doesn't make sense. The plan is to remove the fighters (F-16's and A-10's) to the lower 48.

This leaves Elmendorf's F-15's as the only fighters in the area.

Alaska itself has many strategic targets, including the oil pipeline, the oil transfer station in Valdez, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile site in Delta Junction.

In addition, if the Korean War was to heat back up, Eielson Forces are the closest, behind those in South Korea and Japan.

Bad idea. I say.

You know this... but Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs don't?

[Jet Jaguar]

The BRAC may not. It is all still a proposal. It is my hope the powers that be look into it and reconsider.

[samtheman]

You do make some interesting points. Alaska is at the very edge of our defense perimeter facing a very obvious set of current and potential enemies.

[G.Mason]

Is that the smell of ... "We need cuts ... Not in my state you don't".

I thought so. It has a sickening sweet smell, doesn't it?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I remember when, after ten years of insults and demands to shut down the San Francisco Bay area naval bases, the US Navy actually proposed doing so.

Suddenly, Senators Boxer and Feinstein were screaming bloody murder...

[G.Mason]

We shouldn't be surprised. It is human nature to want the other guy to be sacrificed, just don't place me on the alter with those other lambs. ;)

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

The funniest part was that Boxer had actually campaigned for years on closing down Mare Island and Alameda.

Then the Navy said, "Sure, no prob, let's do it," and she not only turned on a dime, she gave back a few cents' change...

[ProudVet77]

"Thing is, it doesn't make sense. The plan is to remove the fighters (F-16's and A-10's) to the lower 48."
Even Elmendorf is being shrunk.
Any idea where they are going? These resources belong to the PACAF, and with things going the way they are, it's best to keep them close to Taiwan/Korea. There's no breakdown on overseas changes, they are all lumped into one line item.

[puppypusher]

Of all the bases that the USAF maintains Eielson AFB should remain open. Alaska is way to close to the bad guy's and I would prefer to not see all of our air-power put in one basket. In the CONUS there are a number of bases that should be closed because they have no strategic importants.

[Jet Jaguar]

According to one article I read, the vipers go to Nellis, the hogs go to Moody.

Go figure.

[Jet Jaguar]

I agree totally.

[ops33]

I may be mistaken, but the BRAC reccomendation didn't say Eilson was going to be closed, but that it was going to be realigned. I'm not sure what this means, any guesses?

[Jet Jaguar]

they are keeping the base open. The Reserve squadron of in-flight re-fuelers will remain. They will still host Cope Thunder exercises.

However, the tactical aircraft (F-16 @ A-10) will be moved to the lower 48, along with all the pilots, maintainers, and support folks.

The base remains open but with only a support mission for the tankers.

It makes no sense.

[ProudVet77]

I agree with warmer dryer climates, as it helps keep aircraft if better shape and makes maintenance easier.
Have respected almost everything Rumsfeld has done as SecDef, think he's been the best we've had in many years. So I'm a bit bewildered by this choice. Could this be one of those battles they intend to lose? Or as we are forward deploying more units, are these some of the units that are listed as being in CONUS, but gets rotated to forward locations? (The way the aircraft in Guam are actually assigned to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas (7th Bomb Wing) and Ellsworth AFB in SD (28th bomb wing) and the occasional B-2 wing).

[Jet Jaguar]

Your guess is as good as mine.

Oh, to be in Guam again...

Great place.

[ProudVet77]

"The Reserve squadron of in-flight re-fuelers will remain." This is one of the things that I have respected about Rumsfeld's planning. We have re-fuelers and other support type aircraft all over the world to facilitate moving our CONUS based resources forward in a hurry.
Japan does not have a lot of actual attack aircraft deployed, but there are a lot of failities available to them on short notice, including re-fuelers and AWACS/JSTARS. That is why I'm somewhat perplexed by the move of the A-10s to Moody. Unless they have moved A-10s from Germany to Japan, which is not stipulated.