Posted on 09/02/2003 9:21:06 AM PDT by SLB
For Your Info. The Army bases currently proposed for closure or realignment in 2005 include: Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; Detroit Arsenal, Michigan; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Fort McPherson/Gillem, Georgia; Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; Fort Monroe, Virginia; Fort Polk, Louisiana (to realign); Fort Richardson, Alaska; Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Fort Shafter, Hawaii; Lima Army Tank Plant, Ohio; Natick Soldier Center, Massachusetts; Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey; Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois; Sierra Army Depot, California; and Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.
Air Force base closures and realignments include: Altus AFB, Oklahoma; Beale AFB, California; Brooks AFB, Texas; Cannon AFB, New Mexico; Columbus AFB, Mississippi; Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota; Goodfellow AFB, Texas; Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota; Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts; Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; Los Angeles AFB, California; McConnell AFB, Kansas; Nellis AFB, Nevada (to realign); Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina (to realign); Shaw AFB, South Carolina; and Vance AFB, Oklahoma.
The Air Force will lose 2,260 military and 2,839 civilian manpower positions, and 1,055 reserve drill authorizations next year, according to the 2004 force-structure announcement released July 23.
Many bases, both active duty and reserve component, are affected by the realignment. In many cases, units will gain aircraft and missions, while others will pare down.
Besides manpower reductions, the realignment formally announces the retirement of the C-9A Nightingale and KC-135E Stratotanker aircraft. According to Air Force officials, the 20 C-9s are being retired because of reduced-patient movement, range limitations and increasing maintenance and upgrade costs. The aeromedical-evacuation mission will become a requirements-based system using all passenger-capable aircraft.
The service will retire 44 of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command's 43-year-old KC-135Es next year, replacing them with 24 KC-135Rs from the active-duty fleet. By the end of fiscal 2006, the Air Force will have retired 68 of the KC-135Es.
Naval base closures and realignments include: Ingleside Naval Station, Texas; Naval Postgraduate School, California; Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi; Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, New Jersey; Naval Recreation Station Solomons Island, Maryland; Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Indiana; Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Virginia; Navy Supply Corps School, Georgia; New Orleans Naval Support Activity, Louisiana; Pascagoula Naval Station, Mississippi; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, New Hampshire; and Saratoga Springs Naval Support Unit, New York.
Marine base closures and realignments include: Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Georgia; Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, California (realignment); Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California; Marine Corps Mountain Warfare School, California; Marine Reserve Support Unit, Kansas City; and Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego, California (realign or close).
That's where Bigern came into this world.
Rock Island Arsenal. What a shame.
I've heard Sec. Rumsfeld speak very forcefully about the need to close bases in order to free up money and people for overseas duty. Maybe you could enlighten him also.
Bases outside the U. S. are closed or re-aligned using a process that's different than for domestic basing.
Basically, the President and Sec. of Defense get far more freedom to close or realign foreign bases, because Congress isn't as worried about local bacon. A lot of foreign bases have been closed and are still being closed now.
No problem with sharing similar training. There's no sense in having 2 tanker schools, for example.
I would object to "joint" basic training. I think Marine or Army basic, e.g., is entirely different than navy or AF.
There's no overcomable reason that some functions cannot be joint. Chaplain, lawyer, nurse, psych, and doctor can be joint. It'll be harder with medical. There are differences in the type of wounds one would receive in a ground unit as opposed to an air unit. You might want "specialists" in the medical field.
I'm a retired Chaplain, by the way.
I can see a purple suit for Chaplain, medical, legal, counselor, etc. I can even see them being outside the rank structure.
They going to lease a bunch of 767s and convert them to tankers. A big ass waste of money/boondoggle designed to save Boeing's rear end from the loss of the JSF contract and all the airframes they are sitting on because they got into the airplane leasing business and then 9-11 shot that industry in the temple.
So when has the notion of throwing good money after more good money ever stopped poli-critters from doing whatever they felt like? It's all about politics and whose ox is gored.
I believe they made LAFS an AFB a couple of years ago.
As I look at the Army list, nearly all of them make sense. I can't speak for the other services. There is no earthly reason for keeping Ft Monmouth open. It's a few thousand civilians, about a hundred soldiers, and the prep school for West Point. Rock Island is a staff center with a bunch of offices. It, too, is civilian heavy. The same with most of the Army Materiel Command bases. (Rock Island will be hard to "off," though. It sits on the Iowa/Illinois border so that doubles the numbers of Senators and Representatives who will be fighting for it.
That is just sick. Clinton downsized the military beyond all common sense, but then what did we expect from Mr. "I loathe the military". But with Republicans in control of both Houses and the Presidency, you'd think we could pare down some of the not Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government rather than the single most important function, and the main reason for even having a federal government, rather than a mere confederacy of states.
While the -R is more capable and effecient, in terms of flights per unit of fuel transferered, I don't think it's 1.83(44/24) times as effecient. This means less tanker capability. And that's assuming that the active force gets enough 767 tankers to make up for the 24 -Rs they lose in the deal, and that they do it before or at the same time as the 44 E models are sent to the boneyard. The airframes of the E's have plenty of life left, but the engines are tired, being on their second life already, the first being on commercial 707s. They could be replaced with CFM-56/F-108s, turning the E's into R's at a fairly reasonable cost. Most of the enginering has already been done for the existing R's, so the cost of the engines and the labor cost to do the mods would be all it would take.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.