Home » Air » F-16 move puts AF Chief of Staff nomination at risk

F-16 move puts AF Chief of Staff nomination at risk

By Michael Hoffman Friday, June 1st, 2012 3:00 pm
Posted in Air

U.S. Sen. Mark Begich didn’t budge from his threat to hold up Air Force general nominations after he read the 46-page report in which the service laid out the costs for moving an F-16 Aggressor Squadron from Eielson Air Force Base to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.

Is there really any surprise? Unless the Air Force changed its mind about the future of F-16s at Eielson, Begich would have found holes in the service’s case to do it. He repeatedly ripped the Air Force’s cost-benefit analysis on Capitol Hill to move the 18th Aggressor Squadron and ordered the service offer the report.

This food fight between Begich and the Air Force matters because he sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and can hold up a nomination if he chooses. Thus far he’s done just that holding up the promotion of Lt. Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle to four-stars and taking command of Pacific Air Forces. The senator says he will not release his hold on that nomination upon seeing the Air Force’s report.

Begich could further gum up the Air Force’s plans by holding up the nomination of its next chief of staff. The White House nominated Gen. Mark A. Welsh III to relieve Gen. Norton Schwartz pending the Senate’s approval.

The decision to move the F-16s is part of a larger move by the Air Force to reduce its footprint. Moving the F-16s out of Eielson is seen as a move that could put the future of Eielson in question. Other than the 18th Aggressor Squadron, there’s not much else stationed in the remote reaches of Alaska other than a Guard tanker wing and the service’s Arctic Survival School.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has already asked Congress for another round of BRAC although Congress has roundly denied the request. Schwartz has said his service is in dire need of another BRAC to scrap unnecessary infrastructure to match the reduction of equipment and manpower.

For it’s part, the Air Force specified in the report that Eielson would remain a strategic part of the Total Force and had no plans to close down the base. Air Force officials said the service would save $217 million over the long term by moving the F-16s down to Elmendorf.

Begich isn’t buying it. He said the millions of dollars the Air Force would have to spend in 2013 to make the move was unacceptable. He also again questioned the Air Force’s assumptions on how much would be saved.

“I am disappointed, yet not surprised, to see the move of the F-16s from Eielson to JBER would actually cost money in the first year and estimated cost-savings appear to be less than half of what was projected initially. It is clear that the cost to implement this proposal has not been properly budgeted for,” Begich said in a statement.

He also said the Air Force is not accounting for the cost to airmen who will struggle to sell their homes in Fairbanks, Alaska, if the entire squadron moves south.

“The Air Force wants to relocate the 18th Aggressor Squadron yet hasn’t completed the necessary homework to ensure our Airmen have somewhere to live and don’t suffer unnecessary financial burdens when trying to sell their homes in Fairbanks,” Begich said.

To show the Air Force’s commitment to Eielson, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley visited the base May 21–22. Schwartz met with Begich to address the senator’s concerns.

“Alaska is … quite possibly the most strategically positioned (state for America),” Donley told the airmen at Eielson. “It is a key toehold for the U.S. presence in the Pacific region. Its location provides a vital link to the Pacific theater with the ability to reach any (Pacific Air Forces) location in only one leg.”

In the mean time, Begich wants the Air Force to do more research on the move.

“The bottom line is we have yet to see a comprehensive five-year analysis detailing the total budgetary ramifications of the relocation and long-term plan for Eielson. The Air Force needs to be straight with Congress. We cannot make major decisions impacting the budget, military operations, and our military families based on incomplete data and inconsistent information,” he said in a statement.

In other words Air Force, keep looking until you find the answer that I’m looking for.

Join the Conversation

	Mike June 1st, 2012 at 2:58 pm No one trusts the Air Force’s numbers anymore. No one.
	Gray Eagle June 1st, 2012 at 3:13 pm If you’ve ever lived at Eielson and flown there during the winter months, and also lived at Elmendorf and flown there during the winter months, you might understand the difference in readiness, maintenance costs, crew morale, and dependent morale.
	William C. June 1st, 2012 at 3:23 pm And you trust the Senator’s numbers?
	Chaostician June 1st, 2012 at 3:35 pm Why didn’t you put the party of Senator Begich (-D) after his name? You made me look it up. You trying to protect the Democratic party or something? Just about every article in any media I see shows the party when a Senator opens their trap. Now I don’t have any problem with the Senator questioning the Air Force’s analysis, or voting against Lt Gen Carlisle’s promotion if he thinks this guy doesn’t deserve to make a 4th Star. If USAF screwed up the analysis, then that should be exposed so everyone can get another case study in how not to do cost analysis. But to “HOLD UP” nomination votes for key leadership positions throughout the federal government for for political purposes has got to be one of the most sickening practices of Congress. It makes the entire leadership of the country look foolish, which trickles down to the worker bees throughout the govt, which hurts the entire economy & nation.
	Chaostician June 1st, 2012 at 3:35 pm The military is about following orders. No one forced anyone to buy any homes in Fairbanks. If the decision making standard is that the military has to make sure no one “suffer unnecessary financial burdens” for each and every policy decision, we might as well just surrender as a nation. We need to vote out incumbent after incumbent (starting with Obama) until we get some leadership in DC that actually cares to execute the business of government.
	Chaostician June 1st, 2012 at 3:41 pm The Committee structure gives far too much power to individual members of Congress. In addiiton to having to run for office in the first place, Reps & Senators should have to run for committee leadership positions, and the people should get to vote for committee leaders. This would be a good way for us to atleast have the opportunity to vote out foolish leadership from power, and vote in qualified members. I just read Sen Begich’s bio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Begich and surprise, surprise, he never served in uniform…
	Drake1 June 1st, 2012 at 4:03 pm One man can do this.
	justin June 1st, 2012 at 4:11 pm More and more so, Yes. Navy and AF leadership at the upper echelon has been abismal for some time and has led both branches into corners where they have very little room to do anything that makes good long trerm sense, yet they seem to keep going down the same path. I follow both the HASC and SASC and they are the ones that seem much more informed and common sensed than the Navy and AF leadership. The F-35 buy in quantity before 15% of testing is complete, Biofuels prematurely on the big stage, Optimal Manning and the clusterfudge that was, women on subs, retiring AF planes we clearly need, the LCS, lying about the DDG-1000 not being able to carry Standard missiles so they can justify more Burkes (which don’t have enough room for the new radars and DEW’s)… it goes on; AF and Navy leaders of the last 10 years should be ashamed. Despite the obvious and never ending parochial interests, the politicians have been better leaders and critics of the direction of both the Navy and AF. Sad but true..
	Dfens June 1st, 2012 at 5:07 pm The Air Force has to close some more bases so they can continue to feed their contractors plenty of the taxpayers’ money. Hell, someone should have put the brakes on the star creep in the Air Force long before now.
	Goat Herder June 1st, 2012 at 5:33 pm The only “numbers” the Senator cares about are poll numbers and votes. I suspect that even If God Almighty had done the analysis, he’d still say it was inadequate and/or inaccurate.
	Geoffry Woods June 1st, 2012 at 6:49 pm Sounds like he’s afraid that “moving the F-16 squadron” is code for “closing the base altogether.” Which, given the USAF track record on planning the last ten years, probably IS a valid concern. While it sounds like more political BS, he does have a constituency to look out for, one that the Air Force and Lockheed don’t give a rat’s *** about. In that sense, he’s kinda doing his job.
	Lance June 1st, 2012 at 9:20 pm Overall need to send all fighter aggressors squadrons USAF and NAVY to a single joint fighter pilot training school. A Maxi TOP GUN as you will having all these separate bases will only drain funds and bring them at risk when sequestration hits.
	Afogtrkr June 2nd, 2012 at 2:03 am Keep the agressors up in alaska. Few want to attend Cope Thunder up there, but the next conflict may well be in freezing conditions. I doubt it’s the party town I’ve heard Clark AFB was, but I’ve never been to either place. When we deployed A-10s from Myrtle Beach AFB to Korea for Team Spirit ’86, it took a week for our guys to acclimate to the cold, esp. @ night. Freezing cold in tent city with kerosene heaters, it was miserable, but could of been worse. Later did two yrs. @ Suwon AB Korea, cold, cold,cold!
	dumb taxpayer June 2nd, 2012 at 4:13 am Anybody that has recently deployed to or visited Bagram knows first hand how much the Airforce pays contractors. The civilian to military ratio on that base is easily 3 to 1.
	footeab June 2nd, 2012 at 4:51 am Well that base is the farthest one north. If anything should be closing the airforce base in Anchorage, not Fairbanks. But it won’t because the brass braid folks like living where its slightly warmer in the winter and the scenery is better so naturally the base that should remain open, the one farthest north to defend Alaska is the one being closed… Brilliant
	Robert F. Dorr June 2nd, 2012 at 9:37 am It isn’t “one of the most sickening practices of Congress.” The House of Representatives has no role in this process. It may or may not be one of the most sickening practices of the Senate.
	benjamin June 2nd, 2012 at 12:43 pm A lot of those Airmen as the article said are going to have a hard time selling there homes. I doubt that this is something the Air Force is taking into account right now.
	sferrin June 2nd, 2012 at 12:57 pm Nor should they.
	majr0d June 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 pm You had tents and kerosene heaters in Korea? ROUGH duty!
	majr0d June 2nd, 2012 at 1:13 pm Something we can agree on!
	TMB June 2nd, 2012 at 1:19 pm The problem comes when you’ve got hundreds of Congressmen all looking out for their hometowns, but making decisions that affect the whole nation. When influential members of Congress are only concerned about local jobs and not the nation’s defense, what do we do? You’re right that the Air Force probably isn’t as concerned with a single city as much as what they believe to be the health of the entire Air Force. That’s their job, and that’s why BRAC is always such a mess. Nobody in Congress is going to stand up and say “Yes, I believe shutting down the military base which employs thousands of my constituents is good for the nation, even though I think BRAC and downsizing the military is good for the nation.”
	TMB June 2nd, 2012 at 1:23 pm Ben, we take that risk no matter where we’re stationed. I’ve rented most of my career because I bought a house at a base that they only let me work at for 2 years before moving me again. I sold the house and broke even, but home ownership isn’t a guaranteed business decision.
	Guest June 2nd, 2012 at 2:31 pm Is there language in BRAC for government assistance to government workers (civilian and military) who have trouble selling their homes due to a BRAC move? There used to be.
	Byron Skinner June 2nd, 2012 at 3:20 pm Good Afternoon Folks, Another round of BRAC is certainly needed. Of the about 400 military bases in the United States proper over 200 are Air Force Bases. That’s the arithmetic. A smaller USAirForce and AirNational Guard will require fewer bases and fewer personal. We have been told by Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz that by 2020 the F-35 will be the Air Forces ONLY fighter plane, me thinks he has either written off the F-22 by then or just forgot we have 188 of these gobblers. The buy of F-22A’s for the USAirForce is now put at about 1,400 planes, with about 54 active B-52’s, 30 B-1’s and 12 or so B-1B’s at Barksdale AFB I know what about the 222 C-17, 242 A-10’s, 12AC-130J’s and H’s, about 200 C-130’s and about 96 C-5’s, well again do the arithmetic. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	TMB June 2nd, 2012 at 3:20 pm I know it was brought up recently, but I don’t know if there’s anything on the books.
	Chaostician June 2nd, 2012 at 3:24 pm thanks for clarifying
	krypton June 2nd, 2012 at 5:01 pm Who said the F35 won’t be another fixed-at-a-much-smaller-number-because-the-plane-just-sucks contract, like the F22? If the F35 is your only plane, you better start pricing Long-Ezes with two M249s, because the pilots will be paying for them out of their own pockets. Northrup is actually starting to promote the F-23 again. Or maybe we could buy used Israeli newer-block F16s.
	straps June 2nd, 2012 at 8:16 pm Dear Drake: Yes 1 Senator can hold up anything requireing Senate approval. Its called the Constitution. I know we forget about it every time we have a D in office. But thats the way the rules are. Make it a reserve outfit an leave it at Eilsen which is 15 minutes flying time to Elmendorf or 45 minutes in a C47 so whats the real reason for the move the waste of my money an yours? Are the fighter mafia getting there toes cold.…SAC was there for 15 years no problem fighter woosies.…..
	Davjohn June 2nd, 2012 at 8:27 pm So what Begich is saying is “Play by my rules or I’ll take my toys and go home. Then you won’t be able to play at all.” Perfect.
	STRAPS June 2nd, 2012 at 8:31 pm Get your facts right Bubba The 16s shipped to the IAF were stripped bare zero avionics. The IAI came up with better electronics than ours had at that time. The IAF was the first 1 to mount pylons under the wing an use it as a Fighter Bomber.…As to the fighter mafia exactly how many F117s were shot down at least zero so the USAF sends them to the junk heap. Exactly how many A10s were shot down???? Screw the army send them to DM junkyard we need the newest toys.….How many F5s does the USAF own who refused to buy them when the bid went out on the 16 but they ended up buying F5s cause they have the same data as a MIG27 / MIG19.…..The USAF turned down the 747 to buy the C5 which take 48 hours to turn around? Now how about the C27Js they needed so desperately all parked in mothballs. Someday we will have a non fighter pilot in charge of buying aircraft because so far they all suck wind.….exSAC trained killer
	Joe Dickinson June 3rd, 2012 at 8:28 am Lets see AirForce is not to move a squadron because it could cause undo burden on airmen selling homes, report not complete,and Air force says it will save millions. Yet congress has ‚in my opinion, illegally closed numerous bases and national gaurd bases under the guise of saving millions yet created mega burdens,financially speaking, on thousands of troops AND civilians and no one saw fit to hold up jobs or promotions and demand a better report to suit their needs. I say if we keep messing with the military as a whole these little crap countries will keep messing with us. Besides the Air Force has always moved squadrons around and not a word is said
	Joe Dickinson June 3rd, 2012 at 8:36 am All branches have some sort of assistance in helping of selling homes due to duty transfers
	STRAPS June 3rd, 2012 at 11:37 am Question do you realize how much of our money they will be saving by moving all the equipment and people a total of 30 minutes flying time by C47? Not a dime they will be wasteing money. I have been stationed at both bases its a joke pure an simple.……so the generals and higher ups can go fishing an be close to commercial airports?.….….….…..PRIME EXAMPLE OF WASTE PURE AND SIMPLE KEEP IT UP AN CONGRESS WILL SEND US BACK TO THE ARMY…
	STRAPS June 3rd, 2012 at 11:40 am aDDITIONAL THOUGHT DO YOU REALIZE THAT ANCHORAGE INT AIRPORT IS RIGHT IN THE FLIGHT PATH OF THE BASE AND IT IS THE MAIN STOP –REFUELING STOP FOR THE ENTIRE FLEET OF CARGO AIRCRAFT TO-FROM ALL OF ASIA.…..
	majr0d June 3rd, 2012 at 1:31 pm No they do not though it’s not surprising this issue is coming up with more and more as society’s entitlement mentality infects the military. Served 20 and didn’t buy a house numerous times because I felt there would be a problem selling or I didn’t want to take the risk. Expecting the gov’t to sell the house you bought when gov’t housing or a subsidy is available is as bad as those who took out a mortgage with variable interest or interest only loan and then looking for the gov’t (code for the taxpayer) to pay THEIR mortagage. BS, you made your bed, you sleep in it. Frequent moves are part of being in the service.
	Goat Herder June 3rd, 2012 at 3:35 pm Neither the Air Force nor the DoD is a real estate investment firm. This is a non-issue and shouldn’t be part of the equation. If the Senator is worried about Airmen losing money on houses, then put a mark into the NDAA to help’em out. He’s full of it…
	Charles Irvine June 3rd, 2012 at 7:30 pm I agree! Why would anyone trust Generals who aspire to be politicians instead of military leaders? The ranks of 2–4 star General has been turned into nothing short of a Military Senator. They don’t give a damn about their service or the people they’re entrusted to lead and fear for nothing short of their own reputation and skin. Gingrich is well within his rights to question these idiots and I hope he does hold up the next CSAF’s confirmation; maybe that’ll wake up SecDef and the new candidate for CSAF to get their acts together and bring the military as a whole back into REALITY…!!!
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 1:13 am The reason they did not put the “D” after his name is this web site is bought and paid for by the DNC / USA Today folks.…All positions in government are political wise up to reality..
	PolicyWonk June 4th, 2012 at 8:43 am The way the DoD is wrapped up with congressional meddling (regardless of party) is shameful and costly to the US taxpayers. The entire system stinks and garners the US the lowest military capability to dollar spent ratio on the planet. Hence — congress and the service branches (mostly congress) should be removed from the entire system for everything except approving the budget.
	chuck June 4th, 2012 at 8:57 am How about this, cancel the F-35 (saving 500 billion) no sequester, Cancil the LCS (savings 100 billion) cancil relocation of aircraft until a new aircraft is build that real meet real work requirements (saving 100 billion) keep people in place and reduce inflow of troop, more experience, less training cost and most of all reduce risk. Finally, lets get to the real problem reduce civilian contractors, reduce civilain (DOD) employees and look long and hard at reducing Generals in the Arm Forces wow the pain in shared and we get even more bang for our buck thank you congress. But we all know that’s not going to happen no one in congress wants to cut there paid do they or generals for that matter
	Goat Herder June 4th, 2012 at 9:52 am So…swack the DoD’s modernization programs?
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 10:33 am Whats wrong with having just 1 sqdn for the Aggressor’s 1 joint sqdn? Save the taxpayers some money oh my thats me ??????. :-(
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 10:44 am The only moderization program they have is buying junky new toys for the little boys in the Fighter Mafia. So far since the B52 was first built the Mafia has had 9 new fighter systems with a max flying hours of less than 3000 per system charming. If this was a airline a hell of a lot of people at the top would be in jail.…..But then they buy aircraft sensibly not with oversight that is at best useless.….Thats why we will wait 4 years to get a Tanker from Boeing Novelty and Toy Factory…Thanks Mc Cain you old fool..an by the time they get around to it the B2 will be 40 years old but we will have fighters that go mach 10 for the little boys to play with only to find they cant cause somebody forgot the O2 system????
	LLC June 4th, 2012 at 10:56 am Yes, let’s just keep flying old airframes and let the Russians, Chinese, French, Indians, etc. have more advanced aircraft in a few short years so we lose our control of the skies. Brilliant.
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 11:06 am In case nobody told you we are flying 1955 relics the KC135 and the KC135Q and The B52 an the C130??? As to the Russkies get real there money is still not transferable to dollars, The indians are just entering the 20th century an the Chinese all ready have a copy of the F22 an the F35 compliments of BAE System in the UK same way they got the plans for the Russkies for the VC10 which they call the IL62M but they did not steal the weight and balance so they added a tail wheel…This is what we should be scared of?????????????????puleese have you forgotten all the bombers the Ruskies were supposed to have in Ikes WH only to find out they were paper mache????????
	Charliep June 4th, 2012 at 11:18 am What this is clearly aboutis the Federal government footprint in Alaska. Begich is from Alaska. He wants the most amount of money to be spent in Alaska to provide jobs. There are economies of scale that are ok elsewhere but not in his state. Many of the technical assertions above may be true, but this is all about the Alaska economy and jobs!
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 11:44 am Actually its about stopping the DOD from wasteing your money. Understand your money they have no income just what they get from us.….…it must stop no mo foolishness at any level for any reason…This nonsense about spend it now so we get it next year stops now. Spend only when it is necessary. Look at the new USAF uniform it costs $120 a shirt and pants why since I first went in there have been 8 different uniforms just for work????? If any private company did that heads would roll would you allow this waste in your company?????????????? I doubt i cause you would go broke.…..its time the dod was run like a business cause they are 1.…..Explain why no Senator did not stop this idiot from being SecDef it only took 1 person just 1?????? He is just another politican sucking money from the taxpayers like you and me???
	Planodude June 4th, 2012 at 11:58 am I think that any thought to reducing Eielson AFB’s military capability would be a big mistake, given Russia’s current belligerence with us over settling nearby territorial water disputes surrounding Alaska. Also, Eileson AFB has worked very nicely, in fact vitally, for us as an en route logistics base, to and from all of Asia. This is definitely not the time for curtailing Eileson’s capability, heaven forbid, shutting it down!
	DGR June 4th, 2012 at 1:05 pm Every last number you have is flat wrong. Might want to do more research next time. The AF currently has around 5,500 manned aircraft and of those bases around half are guard and reserves and a substantual amount are already operating at civilian airports.
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 1:35 pm Neever said a word about how many aircraft there was in the inventory . My point was the types of aircraft versus what they bought an later had to buy the 1 they turned down. F5 versus the F16 747 versus the C5 which ended up as AF1 by the way an also the ACP airborne command post an the airborne laser aircraft.…methinks thou should do the research I lived thru this mess. An every time we changed CIC we changed work uniforms or flight suits.…as to the af bases in Florida we got a total of 5 4 of them within 50 miles of each other Eglin and Hulbert and Tyndal an Patrick odd ball is McDill.……btw it costs less to have a reserve or guard sqdn with people who stay longer than 36 months most stay 8 or more years…as to te F5 originally built 30 July 1959 an still flying in the USAF and the USN.…got the point an the C5 first flew on 30 June 1959 is a train wreck all 100+ of them. The 747 still in production with a max gross t/o weight of 945,000 pounds flying since Feb 9 1969 with over 12 different models. Except for the C130 Lockheed does not build quality aircraft generally speaking but great folks at DOD buy there stuff. The L1011 was an is a wreck the SR71 was a good aircraft shame the Mafia had it junked.
	TMB June 4th, 2012 at 1:56 pm He was replying to Byron, who often pulls facts and figures out of God knows where.
	DGR June 4th, 2012 at 1:56 pm My initial reply was to Byron Skinner’s post. Noone had brought up the point that every single number he posted was just plain wrong. The C-17 number was close, but still wrong. Heck, Barskdale doesnt even fly B-1Bs, they fly B-52s and A-10s.…… But on that note, ill hit the C-5 v 747 issue though. The C-5 is lower and allows loading of vehicles v cargo ramp. The 747 requires the use of K-loaders for 100% of cargo hauled. Its also not designed to accomadate oversized cargo loads, especially the wider stuff. Now I do think there is a place for a military version of the 747, but it wouldnt be a single bit faster to turn em around than a C-5.
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 2:31 pm Sorry I mis-read your post on the total aircraft but lets deal with the 747 issue…Nonsense thru out Desert Storm and we flew 747s with cargo into all bases we prese-tup the FMC loader an turned 5 747s at Pan Am Cargo with 16 guys 3 days a week an on the other 4 days we turned around 4 aircraft a day. Issue next ever hear of the 747 Dreamlifter? They carry the entire fuselage of a 747 minus the wings and tail inside it there exists 4 of them turn around time is 6 hours…Ever hear of the Evergreen Water Bomber drops 40,000 gallons of water on fires.…An the KC747 that Iran bought 2 KCs aircraft still flying used to come into Mc Guire twice a week under the Shah regime.….when RHM was opened we would leave WRI in a 141 same time a 5 left dover close by we got to RHM weekly an onto Tehran and returned an they would still be fixing the C5 monster or as they call em at Dover Ramp Rats.….
	STRAPS June 4th, 2012 at 2:34 pm Sorry mistake on the aircraft inside the Dreamlifter which is serviced in Miami it carrys 787 fuselage and Airbus wants some of them to replace the super-guppy ex C97s they use…As to the K-Loader ts used on all aircraft C130-C141-C5-C17-C27J.……every USAF Base has 6–10 of them.……
	BOOMER June 4th, 2012 at 3:47 pm What a lot of you are missing is that this shows why our military leadership is no longer effective at making needed decisions due to congressional oversight being the true culprit in all the overspending and bad purchases. This is almost a yearly thing with them now days — send DoD cash my way or you get no raise or promotion, or maybe we will just end your career Mr Fallguy. Dont get me wrong — I know we have brass that arent very brite to start with and do stupid stuff on thier own — but having these guys on thier backs with this ability hurts all of us more than most realize. Yeah — over see the military but dont manage it and especialy dont micro manage it to death, let them do thier jobs and make thier own decisions.
	DGR June 4th, 2012 at 4:18 pm Ya the Tunners and halversons are used to load all palatized cargo, but you can still ramp load a C-5, C-17, and C-130 with rolling stock or even with AT forklifts if you have to. Im not saying the 747 cant carry cargo, but the C-5 is more suited to heavy lifting military cargo. The C-5 can also kneel to facilitate truck loading without the K-loaders. Granted they never use the feature because it usually breaks the plane. But the 747 is king of civilian transport for a reason. I just dont see it being very well suited to military lift. It doesnt have airdrop capability, and the low mounted wings mean it sits high up off the ground. In all fairness im not sure if the original military version of the 747 had rear loading cargo doors, but if it did then maybe it was capable of dropping stuff. But the C-5 (when it works) is one of the greatest cargo aircraft of its time, you can load and off load from both ends (if you have enough MHE equipment) and you always have a troop deck for paxs. Now ill give the 747 credit that id could have evolved into a good strategic lift system, but at the time of the CX-X the C-5 was the better aircraft.
	DGR June 4th, 2012 at 4:20 pm I am deeply ashamed of myself that I misspelled Barksdale. Im going to blame that on a fat finger.……
	Guest June 4th, 2012 at 5:25 pm Sorry. Holds are not mentioned not in the US Constitution. Holds are not mentioned in the rules or precedents of the Senate either, and they are enforced only through the agenda decisions of party leaders. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the United States “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” refers to a simple majority vote by a quorum present.
	steve June 4th, 2012 at 8:13 pm This very same fiasco is taking place in Greater Pittsburgh Airport and it’s cargo fleet. All we are witnessing now is the old “tic-ta-doe” game between the politicians cutting deals, and the Air Force Generals satisfying the politicians standing on their necks for the one-way results demanded. It’s nothing to do wit costs savings anymore, and Panetta asking for more BRAC action., and Schwartz saying, yes sir the Air Force needs more BRAC actions???? Brown nose and a## Kissing first class…
	Gary June 5th, 2012 at 8:47 pm And if a Republican does it,it is not political?
	Recce1 June 5th, 2012 at 9:08 pm When did you serve at Eielson? I was there from 70 to 75 serving on RC-135s. While it was difficult during the winters, I fell in love with Alaska. I kept my residency there until I retired in 88.
	Spry June 5th, 2012 at 9:10 pm I worked at BRAC, and although I’m not defending the way Begich is going about it, it;‘s become a black hole of TAXPAYER WASTE. For instance they were going to consolidate the NAVY BRIGS (which the AF uses), but after spending MILLIONS to build a major brig and add wings to many others, hence “consolidation”, in order to save money—apparently the logistics of housing pre-trial inmates at distant locations all of a sudden became an “issue” not figured into the plan. So numerous bases are maintaining a portion of their brigs/prisons, whereas the additional facilities will remain empty (only 10 out of 80 new beds will be used at one facility) which pretty much defeated the purpose. The AF I’m sure is unable to justify the cost of the move while also maintaining the base, and might be a perfect case of throwing good money after bad. BRAC is no longer about saving money — its become politicized to the point its lost value.
	nick June 5th, 2012 at 9:17 pm excellent comment–just another democratic idiotic move–with no conmcern aboiut the american citizen—only the party counts how did we get into this situation?????????
	Maxx June 5th, 2012 at 9:22 pm I work directly in this AOR. The strategic importance of this area of the globe as it relates to North American defense and the role it plays tacticaly in rapid deployment, not to mention the Global Missile Defense mission, cannot be over emphasized. I’m not much of a Begich fan, and holding up promotions seems like dirty pool, but I have to say that any reductions in the mission presence in Alaska would seriously impact national security and readiness. We won’t need to worry about the economy if the Russians or the North Koreans decide to come this direction with force from East Asia or Siberia. There has been much more Naval activity in this area also, due to decreased Winter sea ice. Reduced capabilities mean increased vulnerabilities. To hell with the politics, we need to protect our backside.
	Maxx June 5th, 2012 at 9:32 pm Dude, you forgot your Meds again.
	Maxx June 5th, 2012 at 9:34 pm They have this thing now, it’s called Air Traffic Control. It works pretty well actually.
	Maxx June 5th, 2012 at 9:37 pm Hey James, did you actually read the article before commenting on it?
	G40D June 5th, 2012 at 9:42 pm I’m ex-AF and was at Eielson only once, in June. With that in mind, I also fell in love with AK, although I don’t know if I could live there year round. It is incredibly beautiful in the summer anyway, and really gets inside your head.
	Bill Loveday June 5th, 2012 at 9:44 pm Begich is not serving nothing but his stupid ego and arrogance — he should stay out of critical issues which have such an impact on the personnel. Fire this a****** and his cronies. They are elected to serve the people — not play games —
	Jerry Miller June 5th, 2012 at 10:04 pm Removing the F-16’s from Eielson to JBER is a dumb move, as it puts nearly all the defensive assets in one location an mearly simplifies targeting for an aggressor, and folks if we get hit as I think we eventually will, the odd’s are high that Alaska will be first as a gateway to the lower “48” . I did not vote for Mr.Begich but I have to admit he finally did something I agree with. Moving out of Eielson WILL devastate the surrounding communitys and AF plans to bulldoze a lot of the buildings on base because they don’t want to maintain them for use in case of a war or other emergency, Air forces claimed savings by moving is a pipe dream as the actual cost’s to this dumb move with the loss of assets in place at Eielson will far eclipse the so called “savings“ As for Eielson being a severe climate to maintain an aircraft in, I say your right but I ask you this, Did you join the military because you thought it was going to be like some stupid video game OR did you join to SERVE YOUR COUNTRY TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY ! wherever you are assigned. At least in Alaska you don’t have to sweat the darn snakes we had in SEA when I worked F-105’s in 66/67
	Ringo June 5th, 2012 at 10:19 pm What we need to do is stop the Bracs, the useless politics and leave the Air Force alone for the next 6 years. Within that time we will be able to assess where defensive and offensive units are needed to defend our country. Right now there is uncertainty out there with countries like N. Korea, Iran and Pakistan. We just don’t know at this time when one of their nut case leaders will decide to push the button or turn on the U.S. (like the Paki’s). Another threat that could come without warning is from Russia’s unstable government and forked tongue leader Putin. Because we are still the most powerful country in the world, means that we will always have to be ready to react with a strong and strategically placed military force. Most of our allies are weak and every stinking third class country wants to see us fail because we have it and they don’t. We should b be focusing on the election to put a person in the White House who isn’t always blaming others for his own failures and lack of experience and knows what he is doing with some kind of a plan to restore the financial stability of this country within the next 4 years. A massive increase in jobs is not going to happen this year or next year either, those promises are just campaign talk.
	falcon June 5th, 2012 at 10:57 pm Hey, MBAFB. Cool. I was there, 355TFS. We were lucky, Germany was our trip. I personally don’t care what they decide to do.
	Chaostician June 5th, 2012 at 11:18 pm it would be. the food for thought is, was leaving out “-D” intentional, possible motivation pro-liberal bias in media?
	HAT1701D June 5th, 2012 at 11:28 pm The F-35 will be dead on arrival by way of budgetary failure and engineering failure to provide. Lockheed Skunkworks is NOT the group it used to be. That aircraft IS a boondoogle.
	Dick June 5th, 2012 at 11:31 pm I spent 2 years at Eielson in the 58th Weather outfit in 1950 thru 1952, and the fighter Sqd. should remain as they are closer to RUSSIA than Elmandorf is for faster intercept if need be. In fact while I was there we would have RUSSIAN PLANES come in over the North and get chased back by the 449th FIGHTER SQD. out of LADD Field.There fore I agree with the Senator as the people running the Defence Dept are ruining the MILITERY on the orders of the NUT JOB IN THE WHITE HOUSE who hates the MILITARY!!!!!
	HAT1701D June 5th, 2012 at 11:32 pm Where were you in 1999 when a lucky shot took out the F-117?
	DICKIE BOY June 5th, 2012 at 11:45 pm Hey folks…wait a few years and we will be able to close all of the bases because there won’t be any airplanes left to use them. The present fleet is rotting away and the rampant incease in the cost of new machinery will eventually prohibit the purchase of significant numbers of aircraft. The Senator would do well to spend his time looking at this very real issue.
	Mack531 June 6th, 2012 at 1:30 am The buy for the F-22 is now at 1400? WRONG! They just ended production of that bird, or weren’t you paying attention? The F-22 fleet TOTAL now stands a 187 aircraft. Probably the most formidable platform we have and Sec Def Panetta halts production? DUMB, DUMB & DUMB.
	STRAPS June 6th, 2012 at 1:37 am Date , time , place was over Yugoslavia. So that qualifies to junk the fleet so little boys can buy more useless toys.…..We need to buy smarter not more expensive. We do not need every bell whistle and gong in the world on every aircraft.….Buy a basic airframe and then modify it in-house we did it with the KC135, Israel did it with the F16.…
	STRAPS June 6th, 2012 at 1:44 am I agree with most except everyone thinks Russia is the one we need to worry about. Folks Russia has discovered free enterprise is better than war. The ones we have to prepare for war are all the small terd size countries like Syria, Iran and other small bannana nations. The day of the big war is over. I say close all the bases in all none USA locations an let these countries pick up the tab for defending temselves. Korea produces as many cars as the USA.……Japan produces as many cars as Mexico etc etc.….
	STRAPS June 6th, 2012 at 1:47 am You are so wrong. He is elected to protect the people of his state and secondaryily the nation. That what US Senators do besides passing on Promotions to General Status so even thou he is from the wrong party IMHO he is doing what he is paid to do.…Learn American Constitution before you shoot others.…
	STRAPS June 6th, 2012 at 1:50 am Its rather evident you have never flown for a living…Realize Dover AFB De and Mc Guire AFB NJ are perfectly aligned with Philly Int Airport its called setting up a disaster waiting to happen.…
	STRAPS June 6th, 2012 at 1:56 am From 1970 thru 1974 SACRAF B47Es with ECM pods 40th AEMS and when they went PCS to another base in Kansas we went PCS to the 310th and more SACRAF KC97 and B47E and B47Ks from the 55th SRW…TDY 60 days a t a whack upload on tuesday download on wednesday.…..
	STRAPS June 6th, 2012 at 1:57 am R has zero to do with it they are political period. In case nobody ever told you even Churches are political its in everything in our lifes…
	Recce1 June 6th, 2012 at 3:45 am Actually, Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage wasn’t bad during the winter as it was warmed by the Japan Current. It was like Vancouver. Believe it or not we got into the 90s during the summer at Eielson AFB in Fairbanks. We also had a tropical mosquito spray unit for the spring and summer there. I hope you got to see Denali, Mt. McKinley, close up. The Matanuska Glacier was also great. By the way, with the permanent RC-135s there we also had TDY KC-135s. One RC-135 became an F-135 when AAC fell asleep at the switch and a Soviet Bear recon bomber penetrated Alaskan airspace. With not fighters to intercept, an airborne RC-135 on a training mission over the west coast of Alaska did the honors. It really surprised the Russians to have someone right beside them talking to them in Russian. The RC crew even painted a bomber on the fuselage nose as a “kill.”
	Recce1 June 6th, 2012 at 3:51 am If the government can compensate postal workers to make sure they don’t lose money on homes then the government can do so for the military. As for buying homes in Fairbanks, some do it because base quarters aren’t that spacious for families. Still, most families live on base as the nearest town, North Pole, is about 10 miles away at it’s difficult to get to the base after a bad storm in the winter.
	Recce1 June 6th, 2012 at 4:41 am With only tents and kerosine heaters in Fairbanks you’d lose too many personnel with weather at 60 below for days. Look up the conditions at Ladd Field during WW II. By the way, while 2nd Ave in Fairbanks isn’t as wild as Angeles City, thankfully, it has its excitement.
	jimbo June 6th, 2012 at 5:37 am Maybe some spelling lessons are in order…?
	Joshua D. Woods June 6th, 2012 at 8:01 am Since when has one’s ability to sell their home been a factor in ordering a PCS???? Furthermore if you like the area enough and want to live there long term it shouldn’t matter if you are going to PCS or not anyway, just keep your property and rent it out. And another thing, if you don’t plan on living there later, DON’T BUY A HOUSE! It’s as simple as that. I have always thought it was a bad idea for any service member to buy a house unless they were planning on moving back there after they got out or retired for the very reason of PCSing.
	bone June 6th, 2012 at 8:49 am Team Spirit 83 from the Beach. Aggresors after that. Training cost money. The gomers are an important program and needs to be protected, however as far as star crep goes.… Way too many stars out there.
	flatwoodsflyer June 6th, 2012 at 8:50 am been to both of those bases, Myrtle when we had F100 , and K13 F86‘s, , 35th fighter sqd, I hated Myrtle„ didn‘t mind the cold to much at Suwon , even tho I was a crew chief, on the flight line it was cold in the winter
	MoreMoneyForSoldiers June 6th, 2012 at 8:52 am Do you give the Air Force carrier landing training as well? Putting them together is the most ludicrous idea I have ever heard of. Next you will be saying that the Marines and the Army should just become one service.
	Ray458 June 6th, 2012 at 9:17 am I don’t believe the Senate should be on anyones case about budgets until the Dem’s pass their own budget!
	boomer009 June 6th, 2012 at 10:32 am Having been station at Eielson during the 70s and 80s I have a peticular likeing for that base. The mission for Eielson demands having a fighter squadron there. In its hayday there was a full contigent of fighters and tankers. Elmendorf is still over 300 miles away and even with burners fighter response would be lessened. Enough with politics. keep our national defense intact. The more we reduce the greater chance of another 9–11. If we need to reduce, how about bringing our troops home.
	bob June 6th, 2012 at 12:03 pm I blame it on Wynn an Mosley. They gutted the AF. Lost a lot of good folks.
	Bob June 6th, 2012 at 12:13 pm If the Air Force wants to really save money they’d change their cultural attitude about getting folks to PCS every 3 years.
	Art June 6th, 2012 at 12:35 pm The F-16 is probably the best all-around fighter we have in the inventory. None of our potential adversaries would like to see these guys locked and loaded in Alaska. Go Air Force.
	Dawson Canfield June 6th, 2012 at 1:36 pm Been there, too. Remember when they had F-4’s stationed there. I was a maintenance tech on the aircraft stationed there. We had a cold, difficult job, but was worth every bit of it to see the fighters scramble to go chase Papa Bear back home. We kept the fighters and other aircraft flying by suppling the midair refueling, and had a couple other jobs that helped out. I don“t know what you did there, but I was part of the tenant group there, SAC. Guess old timers don’t need any more than that to know what we did.
	Hohn June 6th, 2012 at 2:17 pm Be thankful that the committe structure bogs things down. It slows the rate at which Congress can ruin the country.
	Texasmel June 6th, 2012 at 2:59 pm Back in the ‘70s, politicians in Missouri outmaneuvered politicians in Illinois, and force the former Air Force Communications Service to move from Scott AFB to Richards-Gebaur AFB. Then, about 5 or 6 years later, the Illinois politicos apparently regained the upper hand, and force the AFCS HQ to move back to Scott. AFCS was around 30 percent of the base population at Scott. So everyone moving to R-G (Dickey Goober is what everyone called it) had to sell their house in Illinois (at deflated prices, because this event cause hundreds of houses to go on the market in the rural Scott area), then buy another house in the R-G area. This, of course, greatly increased real estate prices there. Then, the AFCS folks had to move back to Scott. Guess what? they bought back their houses at inflated prices, after sell in their R-G houses at deflated prices. Also at Scott was HQ Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service, who performed countless heroic acts in Southeast Asia while rescuing our aircrew who were downed behind enemy lines. Few medals were awarded, because they were not performing acts “above and beyond the call of duty”; they were merely meeting the requirements of their job description. During the ‘80s, we didn’t have any significant enemies (or so the politicos said), so HQ ARRS was disbanded, aircraft and personnel were scattered around the AF, mostly to Special Ops Command, who would presumably carry out the duties of the “PJ“s, the men who actually had to get down on the ground behind enemy lines to rescue trapped and/or wounded airmen. However, SOC didn’t really train people as well to do those duties. And so it goes.
	Maxx June 6th, 2012 at 4:18 pm If you fly for a living and are frightened of what might happen, perhaps you might consider another line of work. Maybe a Hair Stylist or Interior Design?
	Maxx June 6th, 2012 at 4:37 pm With almost thirty years of service to the US Government, both on active duty and as a civilian, I have seen my share of waste. We are schooled from boot camp to eliminate fraud, waste & abuse, and I personally have called BS and challenged the cost of various items through my career. However, you are sadly mistaken when you say that the DoD is a business and should be run like one. They failed miserably with that logic in the ‘90s with TQM. The job of the military is to kill people and wreck things. Those who are not actively involved in that task, support those who are. Yes, we need to be wise stewards of OUR money, but we must not hamstring the military from doing it’s job, which ultimately is to ensure that we ourselves are not killed or wrecked here at home. If you can’t understand that, then you need to step away and let those who can, DO.
	Maxx June 6th, 2012 at 4:47 pm STRAPS not be two artickyoolayte. He thought he joined the Chair Force. It’s Maroons like that, that are why some of the military has gone downhill. Probably brought his tennis racket to boot camp.
	Cliff Thompson June 6th, 2012 at 5:12 pm Disagree. How about looking after the good of the nation first and your own constituency second. I am sick of these senators and congressmen dividing this country up into 50 states and then battling with each other to the point that nothing gets done. There will be no managing our debt crisis until they begin to think of the nation as a whole and do what is RIGHT, not what is political or good for their own selfish interests. Why should the Air Force or Lockheed give a rat’s *** about Eielson or any other AFB. They should care only about putting the best fighting force in the air at the lowest possible price.
	Jerry Miller June 6th, 2012 at 7:01 pm Following your thinking we could just locate all defense assets at one location and simplify targeting for an aggressor, There’s a darn good reason to bear the expense of scattered defense asset’s, It simply ensures that in the event of a major strike some of the defense force will survive to defend our nation. I don’t like Senator Mark Begich (D) but he’s Right on this one, and I know a lot of other former military up here who feel the same as I do and they have also noticed the trickle of Russian’s moving into Alaska and I doubt it’s because of the warm winters here. Look at history, No one fears retaliation from a weak adversary , remove the base’s and it does’nt matter how many aircraft we have as we will not have any place to re-arm or to intercept from. The preservation of our nation DEMAND’S a strong and diversified defense, To do less will ensure our downfall. If it means cutting out the handouts to the deadbeats to pay for it , so be it.
	ex flight test June 6th, 2012 at 7:32 pm Thank Cheney for that one. It was pretty much BS when I got canned in the peace dividend in 92. no excuse for a lot of the contractor bloat in operations and maintenance. None. Who would you rather have on flight line security? APs or some contractor? disgusting.
	ex flight test June 6th, 2012 at 7:32 pm Put in an indoor golf course, head shed will change its mind.….
	ex flight test June 6th, 2012 at 7:34 pm hell they didn’t nearly 30 years ago. We had a troop living out of his car. That shit quit real fast once the CO found out. Though I doubt you have officers that take care of the troops like they used to. Guy had a place for him and his family end of the duty day.
	ex flight test June 6th, 2012 at 7:41 pm I watched the BRAC hearings. After a while I just got disgusted, there was no thought no savings. Move an installation with a half century of use, then having to set up the same system in another state was insane. We have 2 bases than can launch aircraft to fly to Asia. Used to have three. When one or two were socked in due to weather, well you always had a third. Now.…? We’ve gutted our forces and our bases. this ain’t our dad’s military.
	T.G.Miller June 6th, 2012 at 7:44 pm AMen. Just look at the ratio of stars per man. More stars in the AF than in WWII when the AF had almost 1 Million men. Does this make sense?
	guest June 6th, 2012 at 7:48 pm That’s not unique to the AF, it runs through all three services.
	Chief B June 6th, 2012 at 7:51 pm I was in Korea form 1982 to 1997 and it’s not that bad! I deployed to Eilson AFB from Osan AB Korea for the 1st night cope thunder (after Clark was closed). It was freaking cold and we had major landign gear problems. We improvised, adapted and overcame and it was a successful deployment. We need this type of experience just like we need tropical experience because we never really know where we may need to deploy next. But I agree on one thing here.….why leave off the Senators part affiliation? They never leave of the ® it’s always thr (D).….I suspect more liberal media bias trying to protect Democrats.
	Bill June 6th, 2012 at 8:02 pm I believe it is about time the Department of Defense, the Congress, the Senate and the President realize that we should not be reducing the cost of the Air Force. Our airmen of both the active duty and reserves have been at war three or four times on average. Now we want to thank them for their service and say now get out and be added to the unemployment role. thank you for your service. It is about time we got back to where the military bases are comprised of military instead of civilians and that the Civil Air Fleet is eliminated or reduced in its contracts. Lets update our airframes and keep our dedicated military not eliminate them.
	Darren Michael Osier June 6th, 2012 at 8:02 pm The number of General officers is set by 10 USC § 526 — AUTHORIZED STRENGTH: GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS ON ACTIVE DUTY. Your assessment that there is more stars is inaccurate because these numbers are modified as end strength is changed. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/526
	Lawrence J. Zucal June 6th, 2012 at 8:16 pm I fully agree with your comments about the temperatures. I spent four years at Elmendorf (1963 — 1967) and then following Vietnam, I spent 2 1/2 years at Eielson (1970 — 1972). I can vouch that the temps at Elmendorf are cold but bearable, whereas the temps at Eielson are extremely cold and just bearable (if you wear the correct clothes whenever you step outside AND your car has a three-way plug to ensure it will start up following any time not running). The temps at Elmendorf averaged around the –30 degree at its worst (similar to Minneapolis — St. Paul), whereas the temps at Eielson were much below that temp (It got down to –64 one winter and we had over 125 inches of snow). I would not want to live there again, but I enjoyed Anchorage and would move there if I could afford it.
	lcole June 6th, 2012 at 8:21 pm Having been station at Myrtle Beach, Osan and Suwon, I agree.
	mntdream June 6th, 2012 at 8:24 pm Awesome…finally some one hits the nail on the head. Our downfall is coming…does anyone else see it? The handouts are no defending our nation.
	4mycntry June 6th, 2012 at 8:38 pm That’s because there are to many waaa babies in the Air Force now days. When was the last time you saw an airman picking up trash or taking a shower in a communal area? Seems you can’t order them to combat so who else is going to do it? Pay me enough an I will.
	ronstuff June 6th, 2012 at 8:40 pm I’m retired AF and was stationed at Ladd AFB, Fairbanks AK when it became a state..but the facts are still the same. If we move all of our aircraft and logistics to one location would be a big mistake. Remember Pearl Harbor? Alaska is only minutes away from Russia by air. If an attact took out Elmendorf, which would be a prime target, then the whole Northern Defence area would be undefended for the most part. As far as being cold in Fairbanks, it was but we had the clothes to keep us warm..no problem. Been doing it many years. I know the flightlines in Germany were pretty cold also…This clown holding up the promotions and reassignment of a general and a chief of staff or whatever is dumb…has nothing to do with the program the AF sent in for consideration. These politicians in DC make me sick…it’s all about power…there..now I feel better for what’s that worth.
	AFRetOfficer June 6th, 2012 at 8:40 pm Never has the truth been so well presented. One could cut the General/Flag ranks in the US Military in half and not hurt a thing! We fought WWII with many less than the Command General Staff we have today. The F-35 program is now more costly than the entire Atom Bomb Manhattan project of WWII! Yikkekkeesss a fighter with no one to fight, the F-35 is now pegged at $200 million USD a plane! GOOD GRIEF„, is it gold? Abolish the F-35 program and fund our public schools for decades„„ a much better deal.
	Justthefacts June 6th, 2012 at 8:41 pm As someone who worked the facility beddown of the F-16s to Eileson in the early 90s, moving them the JBER doesn’t make much sense. The range and MOAs around Eileson are unique and only are available in Alaska, hence the reason Cope Thunder was moved to Eileson when USAF left Clark. Eileson has more and larger range areas than the whole state of Nevada. The ranges are key to keeping our pilots proficient and on top of their game. When Alaskan Air Command was stood down and became a NAF under PACAF, the PACAF folks weren’t ready to accept the capabilities that the state provided because they didn’t like the cold weather. Why do we have F-22s in Hawaii? Instead of moving the F-16s to JBER, we should move those 22’s to Eileson. Yes it is a little colder to operate in Alaska than in Hawaii or other southern climates and the little airplane drivers have never liked any place that didn’t have a beach and 12 months of golfing, but we don’t go to war at the beach, this is what the Navy and Marines are for. You fight like you train and we need the tougher locations to learn how to operate and train in.
	herb June 6th, 2012 at 8:59 pm but a Republican did not do it — A “D” did.
	G. Adams June 6th, 2012 at 9:01 pm “For it’s part, the Air Force specified in the report …”. No apostrophe in “its”, please, Mr. Hoffman. Review your seventh-grade grammar.
	Dot June 6th, 2012 at 9:04 pm During the past 20 or more years where we have been stationed, as soon as they built new housing for military families– on two specific AF Bases, they CLOSED the bases. Were told thru MILCON’s, that the long process the paper work takes, I believe 10 years at one point — has been already been agreed upon early on. Just retired and enjoying
	devikesfan June 6th, 2012 at 9:10 pm Here’s a better idea for saving the taxpayers some SERIOUS money– The Air Force truly appears to be a service in search of a mission nowadays. That, imo, explains why the AF is trying to get more and more involved with ground duties (such as convoy protection in theater) that are better left to other services like the Army and Marines Corps. Technology is advancing; and each service branch is involved with/affected by it (for example, UAVs). Also, look at the air components of the USN, USMC, and the USAF– close air support, for example, is a mission that all three perform. And for decades, the Army has been screaming for it’s own fixed wing CAS assets; assets which are currently in the hands of the AF. Is such mission duplication truly necessary? Technology is getting to the point that the AF is having a harder and harder time justifying it’s existence– so why not acknowledge that fact? Why not dissolve the Air Force entirely; divide it’s mission (and appropriate assets) among the three more senior services, and close the appropriate no longer needed AF bases both here and abroad? Such a move would save the taxpayers massive amounts of money and streamline the DoD in the process.
	William Merrell June 6th, 2012 at 9:11 pm These Senators are a large part why qualified upper flag officers get out of the military. And, with this crazy administration, I am surprised that any of them would consider (except for their collective love of this country, not like o-abysmal and his self serving crew) to even stay in. I am sure they could all be making 3 times their current incomes on the outsides.
	Max June 6th, 2012 at 9:17 pm I think you’re both missing the point of the F35. They exist primarily to replace a fleet of aging Vipers and Hogs that have been run thousands of hours past their intended service life out in the desert; easily the most hostile environment to aviation that exists. We’re still running Block 30 Vipers that have over g’d at the merge countless times, and frankly, the planes are bent. Literally. The F35 exists to replace aging air frames which simply will fall apart over time (Fighter ARE NOT B52’s or 135’s which live in a 2.0G max environment). The advances in technology the F35 brings to the table are simply a bonus to the acquisition the was primarily made because of the no kidding aging of basically our ENTIRE fleet of fighter aircraft.; which are continuously still in use today.
	Jeff June 6th, 2012 at 9:20 pm Oh please.…this is pork-barrel politics at its best. He just doesn’t want them to move the jets…it’d cost jobs and he’s a politician.
	CrushDependentQoL June 6th, 2012 at 9:31 pm Who cares about dependent morale? Make the change…it is good for the US of A.…
	Bob Cunningham June 6th, 2012 at 9:48 pm Way to go Sen. Begich. Look out for those Airmen in Fairbanks. That is your home state. If the Air Force really want to save money they can close those bases in Italy,Spain, Germany and Greenland. Sure it will be an economic problem in those countries. Are they not our friends now? Do we really need Military over there. I think not.
	STZN PRO June 6th, 2012 at 9:58 pm Regarding work uniform proliiferation, the Defense Logistics Agency should be held to explain what happened to STANDARDIZATION OF CLOTHING, TEXTILES AND INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT SINCE 1986.
	Gypsman June 6th, 2012 at 10:01 pm Just read the article on the move of F-16’s, If the congressman is so worried about the cost, than why doesn’t he and his other members of the committee start paying for their health benefits, and Social Security to offset some of the cost. He probably did not serve in the military. People like him need to be replaced, he is one the the career congressman and getting rich. Gypsyman from Texas (ret.) Air Force
	SkyWatcher June 6th, 2012 at 10:06 pm I love how these senators have an eagle eye on every dime the military spends. Yet they are clueless or turn their head when it some to the billions of dollars the IRS is handing out to illegal immigrants claiming several kids, that are not even living in the US, on their tax returns. Or the huge overspending and or redundancy within their own branches of government (GSA for example). The size of the government has expanded massively under the current administration. All I can say is how about cleaning your own house before you go slamming the military and its top leaders which from my 20+ years in the military we were always told year after year “we need to more with less”! How about doing the same in the government.
	Mark June 6th, 2012 at 10:12 pm The senators are withholding money to the services. They don’t do their job and pass a budget on time and the services take it up the backside, literally. So the services are doing what they can to survive on far too few funds, and now the senators balk about it. Seems you can’t please the senators, or get them to do their damn job. Amazing. Our military readiness is going to be taking a massive hit thanks to these inept politicians.
	Geezer13 June 6th, 2012 at 10:18 pm They should be holding Gen Johns from AMC to task for whining until he got approval for an IPAD pilot program. 16 million dollars spent so that the senior leaders can look cool on some of the most insecure devices around. The AF is cutting 16,000 civilians this year due to the budget deadlock in congress. 16 Million dollars equates to about 250 jobs. Pampered perfumed princes wear the uniform and disgrace the old school generals who at least tried to act with some integrity.
	Lou June 6th, 2012 at 10:33 pm Just another senator that is trying to protect the loss of a base in his state. Although officially it is stated that the base will remain open following the move, the handwriting is on the wall… He just happens to be in a position where he can play with the careers of those he feels are responsible for his loss.
	Jerry Miller June 6th, 2012 at 10:47 pm Gypsman, You obviously don’t have a clue about what your posting, Sen. Begich just happens to be in his FIRST term after being the Mayor of Anchorage. I don’t like him but at least he’s doing the job the voters hired him to do and that is to REPRESENT the people of ALASKA ( It’s the State thats 2.5 times the size of Texas ) I was USAF back when we cared more about doing our job to the best of our ability instead of what benefits we could get for serving.
	Art June 6th, 2012 at 10:58 pm Good answer, Maxx. Hang in there !
	Jeff June 6th, 2012 at 11:01 pm There are 101 Air Force bases in the United States and Guam of various configurations; Bases, test /training facilities, etc. The source also lists the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs, CO There are 86 Air National Guard stations in addition to the AF bases. Source is the web site http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/a… And as for an earlier comment that said we unnecessarily got rid of planes we need. I would guess part of that reference was meaning the F-117? First, they are mothballed and so can be brought back in mere weeks. Second, they are expensive as hell to maintain with their “black material” being the bulk of the cost. cost to maintain going up is the primary reason for replacing any aircraft, civilian or military.
	Art June 6th, 2012 at 11:02 pm Doesn’t make since to me. And I’ be no dumbie.
	Goat Herder June 6th, 2012 at 11:17 pm I am now dumber for having read your post…that’s 45 seconds of my life I will never get back.
	Norm Taylor June 6th, 2012 at 11:18 pm Folks take a look at the history of ALASKA, The rest of the US and Canada need our support. I spent 7 years at Elmendorf in the AF intel business and we reported anything that moved in our direction, we scrambled a/c from King Salmon, Eileson and Elmendorf to keep the Soviets from over flying our country. Take a look at how close the Japanese came to comming in our back door, took a lot of lives keeping Alaska and the rest of the US free. How about the oil pipe line, who is going to keep it secure, not from the ground, but from the air. So, please take a look at what we could loose , with what China is trying to do and will do if not stopped, the Alaska back door will be open wide. Hang in there
	BAR June 6th, 2012 at 11:21 pm when services lose $30B dollars in cash in theater without adequate oversight of TAXPAYER funds it’s time to take the checkbook as it stands from the services. Now they are TRYING to hold down the flying time of the F35 to $35,200 per hour. Is that affordable for a 1700 acft fleet? You work all year and pay $30,000 in taxes you can’t afford to buy ONE HOUR of fly time? Something is wrong. Very very wrong. The F35 is not an affordable alternative. We as a nation can do better.
	Goat Herder June 6th, 2012 at 11:24 pm Dude…you can’t use cold hard facts here!! What are you thinking??!!!?? Are the military experts on here just KNOW there are 10 times as many GOs now than ever before…
	Animl49 June 6th, 2012 at 11:27 pm The military as hire contractors because many functions (support career fields) have been eliminated. Remember civilians are NOT military and therefore are paid more for many of these support functions.
	devikesfan June 6th, 2012 at 11:31 pm With a handle of “Goat Herder”, I’m willing to bet that that my post has nothing to do with your lack of intelligence. Seriously, what missions does the AF do now that cannot be handled by the other services?
	concerned citizen June 6th, 2012 at 11:32 pm I agree with Byron. We have bases in the Air Force that basically have the same mission but remain open only so the defense industry can continue to collect billions of dollars of our tax payers money to build planes that have problems an then get more money to fix the problems that should have been corrrected during initial design and testing. Los Angeles Air Force Base is a prime example of existing soley for the defense industry. Defense contractors sit right outside the gate in all directions. Yet Vandenburg AFB could do the same mission as Los Angeles Air Force Base. Concerned Citizen
	Goat Herder June 6th, 2012 at 11:40 pm Ummm…strat airlift, strat AR, two legs of the nuke triad, GPS, all the space crap, long-range strike, theater medevac, etc. etc. And by the way, nobody in the AF tried to “get involved” in convoy ops…that remark told me all I needed to know.
	devikesfan June 6th, 2012 at 11:42 pm No doubt, the iPad’s (and other electronic devices) security risks needs to be addressed. With that being said, an ePub system is the way to go. In the long run it will be far cheaper to update flight manuals, FCIFs and stuff like that and disseminate ithese electronically than the current system involving paper copies will be.
	Goat Herder June 6th, 2012 at 11:47 pm That’s why the DoD wants another BRAC.…
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 12:30 am If the AF didn’t try to get involved, then why were plenty of Airman (spanning all MOS’s) sent to Iraq to perform escort duty for the convoys? I know a number of qualified MX troops who pulled such duty. Here’s two facts about airpower– a. Airpower, in itself, NEVER has won a war. b. Airpower, no matter what form it takes, is all about supporting that grunt on the ground.
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 12:37 am Now, let’s go over your points one by one– 1) Two legs of the nuke triad– yet the most survivable and credible one (the boomer subs) belongs to the Navy. And let’s not forget that the Navy’s carriers shared in the strategic deterrent/strike mission during the Cold War. These can do so again, if tasked. The Army is more than capable of handling the ICBM mission, as well as the bombers. 2) Air defense of CONUS– pass that mission on to the Guard units. 3) Space– both the Army and Navy were heavily involved with the development of rocketry and satellite technology, even before the AF existed as a separate service. 4) Strategic Airlift– I’ll lump this in with tac airlift, CAS and other missions– this should be given over to the Army. These capabilities need to be controlled directly by the end user, not retained by a separate branch. 5) AR– for that to be effective, it requires basing numbers of these aircraft at overseas bases (which oh BTW are vulnerable to the political whims of the host country). And oh BTW, carriers don’t have that problem.
	guest June 7th, 2012 at 1:03 am First things first, the AF brass says that the base will stay open, and Red Flag exercises will continue, so how will moving the F-16’s to Elmendorf , only to fly them back to Eielson every exercise save any money. The buildings will still need to be heated, CE will still need to plow the runways and roads, cut the grass, maintain the buildings, operate the power plant etc. In my 10 years at Eielson I lost track of how many times during Cope Thunder exercises that I was told “We hardly ever get to drop live bombs or strafe realistic targets where we are stationed”.This is due to a dearth of suitable training ranges, and yet we removed the A-10’s from Eielson and sent them to Moody, where they have to fly to Avon Park in Central Fla for live ordnance training missions. From what I have seen, the AF Brass did not study the actual costs associated with this move prior to announcing this move, and their scramble to justify it looks an old Keystone cops routine.
	Desert Soldier June 7th, 2012 at 1:06 am Base Closings, Ship decommissioning, And force draw downs have to stop until the world situation improves. Guard formations need to be increased. Capabilities need to be improved.
	Brandon June 7th, 2012 at 1:30 am I live at Eielson now and it’s def cold winters this past jan we saw –67 and everything breaks
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 2:06 am Actually, his idea for a combined service Aggressor squadron has merit. Read up on the “Red Eagles”; the unit that flew Mig-17s, 21s and 23s as ACM trainers in the 70s and 80s. It was an AF unit, yet had Navy and Marine instructors assigned to it full time for most of it’s existence. Most importantly, it WORKED. Pilots in all three services learned how to fight and defeat Soviet aircraft and tactics.
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 2:39 am IIRC, back when the CX-X competition happened the AF preferred Boeing’s design, but went with Lockheed’s due to better financial terms. With that being said, there are certain items the C-5 can carry that 747 freighters cannot. The Navy’s DSRV in particular; to the best of my knowledge the C-5 is the only plane in the AF inventory that can carry it. The C-17 cannot carry it. A 747 freighter built to CX-X specs should have been able to do so; but civilian spec 747 freighters cannot. @DGR– One final point– the kneeling system on the C-5 is used frequently. It can be prone to trouble (like all C-5 systems can be), but it is used more often than not for cargo upload/download.
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 2:44 am Just how far does the “Joint” part of the term “Joint Strike Fighter” go? It’s obviously not a joint use aircraft, since each service is developing it’s own specially tailored version…
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 2:54 am I’ve flown from KDOV to KWRI (and vice versa) many times; and never had any traffic confliction issues. Same with the flights to/from KDOV and KADW.
	AF in Germnay June 7th, 2012 at 3:15 am They did, it’s not a 4 year tour with the exception of overseas assignments.
	Geezer13 June 7th, 2012 at 6:32 am “No doubt, the iPad’s (and other electronic devices) security risks needs to be addressed. With that being said, an ePub system is the way to go. In the long run it will be far cheaper to update flight manuals, FCIFs and stuff like that and disseminate ithese electronically than the current system involving paper copies will be.” Netbooks do the same thing at far less cost. Add the wireless subscription, replacement costs, refresh, etc. and the savings over paper are just not that significant. The IPAD has no security yet every GO must now have one because well every other GO has one. Takai’s memo from January as to what can or cannot be put on them and then ask yourself what part of a GO’s day to day duties are not at least FOUO in nature. TO’s are just being given a “waiver” so that it will fit the plan for these things. Typical approach of let the user define the solution rather than the requirement. The solution is what they want not what they need.
	Akpolar Bear June 7th, 2012 at 6:52 am The reason the (Civilians/Contractors) are in place is the military won’t even have their soldiers fill sandbags!!!! Let alone do KP anymore. It is a lot cheaper in the long run to have civilians do this, because our tax dollars aren’t paying their retirement or medical or dental. That is why their are contractors picking up the trash and cleaning the latrines, the military has gotten to fat for that menial work!!!!!
	Larry Ingram/USAF E9 Retired June 7th, 2012 at 7:08 am Another politician blackmailing the Military for political reasons and trying to ensure he will be reelected!
	Goat Herder June 7th, 2012 at 7:16 am I don’t know what your background is, but this discussion is laughable. The Army can do the ICBM mission??? Really.…seriously… Navy carrier don’t need AR?? That would be news to the Navy. The Air National Guard already does the bulk of the NORAD air defense mission…but all the infrastructure that keeps them in the air (AT&L, training, wholesale logistics, etc, etc.) is run by the AF. There were AF guys pulling convoy duty in OIF/OEF because the Army ran out of bodies to do the mission. The Army needed assistance, the AF (& Navy) helped out. Believe me, I know from first hand experience how that system worked…
	Rick June 7th, 2012 at 7:26 am I add that one more important facility is located at Eielson AFB, the Air Force Technical Applications Center (AFTAC) Detachment 460 is located there. Look up their mission and it becomes obvious that beyond the aggressors and tankers stationed at Eielson, other missions of vital importance to our nation and it’s security are also co-located there. Base closings and consolidations are fine for the right reasons. Look at the Kelly AFB closure during the big logistics center consolidation a few years back. Successes can be had but the leadership of this nation need to carefully weigh all strategic areas when making closures.
	Brian June 7th, 2012 at 7:35 am Given that Eielson AFB is strategically located to support key Homeland Air Defense and Missile Defense missions, and it is. The base should remain open. The issue of basing the Aggressor Squadron should not dictate the viability of the base, whether the squadron is moved to JBER or not. This gets to roles and missions as they combine to provide the best defensive posture for our nation. That must be the chief consideration. The effort to balance capabilities, force structure, and resource requirements, can be balanced w/o jeopardizing either of the three given that the purpose for the base’s existence and the roles and missions capable of being projected from the base are the key determinants…not a given unit assigned to the base. Additionally, this approach would enable our nation to take better care of our airmen and their families. In doing so, things like morale, performance, retention, and new accessions would continue on an upward track.
	Don June 7th, 2012 at 7:45 am The proper defense of our nation and ability to project power (proper defense of nation) should be the only justifications for placement of camps, bases, forts… We must control costs and defend our interests. Unfortunately congress members on both sides of the aisle believe in socialism and make choices based solely on getting a vote. The DOD should have the freedom to make the proper choices and be held accountable to them. Grand Forks lost its missiles and bombers a long time ago yet 2 senators forced it to stay open at the expense of the Air Force and its troops. Keeping it open takes away from the services all in the AF need like seeing a doctor! Talking directly to Finance instead of a circle j#$#@ answer machine. I don’t know if this base should or shouldn’t close but I know we need congress out of these decisions unless we want the Chinese to own all of America including our military.
	Loggie2012 June 7th, 2012 at 8:20 am So was Iceland and they closed that base in 2006, Alaska is not immune from the gov’t axe, it just so happens that Alaska has a powerful senator on the SASC.
	mobodoc June 7th, 2012 at 8:45 am Actually, the AF plan is to keep Eielson open, so it will still function as a check on the Russians and a logistics/transfer point. Moving the fighters south to where they can get more flying time (better weather) makes sense. They can always deploy temporarily to Eielson for super-cold-weather training and to counter Russian intentions as needed. The assuption that the move is a prelude to closure, while it makes you seem to have “seen through them” is not necessarily warranted.
	Ron H. June 7th, 2012 at 8:48 am In my view, It would be akin to a crime for anyone to prevent General Mark A. Welsh lll from becoming the next CSAF of the the Air Force.
	hermb June 7th, 2012 at 8:50 am You also didn’t mention that Begich is from Alaska– go figure. He’s not looking though objective glasses for sure.
	Lonny June 7th, 2012 at 8:55 am I was at Elmendorf and then King Salmon, in 1976 –1977! I don’t see why the USAF would want to uproot Eileson, to flood Elmendorf with troops and aircraft that it probably really doesen’t have room for. I was only at Elmendorf for initial issue and survival school, but spent my tour at King Salmon, I was Crash Rescue, with F-4’s and cargo aircraft.
	Lonny June 7th, 2012 at 8:57 am Amen Brother!
	Jeffrey Blaisdell June 7th, 2012 at 9:13 am It’s apples to oranges when you take into account the difference in benefits. A deployed contractor only gets partial tax advantage compared to full tax exemption for military. They pay for numerous services that are provided for free to military members. They get no retirement benefits, and they have no job security, all of which has to be factored in. Without a little HR/payroll background, most people have no idea how much it actually costs the military to put one blue or green-suiter on the ground (fully loaded cost) — it’s a lot more than just your salary. Having been deployed both as an active duty member and a contractor, and having written quite a few GWOT contracts as a government rep, I can honestly say that the appearance of inequity is understandable but it is highly exaggerated by the structure of these things. On paper, it looked like I made more than a general when I was last in Iraq. My actual take-home pay and benefits, minus expenses, probably equated to those of an O-5, which was in line with the responsibilities I had. (tl;dr version: “don’t be hatin’”… lol)
	Rick June 7th, 2012 at 9:16 am The aggressors are around for a lot more than just fighter pilot school…there is the cross-domain training that prepares the services for future conflicts…Red Flag and the other flags. If all fighter aggressors move that includes the space, air defense, and cyber pieces that support it, most of which is at Nellis.
	MSGT June 7th, 2012 at 9:45 am The F-22 Is a POS. It serves a niche capability and has bombay doors so it can’t carry much. It does look good though, which is what the AF cares about most.
	Mike June 7th, 2012 at 9:53 am Typical congressional BS. The mission is not affected ecause the planes are still within the state so the monies remain there. So stop screwing with the readiness of the military and give PACAF their new commander and give us the new chief of staff so the military can do their job and not play these BS games that the idiots in Congress wish to play.
	davec.0121 June 7th, 2012 at 9:55 am Chaostician: this is not a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. This is a political thing done by both parties. Senator Shelby, R-Alabama, held up more than 70 nominations during the cat fight about the new Air Force tanker. He was trying to put pressure on DoD to pick the EADS plane, which would have been assembled in — surprise!- Alabama. Politicians universally regard the military as a cash cow for their districts, regardless of the recommendations of the services.
	Mike June 7th, 2012 at 9:56 am Of course they will not put the party on if it is Democrap. It makes Obummer look bad. And it gets cold enough in Fairbanks that they can not even launch the planes in the winter at times. Much less chance of that happening in Elmendorf so it enhances readiness.
	Robert Conner June 7th, 2012 at 9:57 am What an ignorant answer. My daughter is stationed at JBER and they are on top of their game. Much better facilities then Eielson. I worked on the flight line for 21 years and it doesn’t matter what the climate or scenery is, it’s all about the ability to remain in a constant state of readiness. Been there and seen it first hand. Major great move for the 16’s.…
	Mike June 7th, 2012 at 10:00 am This is why Congress is useless when it comes to military matters. Then you have some that were (like McStain in AZ) that play the game too much and are just about as useless. I agree with the person above that said vote out all the incumbents. It is time for a real change and some real hope.
	Pauper June 7th, 2012 at 10:05 am Hey Chuck, Maybe next time you should read the article before commenting on it. It’s not about GINGRICH, former Speaker of the HOUSE from GEORGIA. It’s about BEGICH, SENATOR from ALASKA.
	Mike June 7th, 2012 at 10:10 am Actually the military could afford to close more bases and consolidate people and systems to save money overall.
	nick June 7th, 2012 at 10:23 am Might be worth mentioning what state this senator represents. Your first guess will be the right one.
	Craig June 7th, 2012 at 10:28 am Well Put!
	Pauper June 7th, 2012 at 10:35 am The only program for this–and only good part of the TARP bailout–was the expanded Housing Assistance Program (HAP), which you can read about on the Army Corps of Engineers website. Unfortunately, funding has been discontinued for the part which helped members who were forced to PCS from areas affected by the housing crisis and owed a great deal more than their house was now worth. For example, when we PCS’d from Las Vegas, we were only able to sell our $300K home for $90K. It took a couple years of red tape and bureacracy, during which our mortgage cost $1K/month more than renters would pay, but eventually the government paid the difference between what we owed and what we could sell for.
	Oclaf June 7th, 2012 at 10:48 am Amen…
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 10:50 am Goat Hugger…it’s obvious that you are letting your emtional attachement to the AF prevent you from doing any THINKING about this subject. Let me clarify the carrier/AR comment, since you obviously did not grasp the point. Tankers, and other AF aircraft, need to be deployed to overseas bases. Permission is always required from the host country to not only station the aircraft there; but also to operate from those bases. Aircraft carriers, on the other hand, are not subject to such restrictions. These can be deployed without having to seek permission from another country to do so.
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 11:11 am Further, the Army helped DEVELOP this country’s ICBM force– so yes, that instituion does have the requisite experience to take that job over. Same with fixed wing CAS (you might want to go read up on the history of the Army testing jets for that job in the 1960s; they did so because the Army had serious doubts about being able to rely on the AF to provide it when needed). Many of the AF people who were sent to do that job were pulled from jobs that required specilized training in other career fields– it was an inefficient use of personnel. The Army had PLENTY of people who could have been assigned to that duty; but the AF wanted a share of it in order to show that it was “contributing” to the fight. You’re right about that ANG infrastructure– but all of that would still be taken care of even if the AF was rolled back into the Army.
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 11:18 am One more point– each service has an aviation component. Yet, the AF does NOT have any ships, nor any viable ground combat forces. In other words, it would be much easier to assign the AF’s current missions to the Army, Navy and Marines than it would be to try to expand the AF’s role to get it more involved with sea operations and land combat ops. Part of trying to maintain a credible military in today’s climate of massive budget cuts is going to have to include rethinking how the DoD structure is set up; and getting rid of useless overhead. You might not like it, but the AF would be a logical candidate to get rid of, and pass it’s missions/assets on to the other services. You might be afraid to think in those terms, but I am not.
	Retired AF June 7th, 2012 at 11:20 am I flew F-89s out of Ladd AFB, Galena, and Elmendorf in the late 50’s. Great flying. Occasional days with ice fog, but the skys weren’t crowded with other aircraft. Housing was a different matter. It was expensive and if you owned your own place, you could lose your shirt, pants, and all when it came time to rotate back to the lower 48. It was even worse for an NCO. I imagine that prices have more than tripled for a 1500 sqft house, with minimum insullation and oil heat. When you move an aircraft wing out of an area, the only people that make out are the ones in base housing. The Senator is right about looking out for troops; the AF isn’t going to buy your house like some civilian companies will.
	Rocco Bellucci June 7th, 2012 at 11:26 am Do not put all your eggs in one basket
	Ross Peeler June 7th, 2012 at 11:54 am Elmendort and Anchorage Intl. have co-existed for many years in their present locations-no problem. I don’t know what STRAPS intention was with the comment. As far as Eielson is concerned, PACAF has been using Eielson as a Red-Flag type base for several years, I don’t know what the remifications of the move of the Agressor Squadron would be on that program. I was stationed at Elmendorf from 70–73 with the 43rd TFS, The Russians knew better than to mess with us, ( A little humor)
	Pappa51 June 7th, 2012 at 12:07 pm Maxx sounds right.. to H*** with the Money end of things that isn’t going to matter if we get our butts kicked. can’t we just do what’s right for a change, and for get about the politics for once. We are going to down size ourselves out of our country.
	Voix Velour June 7th, 2012 at 12:10 pm With regard to “Military Leadership” by the Federal Employee Bureaucracy, UNION, 2.5 Million more likely to die on the job than be laid off or fired, 25% earning $100K and up, it is striking to note the seeming hatchet jobs on senior officer, general and flag rank, of The Armed Forces; it is as if they do not understand the culture of comraderie and mutual respect that aligns with progression of leaders to those eschelons of command. To wit, summary dismissal of a former Air Force Chief of Staff by then Sec of Defense Cheney, who had more to do than Vietnam. Recently two senior Air Force Officers of General Rank were dismissed by Sec of Defense Gates; so suddenly it is reported some underling then contacted the current Air Force Chief of Staff to vet his qualification in one single phone call for the responsibility of that position?
	Goat Herder June 7th, 2012 at 12:52 pm So basically your’e just saying the Army should swallow the AF whole. How does that save any money? For example, the Army hasn’t given ICBMs a second thought since the 1950s. Yet you say they have the “requisite experience to take that job over”. Really??? What are they gonna do…recall a bunch of 80-year olds? That’s crazy talk. As for the Navy and AF tankers…I am telling you right now the Navy, uses, needs and wants AF AR capabilty. Why do you think the Navy insisted that the new AF tanker have drouges?? Hmmm…?? You have zero ground to stand on when it comes to the mis-information you spewed about AF folks doing convoy duty. That’s not up for debate. LIke I said previously…as soon as you popped off with that tidbit it told me all I needed to know… If you want to get rid of useless overhead in the DoD, let them implement a real BRAC and get rid of some costly infrastructure. But that won’t happen because all the infrastructure is always in some Congressman’s district or state…and they won’t let that happen, by GOODNESS.
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 1:19 pm Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Reincorporate the AF back under the administrative control of the Army, disburse the existing assets, and close the appropriate no longer needed AF facilities iaw a DoD infrastructure overhaul (alon with fixing the weapons acquisition process itself). Ballistic missiles can be considered the ultimate form of artillery– so yes, taking over control of the ICBMs from the AF would be a logical mission for the Army. As far as the tankers go, yes the Navy and marines demanded drogues be put on the new tankers. However, the marines operate KC-130s, and the Navy has the ability to use carrier borne aircraft to refuel other aircraft. So the concept of air refuelling is one that is NOT the exclusive province of the AF.
	devikesfan June 7th, 2012 at 1:23 pm Further, here’s something else for you to think about– have you noticed how, over the last decade, the AF is putting an increasing emphasis on it’s Airman to be more like soldiers,rather than traditional technical specialists as in the past? According to many, the AF’s recently inplemented PT test is more rigorous than the Army’s. Now, why would the AF be putting more emphasis on ground related ops if the AF had such a clear cut, exclusive mission in regards to air ops? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the AF leadership (such as it is) sees the writing on the wall as far as the AF having the least viable case for maintaining it’s status as an independent branch? Do you think maybe the AF leadership is preparing the force for the day when it might be reincorporated back into the Army?
	Jim Preston June 7th, 2012 at 1:52 pm Good for the Senator. We don’t need to put all our eggs in one basket. Diversity is safety. We have too few Fighter bases on the West Coast now. MCAS Miramar,NAS Lemoore, Edwards,NAS Fallon, Klamath Falls ANGB. Where else?????
	Jim Preston June 7th, 2012 at 2:00 pm They already have that, and having been aNn AF Pilot n having a son as a Navy Fighter Jock has given me some insight. They have dissimilar training but the Navy has a cheaper solution having contractors provide not only dissimilar fighter training but contractor provide fueling as the Dumb Navy decision to park all their tankers was done years ago. The AF Force could use cheaper refueling contractors,(OMEGA) but they refuse to acknowledge that option.
	Jim Preston June 7th, 2012 at 2:06 pm Ever heard of Top Gun at NAS Fallon, ever heard of NAS China Lake, PT Mugu, ???
	Charlene June 7th, 2012 at 3:02 pm Who appointed him God?
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 4:31 pm Agreed, I have done a lot of duty in Fairbanks and some in the Korean winter. I can tell you that there is no comparison between the two. I will take Fairbanks at 40 below to Korea at zero any day. For some reason that cold cut right through you there.
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 4:35 pm It wasn’t a lucky shot. It is called AF planning, doing the same thing over and over again every night to the point that the enemy was even able to guess where the B-1s were coming from. Though they were never able to see or shot at one.
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 4:42 pm Question) If there are two C-5s on an airfield and one is on jack-stands, what does that mean? Answer) This airfield only has one set of jack-stands. (Old airlifter joke.)
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 4:45 pm President (and retired General of the Army) Eisenhower, gave this country a very grave warning, unfortunately it came all too true.
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 4:50 pm Every officer, even National Guard officers (the militia mentioned and defined in the constitution) must meet the standards set by congress. That is very clear in our defining document, and I thank you for that reminder.
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 5:09 pm A) That wasn’t the only reason. B) We are only talking about the Air Force Generals list C) Just what little crap countries are messing with us? D) If our military is so great, why did Gen Peterus’s plan in both Iran and now Afghanistan fail? D) 1) Yes, Obama did follow the military lead and not do what he promised in the election, he even kept Gitmo open and has nearly destroyed Al-Queda in Afghanistan so much so we have to attack it in Pakistan E) Since we outspend the next top nine militaries combined, why are you so mad at Obama and congress? F) Just how is closing a base illegal if congress is clearly given the power to fund and set military and militia standards by the constitution? Just asking. F)
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 5:18 pm TQM — OMG. Don’t blame them, they were trying to act like businessmen. When they started TQM it was already out of favor in the business community. Someone wrote a book on these management schemes called “Flavor of the Month” because they come and go just the same. They are the biggest frauds in the world because they are used to pump up the employees and even the management and get a set of shock results them wear off. Meanwhile the company and speakers pushing it make millions. Therefore a new one has to come along every three years or so. A never ending cycle of junk. I remember our commander learned what for him was a new phrase, “paradigm shift” and couldn’t stop repeating it. He had no idea of course what the original meaning was. We used to give each other at our table during these TQM meetings buzz phrases to keep track of and would see who had the most at the end and that person would get free drinks.
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 5:29 pm The budget has expanded less under this president than anyone since before Richard Nixon. The largest expansions have all, I repeat all been under Republican presidents since Nixon. Illegal immigrants are not getting millions in tax dollars, heck it is not that easy for citizens to get benefits anymore. An out of work student in most western states during summer, with no income cannot qualify for food stamps. But if he or she has a job working 20 hours the state of Arizona will allow food stamps even though there are currently no jobs for these teens. Illegal immigrants are allowed nothing. facts are more important than myth.
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 5:39 pm Come on. We spend more than the next top nine militaries in the world and could not accept allowing the Iraqi military together because Rumsfeld felt it too much of a threat. What we got was an insurgency that we were never able to defeat on the ground. The only way it was finally put to rest was by the locals deciding that they hated those foreigners more than us, for now. Baghdad only quited down, not because of “The Surge” but because the neighborhoods were finally ethnically cleansed and quarantined from each other. What do you think all that wall building was about? What do you think all those mass executions of Sunnis and Shiites were about? Finally you should ask yourself why those one million Shiites were in Baghdad in the first place. They were not there during the first Gulf War. We caused that, actually Bush One caused that and the Iraqi people will pay once again because we, like the British and the Ottomans before them didn’t have a clue what we were doing there and in the end lost the war because there is no such thing as Iraq. Iran won the war and all hell will break lose again, sooner I suspect rather than later.
	RMac June 7th, 2012 at 5:42 pm YES
	footeab June 7th, 2012 at 6:36 pm My father was based out of Fairbanks as a pilot for Alaska Airlines and flew every other day for years and never had a problem with “readiness” or the mechanics. Saying airplanes in Fairbanks cannot be “ready” is just plain ignorant. Its called southern pansy folks don’t like living there in the winter. I know several people who live in Fairbanks went to school down here and moved back north as its not filled with whining pansies. Even though he went to school he is back flying in Alaska as a bush pilot out of Fairbanks area. Does his own maintenance as well.
	Don D June 7th, 2012 at 7:23 pm Given the Air Force’s lies in PB13, HE’s right to ask detailed questions. They lied so blatantly about U-2 v.s. RQ-4 costs that the GAO is auditing them.
	Bill Alves June 7th, 2012 at 7:30 pm A separate issue here. Reference General Welsh. I think his father might have held the top job (I might be mistaken). But if this General Welch is the son of the General Welch that was Chief of Staff then the AF system of promoting officers is completly wrong. This has happened at least once before (I can’t remember the Father and Son). The AF is not royalty and this father son business is just plain wrong and Congress should stop it now.
	LeeAnn Dave Miller June 7th, 2012 at 8:29 pm My husband received orders to Eielson in May 1994. We had been married just over six months, at his first duty station, Nellis. Yes, we moved from the 110 degree August weather in Vegas to just barely 50 degrees at Eielson in late August. We had our first snow Oct. 8th and by Thanksgiving it was 68 degrees BELOW zero. Thankfully, we did our homework, but we could never have been totally prepared. 18 years and six bases later, we still agree Alaska is tied with Ellsworth SD as being the best base we have been stationed at. Eielson is a love it or hate it. Not just that, it is a love it, embrace it or PASSIONATELY hate it. It means only working 15 minutes every hour in the winter, because of extreme cold regulations. It means hard broke jets due to the cold and the stress on the metal. It also meant earthquakes and combat fishing. It means a midnight softball tournament to celebrate the summer solstice. Eielson AFB is a badge of honor to those who not only survived 4 years there, but thrived there. I am sure it would have been a different story had we had children at that time. My husband deployed (yes, DEPLOYED) often to Korea, every time the North Koreans got bitchy, it seemed like. So, I spent more than a few months on my own in Alaska, in all types of weather. I don’t remember ever experiencing depression at any time, due to lack of sun or too much sun. I know many others did. I enjoyed too much the experiences never to be had anywhere else. Such as a mama moose sticking her head in my front door looking for her baby, who had bedded down in my back yard. Or stopping to take pictures of the adolescent grizzly bear in the middle of the highway on the way to Anchorage. Eielson was wonderful and we loved the time there. Were the ice fog and frozen brake lines a nuisance and even danger? Yes. The mosquitoes were a nightmare, certainly. I cannot think of anything truly bad, though. I would go back, in fact, I WISH we could go back, now that we have adolescent children whom we could experience it all over again with. They have grown up on our stories. It is already sad that the 354th A-10s were sent South for good, taking the F-16s out is an awful idea. No more Cope Thunder, that was the highlight of early spring. No, Eielson should not be dismantled. We lived through dismantling Pope AFB and handing it over to the Army. My husband literally turned out the lights and handed over the keys to his unit. Moving down to Moody AFB was a nightmare, it was mishandled SO BADLY by the various Air Force elements that Moody’s morale and dependent morale was the worst in the Air Force all 3 years we were there. That should be looked at closely before going ahead with moving the 18th (where my husband was assigned in 1994) out of Eielson AFB.
	LeeAnn Dave Miller June 7th, 2012 at 8:43 pm Trying to save money as demanded by Congress, the Air Force’s answer is knee jerk reactions, unfortunately. I have watched the BRAC issue since the Clinton era began it. In my own personal opinion, all the wrong bases are being closed. The East Coast is inundated with many bases, with active fighter squadrons. The Gulf Coast does not have enough fighter/bomber bases, and the Pacific states (Washington, Oregon, California) do not have ANY active fighter or bomber bases. Hawaii has Navy, but as home of PACAF, it has NO fighters or bombers of its own and Alaska is being stripped. Luckily, Idaho has some fighters and so does Utah, Arizona has active bombers. Compared to the East coast, though, the Pacific seems sadly undermanned for strategic defense. I may be and probably am in error somewhere in my logic, but this is just my opinion.
	bsed June 7th, 2012 at 9:19 pm “The budget has expanded less”?? Is that because this president (under a democratically controlled house and senate) hasn’t passed a budget in 3 years? No wonder the dems lost the house. This president has seen the largest debt increase to the tune of $1T each year in office
	DPelletier June 7th, 2012 at 10:53 pm Apparently, STRAPS has never heard of TCAS (or radar coverage, for that matter)
	DPelletier June 7th, 2012 at 10:55 pm …and I’ve flown into Dover and McGuire many times in the C-141 before TCAS was implemented.
	Jerry Miller June 8th, 2012 at 2:50 am LeeAnn, It’s nice to see someone else that understand’s the value that maintaining Eielson has to our defense capabilities, And your right that folks either adapt to Alaska’s environment and love it or they don’t and end up hating it, We moved here from Michigan in “01” and have lived in Palmer for 10 years and will never leave the state by choice. I just heard on the news a Cope Thunder exercise includeing A-10’s will be taking place in the next week or so.
	Jerry Miller June 8th, 2012 at 3:07 am I encounter Russians weekly, Their attitude is that Alaska rightly belongs to Russia and should be returned by whatever means required as it was sold to the US illegally. Anyone that trusts the Russians is a FOOL and has not paid close attention to history.
	Ramrod12 June 8th, 2012 at 12:12 pm Not what the fight’s about!
	Claim Jumper June 8th, 2012 at 12:21 pm The previous CSAF you are reffering to to is Gen WELCH, not Welsh. Good grief.
	Maddawg77 June 8th, 2012 at 7:52 pm Lets get real the only contractor the Air Force needs to satisfy is Lockheed Martin and their waseful spending and we the consumer get the Bill.
	Rick June 8th, 2012 at 11:02 pm AF should have never dropped the WO ranks…instead paying contractors to fill the SME positions since once you reach rank on enlisted u are forced into leadership only…gone the technical hands-on experience. Cut enough contractor positions would cover bringing back the WO program, replace the civilians and save millions in a matter of years.
	Gary June 10th, 2012 at 10:47 am Fairchild has bombers…
	maddawg77 June 10th, 2012 at 5:47 pm In 1986 I was stationed at Osan it was not as cold as you describe but Kunsan That was colder then I could ever remember.Tent City for Team Spirit eas on the Golf Course.
	The Dealer June 11th, 2012 at 2:07 pm Flight time from Elmendorf to Eielson is only 3 minutes with burner ( f-16). So what is the big deal. Back in the day we had f-102,s and 106,s from Elmendorf that did the job. We kept 6 birds loaded and ready on 5 minute alert. That,s the real deal Airforce.
	Michael852 June 12th, 2012 at 4:03 am The F-35 is way too expensive and will take years of fixes and several model changes to work out. The F-15 line is still open building them for our allies. To do a major up-grade and start building a new series for the Air Force and replace all the F-16’s first (they don’t call it the “lawn dart” for nothing) and then the current F-15’s would be cost effective and still allow our Air Force to do it’s job. Yes in’s not a true “5th Generation fighter, but you have to remember it’s not so much the aircraft, but the person flying it. No Russian or Chinese or whomever that gets 10 hours of flying a quarter, will compare to a USAF pilot.
	Goat Herder June 12th, 2012 at 6:41 am It that were true, we’d be good to go.
	marty June 12th, 2012 at 3:22 pm Begich is a twit that only wants to be re-elected. He is a border line socialist and a very progressive Democrat. He only cares of himself. This is from a 25 year Alaskan that watched him come from no where to rise to the lofty position in the US congress. Shame on those who voted for him and support him
	Goat Herder June 12th, 2012 at 7:13 pm A BRAC is needed before we end up with 4 airplane C-130 units just so we can spread them around and appease the local mayors and politicians (and save jobs).
	ltfunk June 13th, 2012 at 5:12 am So you would prefer that the money wasnt used to garner votes but garner cushy retirement jobs for officers. It’s noticible that whenever two bad options are given you always choose the least democratic one.
	ltfunk June 13th, 2012 at 5:14 am Cold war is over guess the news hasnt reached that far north.
	Arinda June 18th, 2012 at 4:11 am why ya delete my comment

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

F-16 move puts AF Chief of Staff nomination at risk

Join the Conversation

LIVE Coverage: Paris Air Show

Recent Comments

F-16 move puts AF Chief of Staff nomination at risk

Join the Conversation

LIVE Coverage: Paris Air Show

Most Read

Recent Comments