BRAC

[Jinxter13]

Most of us here on ARC didn't or don't like or agree with BRAC, however after some thought on the subject I find myself left with one pulsating question, what is or will be the final result. There are presently 12 or so joint bases, is this only a harbinger of things to come. Star ship troopers has something like what I'm thinking only this won't be a movie; is it possible we are heading for one combined US military service?

[Exhausted]

I don't think we're headed to one military force in the near future. I was under the impression that the JSBs are usually for reserve units, in which case they make sense. Usually, senators and congressmen with bases in their districts fight very hard to keep them open, but success may depend on their seniority. Those who are on a military-related committee have a lot of sway. I know Texas has at least one state rep on the committees, and thus some places that maybe should be moved stay open (hint, depot level maintenance in high salt/high humidity regions).

Do you have a list of the bases that are on the chopping block? I'm having a beer atm so I'm unkeen to searching myself.

edit: yes I'm aware it's barely noon

Edited November 17, 2015 by Exhausted

[A-10 LOADER]

BRAC = Politics period. It's not about saving money or doing what's right for the military members or our country. It's all about political favors and politicians making money at our ( the military ) expense.

Steve

[11bee]

BRAC = Politics period. It's not about saving money or doing what's right for the military members or our country. It's all about political favors and politicians making money at our ( the military ) expense.

Steve

It's highly politicized as one would expect. However, it serves a valid purpose. The political leadership (on both sides of the house) since the early 90's have decided to reduce the military's size by selectively eliminating various installations / units. Personally, I would have just told the pentagon that they need to save X number of dollars and let them figure it out but of course the politicians would never let that fly.

As far as the concept of Joint Bases goes, not sure if it's just a change in name or there is more to it. Here in MA, we used to have Otis AFB (later ANGB), Camp Edwards (MA-NG), Air Station Cape Cod (Coast Guard) and a Marine reserve unit of some sort all based at the same physical location. A few years ago, they changed the name of the entire facility to "Joint Base Cape Cod". To the best of my knowledge, nothing else changed expect new signs. I believe that's the same thing that happened with Joint Base McCord-Lewis out west and some others. McCord AFB and FT Lewis were always side by side. No one physically moved anywhere. The only possible advantage I see out of the whole scheme is maybe they shared some facility admin / maintenance resources.

Maybe in other areas they actually moved new units into existing facilities to enhance "jointness" but I'm not aware of any.

[majortomski]

I've been in Oklahoma and Oklahoma City since 1977 when I was first stationed at Tinker AFB. The only real changes we've seen here is adding the NAVY E-6 wing and mission, based on the one fact that the depot for the 707 airframe is across the runway.

A most unusual move was the Will-Rogers ANG base, former home of the 137 tac airlift wing flying C-130Hs. About 5 years ago they lost the C-130's made the maintenance and flying squadron staff move to being an associate squadron to the 507th RESERVE tanker wing at Tinker. So for the first time in history you had part time Guardsmen flying part time reservists' KC-135Rs. They upped the number of planes owned by the 507 past 12. Again based at Tinker because the Tanker depot is across the runway.

But the kept the ANG base open and flew an active duty USAF flight inspection mission off the old ramp.

NOW the 137th is coming back to fly C-12s off the ANG base.

Ok still has Vance in Enid, a joint basic flight training base flying both USAF and USN trainers. Altus AFB in Altus where C-135,C-17 and C-5 initial aircrew training is accomplished. Ft. Sill still blowing up Oklahoma countryside with artilery shells. And the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant so Ft Sill has something to shoot.

[Exhausted]

It's highly politicized as one would expect. However, it serves a valid purpose. The political leadership (on both sides of the house) since the early 90's have decided to reduce the military's size by selectively eliminating various installations / units. Personally, I would have just told the pentagon that they need to save X number of dollars and let them figure it out but of course the politicians would never let that fly.

As far as the concept of Joint Bases goes, not sure if it's just a change in name or there is more to it. Here in MA, we used to have Otis AFB (later ANGB), Camp Edwards (MA-NG), Air Station Cape Cod (Coast Guard) and a Marine reserve unit of some sort all based at the same physical location. A few years ago, they changed the name of the entire facility to "Joint Base Cape Cod". To the best of my knowledge, nothing else changed expect new signs. I believe that's the same thing that happened with Joint Base McCord-Lewis out west and some others. McCord AFB and FT Lewis were always side by side. No one physically moved anywhere. The only possible advantage I see out of the whole scheme is maybe they shared some facility admin / maintenance resources.

Maybe in other areas they actually moved new units into existing facilities to enhance "jointness" but I'm not aware of any.

Well, the participating services also need to restructure a bit. Adding a Marine unit to an Air Force base means restructuring a part of the service and then obtaining buildings for the new commands.

@A-10 LOADER, yes it's obviously about politics. There are lots of decent jobs for civilians at military bases. Losing one of the bases probably wouldn't go down well for the representative of a congressional district.