PDA

View Full Version : Citizen Support For Air Bases Needed



Bisonfan1
04-26-2005, 06:51 PM
Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy are asking for help in keeping all three North Dakota Air Bases Open. Minot, Grand Forks, and the Fargo "Happy Hooligans" Of the ND Air Guard. They are asking you visit their web sites and sign the online petitions. I did , and found that Pomeroy's site took the least time as all you did was register and check the box of all 3 Air Bases. With ROTC programs at Both NDSU and UNDII, and besides many other reasons, the bases should be kept open. It takes only a minute to register. *www.pomeroy.house.gov *
www.dorgan.senate.gov
www.conrad.senate.gov * * * * * * * * * * * *

Herd_Mentality
04-26-2005, 09:16 PM
As much as I support the bases staying open, I don't think the Minot base has quite the worries that the GF air force base does. Minot still has the missle wing...GF's base no longer has a mission.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
04-26-2005, 09:25 PM
As much as I support the bases staying open, I don't think the Minot base has quite the worries that the GF air force base *does. *Minot still has the missle wing...GF's base no longer has a mission. *

Why don't you give us the run down on what base does what, why each should stay open and what is needed for each to stay open. I don't know much about the bases and would like to know more before I support them.

IowaBison
04-26-2005, 09:34 PM
GF has refueling tankers.

Minot has bombers and a missle wing.

Neither base should stay open, but hopefully they make the cut.

Nothing can really be done at the present time to 'save' either. The BRAC is designed to ignore political pressuring.

At the same time every community is doing the same thing..lobbyists, political support....

greenandgold01
04-26-2005, 10:07 PM
What about the Fargo air force base?

IowaBison
04-26-2005, 10:19 PM
it's an air guard fighter wing

Herd_Mentality
04-26-2005, 10:37 PM
I don't see Minot closing for the simple reason that they do have the remaining missle wing. Grand Forks has no more missles. The tankers were based there as a reason to keep it open more than anything else and really don't NEED to be there like the missile command.

I'd think with several international airports in the area the air guard would possibly have a slighty better chance of staying open than Grand Forks.

87Bisonfan
04-26-2005, 10:55 PM
I think there are three missile wings left in the country - Minot, Wyoming, and Montana. The proposal by somebody in DC to reduce the number of missiles has all the missile bases worried about closure.

There are two B-52 bases left - Minot and Barksdale. As long as the Defense Dept. keeps the 52's flying they both should stay open, but the 52's are getting to be old planes. One thing that ND bases have going for them is the "open and uncluttered" air space. Apparently the air traffic over ND skies is less here than other states which allows for better practice.

All three military facilities provide a large economic impact to the communities and state. It would be bad to see any of the three close.

IowaBison
04-26-2005, 10:58 PM
I think there are three missile wings left in the country - Minot, Wyoming, and Montana. *The proposal by somebody in DC to reduce the number of missiles has all the missile bases worried about closure. *

There are two B-52 bases left - Minot and Barksdale. *As long as the Defense Dept. keeps the 52's flying they both should stay open, but the 52's are getting to be old planes. *One thing that ND bases have going for them is the "open and uncluttered" air space. *Apparently the air traffic over ND skies is less here than other states which allows for better practice. *

All three military facilities provide a large economic impact to the communities and state. *It would be bad to see any of the three close.


the problem with that logic is that it's not that difficult to move a bomber wing

87Bisonfan
04-26-2005, 11:06 PM
I think that would be the problem with any base that has airplanes (Generally, all you need are some runways and a hanger or two). It comes down to how much does the military value the open skies in ND vs other states.

Another point they may consider is what would it cost to expand existing bases to accomodate the bases being closed, if necessary. Expanding a base in CA or east coast may cost alot more $$ than buying a few cheap acres in ND.

BISON_PRIDE
04-26-2005, 11:34 PM
It would be nice to have all the bases stay intact, due to the economic impact they have on the surrounding communities. However, it seems the best case scenario would be for at least one of them to survive.

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 01:11 AM
I doubt that the base in Fargo has much of an economic impact.

BISON_PRIDE
04-27-2005, 01:20 AM
I guess your right, if 1000 full and part-time jobs, and a 23 million dollar+ annual payroll is anything.

www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=58271&section=News

That doesn't even mention the jobs in the area which benefit from having them here. *(total effect - estimated at $120 million)

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 01:59 AM
$23 million isn't very much.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 03:02 AM
Thanx for posting that link Bison_Pride. As the article says, their study did not take into account spouses and kids. Obviously the loss of any base will have a major economic impact on any community. What also needs to be understood is that there are thousands of civilians that do contract work on all the bases every year, and also that there are Air Force Reserve and IMA units stationed at all the bases. If all the bases close for example, every AF Reserve, Air Guardsman or IMA will have to go out of state just to do their monthly drills. Closing of these bases will hinder alot of North Dakota youth to join the Air Force as either a Reserve or Air Guardsman and stay in the state to get their education.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 03:15 AM
I ran out of room above. I am also sure that somehow if for example the Air Guard in Fargo closed, that the AFROTC program at NDSU would be effected, as im sure with the other 2 bases. When I was at Hill AFB in Utah, there was 5,000 military working on base, and 20,000 civilian workers because of some of the missions out of that base. Also understand that each base has differant mission structures within that base, not just one mission, such as the tankers at Grand Forks is not the only mission there, and not the only unit assigned there.Also included is all the military that live off base and the effects of supply and demand with real estate.

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 03:16 AM
If the base is losing money, then it probably should be shut down.

tony
04-27-2005, 03:34 AM
Hehehe, exactly how are air bases supposed to make money? Is that one of their functions?

Dang armed forces, they haven't turned a profit in over 200 years! :)

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 03:48 AM
With conflicts in Iraq and Afganastan, now is not the time to close any bases anywhere.

Hammerhead
04-27-2005, 05:03 AM
It would be hard to imagine Fargo without the roar of fighter jets providing an early wake-up call to college students sleeping in on Saturday mornings.

Is the Happy Hooligan's mission still to provide air defense for the U.S. and Canada should the Russians send bombers over the north Pole? Do the Russians even have an air force anymore?

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 05:16 AM
Hehehe, exactly how are air bases supposed to make money? Is that one of their functions?

Dang armed forces, they haven't turned a profit in over 200 years! :)


The must be getting some form of income.

If they're spending more than they're getting, they're losing.

87Bisonfan
04-27-2005, 05:22 AM
They have no income, all operations are paid from you and I through our tax dollars. Our tax dollars pay for their salaries, housing, equipment, etc. The only income a base generates would be through their commissary (sp?) which would only cover their cost of product and delivery. All bases lose $$, unless we can send a bill to the people of Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, etc.

87Bisonfan
04-27-2005, 05:26 AM
What the BRAC is probably looking at is which bases are the most inefficient and where can we combine bases to make the most efficient use of tax dollars available (without jeopardizing national security).

Tuk
04-27-2005, 07:55 AM
It would be hard to imagine Fargo without the roar of fighter jets providing an early wake-up call to college students sleeping in on Saturday mornings.

Is the Happy Hooligan's mission still to provide air defense for the U.S. and Canada should the Russians send bombers over the north Pole? *Do the Russians even have an air force anymore?

Actually, the Hooligans and their sister guard units across the nation are the last reminents of the Cold War strategy of downing red Commie planes during an attack. *With the end of the Cold War, these units were being drummed out of the Air Force (because of new strategic planning and new technologies) until 9/11 when the last remaining fighter wings of the Air National Guard were called to patrol over the East Coast.

Now their primary job is to provide air cover over the populated centers of the U.S. Unfortunately, the age of the Hooligan's planes make their use in theaters of war inpractical. The avionics and electronic warfare components of their late 1970's/early 1980's F-16's make their use in modern fields of battle non-existant.

If the Hooligans make it through the BRAC, their planes will more than likely be upgraded to F-15 Eagles as the USAF upgrades their fleets to the modern F-22's.

Tuk
04-27-2005, 08:25 AM
Why don't you give us the run down on what base does what, why each should stay open and what is needed for each to stay open. *I don't know much about the bases and would like to know more before I support them.
Minot-- 1 of 2 B-52 bases...(other is at Barkesdale Air Force Base in Louisiana)
home of the 91st Space Wing--(ie nuke missiles)
1 of 3 in the nation
Grand Forks-- air tanker base(KC-135)

Fargo-- 119th Fighter Wing

Of the 3, Minot has the most going for it. *The Grand Forks Air Force base perhaps has the least going for it. *The best thing I think that the ND bases have going is the proposed use of ND airspace for military training. *If this idea is endorsed and passed, the bases in ND will become great forward operation bases for units across the country. *Grand Forks and Minot both have facilities to house large aircraft (both were built for large bombers such as the B-52), fighters, and support aircraft. *
Grand Forks and Fargo have gone through major upgrades (such as the new runway at GFAFB), which will also help avert BRAC closure.

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 02:12 PM
Hehehe, exactly how are air bases supposed to make money? Is that one of their functions?

Dang armed forces, they haven't turned a profit in over 200 years! :)


they would if we plunder and pillage again!!

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 02:13 PM
They have no income, all operations are paid from you and I through our tax dollars. *Our tax dollars pay for their salaries, housing, equipment, etc. *The only income a base generates would be through their commissary (sp?) which would only cover their cost of product and delivery. *All bases lose $$, unless we can send a bill to the people of Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, etc.



Don't forget that Saudi Arabia did flip most of the bill for Desert Storm.

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 02:15 PM
They have no income, all operations are paid from you and I through our tax dollars. Our tax dollars pay for their salaries, housing, equipment, etc. The only income a base generates would be through their commissary (sp?) which would only cover their cost of product and delivery. All bases lose $$, unless we can send a bill to the people of Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, etc.




If all bases are losing money, then surely there isn't a demand for them to be around.

Perhaps a better solution is to be had. Like an on demand military or something.

airmail
04-27-2005, 02:17 PM
Grand Forks and Fargo have gone through major upgrades (such as the new runway at GFAFB), which will also help avert BRAC closure.


I was surprised, after not being there for a few years, at just how little MAFB has done in terms of development and new infrastructure. When you look at GFAFB's new housing, dining facilities, street work, landscaping, etc... it really makes it look nice. I really hope that all that money wasn't for nothing. That would be a shame for everyone. :-/

Tuk:
Could you explain why the F-15 would be an upgrade for the Hooligans? I have limited knowledge of USAF aircraft, yet I still find it fascinating.

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 02:18 PM
If all bases are losing money, then surely there isn't a demand for them to be around.

Perhaps a better solution is to be had. Like an on demand military or something.

????!!!

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 02:20 PM
I was surprised, after not being there for a few years, at just how little MAFB has done in terms of development and new infrastructure. *When you look at GFAFB's new housing, dining facilities, street work, landscaping, etc... it really makes it look nice. *I really hope that all that money wasn't for nothing. *That would be a shame for everyone. :-/

Tuk:
Could you explain why the F-15 would be an upgrade for the Hooligans? *I have limited knowledge of USAF aircraft, yet I still find it fascinating.

Don't be surprised if it isn't (closed despite the new infrastructure).

This same tactic has occured at military bases across the country.

The Defense Building Bills the past decade have been home to more pork than Story County, Iowa.

airmail
04-27-2005, 02:23 PM
If all bases are losing money, then surely there isn't a demand for them to be around.


Would you propose giving plane rides for $50 a pop a good way to generate revenue? ::)

By your rationale, we should close down the judicial system, the legislature, the white house, and every other government agency that doesn't generate it's own revenue? *Surely they are all "losing money." *

You are obviously confusing government agencies for marketable free enterprises. *The two are miles apart, and to compare them as equal is impossible.

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 02:31 PM
The two are miles apart, and to compare them as equal is impossible.

Reminds me of UND and NDSU.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 02:34 PM
greenandgold01, you must have never been in the military, nor you must not know anyone in the military. I might suggest trying to arrange to get yourself a tour of one of the bases (If they will let you in) and talk to the personell there. There will be some fine people there that will tell you what there mission is, why keeping their base open is not only crucial for the United States but for North Dakota. A phone call to any of the bases Public Affairs office might make you look at this issue in a differant light, or a phone call to Dorgan's Pomery's or Conrad's office. A phone call to the AFROTC unit at NDSU might also be in order as to find out the effects the base closings could have on their programs there.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 02:49 PM
greenandgold01 - phone numers are as follows - GFAFB - 701-747-5020, MAFB - 701-723-6212, NDANG -701-451-2241, AND the NDANG is also home to a ND Civil Air Patrol Attachment- 701-451-2369. These numbers should be for Public Affairs, if not ask to speak to a Public Affairs Officer. They can provide way more information than I.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
04-27-2005, 03:04 PM
Minot-- 1 of 2 B-52 bases...(other is at Barkesdale Air Force Base in Louisiana)
home of the 91st Space Wing--(ie nuke missiles)
1 of 3 in the nation
Grand Forks-- air tanker base(KC-135)

Fargo-- 119th Fighter Wing

Of the 3, Minot has the most going for it. *The Grand Forks Air Force base perhaps has the least going for it. *The best thing I think that the ND bases have going is the proposed use of ND airspace for military training. *If this idea is endorsed and passed, the bases in ND will become great forward operation bases for units across the country. *Grand Forks and Minot both have facilities to house large aircraft (both were built for large bombers such as the B-52), fighters, and support aircraft. *
Grand Forks and Fargo have gone through major upgrades (such as the new runway at GFAFB), which will also help avert BRAC closure.


Thanks, this is what I was looking for.

So, what is the reason for the need to shut down bases? Would they be combining these bases with others? Would it end up costing them more to move everything, and probably expand other bases then to keep the current ones running?

87Bisonfan
04-27-2005, 03:08 PM
Are there other air tanker bases (KC-135) or is GF the only one?

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 04:12 PM
Here's what I don't get:

You guys say that the people of North Dakota are the ones who pay for the income of the bases.

Then, in the same breath, you say that the bases output millions of dollars back into North Dakota, and thus, if they're closed the state will lose all those millions.

Hmm, something doesn't quite seem right here.


Really, all that is happening is that the people of North Dakota are simply giving the bases their money and the bases are giving a fraction of it back while turning the rest into airplanes. And I wouldn't be surprised if the top ranking people who run the bases skim a little off the top for their own person use.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
04-27-2005, 04:14 PM
The people of America are giving their money not just the people of ND.

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 04:16 PM
The people of America are giving their money not just the people of ND.


Ah, ok.

So what you're saying is that people from all over the country should be forced to pump up North Dakota's economy?

WYOBISONMAN
04-27-2005, 04:23 PM
I hope they keep them all. I was a kid in Williston when they closed the airbase in Glasgow, MT and it damn near killed the town. Glasgow has never really recovered from that.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
04-27-2005, 04:42 PM
Ah, ok.

So what you're saying is that people from all over the country should be forced to pump up North Dakota's economy?

Ah, no.

But what I am saying is that people from all over the country should be forced to keep our military properly funded. And if ripping a base out of a town like Minot is going to really hurt the town then yes, I think they need to take a good hard look at that and see if it is really worth it.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 04:44 PM
If all bases are losing money, then surely there isn't a demand for them to be around.

Perhaps a better solution is to be had. Like an on demand military or something.

It is comforting to know that you dont think any bases should be around, and while we are all tucked in our comforts of home, that you would be willing to go fight for our country with "your on demand" military theory. You are right, we dont need any bases for deterant purposes. We will never get attacked on our home soil, or even abroad for that matter. But if we did, its great to know the pentagon can give you a jingle and you will come running. There must not be any need for the AFROTC unit at NDSU or AROTC at UND either, as if all the bases close, the units will have no instructors, so close them up also. Maybe the Civil Air Patrol (which is a branch of the USAF) can move to South Dakota, im sure all the kids and volunteer pilots will gladly drive all the way down to SD for training, they would want to keep their skills up, so if there is an emergency in ND, they can make the 7 hour trip down to SD to get in their aircraft to fly back to ND. You are right, no need at all, close em all down. What Was I Thinking.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 04:59 PM
Recieved an e-mail from Conrads office, the first day of the online petition's got over 6,000 online signatures.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
04-27-2005, 04:59 PM
they would want to keep their skills up, so if there is an emergency in ND, they can make the 7 hour trip down to SD to get in their aircraft to fly back to ND.

LOL Classic ;D

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
04-27-2005, 05:00 PM
Recieved an e-mail from Conrads office, the first day of the online petition's got over 6,000 online signatures.

I think you deserve some thanking for that.

Tuk
04-27-2005, 05:16 PM
I was surprised, after not being there for a few years, at just how little MAFB has done in terms of development and new infrastructure. *When you look at GFAFB's new housing, dining facilities, street work, landscaping, etc... it really makes it look nice. *I really hope that all that money wasn't for nothing. *That would be a shame for everyone. :-/

Tuk:
Could you explain why the F-15 would be an upgrade for the Hooligans? *I have limited knowledge of USAF aircraft, yet I still find it fascinating.
Well, the current aircraft used by the Hooligans are like I said before the old versions of the F-16 aircraft as shown below:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16c-19990601-f-0073c-005-s.jpg
talking to a maintainence person from the wing, he told me that the aircraft could not be used in a war theater because their lack of ability to be linked in todays electronic battlefield command and control systems. *That means the 119th is used strictly for areas of non-combat operations such as flying air cover over Washington. *Furthermore, the F-16 has taken a transition from an air superiority fighter to a multi-role fighter/bomber meaning that its missions can be air superiority, ground attack, or both. *In fact, most F-16 units have made the transition from air superiority to ground attack roles. *Only the Hooligans and sister guard units across the nation still use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter.

The F-15 was designed as an air superiority fighter and is extremely fast, agile, and able to operate in all weather environments. *The F-15 as shown below
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15s.jpg
is being replaced however by the new Lockheed Martin F-22 as shown below
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-19990601-f-0000l-001-s.jpg
This means that those Air Force units using the F-22's now have excess F-15's to give away, to units in need such as the Hooligans. *The F-15 is better in most aspects than the F-16, especially those of the Hooligans. With the role of the Hooligans as specifically a fighter squadron (meaning little training with ground objectives) the F 15 would be a better fit because of its air superiority design. With the F-15 avionics the Hooligans could also see deployment in areas of warfare, instead of patroling the city and doing touch-n-goes at the airport because the Pentagon didn't want to invest the money to upgrade the National Guard's ability to fight in a war.

Tuk
04-27-2005, 05:38 PM
Are there other air tanker bases (KC-135) or is GF the only one?

There are numerous other tanker refueling bases across the country. I don't know the exact number of units and bases, but Grand Forks is not the only one by any measure.

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 05:50 PM
Ah, no.

But what I am saying is that people from all over the country should be forced to keep our military properly funded. And if ripping a base out of a town like Minot is going to really hurt the town then yes, I think they need to take a good hard look at that and see if it is really worth it.


The people of America should be forced to pay for a base that might not be needed simply because it would be bad for the town that is located in?


If the people of the country demand for their to be a military, then the government will supply them with one. As demand wanes in our time of relative peace, however, any justification for keeping the same level of equipment and infrastructure as in a time of war is lost.

Tuk
04-27-2005, 05:51 PM
Thanks, this is what I was looking for.

So, what is the reason for the need to shut down bases? *Would they be combining these bases with others? *Would it end up costing them more to move everything, and probably expand other bases then to keep the current ones running?
Well, the upkeep and maintainence of these bases across the country is a lot of money. The fact that most bases were made to accomodate Cold War tactics also made reorganization a necessity. The origional plan for the Minot, Grand Forks, and other bases (such as the old Glascow Air Force Base in Montana as mentioned by Wyo) was to avert the Soviet attack that would come across the North Pole and into Canada. Today, the need for bases at these locations are not as strategic as it once was.

The overall cost of relocating and reorganizing the armed forces are nothing compared to maintaining each of these bases by themselves. The Pentagon is like a landlord maintaining rental properties...the more places you own the more you have to take care of. The new idea is to consolidate the armed forces into other bases or create "superbases" of multiple units and branches (which makes very tempting targets for a nuke attack in my opinion). This way, the overall cost of maintaining runways, buildings, and such are overall less.

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 05:52 PM
Well, the current aircraft used by the Hooligans are like I said before the old versions of the F-16 aircraft as shown below:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16c-19990601-f-0073c-005-s.jpg
talking to a maintainence person from the wing, he told me that the aircraft could not be used in a war theater because their lack of ability to be linked in todays electronic battlefield command and control systems. That means the 119th is used strictly for areas of non-combat operations such as flying air cover over Washington. Furthermore, the F-16 has taken a transition from an air superiority fighter to a multi-role fighter/bomber meaning that its missions can be air superiority, ground attack, or both. In fact, most F-16 units have made the transition from air superiority to ground attack roles. Only the Hooligans and sister guard units across the nation still use the F-16 as an air superiority fighter.

The F-15 was designed as an air superiority fighter and is extremely fast, agile, and able to operate in all weather environments. The F-15 as shown below
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15s.jpg
is being replaced however by the new Lockheed Martin F-22 as shown below
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-19990601-f-0000l-001-s.jpg
This means that those Air Force units using the F-22's now have excess F-15's to give away, to units in need such as the Hooligans. The F-15 is better in most aspects than the F-16, especially those of the Hooligans. With the role of the Hooligans as specifically a fighter squadron (meaning little training with ground objectives) the F 15 would be a better fit because of its air superiority design. With the F-15 avionics the Hooligans could also see deployment in areas of warfare, instead of patroling the city and doing touch-n-goes at the airport because the Pentagon didn't want to invest the money to upgrade the National Guard's ability to fight in a war.


If the F15 is superior to the F16, why does the F16 have the higher number?

runtheoption
04-27-2005, 06:16 PM
Perhaps a better solution is to be had. Like an on demand military or something.

I think something exists already that could be described as an "on demand military." It's called the National Guard.

runtheoption
04-27-2005, 06:18 PM
If the F15 is superior to the F16, why does the F16 have the higher number?

By this logic, the B-52 bomber must be far superior and much newer than the B-1 or B-2 bombers.

insane_ponderer
04-27-2005, 06:21 PM
If the F15 is superior to the F16, why does the F16 have the higher number?

the only area where the f-16 "is better" than the f-15 is that f-16s have bombing capabilities where f-15's don't. The f-15 was built for old school dogfight, air to air. to relate to football terms its the difference between kordell stewart, a slash player who could sorta run and sorta pass and peyton manning a player who could not run but who is an unbelievable passer. :)

runtheoption
04-27-2005, 06:35 PM
The people of America should be forced to pay for a base that might not be needed simply because it would be bad for the town that is located in?




Being a member of the 119th, the thought of BRAC closing down the base is one that I am not in favor of, but mainly for selfish reasons. (economic impact on Fargo, good friends I get to see every month at drill, pride in what the Hooligans do, not wanting to drive to Duluth or Sioux Falls for drill weekends).

With that being said, and this is very hard for me to type these words, I reluctantly agree with G&G01. We as NoDak'ians don't want to see any of our bases close, especially Minot and Grand Forks because that would hurt those towns immensely. But I don't think the taxpayers in the other 49 states would want these bases to be kept open if there is a more efficient, cheaper way to keep our military strong, mobile, flexible and able to fulfill it's mission (whether by making superbases or just closing some bases and not replacing their mission elsewhere).

Joe Bagadonuts from California could really give a rat's ass as to the effect on Fargo, Minot or G.F. if the bases close. All he cares about is being protected and feeling safe, and if this can be done lessening the tax burden on the average person by closing bases, then so be it. Those towns that are affected by BRAC will have to rely on some imagination and entrepreneurship to fill the void created BRAC.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 07:05 PM
If other states citizens are not willing to fight to keep their bases open, so be it. There is no reason that other bases units could'nt transfer to GFAFB or MAFB to combine here rather than there. So why not fight to keep our bases open. There will definetly be some bases closing, but why let our's close without a fight. The result of any of these bases closing in North Dakota will be felt for many years, and effect alot of folks, and I dont wish that on anybody.

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 07:08 PM
There are numerous other tanker refueling bases across the country. *I don't know the exact number of units and bases, but Grand Forks is not the only one by any measure. *

2 others

fairchild in washington, near spokane

and mcconnell in kansas


but that doesn't mean they couldn't go somewhere else.

runtheoption
04-27-2005, 07:36 PM
If other states citizens are not willing to fight to keep their bases open, so be it. There is no reason that other bases units could'nt transfer to GFAFB or MAFB to combine here rather than there. So why not fight to keep our bases open. There will definetly be some bases closing, but why let our's close without a fight. The result of any of these bases closing in North Dakota will be felt for many years, and effect alot of folks, and I dont wish that on anybody.

I agree.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
04-27-2005, 07:37 PM
I guess what I'm saying goes along with bisonfan1 that maybe they need to look at where these base closing would have the biggest negative impact. If a base closes near a large city with many other things going for it, it would not have the negative impact on the town that it would in a town in ND.

What is the reason for the change now? Has there just been overspending for years and they are now ready to pull back? Or what are the main reasons?

insane_ponderer
04-27-2005, 08:07 PM
well since both the minot and grand forks bases were built to basically defend against "the red threat" and that is pretty much non existant, isnt there some way that we could use those bases to run border control?

i mean we are no longer in fear of russia sending fighters and missiles over the north pole but now its terrorists sneaking over the border with a WMD (i think both of these are in the same category of ridiculous but thats for a different thread).

You would think that the boys at the pentagon would want bases strategically close to the borders?

runtheoption
04-27-2005, 08:09 PM
The big dogs at the Pentagon think we could have leaner, meaner military. Not that they were overspending, just that they need to save money.

I am not totally familiar with how BRAC works, but I don't think the BRAC commission take into account the effect a base closure would have on the local community. I think they just look at how to have a more streamilined, effecient, cheaper military while still able to meet all mission requirements.

Tuk
04-27-2005, 08:36 PM
If the F15 is superior to the F16, why does the F16 have the higher number?
The F-16 was born out of the need of a multi-role fighter/bomber to replace the aging F-4. The requirements of the F-16 was to be a small aircraft capable of agile fight at relative low speeds (Mach 1.5 and less) and able to carry a variety of payloads.

I must say that the F-16 is by no means an obsolete plane, it is just not the best platform for the Hooligans. For multi-role operations such as close air support, bombing, and air superiority, the F-16 is the best choice because of its versatility. But for air to air combat, the F-15 is the bird of choice (which fits the Hooligans mission). The Hooligans planes (early F-16 varients) are very obsolete because of their age and lack of technological upgrades. That is why any replacement aircraft would be beneficial...

Tuk
04-27-2005, 08:42 PM
2 others

fairchild in washington, near spokane

and mcconnell in kansas


but that doesn't mean they couldn't go somewhere else.

Does that include bases using KC-10's (another refueling aircraft)? *


well since both the minot and grand forks bases were built to basically defend against "the red threat" and that is pretty much non existant, isnt there some way that we could use those bases to run border control?

i mean we are no longer in fear of russia sending fighters and missiles over the north pole but now its terrorists sneaking over the border with a WMD (i think both of these are in the same category of ridiculous but thats for a different thread).

You would think that the boys at the pentagon would want bases strategically close to the borders?

I don't really know what the bases could do for border security outside of being a large base to send a few helicopters to check the border. If I were a terrorist with a nuke, I would not come through Canada but instead just hop on a cargo ship into Baltimore harbor.

Either way, I don't see the base's location serving any special purpose except holding back the onslaught of Canadians when they decide to invade America :)

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 09:01 PM
The big dogs at the Pentagon think we could have leaner, meaner military. Not that they were overspending, just that they need to save money.

I am not totally familiar with how BRAC works, but I don't think the BRAC commission take into account the effect a base closure would have on the local community. I think they just look at how to have a more streamilined, effecient, cheaper military while still able to meet all mission requirements.


If Minot was built around a huge car production plant and that plant was looking to close up shop due to a lack of interest the particular model of car that they make, no one here would be shouting for the government to run in and save things.

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 09:02 PM
If Minot was built around a huge car production plant and that plant was looking to close up shop due to a lack of interest the particular model of car that they make, no one here would be shouting for the government to run in and save things.

apparently you weren't alive in the 80's when the gov't bailed out Chrysler.

IowaBison
04-27-2005, 09:08 PM
the KC-10s are at Travis and McGuire

greenandgold01
04-27-2005, 09:24 PM
apparently you weren't alive in the 80's when the gov't bailed out Chrysler.


That's a moot point.

The point is that just because they can doesn't mean they should.

Bisonfan1
04-27-2005, 09:47 PM
Pomery said - "economic impact is one of the criteria the Pentagon uses when deciding which bases to propose closing" More - the 119th has a TOTAL economic impact of 120.1 million. Thats three times the economic impact of the FargoDome in 2002. More - Mayor Bruce Furness said the study doesnt take into account the impact that loosing spouses and kids would have if the base closed. All of that has an effect on quality of life. We are talking Fargo numbers here, you can pump those numbers up considerably for Grand Forks and Minot. Again, we live in ND, base closings will impact us in more ways than one, if no effort is put forth in other states to save their bases, let them close and combine up here with our units. I do believe we have the space up here in our State for expansion. Also I do believe both bases are involved in Border Patrol in some capicity.

airmail
04-27-2005, 09:51 PM
... being protected and feeling safe, and if this can be done lessening the tax burden on the average person by closing bases, then so be it.

How many bases have closed now since all this began a number of years ago? *My tax burden certainly hasn't lessened, at least to this point. *I'm afraid I don't expect it to either... regardless of the number of installations about to be shut down. :-/

BisonInTexas
04-28-2005, 03:30 AM
The F-16 was born out of the need of a multi-role fighter/bomber to replace the aging F-4. *The requirements of the F-16 was to be a small aircraft capable of agile fight at relative low speeds (Mach 1.5 and less) and able to carry a variety of payloads.

I must say that the F-16 is by no means an obsolete plane, it is just not the best platform for the Hooligans. *For multi-role operations such as close air support, bombing, and air superiority, the F-16 is the best choice because of its versatility. *But for air to air combat, the F-15 is the bird of choice (which fits the Hooligans mission). *The Hooligans planes (early F-16 varients) are very obsolete because of their age and lack of technological upgrades. *That is why any replacement aircraft would be beneficial...


The ironic thing is that the Hooligans gained some notoriety years ago by defeating the F-15s in mock dogfighting competitions. The F-16 is much more maneuverable, but the F-15 has more avionics know-how for the dogfighting game. That being said, the role of the air-superiority aircraft in general is becoming obsolete. The F-15 would be a poor choice for upgrading - a later block of F-16C's would probably better suit the unit because they need to be multi-role to avoid cuts in the future.

The F-15 is scrambling to add air-to-ground weapons to extend its life, the F-22 is doing the same to avoid being cut more (I think they are below 200 orders now authorized - the original award was for more than 600 planes). Even the new multi-role Joint Strike Fighter is facing cuts. That, in my opinion will be the last manned fighter aircraft built for some time, if not ever.

I don't want to see the bases in ND close, but it is just a matter of time. The future of the airforce is in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and Rumsfeld is a big proponent of this. If ND wants to plan for the future, they should position themselves as a center of UAV operations and testing. Uncluttered airspace is perfect for this.

Just my opinion.

Craig

BisonInTexas
04-28-2005, 03:35 AM
Of course, I can't vouch for the profit margins of my idea ::)

Craig

Tuk
04-28-2005, 03:40 AM
The ironic thing is that the Hooligans gained some notoriety years ago by defeating the F-15s in mock dogfighting competitions. *The F-16 is much more maneuverable, but the F-15 has more avionics know-how for the dogfighting game. *That being said, the role of the air-superiority aircraft in general is becoming obsolete. *The F-15 would be a poor choice for upgrading - a later block of F-16C's would probably better suit the unit because they need to be multi-role to avoid cuts in the future. *

The F-15 is scrambling to add air-to-ground weapons to extend its life, the F-22 is doing the same to avoid being cut more (I think they are below 200 orders now authorized - the original award was for more than 600 planes). *Even the new multi-role Joint Strike Fighter is facing cuts. *That, in my opinion will be the last manned fighter aircraft built for some time, if not ever. *

I don't want to see the bases in ND close, but it is just a matter of time. *The future of the airforce is in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and Rumsfeld is a big proponent of this. *If ND wants to plan for the future, they should position themselves as a center of UAV operations and testing. *Uncluttered airspace is perfect for this.

Just my opinion.

Craig

I think your points are very valid, and perhaps should be looked upon as a good blueprint to keep N.D.'s bases operating...

greenandgold01
04-28-2005, 04:01 AM
Of course, I can't vouch for the profit margins of my idea ::)

Craig


I said nothing of profit.

There is such a thing as not spending more than you get in the non profit world.

87Bisonfan
05-12-2005, 11:25 PM
Received an email from a co-worker with military connections that contained the proposed base closure/realignment list. *The list shows GF on the closure list but Fargo and Minot were off. *The list also indicated the Air Force will be retiring the KC135E tankers. *Also on the list was Ellsworth in SD and McConnell in Kansas.

I don't know how he had access to such a list, I guess we will find out tomorrow morning how accurate this info. is.

Gamehunter
05-13-2005, 04:01 AM
raise your hand if you think G&G01 didn't graduate Junior High. ^^^^^

RedRiver
05-13-2005, 02:45 PM
Fargo & Minot are not on the list, GF is on the realignment list, not the closure list.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 03:07 PM
WOW! Good news for ND! Even though GF will be re-aligned, that is great that all three will stay open.

Shows that the boys in Bismarck do actually do some work ;)

JACKGUYII
05-13-2005, 03:21 PM
I heard even with realignment it means losing 90% of the personnel on the base.

somebison
05-13-2005, 03:26 PM
Received an email from a co-worker with military connections that contained the proposed base closure/realignment list. *The list shows GF on the closure list but Fargo and Minot were off. *The list also indicated the Air Force will be retiring the KC135E tankers. *Also on the list was Ellsworth in SD and McConnell in Kansas.

I don't know how he had access to such a list, I guess we will find out tomorrow morning how accurate this info. is.


looks like the info was pretty good

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 03:29 PM
I heard even with realignment it means losing 90% of the personnel on the base.

That's what it said in the paper, not sure if that is correct or not? That will hurt GF, but very glad to hear that all three will remain open, as Rumsfeld basically said not to worry about what would happen to surrounding communities.

Good thing we all signed those protests! ;D

roadwarrior
05-13-2005, 03:33 PM
Big hit to the State of South Dakota though!

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 03:37 PM
just as guess cause it's still early, but losing just under 2,300 military personnel means that GF is losing the tankers and is going to be around for [insert pointless mission here]?

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 03:38 PM
Fargo is on the re-allignment list as well sources are now reporting

JACKGUYII
05-13-2005, 03:39 PM
Correction to the Herald piece Ellsworth is near Rapid City not Sioux Falls.

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 03:40 PM
that's not what they had said earlier

i didn't say many (any) ANG closings so maybe they were omitted earlier

or are you wrong sioux yeah-yeah?

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 03:43 PM
Not sure what you are asking there? Sources are saying that Fargo will be on the re-allignment list. Not sure if that clears up what you are asking?

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 03:46 PM
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=91616&section=News

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 03:50 PM
No, not closed just re-alligned.

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11638899.htm

Conrad also just said that he feels very strongly Fargo will be on the r.a. list

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 03:52 PM
just found that article too, thanks

i didn't think that fargo was going to close, it seemed rather silly to have a state without an ANG facility

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 03:53 PM
Now it's in the Forum too. Fargo to lose F-16s

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=91609&section=News

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 03:55 PM
Jeez, I hope they don't keep doing this. Will there be another round any time in the near future, assuming this one goes through? I would think not as this is the big daddy of them all.

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 03:59 PM
Jeez, I hope they don't keep doing this. *Will there be another round any time in the near future, assuming this one goes through? *I would think not as this is the big daddy of them all.

imo opinion this round of brac is a relative joke, just like the previous ones. the goal of minimizing the influence of politics on the process has been a farce.

the only 'tough' closing in the whole thing is ellsworth.

this is especially surprising as Rumsfeld was brought in (and likes) to do things like BRAC.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 04:09 PM
just as guess cause it's still early, but losing just under 2,300 military personnel means that GF is losing the tankers and is going to be around for [insert pointless mission here]?


sounds like GF will be used for unmanned surveilance aircraft. That must be why the huge cut in personnel

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 04:10 PM
sounds like GF will be used for unmanned surveilance aircraft. *That must be why the huge cut in personnel

where did you hear that?

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 04:14 PM
where did you hear that?

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11639091.htm

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 04:19 PM
thanks again, i quit reading after i learned the number of lost personnel

i also don't see how you develop, test, and deploy something the Global Hawk with only a few hundred military involved?

hmmm...

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 04:23 PM
Don't you think that's really weird that they would keep that big of a base open with only that number of people?? I'm surprised, assuming they will be using these new Global Hawks, that they wouldn't just move that to Fargo then and shut down the base completely? Pretty weird to run a huge base for a couple of hundred people and like you said, you would think it would take a lot more then that??

I guess this is why I'm not in charge!

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 04:26 PM
Don't you think that's really weird that they would keep that big of a base open with only that number of people?? I'm surprised, assuming they will be using these new Global Hawks, that they wouldn't just move that to Fargo then and shut down the base completely? *Pretty weird to run a huge base for a couple of hundred people and like you said, you would think it would take a lot more then that??

I guess this is why I'm not in charge!

I think you're wrong about the Global Hawk, they are being developed, tested, and deployed at Wright-Patterson and Edwards which are relatively unscathed by this

AND

the BRAC does not mention adding new military or civilian personnel to GFAB

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/050513_Base_CLosings.pdf

and

I think it's weird that GFAB wasn't closed after the first brac round!

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 04:33 PM
Maybe this is different?

Officials familiar with the Pentagon's plans said Grand Forks' tankers would be redistributed to bases in at least four states, but the base would continue to be used as a base for unmanned "aero vehicles."

Or is that the same thing?

Herd_Mentality
05-13-2005, 04:42 PM
Wow, closing a base that houses half the nations fleet of a certain bomber...yet allowing GFAFB to stay open with almost no one being there. Now GF has absolutely no mission, or a reason to stay open.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 04:46 PM
Wow, closing a base that houses half the nations fleet of a certain bomber...yet allowing GFAFB to stay open with almost no one being there. *Now GF has absolutely no mission, or a reason to stay open.


Must have been some good work by Conrad and company!

JACKGUYII
05-13-2005, 04:59 PM
Would hardly call losing 2200 jobs good work!

RedRiver
05-13-2005, 05:20 PM
Approx. 2,700 jobs when you count the civilan jobs, this is about 2/3 of the current total. Huge impact. Believe the base was kept open because the mission will change to border patrol and security.

met1990
05-13-2005, 05:28 PM
Does anyone know what the total number of employees at the GFAFB is? I've tried to find a specific number of personnel but all I've seen is the 2,700 active military personnel mentioned in a news report. What is the total of military and civilian?

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 05:33 PM
All right everyone, bare with me here. *What do you think about this conspiracy theory:

At the last second Hoeven will meet with Bush and he will pull the base off the list, Hoeven is the hero and saves the day, thus defeating Conrad in his re-election bid.

Sounds like a good one to me

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 05:36 PM
Would hardly call losing 2200 jobs good work!

Kept all three open (two of those aligned, but either way) when many other states lost more then one major base. Plus being in this area, coupled with Rumsfelds choice to sweep what would happen to the community to the background, very surprising!

Sounds like pretty good work to me, considering they were thinking we could lose all three potentialy.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 06:01 PM
Here it is folks:

http://www.in-forum.com/pdfs/bracnd.pdf

Some pretty interesting stuff in there.

SDbison
05-13-2005, 06:20 PM
So why keep a air base open at all if it has no aircraft? Our goverment never ceases to amaze me. Spend, waste, make ridiculous decisions. Anyone notice how the large population centers are mostly untouched with the reductions? The best part is reading the short one paragraph assessments stating the lack of impact on the GF and Fargo areas. What a joke. Now that the midwest has no real bases I hope the government has assessed the impact of taking away one of the visual indications that our tax dollars were doing something, not to mention loss of a sense of security. But in the big bureaucrats line of thinking who cares about Fargo or GF.

Bisonfan1
05-13-2005, 06:47 PM
Thank you Sioux_Yeah_Yeah for that article. To me it would be totally ubsurd to close any bases in any border states. Nobody has to convince me that there is a definant problem with illegal aliens coming across our borders, and illegal crossings, and yes through Canada into North Dakota. Stops on such vehicles usually resulted in drugs, weapons, or illegal's, I know, I worked up on the Northern Border, and anyone thinking differant has their heads in the sand. I am glad to see the base's kept open. Hopefully Fargo will retain a flying mission. The hint on Grand Forks future missions in the Homeland Security Dept. area indicates to me there will aircraft of some kind retained on base for Border Patrol survellance both manned and un manned. The 4,000 plus job losses in Grand Forks is a definant bummer to that area. People in Rapid City SD are really flipping out, closing Elsworth AFB which is South Dakota's 2nd largest employer. So the scenerio could have been worse for Grand Forks. On a personal note, I would have loved to have been stationed at Elsworth back in the early 80's, Black Hills, trout fishing etc. I could have beat out (Trainer I think ) on having the South Dakota plates that say NDSU !!

Bisonguy
05-13-2005, 06:54 PM
I've been listening to this on the radio while driving around today, and here's what I've heard:

Minot - no change

GF- 2/3rds of personnel gone, and loss of tankers. GF has also been declared the a startegic site and top prospective site for unmanned aircraft, and has a possibilty of future missions (most likely border patrol and homeland safety with unmanned aircraft)

Fargo- no personnel loss, and loss of F-16s

ND's legislation will be fighting to retain the tankers at GF (probably will be a tough sell) and get new fighters for Fargo (which has been promised to the 119th previously and might be possible with some of the current air base closings)

Now, the politics will take over until September, when the final list is released and acted upon. Some bases not on the list may end up being cosed, and others may be taken off.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 07:00 PM
So does anyone think that my Hoeven>Conrad conspiracy could happen? That would be a nice seat for the GOP.

Bisonfan1
05-13-2005, 07:01 PM
I really hope the NDANG retains a flying mission. The NDANG belive it or not has some of the best pilots in the Air Force. Winning the "William Tell" awards a number of times is testimony to that. I am not sure, but probably the NDANG has won some "Outstanding Unit Of the Air Force" awards also. That is a great sense of pride to anyone associated with a unit to recieve that award. Maybe some of the NDANG members on this board can fill us in of their accomplishments.

roadwarrior
05-13-2005, 07:17 PM
Is it surprising that both Texas and Florida will have net gains in personnel under the plan :o

The_Sicatoka
05-13-2005, 07:20 PM
The details for both GF AFB and ND ANG:
http://www.in-forum.com/pdfs/bracnd.pdf

ND ANG:
No planes.
No flying mission.
"Hector (125) ranked low in military value."
All that, yet "combat support elements remain in place"?

GF AFB:
" ... continued strategic presence in the north central U.S."
" ... potential for emerging missions in homeland defense."
GF AFB "ranked highest in military value for the UAV mission".

My guess: UAVs (Global Hawk?) going to GF AFB with GF AFB and the ND ANG changing missions and supporting the operations of the UAVs with the UAVs getting used for both military operations (overseas in theatre) and to patrol the long, unguarded northern border.

But at this point, it's anyone's guess.

somebison
05-13-2005, 07:35 PM
Economic Impact on Communities: This recommendation will not result in any job reductions
(direct or indirect) over the 2006-2011 period in the Fargo, ND-MN, Metropolitan Statistical
economic area. The aggregate economic impact of all recommended actions on this economic
region of influence was considered and is at Appendix B of Volume I.

What are they going to have them doing with no planes?

The_Sicatoka
05-13-2005, 07:37 PM
Interesting words in here (which is from BRAC report):
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11640150.htm


Grand Forks will remain an active Air Force installation with a new active duty/Air National Guard association unit created in anticipation ofemerging missions at Grand Forks.

I think my guess might be pretty close.

Bisonguy
05-13-2005, 07:49 PM
From what was on the radio, the vast majority of the 119th are engineers, medics, and firefighters.

The 119th has known for quite some time that their fighters would be retired, as they were the oldest F-16s in the fleet. My speculation is that the military is waiting to see which bases and units will be losing their aircraft (in September), and will possibly re-allocate them to the 119th.

Another possible mission would be air support for the possible GF UAV's. It would make strategic sense to have air support in a separate, yet in close proximity, location.

Bisonguy
05-13-2005, 07:51 PM
Interesting words in here (which is from BRAC report):
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11640150.htm


I think my guess might be pretty close.


Doesn't GF currently have an ANG unit?

The_Sicatoka
05-13-2005, 08:22 PM
There are NG units based in GF but I believe they are considered Army, not Air.

http://www.guard.bismarck.nd.us/units/grforks.htm
http://www.guard.bismarck.nd.us/units/fargo.htm

I'm guessing DoD wants to fly UAVs* out of GF AFB but still somehow be attached to the recruiting base (population) of Fargo via the ND ANG.

* UAVs are most dangerous on take-off and landing. You want a runway in an open area, just in case. GF AFB is a good candidate. Hector (urban right off the runway) isn't.

IowaBison
05-13-2005, 08:27 PM
It would be pretty hard for anyone to convince me that it actually makes sense to leave GFAB open with only a UAV mission. Why they wouldn't add this to Minot, Malmstrom, or Fairchild and save tens of millions of dollars a year is beyond me.


Also,monitoring the northern border has to be one of the dumbest things i've ever heard considering you can walk right over on US/Mexican border. Though I'd love to see that changed as well it's a political impossibility.

Bisonguy
05-13-2005, 08:27 PM
There

* UAVs are most dangerous on take-off and landing. You want a runway in an open area, just in case. GF AFB is a good candidate. Hector (urban right off the runway) isn't.

:o :o :oYikes! Glad I live in Fargo, albeit close to the airport. :-/

The_Sicatoka
05-13-2005, 08:59 PM
"Most dangerous" is a relative term. The same applies to passenger aircraft: They are most dangerous or most in jeopardy during take-off and landing. (Now restore your seat backs and tray tables.)

You probably don't want UAVs flying out of an otherwise active flight-line: B-52 v. UAV = UAV ($$$) squished.

somebison
05-13-2005, 09:00 PM
I'm guessing DoD wants to fly UAVs* out of GF AFB but still somehow be attached to the recruiting base (population) of Fargo via the ND ANG.


I was thinking the same thing, the world must be coming to an end :o ;D

The_Sicatoka
05-13-2005, 09:01 PM
It would be pretty hard for anyone to convince me that it actually makes sense to leave GFAB open with only a UAV mission.

About as much as keeping an ANG wing with no planes or flight mission.

It's the goverment in action. What'd you expect?

somebison
05-13-2005, 09:04 PM
About as much as keeping an ANG wing with no planes or flight mission.

Since they are unmanned- could the UAV's be housed maintained etc in GF and "flown" out of Fargo?

it will be interesting to see what comes of this

tophatfan
05-13-2005, 09:23 PM
GF- 2/3rds of personnel gone, and loss of tankers. GF has also been declared the a startegic site and top prospective site for unmanned aircraft, and has a possibilty of future missions (most likely border patrol and homeland safety with unmanned aircraft)

Ok so they're redoing the runway this summer only to take away the planes. What the hell is up with that. The government needs to learn not to waste so much money. Since they are redoing the runway up at the GFAFB then they sould keep the refeuling fleet there.

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
05-13-2005, 09:24 PM
The unmanned aeros will still need somewhere to take off and land.

Bison_Dan
05-13-2005, 09:25 PM
It would be pretty hard for anyone to convince me that it actually makes sense to leave GFAB open with only a UAV mission. *Why they wouldn't add this to Minot, Malmstrom, or Fairchild and save tens of millions of dollars a year is beyond me.


Also,monitoring the northern border has to be one of the dumbest things i've ever heard considering you can walk right over on US/Mexican border. *Though I'd love to see that changed as well it's a political impossibility.

I think that Air Force is thinking that gfab could be a backup air base with a uav mission.

The_Sicatoka
05-13-2005, 09:31 PM
I think that Air Force is thinking that gfab could be a backup air base with a uav mission.


" ... continued strategic presence in the north central U.S." *

It seems the USAF doesn't want to give up all of the "open space" in the north central US. Solution: Put UAVs at GF AFB and have the space in case they need it for whatever (troops back from Europe?, new missions?).

The_Sicatoka
05-13-2005, 09:34 PM
Since they are unmanned- could the UAV's be housed maintained etc in GF and "flown" out of Fargo?

it will be interesting to see what comes of this

Normally with UAVs you want to see (with eyes, not cameras) the take-off and landing.

But who knows where all of this goes next.

Bisonfan1
05-13-2005, 10:20 PM
[quote author=NorthDakotaBison link=board=bc;num=1114537886;start=105#119 date=05/13/05 at 14:27:02]It would be pretty hard for anyone to convince me that it actually makes sense to leave GFAB open with only a UAV mission. *Why they wouldn't add this to Minot, Malmstrom, or Fairchild and save tens of millions of dollars a year is beyond me.


Also,monitoring the northern border has to be one of the dumbest things i've ever heard considering you can walk right over on US/Mexican border. *Though I'd love to see that changed as well it's a political impossibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can walk right over the Southern border AND the Northern Border, and to me BOTH is dumb. There should be heavier monotoring on BOTH borders. Dont think for a minute that you are more safe with illegal crossings from Canada compared to Mexico. Spend a couple days at a Northern Port Of Entry, ride along with the Border Patrol or Highway Patrol on the Northern border and then tell me its not needed. It will be an eye opening experience and I can guarantee that. What you will *see , its not just the Canadians sneaking "Canadian Club" whiskey across the border. If GFAFB and the NDANG can combine to have better security on the Northern Border then I am all for it.

Bisonguy
05-13-2005, 10:47 PM
Yeah, those crazy people from Canadia keep sneeking over their whacky winter sports down here. I say drop a 50 kiloton bomb on them, loaded with all of their hockey pucks. ;)

Bisonfan1
05-13-2005, 10:49 PM
Yeah, those crazy people from Canadia keep sneeking over their whacky winter sports down here. I say drop a 50 kiloton bomb on them, loaded with all of their hockey pucks. *;)


LOL

BisonInTexas
05-13-2005, 11:55 PM
"Most dangerous" is a relative term. The same applies to passenger aircraft: They are most dangerous or most in jeopardy during take-off and landing. (Now restore your seat backs and tray tables.)

You probably don't want UAVs flying out of an otherwise active flight-line: B-52 v. UAV = UAV ($$$) squished.

That is true, but UAVs have the added risk of "loss of link" which means you can no longer control them. This can occur at any point in the mission, not just takeoff and landing. There are of course redundant systems in place, but this added command link provides a critical flight safety risk that doesn't apply to manned vehicles.

I agree that UAVs are best deployed on a dedicated flight line, but that is rare. Predators are flown at Indian Springs north of Las Vegas, but F-16s and other aircraft regularly fly there as well. The ATC in the area has rules to prevent collisions.

Grand Forks needs to look past the short term and realize that this is a tremendous opportunity to become an entrenched center for UAV operations, which will keep the base open longer than it would otherwise (and some smart guy suggested this earlier in the thread ;) )

Craig

BisonInTexas
05-13-2005, 11:57 PM
Since they are unmanned- could the UAV's be housed maintained etc in GF and "flown" out of Fargo?

it will be interesting to see what comes of this

This is certainly possible. The Predators flown in Iraq and Afghanistan are piloted by personnel at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas.

Craig

Bisonguy
05-14-2005, 12:23 AM
Why stop with the current UAVs?

With great nanoscale, polymers and coatings, RFID, aerospace, and alternative fuel research located in Fargo and Grand Forks at NDSU and UND, why not create the next generation of UAVs in the Red River Valley? I thought I remember reading somewhere that the next gen of UAV's would be the size of insects.

SDbison
05-14-2005, 12:41 AM
The unmanned aeros will still need somewhere to take off and land.
Yeah, I am sure the runway improvements were designed for a relatively very light UAV compared to a tanker. So what did the government waste on those runway improvements (close to half a million dollars). Don't remember seeing that number in the cost of closing. Of course the goverment sees no end to the taxpayers money and what is half a million bucks.
My recommendation for the entire U.S. government: Cut 20% of all federal jobs and require the remaining people on payroll to actually do some work. More specifically fire everyone in the IRS and go to a federal sales tax or flat 10% tax on income. Also for every new program proposed the author / legislator must have a existing similar costing program terminated.

Bisonguy
05-14-2005, 12:45 AM
Yeah, I am sure the runway improvements were designed for a relatively very light UAV compared to a tanker. *So what did the government waste on those runway improvements (close to half a million dollars). *Don't remember seeing that number in the cost of closing. *Of course the goverment sees no end to the taxpayers money and what is half a million bucks.
My recommendation for the entire U.S. government: *Cut 20% of all federal jobs and require the remaining people on payroll to actually do some work. *More specifically fire everyone in the IRS and go to a federal sales tax or flat 10% tax on income. *Also for every new program proposed the author / legislator must have a existing similar costing program terminated. * *

SDBison,

LOL- change your password. 1234 knows your current password and is posting under your account. ;) ;D ;D
The post quoted above is the proof.

Seriously, I agree with trimming the fat out of the government (federal and state).

SDbison
05-14-2005, 12:51 AM
SDBison,

LOL- change your password. 1234 knows your current password and is posting under your account. *;) ;D ;D
The post quoted above is the proof.

Seriously, I agree with trimming the fat out of the government (federal and state).


Ouch......that really hurt!
I think I have had too many beers already and let my inside voice out. Some people might call me slightly conservative.
Also, sorry Tony, I know we are supposed to keep the political stuff out of the messages. In this case it's hard to separate politics from the topic.

BisonInTexas
05-14-2005, 02:05 AM
Why stop with the current UAVs?

With great nanoscale, polymers and coatings, RFID, aerospace, and alternative fuel research located in Fargo and Grand Forks at NDSU and UND, why not create the next generation of UAVs in the Red River Valley? I thought I remember reading somewhere that the next gen of *UAV's would be the size of insects.

Been reading Crichton lately?
;D

I would say that UAVs that small that can fly in a truly autonomous fashion (i.e. actually do useful missions) are at least two generations away.

Craig

Bisonguy
05-14-2005, 02:28 AM
Been reading Crichton lately?
;D

I would say that UAVs that small that can fly in a truly autonomous fashion (i.e. actually do useful missions) are at least two generations away.

Craig

Sweet. Then the RRV could be that much farther ahead of the curve if we start now......

somebison
05-14-2005, 12:52 PM
Last year, Conrad added into the Intelligence Reform Bill passed in December the "Smart Border" project, which would base a new program of UAV research and development in Grand Forks to provide a new kind of border surveillance.

It's all part of the stepped-up stateside security needed since 9-11, he said.

The idea behind the project is to use sensors, cameras and unmanned aircraft to keep a closer eye on the border.

The Smart Border project would involve UND, North Dakota State University, Hewlett-Packard and Computer Sciences Corp.


Herald Global Hawk article (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/11644890.htm)

scottheck
05-17-2005, 01:56 AM
GF-
Ok so they're redoing the runway this summer only to take away the planes. *What the hell is up with that. *The government needs to learn not to waste so much money. *Since they are redoing the runway up at the GFAFB then they sould keep the refeuling fleet there.

Over the weekend, talked to the engineer who got the design bid on this job. There was no direction from the government on where they were going with this. I found it odd that he could even submit a bid and wasn't in an environment to ask more.

Bisonguy
05-17-2005, 02:28 AM
Interesting news from KVLY tonight regarding the GFAFB- One of the bigwigs on the BRACS commission today publicly stated that he did not know why the GFAFB was not being closed. He seemed dumbfounded why the base would stay open when their primary mission was being realigned to other bases. He seemed like he found no use for the GFAFB and wanted it completely closed. Stay tuned until September.......

IowaBison
05-17-2005, 03:08 PM
Interesting news from KVLY tonight regarding the GFAFB- One of the bigwigs on the BRACS commission today publicly stated that he did not know why the GFAFB was not being closed. He seemed dumbfounded why the base would stay open when their primary mission was being realigned to other bases. He seemed like he found no use for the GFAFB and wanted it completely closed. Stay tuned until September.......

and i don't think he was only the one thinking that (i know i was)

with regards to the UAVs since the ones operated in Iraq are currently being operated by some E-5 in Nevada, it seems like that mission for Grand Forks doesn't have that much of an upside.

Bisonfan1
05-25-2005, 02:13 PM
From Channel 4 news this morning - Sounds like there will be no aircraft avaliable to replace the F-16's. Some units may be transferred to Sioux Falls SD for the flying missions. Also the NDANG provides the fire protection at Hector Field, that would be gone, which means the City Of Fargo will have to provide fire protection at Hector $$$$$ cost for the city of Fargo. So examples of economic impact for the city of Fargo allready starting with the BRAC recommendations.

somebison
06-03-2005, 05:44 PM
Since they are unmanned- could the UAV's be housed maintained etc in GF and "flown" out of Fargo?

it will be interesting to see what comes of this



The Grand Forks base is slated to become a center for the Air Force's Predator and Global Hawk UAVs, Sen. Kent Conrad said Thursday.

Fargo's Air National Guard base is expected to take part in the mission by using its F-16 pilots to operate Predator drones, Conrad said.

"This will be a strong example of how these joint operations can work," Conrad said. "This is good news, important news for Fargo and Grand Forks."

linky (http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=93863)

Sioux_Yeah_Yeah
06-03-2005, 06:29 PM
Sounds pretty cool!

So does this:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jun/HQ_05137_DC8_agreement.html

Hopefully the region can really start to take off on some of this new age stuff, with the tags in Fargo and this stuff in GF maybe some other companies will start to look at the area.

Particularly in the age of technology we now live, I find it weird that more companies don't base out of ND. Why not pay next to nothing for rent and have your headquarters in ND? They can always have satelite offices in other regions.

JBB
06-03-2005, 06:54 PM
NASAS move is good for us in North Dakota. 8)

SiouxFallsJack
07-10-2005, 06:07 AM
I found this article in Saturdays Argus

http://argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050709/NEWS/507090321/1001

This might be good news for South Dakota but not North Dakota. Any opinions?

Bisonguy
07-10-2005, 05:20 PM
I found this article in Saturdays Argus

http://argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050709/NEWS/507090321/1001

This might be good news for South Dakota but not North Dakota. *Any opinions?

Hate to say it, but I think it's a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the Ellsworth base saving committee. The GFAFB is a lot closer to Canada, and I think one of the major secondary missions of the UAV's would be to help patrol the border.



This topic was discussed pretty in-depth on the siouxsports board.