If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Found it!
The 25% number tossed around with such certainty is in fact an estimate base on ... the relationship between force structure in 1989 (pre cold war) and its supporting infrastructure and current force structure and its existing infrastructure. Sounds good if there's genuinely a linear relationship between the force and its infrastructure. May make sense for apples, maybe not so much for oranges. I think a more interesting and perhaps reliable index might be total op tempo versus infrastructure. In an example. Naval Aviation, facing a big-time procurement crunch in the years ahead, may well procure a mix of F-18E/F and F-35B/C airframes that only replaces 60-65% of the existing force. The plan is to increase utilization of those assets to equal the total op tempo of the larger force. So, if op tempo is concentrated on fewer airframes, will logistics support or pilot requirements differ from those of the larger force? From "in the trenches" experience I can say unequivocally NO. So the supply tail, the maintenance effort and the pilot manning (and ergo training) requirements are undiminished. You might be able to knock down an old hangar or two, but runway requirements (a real driver) are undiminished. Airspace requirements (the second big driver) are undiminished. The 800 pound gorilla that hovers over every air station is encroachment. Miramar and Oceana have to tread lightly. A number of others would have issues if their tactical/training jet traffic were stepped up or extended into the evening hours. The Navy has relatively few air stations with little or no encroachment and/or noise concerns. Next question: Can anybody tell me why the Navy moved all its mine warfare assets from the coasts (where it was located in proximity to the fleets they serve) to South Texas? R / John "John Carrier" wrote in message ... I doubt that the 25% is anything more than an estimate spun by those who only want to see defense dollars cut... for two reasons: (1) It's a round number (suspicious). (2) Many of those sound-bite-type bullets are made up. Possible, even probable. But you never know. The Navy had a thing out in the late 90's claiming there was a 21% excess capacity in the Naval Air Training command and I think that was based on BRAC data calls. When BRAC '95 was going on, I got to watch the gathering of numbers for a few of the data calls at NAWCWPNS up close and personal. The data that comes OUT of BRAC is fairly accurate--at least from the Navy side. Can't speak for the blue-suiters, the grunts, or the forces of one. The observers of the data calls were fairly strict about gathering accurate, reproducable, and verifiable data. True. I was intimately familiar with the content of the data for TRACOM and browsed all of the rest for any NAS or AFB. There were some instances of transposed numbers (birdstrike data ... they were THOROUGH!) and a couple of gross misrepresentations (a CNATRA staffer intentionally changed a formula multiplier because he KNEW the FAA algorithm was wrong). The USAF perspective was slightly different, but generated very usable data. But the old adage "Figures lie and liars figure" is very appropriate to the process. The Navy installed their data into a weighted matrix to generate a military value for each base. You'd think that was intended to determine the lowest military value and then nominate the base. Not so. The Navy rule was that the average military value of the bases remaining after implementation of their proposed scenario must be equal or higher to the average value for all the bases examined in a particular category. A base could be a comparative "winner" in the value matrix and still become part of the proposed closure scenario. This happened in 1993. The 1995 rules were essentially unchanged. The Navy group, which did not get its entire plan approved by the commission in 1993, attacked the issue somewhat differently. They kept fiddling the value matrix (documented in the minutes) until the numbers fell out the way they wanted (that's my assumption, but it seems pretty obvious the results were reverse engineered to produce the desired outcome). How bad was it? Well, one base got credit for an aerial target on which even practice ordnance could not be expended. The Navy has a long history (perhaps shared by the other services, but my experience doesn't allow that comparison) of generating and manipulating data to justify/support a decision. The decision has very little input (except in the form of the data calls) from the operational side of the Navy. CNO, his deputies, the CINCs, type commanders, etc don't weigh in. The process was within DON, headed by a super grade civilian and staffed by a mixed bag of civilians and military temporarily assigned to the BRAC group. I met several of the military types, good folks for the most part (albeit there was a Helo captain who hadn't seen the light of day for a decade or more) but utterly ignorant about the majority of issues they were analyzing. They existed to staff the master plan of the big boss. In most part, they succeeded. Given the nature of the current DOD (my way or the highway), I think we'll see a similar process in 2005. Rumsfeld's inner cadre has a vision (I've finally found a document describing it) of a "transformation" in military affairs. I think there's also a vision about the infrastructure that they believe is needed to support it. I suspect there's already a pretty good idea of which bases conform to this vision and which don't. And I believe that the BRAC group within DOD will be directed (perhaps subtly) to massage the data to support that vision. There's no list, but you're on it. R / John |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Navy tried to close NAS Lemoore fourteen months after it opened, but
Congress wouldn't let them. NAS Meridian was built so John Stennis could have medical and dental care when Congress was out of session. The Navy built a new Bureau of Personnel at New Orleans. Senator Ebert died before it was occupied, so it was given to the Reserves, VA, Social Security, etc. Gore got reelected in 1996, so the BuPers move to Millington, Tennessee survived. Then, they built a new battle group port at Ingleside. No battle group to put there, but they couldn't quietly give away an 1,100 foot pier, etc... And so it goes http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ingleside.htm Rick "John Carrier" wrote in message ... Found it! The 25% number tossed around with such certainty is in fact an estimate base on ... the relationship between force structure in 1989 (pre cold war) and its supporting infrastructure and current force structure and its existing infrastructure. Sounds good if there's genuinely a linear relationship between the force and its infrastructure. May make sense for apples, maybe not so much for oranges. I think a more interesting and perhaps reliable index might be total op tempo versus infrastructure. In an example. Naval Aviation, facing a big-time procurement crunch in the years ahead, may well procure a mix of F-18E/F and F-35B/C airframes that only replaces 60-65% of the existing force. The plan is to increase utilization of those assets to equal the total op tempo of the larger force. So, if op tempo is concentrated on fewer airframes, will logistics support or pilot requirements differ from those of the larger force? From "in the trenches" experience I can say unequivocally NO. So the supply tail, the maintenance effort and the pilot manning (and ergo training) requirements are undiminished. You might be able to knock down an old hangar or two, but runway requirements (a real driver) are undiminished. Airspace requirements (the second big driver) are undiminished. The 800 pound gorilla that hovers over every air station is encroachment. Miramar and Oceana have to tread lightly. A number of others would have issues if their tactical/training jet traffic were stepped up or extended into the evening hours. The Navy has relatively few air stations with little or no encroachment and/or noise concerns. Next question: Can anybody tell me why the Navy moved all its mine warfare assets from the coasts (where it was located in proximity to the fleets they serve) to South Texas? R / John "John Carrier" wrote in message ... I doubt that the 25% is anything more than an estimate spun by those who only want to see defense dollars cut... for two reasons: (1) It's a round number (suspicious). (2) Many of those sound-bite-type bullets are made up. Possible, even probable. But you never know. The Navy had a thing out in the late 90's claiming there was a 21% excess capacity in the Naval Air Training command and I think that was based on BRAC data calls. When BRAC '95 was going on, I got to watch the gathering of numbers for a few of the data calls at NAWCWPNS up close and personal. The data that comes OUT of BRAC is fairly accurate--at least from the Navy side. Can't speak for the blue-suiters, the grunts, or the forces of one. The observers of the data calls were fairly strict about gathering accurate, reproducable, and verifiable data. True. I was intimately familiar with the content of the data for TRACOM and browsed all of the rest for any NAS or AFB. There were some instances of transposed numbers (birdstrike data ... they were THOROUGH!) and a couple of gross misrepresentations (a CNATRA staffer intentionally changed a formula multiplier because he KNEW the FAA algorithm was wrong). The USAF perspective was slightly different, but generated very usable data. But the old adage "Figures lie and liars figure" is very appropriate to the process. The Navy installed their data into a weighted matrix to generate a military value for each base. You'd think that was intended to determine the lowest military value and then nominate the base. Not so. The Navy rule was that the average military value of the bases remaining after implementation of their proposed scenario must be equal or higher to the average value for all the bases examined in a particular category. A base could be a comparative "winner" in the value matrix and still become part of the proposed closure scenario. This happened in 1993. The 1995 rules were essentially unchanged. The Navy group, which did not get its entire plan approved by the commission in 1993, attacked the issue somewhat differently. They kept fiddling the value matrix (documented in the minutes) until the numbers fell out the way they wanted (that's my assumption, but it seems pretty obvious the results were reverse engineered to produce the desired outcome). How bad was it? Well, one base got credit for an aerial target on which even practice ordnance could not be expended. The Navy has a long history (perhaps shared by the other services, but my experience doesn't allow that comparison) of generating and manipulating data to justify/support a decision. The decision has very little input (except in the form of the data calls) from the operational side of the Navy. CNO, his deputies, the CINCs, type commanders, etc don't weigh in. The process was within DON, headed by a super grade civilian and staffed by a mixed bag of civilians and military temporarily assigned to the BRAC group. I met several of the military types, good folks for the most part (albeit there was a Helo captain who hadn't seen the light of day for a decade or more) but utterly ignorant about the majority of issues they were analyzing. They existed to staff the master plan of the big boss. In most part, they succeeded. Given the nature of the current DOD (my way or the highway), I think we'll see a similar process in 2005. Rumsfeld's inner cadre has a vision (I've finally found a document describing it) of a "transformation" in military affairs. I think there's also a vision about the infrastructure that they believe is needed to support it. I suspect there's already a pretty good idea of which bases conform to this vision and which don't. And I believe that the BRAC group within DOD will be directed (perhaps subtly) to massage the data to support that vision. There's no list, but you're on it. R / John |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The Navy tried to close NAS Lemoore fourteen months after it opened, but
Congress wouldn't let them. Source for that info? Lemoore is one of the few unencroached air stations we have ... a real jewel in that regard. Interestingly, it ranked last in the military value matrix used in 1993. Check out this link and see if you can tell how many of the listed air stations can operate 24/7 with little impact on the local population. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/nas.htm NAS Meridian was built so John Stennis could have medical and dental care when Congress was out of session. Incorrect. It was a consolation prize when Stennis didn't get the Air Force Academy for Mississippi (not much better, eh?). I doubt he would have bothered with NAS's rather spartan capabilities (I experienced them first hand in early 1970) when the region's medical/dental hub was only another 12 miles down the highway. The Navy built a new Bureau of Personnel at New Orleans. Senator Ebert died before it was occupied, so it was given to the Reserves, VA, Social Security, etc. I thought that was in New Iberia (could be wrong there). Gore got reelected in 1996, so the BuPers move to Millington, Tennessee survived. Part of the BRAC plan to vacate DC. I doubt Gore was a player. NAS Memphis was closed and the schools command was relocated at Pensacola. The real winner was Pensacola, which lost a superfluous NADEP, but gained a huge training complex that's unlikely to be threatened. Several hundred million for local contractors, not a bad deal. Then, they built a new battle group port at Ingleside. No battle group to put there, but they couldn't quietly give away an 1,100 foot pier, etc... Part of Lehman's "dispersal" plan for the ludicrous 600 ship Navy (nice thought, but it was economically unfeasible. We're still paying the price for this folly). Of course, the real reason was putting a base IN YOUR STATE to gain the necessary political support (He once commented he'd homeport a battleship in Iowa if he could figure a way to get it there). No doubt powerful legislators (particularly Senators) tilt the table often, but not always. R / John |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I've heard many reasons "not" to BRAC China Lake,. Including
realigning Dam Neck, Barking Sands, Indian Head, etc, and putting ALL weapons testing/building here. Many reasons for this, one of them being the Land, it is huge! And the Navy actually owns it. If that doesn't work, how about this one? Making China Lake a divert field for the shuttle? If something happened on the final to Edwards, they could just do a little swing and pop in right here! (I don't know how possible that would be, or how true, but I had heard there was a study on it) On Sat, 22 May 2004 07:00:49 -0500, "John Carrier" wrote: I doubt that the 25% is anything more than an estimate spun by those who only want to see defense dollars cut... for two reasons: (1) It's a round number (suspicious). (2) Many of those sound-bite-type bullets are made up. Possible, even probable. But you never know. The Navy had a thing out in the late 90's claiming there was a 21% excess capacity in the Naval Air Training command and I think that was based on BRAC data calls. When BRAC '95 was going on, I got to watch the gathering of numbers for a few of the data calls at NAWCWPNS up close and personal. The data that comes OUT of BRAC is fairly accurate--at least from the Navy side. Can't speak for the blue-suiters, the grunts, or the forces of one. The observers of the data calls were fairly strict about gathering accurate, reproducable, and verifiable data. True. I was intimately familiar with the content of the data for TRACOM and browsed all of the rest for any NAS or AFB. There were some instances of transposed numbers (birdstrike data ... they were THOROUGH!) and a couple of gross misrepresentations (a CNATRA staffer intentionally changed a formula multiplier because he KNEW the FAA algorithm was wrong). The USAF perspective was slightly different, but generated very usable data. But the old adage "Figures lie and liars figure" is very appropriate to the process. The Navy installed their data into a weighted matrix to generate a military value for each base. You'd think that was intended to determine the lowest military value and then nominate the base. Not so. The Navy rule was that the average military value of the bases remaining after implementation of their proposed scenario must be equal or higher to the average value for all the bases examined in a particular category. A base could be a comparative "winner" in the value matrix and still become part of the proposed closure scenario. This happened in 1993. The 1995 rules were essentially unchanged. The Navy group, which did not get its entire plan approved by the commission in 1993, attacked the issue somewhat differently. They kept fiddling the value matrix (documented in the minutes) until the numbers fell out the way they wanted (that's my assumption, but it seems pretty obvious the results were reverse engineered to produce the desired outcome). How bad was it? Well, one base got credit for an aerial target on which even practice ordnance could not be expended. The Navy has a long history (perhaps shared by the other services, but my experience doesn't allow that comparison) of generating and manipulating data to justify/support a decision. The decision has very little input (except in the form of the data calls) from the operational side of the Navy. CNO, his deputies, the CINCs, type commanders, etc don't weigh in. The process was within DON, headed by a super grade civilian and staffed by a mixed bag of civilians and military temporarily assigned to the BRAC group. I met several of the military types, good folks for the most part (albeit there was a Helo captain who hadn't seen the light of day for a decade or more) but utterly ignorant about the majority of issues they were analyzing. They existed to staff the master plan of the big boss. In most part, they succeeded. Given the nature of the current DOD (my way or the highway), I think we'll see a similar process in 2005. Rumsfeld's inner cadre has a vision (I've finally found a document describing it) of a "transformation" in military affairs. I think there's also a vision about the infrastructure that they believe is needed to support it. I suspect there's already a pretty good idea of which bases conform to this vision and which don't. And I believe that the BRAC group within DOD will be directed (perhaps subtly) to massage the data to support that vision. There's no list, but you're on it. R / John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
John,
NAS Meridian was built so John Stennis could have medical and dental care when Congress was out of session. Incorrect. It was a consolation prize when Stennis didn't get the Air Force Academy for Mississippi (not much better, eh?). I doubt he would have bothered with NAS's rather spartan capabilities (I experienced them first hand in early 1970) when the region's medical/dental hub was only another 12 miles down the highway. Actually it was built AT Meridian (versus elsewhere in MS) because SEN Stennis' hometown of DeKalb was right up Highway 39 from the base. Made it easier for him (and - occasionally - REP "Sonny" Montgomery) to get back to their constituents on weekends. I never heard the "consolation prize" story but it makes as much sense as any other I heard while I was there (1970 - 1971). One thing I will say for SEN Stennis - he did look out for "his boys" at the base. Example: As the result of an intemperate exchange of Anglo-Saxon honorifics, a certain Lauderdale County constable took an extreme dislike to one of VT-7's folks. This upstanding officer of the law initiated several nighttime encounters with our guy, tailgating him and otherwise attempting to "bait" him into some action that would cause his arrest. Word got back to SEN John, who called the appropriate Lauderdale County Poo-Bahs. Said constable found himself on a beat w-a-a-a-y down by Whynot or some such burg. -- Mike Kanze "A centerpiece for the table should never be anything prepared by a taxidermist." - Martha Stewart's TIPS FOR REDNECKS "John Carrier" wrote in message ... [rest snipped] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Actually it was built AT Meridian (versus elsewhere in MS) because SEN
Stennis' hometown of DeKalb was right up Highway 39 from the base. Made it easier for him (and - occasionally - REP "Sonny" Montgomery) to get back to their constituents on weekends. Well, if you're going to slice pork, you want to do it close to home. Sonny wasn't in Congress when this deal was made. As it turns out, Meridian's location makes it quite useful as a training station. No TRACOM base is as thoroughly unencroached (even Kingsville has to observe quiet hours). MOA's in three quadrants (I think it'll be 4 before the year is out). A handy OLF and unlimited access to Key field (10,000 feet these days). Biggest problem is it's a social wasteland for the bachelors who come here (albeit pretty good for those with families). As an aside, the "Congressman for Life" has given up his consulting business inside the beltway and is fully retired. 85 IIRC and looking quite frail, living in the local Cadillac quality retirement home. Good friend and a great guy, one of the last gentleman politicians. Anyone who has cashed in on their GI bill education over the last couple decades have a fella named Montgomery to thank. There were many in congress who could have cared less about those who grabbed the dirty end of the stick in service of their country. A fitting legacy. John X |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
John,
Sonny wasn't in Congress when this deal was made. True. This was SEN John's deal, all the way. Sonny DID enjoy the benefit as well, but IIRC he was quite circumspect in its exercise. As it turns out, Meridian's location makes it quite useful as a training station. No TRACOM base is as thoroughly unencroached (even Kingsville has to observe quiet hours). MOA's in three quadrants (I think it'll be 4 before the year is out). A handy OLF and unlimited access to Key field (10,000 feet these days). Only training negative is its non-proximity to "blue" water, necessitating carquals to be run as dets. (At least this was the case with the T-2s. Don't know anything about the legs on the T-45.) This wouldn't have been the case for the erstwhile NAS New Iberia, LA if it hadn't been strangled in the cradle. Biggest problem is it's a social wasteland for the bachelors who come here (albeit pretty good for those with families). Correct. VT-7 was my "stash" assignment right out of BJN School, and for a bachelor who was also the only NFO on the base at the time there was little redeeming about the place, either professionally or socially. At least the backroads to Pensacola were picturesque and uncrowded - I wore deep ruts in them over many weekends. After my 18 months there going to foggy, rainy Whidbey was like getting into Heaven. LOTSA families "got started" at Meridian during the VN era. g Good friend and a great guy, one of the last gentleman politicians. Anyone who has cashed in on their GI bill education over the last couple decades have a fella named Montgomery to thank. Amen. Well-regarded by all in his district and more than a few of us transients. -- Mike Kanze "A centerpiece for the table should never be anything prepared by a taxidermist." - Martha Stewart's TIPS FOR REDNECKS "John Carrier" wrote in message ... [rest snipped] |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Only training negative is its non-proximity to "blue" water, necessitating
carquals to be run as dets. (At least this was the case with the T-2s. Don't know anything about the legs on the T-45.) This wouldn't have been the case for the erstwhile NAS New Iberia, LA if it hadn't been strangled in the cradle. No longer an issue. The closest a carrier will be to the Gulf is Key West area. Both advanced TRACOM bases now are a leg away or more from CQ dets. Biggest problem is it's a social wasteland for the bachelors who come here (albeit pretty good for those with families). Correct. VT-7 was my "stash" assignment right out of BJN School, and for a bachelor who was also the only NFO on the base at the time there was little redeeming about the place, either professionally or socially. At least the backroads to Pensacola were picturesque and uncrowded - I wore deep ruts in them over many weekends. After my 18 months there going to foggy, rainy Whidbey was like getting into Heaven. Ouch! Well, Kingsville/Beeville weren't really any better, but the proximity of Corpus (and San Antonio for Beeville) made them seem a bit more tolerable. LOTSA families "got started" at Meridian during the VN era. g Still true today. Often a first shore tour after a fleet assignment. When I was in base housing, you could look out the front windows and watch the baby carriage grand prix. R / John |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approach question | Matt Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 08 03:54 AM |
Preheat / Pre-Oiler | Fastglasair | Home Built | 6 | November 13th 04 05:40 AM |
WTB: Mode C Transponder | Chris Batcheller | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 21st 04 01:31 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Mode S questoin | JerryK | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | July 17th 03 09:56 PM |