GFAFB

[jimdahl]

The Grand Forks Air Force Base has been making the news a bit lately as the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission is expected to reconvene in March 2005. I'm sure this will become a very heated subject in the Red River Valley in 9-12 months.

South Carolina congressman says Grand Forks base in ideal location (GF Herald)

The Grand Forks Air Force Base's proximity to the Canadian border should help it during the next round of military base closings, a member of the House Armed Services Committee says.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., said Monday during an appearance in Grand Forks that the war on terror has made border security a big issue, and the Grand Forks base can play a big role.

Report says Fargo base could be combined with Grand Forks (Bismarck Tribune)

That would be a boon to GF, though unfortunately at Fargo's expense, resulting in a net wash for the Valley & ND. The scope of the operation is impressive:

The 119th Fighter Wing, comprised of 300 active-duty and 700 part-time soldiers, occupies 20 major buildings, including hangars, on a 250-acre base area leased from the Fargo Airport Authority for $1 per year.

A North Dakota State University study determined the Air National Guard has a $120 million annual impact on the region's economy.

[airmail]

I saw the Air National Guard article in yesterday's Herald. I agree, it would be too bad for Fargo, but at the same time would strengthen GFAFB's existence and stature exponentially.

The best fighter wing in the world, along with the Warriors of the North. Outstanding!

[PCM]

I dare say that losing the Happy Hooligans would be much less of an economic impact on Fargo than losing the bombers and missiles was on Grand Forks.

[ScottM]

When the base was threatened with closure in the 80s-90s, there was talk of turning the place into a freight-forwarding and distribution point, given its location on the air routes between the US and Asia, proximity to Canada, rail lines and location to major highways. FedEx or UPS, as well as some major freight cos were said to be interested in using the place in a major role. However, the farsighted visionaries in local and North Dakota govt poo-pooed the idea as "too risky", and took their chances with the US govt as the cold war died down.

Lost the missiles and lost the bombers, and damn near lost the tankers. Meanwhile, Mpls, Louisville and a few other cities gained hundreds of well-paying jobs as the carriers shifted their plans, not to mention the halo effect for other companies and industries looking for ready access to transport.

I'd rather decisions like this be made strictly on national security grounds, rather than on the whines of the local apartment, bar and pawn shop owners.

[PCM]

Sorry, Scott, but that's revisionist history and it's not even accurate. The GFAFB bombers and missiles were gone before the government considered closing the base. Nobody in city or state government had any say in that matter. Besides, it wasn't up to the local leaders to decide what to do with the base because it didn't belong to them.

The proposal to turn the base into an air freight hub was advanced as a possible alternative IF the base was closed. It was never a case of either the base stayed open or it became an air freight hub.

[ScottM]

The proposal to turn the base into an air freight hub was advanced as a possible alternative IF the base was closed. It was never a case of either the base stayed open or it became an air freight hub.

1994: SAC left GFAFB for good.

1995: GFAFB was slotted for realignment.

Link

All the while throughout the 80s-90s, when it became apparent GFAFB was becoming a relic, there were proposals to convert the base, "just in case". This would explain the plaintive whining then, and now, from the Mayor's office, John Marshall, Hal Gershman, etc., and their trips to DC. Jobs and the local economy were/are at the top of the agenda. However, nobody really wants to plan for the "unthinkable". The politics that go into base closings should not be underestimated, as the "non partisan" nature of the process is often hijacked by politicos on both sides of the aisle.

Moreover, closed bases are routinely turned over to local/state govts for development, as the Presidio and Fort Ord in California were.

[PCM]

None of which changes my point. The bombers and missiles from GFAFB were gone before the Base Closure Committee considered shutting down the base.

And I'll add this quote from globalsecurity.org:

On June 1, 1992, Grand Forks AFB, the 319th Bomb Wing and the 321st Missile Wing said goodbye to SAC and became part of the new Air Combat Command, as a result of major Air Force-wide reorganization. On July 1st, 1993 the 321st Missile Wing became part of the Air Force Space Command. On October 1, 1993 as part of the ongoing Air Force restructuring, the 319th Air Refueling Wing was activated and the base was aligned under Air Mobility Command. Grand Forks AFB is the first supertanker wing in the Air Force. On July 1st, 1994 the 321st Missile Wing was redesignated as the 321st Missile Group as a result of a command level reorganization.

On May 26, 1994 the last of the B-1's left Grand Forks AFB and the 319 Bomb Group was officially deactivated.

The 1995 Base Closure Committee placed Grand Forks AFB on the list of bases to be realigned.

Edited July 12, 2004 by PCM

[tony]

Yesterday's Herald:

A blending of the two groups would be "a win-win situation," said John Marshall, chairman of Grand Forks' base retention committee. Marshall acknowledged that the change would involve difficulties, such as added travel distance for National Guard pilots. But these are workable problems, he said, and blending would be a good way to add missions to the Grand Forks base while ensuring retention of the Guard wing.

Friday's Forum full article here

According to the Spectrum executive summary, the Department of Defense has determined that the excess capacity for Air National Guard bases is 34 percent. "In the Air National Guard Vanguard Plan, fighter structure wings are projected to be reduced from 40, to 25, by 2013," Spectrum said. The plan lists the North Dakota Air National Guard under "transformational organizations," which could be considered for blending with an active-duty Air Force base, such as the one at Grand Forks.

"Unfortunately, there is confusion and misunderstanding from previous discussions that has led to the belief that the state of North Dakota might favor such a move," the summary said.

Darrol Schroeder, a retired Air Force major general who serves on the support group committee, said blending at Grand Forks will be resisted. He said blending only works when similar units are combined. While the Happy Hooligans fly and support fighter jets, Grand Forks is home to refueling tankers.

"Blending is not something we would like to see happen," he said.

Walstad said it's impractical to expect the 119th Fighter Wing's 1,000 soldiers, in the long term, to commute to Grand Forks.

Haugen said it would be nearly impossible to recruit for a North Dakota Air National Guard unit at Grand Forks. He said the Army National Guard unit there relies on the northern valley for about 45 recruits a year, while the Air National Guard at Fargo relies on the Fargo-Moorhead region for 110 recruits a year.

Interesting difference in perspective. Sounds like the leadership in Grand Forks has their own game plan, different from the state's. (i.e. screwing your neighbors versus cooperating with them).

[ScottM]

A North Dakota State University study determined the Air National Guard has an annual $120 million impact on the region's economy.

WTF? 1000 people have that much impact? I'd love to see their methodology, especially when the GF whine crew asserts that GFAFB has about $175M impact on the local economy.

Frankly, if either military base was closed, it might force the leadership to face economic reality, for once.

[airmail]

Walstad said it's impractical to expect the 119th Fighter Wing's 1,000 soldiers, in the long term, to commute to Grand Forks.

Interesting... Isn't there quite a few of these soldiers that presently reside in the Grand Forks area?

While no group wants to be "blended," the fact remains that if these two groups were put together, they would have a much better chance at surviving future rounds of closure. Given a choice of blending or dismantling, I think those men and women in the 119th would choose the former.

[Local Boy]

What is the current situation with GFAFB? How many live on base? How many off base? How does this compare to how many the base has had historically? It definately feels like there is way less economic impact (from the base) than in the past.

Thanks in advance.

[tony]

I'm sure if you asked them, they'd give you their methodology.

The main difference I can think of between the folks in the Happy Hooligans and the personell at GFAFB is that the Hooligans generally live, shop, and work in the F-M area while folks in the base live in a relatively self-contained environment.

A 160 mile commute is doable when the weather is good, but it's a heck of a lot different when it's a part-time job.

I just brought it up because it's galling that Grand Forks continues to foster such crap-dilly-icious, short-sighted leadership. It's kind of like the whole stink of NDSU offering more doctoral programs. It caused an uproar in both Grand Forks and in South Dakota. The difference was that in Grand Forks it was viewed as a disaster but in South Dakota it was viewed as an unqualified success. But, hey, maybe the state seeing an extra 100 million a year is a disaster for Grand Forks because the only metric for success that Grand Forks cares about is this: how much government money does Grand Forks/UND get out of it? Another example: does leasing fuel tankers waste nine billion or so? Doesn't matter, Grand Forks might get a million a year from it. Hooray! What's weird is that I've never talked to anybody from Grand Forks who seems to have this attitude (except maybe when it came to the doctorate programs), so why is the leadership in Grand Forks so self-servingly crapulent?

Seriously, it's getting to the point where somebody in a leadership position in GF or at UND says, "It's a win-win situation," I translate it into, "Getting something for UND or GF while screwing NDSU or Fargo."

Tirade over

Back to the original tangent, I suppose Fargo has a private economy that could withstand the loss of the Hooligans and perhaps, as ScottM suggests, the economy may actually thrive in its absence. The 120 million probably is just stating the economic impact of having the Hooligans in Fargo. If they were moved to GF, it's doubtful that Fargo would lose out on that much money (not everybody involved is going to move to GF especially when they likely have full-time jobs in the F-M area). The danger of moving the Hooligans to GF is that they won't be able to retain/recruit enough staff to keep the wing operational. How many of you would commute 160 miles for a part-time job?

[PCM]

A 160 mile commute is doable when the weather is good, but it's a heck of a lot different when it's a part-time job.

Since when is it 160 miles from Fargo to GFAFB? It's roughly 75 miles from Fargo to Grand Forks and 15 miles from Grand Forks to the base.

OOPS! Scratch that, Tony. I just realized that you were talking round trip. In that case, your math or your geography is still off.

I just brought it up because it's galling that Grand Forks continues to foster such crap-dilly-icious, short-sighted leadership.

Yeah, Tony, and we all know that Fargo's leadership would be doing the limbo on behalf of Grand Forks if the shoe were on the other foot. Grow up.

[airmail]

Seriously, it's getting to the point where somebody in a leadership position in GF or at UND says, "It's a win-win situation," I translate it into, "Getting something for UND or GF while screwing NDSU or Fargo."

It's funny how this "Spectrum Group" in Virginia can recommend moving the 119th to GFAFB in order to save it's very existence, and somehow it gets translated to GF screwing Fargo. How about they just shut it down completely? Would that be better? Sorry, tony, but I don't see the logic in your post.

How many of you would commute 160 miles for a part-time job?

Many of them already do.

[PCM]

It's funny how this "Spectrum Group" in Virginia can recommend moving the 119th to GFAFB in order to save it's very existence, and somehow it gets translated to GF screwing Fargo.

Didn't you know? The Spectrum Group is part of the Vast Fighting Sioux conspiracy.

[airmail]

Didn't you know? The Spectrum Group is part of the Vast Fighting Sioux conspiracy.

I should have known.

[The Sicatoka]

... that Grand Forks cares about is this: how much government money does Grand Forks/UND get out of it?

Fargo sure seems worried about losing its (119th) $100 MM economic impact, but surely, according to tony it's only Grand Forks that's guilty of such desire for public largess.

Pot. Kettle.

[tony]

The difference between me and you, PCM, is that if Fargo's or NDSU's leadership took an obstructionist stance with Grand Forks or UND, I'd be ticked off at them.

I just expect more out of leadership than that. You don't. Heck, if anything you seem to be applauding that kind of "leadership."

---------

Airmail, it was just upsetting to me that GF leadership calls something a win-win when that's not how the rest of the state views it. If it's true that blending is the only way to keep the Hooligans in ND, then I'd expect all ND's negotiators to agree to the blending - as long as their overall mission doesn't suffer for it.

Let's just strip it of all the folderol because bleating about "Vast FS Conspiracy" is a signal for you guys to turn your brains off (or in some cases put them in reverse)

Here it is stripped of any back story and any griping about Kupchella: apparently some negotiators from a town in North Dakota have been telling folks in Washington that North Dakota wants the Happy Hooligans to be blended with GFAFB. This is happening at the same time as other negotiators working on behalf of the entire state are saying something different as they try to save Minot AFB, GFAFB, and the 119th. Do you read it differently? Suppose that is what happened, is there any way to defend that kind of action?

[PCM]

Do you read it differently?

I read it as Grand Forks pursuing a course that it feels is in its best interest (increased economic activity and another reason to keep GFAFB open) and Fargo pursuing a course in its best interest (hanging on to the $120 million or whatever in economic impact the base generates). You seem to be the only person surprised by this. What happened to that good old spirit of competition that President Chapman so heartily endorsed?

Refresh my memory: When Grand Forks was in the process of losing its bomber and missile units, did NDSU and the city leaders of Fargo do anything to support Grand Forks' efforts to keep those units? When the Base Closure Commission was considering shutting down GFAFB, where was NDSU and the enlightened leadership of Fargo?

Perhaps they were in the trenches right along side John Marshall and others from Grand Forks who were fighting to keep the base open, but I certainly don't remember NDSU or Fargo offering any significant encouragement or support. Am I wrong?

[The Sicatoka]

Realities:

- The Department of Defense has determined that the excess capacity for Air National Guard bases is 34 percent.

- Under the Air National Guard Vanguard Plan, fighter structure wings are projected to be reduced from 40, to 25, by 2013.

Fargo and North Dakota could easily completely lose the 119th based on those observations from the consultant, and I mean gone, not blended.

If that were to happen, GFAFB, with a limited scope and mission, could easily come up in the next round after 2005 (and the next round will come some day) to be closed.

Lose both the ND ANG and the GFAFB: Wouldn't that be great for ND?

The best scenario is keep all of them (but don't hold your breath waiting for that). The worst would be to lose all of them; next worst would be to lose two of three.

Based on what the consultants point out, ND will most likely lose one. Depending on the "one", another could be put into jeopardy at a later date: lose two. How's that good for ND?

A blended base at GFAFB (larger mission scope) is the best hope for keeping two bases in ND after the round after 2005.

PS - Fargo's growth in some ways hurts them. Why? The ANG doesn't like to train over populated areas.

PPS - Another very plausible scenario: The ND ANG is moved to GFAFB and their mission is redesignated from fighters to support (see the 40 to 25 reality above), to better blend with the mission of GFAFB.

[airmail]

A local base retention group, made up mostly of city officials, North Dakota's congressional delegation and business leaders, has hired The Spectrum Group, a consulting company, to help keep the 119 Fighter Wing in operation.

So these consultants were hired to make a decision, but when the decision and recommendations came in, the Fargo community ignores them and goes their own way. Carr, Spectrum... it's all just details.

The air base has a direct economic impact of about $42 million on the Fargo-Moorhead area, said Adjutant Gen. Mike Haugen of the North Dakota National Guard.

42MM, 120MM... again, just details.

(above quotes taken from this [url="http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=62344

[PCM]

The difference between me and you, PCM, is that if Fargo's or NDSU's leadership took an obstructionist stance with Grand Forks or UND, I'd be ticked off at them.

What, exactly, is the Grand Forks leadership obstructing? If the only two choices offered are to disband the 119th or have it blend with GFAFB, what's wrong with Grand Forks supporting the "blend" option?

Your position, as far as I can tell, appears to be that if Fargo can't have the 119th, it should cease to exist.

[The Sicatoka]

From one of the previously linked Fargo Forum articles:

The Forum filed an open records request with Furness to obtain a copy of the report, after consulting with Forum Communications attorney Steven Johnson of Fargo and North Dakota Newspaper Association attorney Jack McDonald of Bismarck. Both advised draft reports retained by governments are open records.

"It's difficult to believe why this report is being withheld," Forum Editor Lou Ziegler said. He said the newspaper plans to appeal the denial.

Why doesn't Fargo Mayor Furness want that report in the hands of The Forum?

Sure ND wants all three. I'm sure anyone in GF would agree with that. But (I said but) if a base is going to be closed, of course GF would take a pro-blending stance just as Fargo is taking a "not the 119th" stance.

Here's what we're all missing: The Forum link also said "similar missions".

- 119th flies F-16s.

- GFAFB flies tankers.

- Minot AFB ... flies F-16s. <-- And I'm sure it's Minot State's fault that MAFB flies 16s.

[tony]

Airmail, I expect better of the guy who came up with the "Can you hear me now" smack (classic, btw).

42 Million = direct economic impact

120 Million = direct *and* indirect impact.

This is not the same as saying the if the Happy Hooligans leave Fargo, that Fargo will lose 120 or even 42 million.

Anyway, you seem to be confused. The Spectrum Group did not say that the Happy Hooligans should be relocated to Grand Forks. They said they "could" be moved and, judging from their public comments, they seemed to think that this was a pretty crappy idea. Nobody from the Hooligans seems Happy about this blending idea either. In fact, the only one applauding that idea (until some guys on this board started hailing it as genius) was a member of the GF negotiating team - the same team that was apparently shopping the blending idea around DC unbeknownst to the Spectrum Group.

Let me try to straighten things out. The Spectrum Group, according to the news reports I've come across, is working on behalf of the entire state to keep Minot, GFAFB, and the 119th around. I've assumed that based on comments from their members one of their goals is to keep the 119th in Fargo. Then again, maybe there is some disagreement on that point. They have the backing of ND's congressional delegation and ND's governor but not, apparently, Grand Forks.

-------------------

PCM and The Sicatoka... hmmm. Argue with you or not? Tough call. The purpose of arguing (for me at least) is to get an accurate feel for the other person's point of view as well as to see if my viewpoint can stand up to the critiques of others. Winning the argument is NOT important as long as we all arrive at a clearer picture of the truth.

I choose not to argue with you. I can't argue with anybody who thinks that the best defense of alleged wrongdoing is to theorize that others would do the same thing given the opportunity. If you truly believe that, you do not possess a frame of reference with which to judge whether a course of action is bad or good. Heck, I don't think we could agree even agree on whether the concept of "good" or "bad" has any meaning.

You'll just continue to think that whatever Grand Forks or UND does is good and justifiable while assuming I think the same way about Fargo and NDSU. With that as your only point of reference, there is no point in discussing anything.

[choyt3]

Gee, tony, who was it again that made the attempt to tie a "blended" plan to UND and Grand Forks having it in for NDSU and Fargo? You seriously need to get yourself to some stress relief seminars or something. At least find a different demon to blame things on. Simply stating that UND/Grand Forks is out to get NDSU/Fargo doesn't make it so.