IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 the BRAC hearing is on live on CSPAN3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 According to different media accounts I've read the past few days, New York Times, Washington Post etc., the BRAC people may not necessarily follow the recommendations from the Pentagon. At the very least, they continue to question some of its findings, namely reducing missions rather than closing completely some of the affected bases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 they just added an airbase in Maine to the list, I think that Grand Forks will probably be put back on the list ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 They just added a small naval asset in San Diego, the Marine Corps Recruiting Station-San Diego is next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 they just added an airbase in Maine to the list, I think that Grand Forks will probably be put back on the list ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> your sources are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 your sources are? It's live on CSPAN-3. I do appreciate the updates, though, since I don't get that at work. The whole point of these hearings is for BRAC to discuss with the Pentagon those bases on which they disagree. The hearings yesterday were an opportunity for the Pentagon to give testimony about why it made the recommendations it did (see my previous post for some info on what the Pentagon had to say about GFAFB). GFAFB is one of the bases for which BRAC questioned the Pentagon's reasoning, meaning BRAC will vote today on whether to add GFAFB to the list for closure. GFAFB being added to BRAC's closure list still wouldn't be the final word on it being closed, rather it would allow BRAC to further study closing it altogether. Not being added to the list would be a big step toward BRAC adopting the Pentagon's recommendations. Bases Could Be Added to Closure List also explains it well and lists the other items being considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 if you have the internet you can get a radio or video feed of the hearings at cspan.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 It's live on CSPAN-3. I do appreciate the updates, though, since I don't get that at work. The whole point of these hearings is for BRAC to discuss with the Pentagon those bases on which they disagree. The hearings yesterday were an opportunity for the Pentagon to give testimony about why it made the recommendations it did (see my previous post for some info on what the Pentagon had to say about GFAFB). GFAFB is one of the bases for which BRAC questioned the Pentagon's reasoning, meaning BRAC will vote today on whether to add GFAFB to the list for closure. GFAFB being added to BRAC's closure list still wouldn't be the final word on it being closed, rather it would allow BRAC to further study closing it altogether. Not being added to the list would be a big step toward BRAC adopting the Pentagon's recommendations. Bases Could Be Added to Closure List also explains it well and lists the other items being considered. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I understand the whole process, I was just wondering where IowaBison got his info, since we are hearing otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I understand the whole process, I was just wondering where IowaBison got his info, since we are hearing otherwise. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But you have to consider the sources of your information, both our congressional staff and the grand forks media have a significant interest in seeing the base around, they have been acting as cheerleaders and advocates for GFAB. If you look at less biased media outlets, you will have seen a more serious, deliberate approach to BRAC whose commissioners have repeatedly questioned the absence of GFAB from the original BRAC list. Given that they have added all but one of the facilities they have considered today, I can't see how Grand Forks would not be added to the list given the vocal concerns that have been voiced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 If you look at less biased media outlets, you will have seen a more serious, deliberate approach to BRAC whose commissioners have repeatedly questioned the absence of GFAB from the original BRAC list. Given that they have added all but one of the facilities they have considered today, I can't see how Grand Forks would not be added to the list given the vocal concerns that have been voiced. The purported reason for keeping GFAFB open, a new UAV mission, didn't make sense by itself (particularly if they choose to keep Ellsworth open, as I think is quite possible). BRAC naturally pointed that out and asked for a response from the Air Force, but they had very good answers in yesterday's sworn testimony: needing a presence on the Northern border for homeland security reasons and the possible future attractiveness of the site for a tanker missions. How stupid will the congressional reps look if they claim advance knowledge that it won't be added, but then it is? From what I hear, it would be very surprising if GFAFB were added (some say it may not even come to a motion). I guess we'll see soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I believe that both the northern presence argument and home tankers are just as poor if not worse than the UAV mission. Minot is only 200 miles away and most importantly-the Soviet Union fell almost a score ago. There is over capacity air force wide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESPNInsider Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 When is GFAFB up for their motion? Today? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Don't know. Check back, I'll post it as soon as it comes up. For the last two hours they've been focusing on Navy assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I believe that both the northern presence argument and home tankers are just as poor if not worse than the UAV mission. Minot is only 200 miles away and most importantly-the Soviet Union fell almost a score ago. There is over capacity air force wide <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure why you would want to see a base or any base close in North Dakota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I'm not sure why you would want to see a base or any base close in North Dakota. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't want to see it, but that doesn't mean that one can ignore BRAC or pretend that it isn't a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 When is GFAFB up for their motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 ****Grand Forks Air Force Base is now on the Floor**** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Interesting figure/ Ellsworth scored 5th among all air bases for a tanker mission, this was higher than all current active tanker bases included GFAB (41) which ranked last of all active tanker bases.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Closure will cost $3 million dollars less than realignment and save $674 million dollars more over the next 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 GF Air Force Base was NOT added to the closure list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 there were three ayes and six nayes GFAB will not be placed on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Interesting figure/ Ellsworth scored 5th among all air bases for a tanker mission, this was higher than all current active tanker bases included GFAB (41) which ranked last of all active tanker bases.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was ranked 41, but that is with that great and "accurate" data they were using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Hidden away in all of this is that someone might actually be using some logic (finally) in the government. - a big northern Air Force Base - a long, unwatched border - a UAV mission - This: http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/n...al/12118841.htm Wouldn't it be handy if DoD (USAF) and the Homeland Defense could come up with some way to watch 900 miles of border? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Wouldn't it be handy if DoD (USAF) and the Homeland Defense could come up with some way to watch 900 miles of border? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, there is so much open space that something needs to be done and this is definitely a step in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 BRAC amendment vote could keep tankers at GFAFB until at least 2010 A Base Realignment and Closure Commission member plans to offer at least one, if not two amendments to keep air refueling tankers at Grand Forks Air Force Base longer that the Pentagon's proposed realignment, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said late this morning. ... One amendment would keep the tankers at Grand Forks until 2010, the other until 2011, Conrad said after talking with several BRAC Commission members this morning. The Pentagon expects to have new, replacement air refueling tankers available around 2011, and several Air Force officials already have expressed a desire to station some of the new tankers at Grand Forks, according to North Dakota's congressional delegation and Gov. John Hoeven. Conrad's contacts were good last time, so if proposed, we'll see how the commission votes on these amendments today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.