Hammersmith Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 I know this isn't a suprise, but still... Grand Forks base refueling squadron to become inactive this week We've lost our Falcons and you're losing your Stratotankers. I hope both bases can return to manned missions someday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 If I am not mistaken aren't we supposed to get the new takers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 If I am not mistaken aren't we supposed to get the new takers? Our congressmen are lobbying for the new tankers, but to my knowledge...A new mission with the new tankers for GFAFB has not occured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDintheNHL Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Not seeing KC-135s and F-16s sucks. But trust me. If you were to look up and see a Prowler, or ESPECIALLY a Global Hawk, or any other UCAV (maybe whatever the X-45 ends up officially being), it wont seem like a huge loss. If you think about it, it isnt really losing jobs, either. There ARE pilots for the unmanned aircraft. They are just sitting safely in a bunker or building somewhere. I havent heard any specifics on which UCAV will be based at GFAFB, but I hope for all you up there's viewing pleasure it's the Global Hawk. That thing is massive when you think that no one is flying it from inside. It's the same size length and Height wise as the F-16, but where it is radically different is in 2 areas: Wingspan (116ft compared to 32 inches on the Falcon) and Speed (max 400 MPH compared to 1320 MPH for the Falcon). I assure you, it may suck to not have afterburners tearing up your eardrums and the night sky, or big lumbering tankers flying around, but the mission that GFAFB has been called to do is one of GREAT importance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Our congressmen are lobbying for the new tankers, but to my knowledge...A new mission with the new tankers for GFAFB has not occured. I was under the impression that team ND was in the process of making this happen and that there was a good chance of this happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 I was under the impression that team ND was in the process of making this happen and that there was a good chance of this happening. Team ND is working on getting the new tankers. Several high ranking Air Force officials have said that they are in favor of the new tankers locating at GFAFB. An inspection team was sent in this Spring to look at the base to see what, if any, changes or improvements would be needed for the new generation of tankers. But, no official decision has been made to bring new tankers to Grand Forks and nothing is certain with the military until it actually happens. So, yes there is a good chance that it happens but it is not guaranteed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Team ND is working on getting the new tankers. Several high ranking Air Force officials have said that they are in favor of the new tankers locating at GFAFB. An inspection team was sent in this Spring to look at the base to see what, if any, changes or improvements would be needed for the new generation of tankers. But, no official decision has been made to bring new tankers to Grand Forks and nothing is certain with the military until it actually happens. So, yes there is a good chance that it happens but it is not guaranteed. Trust me I am hoping that they get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDintheNHL Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 you all ahve to realize that by "NEW" tankers, they most likely mean either the KC-767, KC-777, or the KC-30 (tanker version of the Airbus A330). Those 3 are referred to collectively as the KC-X program. the only one of the 3 that is anywhere near operation is the KC-767, but, if my sources are correct, the U.S. Air Force contract for the plane was cancelled because of some kind of scandal. That, in effect, leaves the KC-777 and the KC-30, both of which are close to 10 years away from being operational. They wouldn't say "new" to refer to anything else. GFAFB already operated the KC-135Rs, the most advanced KC-135s out there. so the KC-X program is the only thing they can be referring to. So, it's gonna be a while..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted June 5, 2007 Author Share Posted June 5, 2007 I don't mean any diservice to the unmanned missions, but both bases have a long, proud history of manned missions, and it's sad to see them end even for a short while. I have no doubts that the USAF will eventually transition to almost complete unmanned missions, but that will take several decades. I hope GFAFB will get some of the new KC-X tankers, but UNDintheNHL is right: even if they do, it will be many years from now. (Though technically, isn't the KC-10 the most advanced tanker the USAF currently operates? I suppose some of the new KC-X's could replace KC-10's, and those -10's could be sent to GF. Of course, that's about as likely as F-15's coming to Fargo after being replaced by F-22's and F-35's.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted June 5, 2007 Share Posted June 5, 2007 Team ND, as it is presently, lost GFAFB its missles and could not even keep the tanker mission going there. They could not do anything during the Clinton years when the GFAFB missles were moved to Malmstrom AFB in Montana. When Conrad got in there, Minot lost its fighter wing. Thank God Minot still has its missles and B-52's. Team ND has a long history, way back to when they attended UND, of being anti-military. SAC has a very long memory and the top brass I am sure remember the protests at GFAFB throughout the years and the bullets that hit the B-1B's while they were there and before they were moved to Ellsworth. I would not have too much faith in Team ND. If they could not keep missles and B-1B's at GFAFB during the Clinton years, what makes anyone think they can do anything in the Bush years? Don't tell me that the three stooges kept Minot's missions either. Minot has always been and always will be a pro-military town. Never any "protests" and the city loves the Air Force Base. Northern Neighbors Day was packed on base when they did that. I don't know if they still do it now, however. This is why, more than the efforts of the 3 stooges, Minot still has its missions. If Mark Andrews were still senator, it would still have its fighter wing too. Instead, that went out to Mass due to Ted Kennedy's influence and this was during the Reagan years. I like Grand Forks and hope they get the tankers but I would not hold my breath, so to speak. Also, nothing is a done deal for the UAV's either. I would not be surprised if the military "re-assesses" things and puts them elsewhere. Once your base is on the realignment/closure list for good, it's history. It may take a few years, but it's history nonetheless. I hope I'm wrong but I think not. I dislike Republicans more than Democrats, by the way, but one has to call it correctly. Other than having the grin of a sex offender, Pomeroy does nothing and Dorgan's primary concern is chastising television media who show his bald spot rather than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDintheNHL Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I suppose some of the new KC-X's could replace KC-10's The KC-X is slated to replace the older KC-135Es. The -10s and -135Rs are still great platforms. also remember, Europe has a big hand in the KC-X program, with Airbus and Lockheed Martin (i believe) working together on the KC-30, so the U.S. isnt the only one that would immediately benefit from the KC-X program. Remember, the Brits are still using the old Lockheed L-1011 Tristars and Vickers VC-10s for aerial refueling, and are in great need of a replacement. Team ND, as it is presently, lost GFAFB its missles and could not even keep the tanker mission going there. They could not do anything during the Clinton years when the GFAFB missles were moved to Malmstrom AFB in Montana. When Conrad got in there, Minot lost its fighter wing. Thank God Minot still has its missles and B-52's. Team ND has a long history, way back to when they attended UND, of being anti-military. SAC has a very long memory and the top brass I am sure remember the protests at GFAFB throughout the years and the bullets that hit the B-1B's while they were there and before they were moved to Ellsworth. I would not have too much faith in Team ND. If they could not keep missles and B-1B's at GFAFB during the Clinton years, what makes anyone think they can do anything in the Bush years? Don't tell me that the three stooges kept Minot's missions either. Minot has always been and always will be a pro-military town. Never any "protests" and the city loves the Air Force Base. Northern Neighbors Day was packed on base when they did that. I don't know if they still do it now, however. This is why, more than the efforts of the 3 stooges, Minot still has its missions. If Mark Andrews were still senator, it would still have its fighter wing too. Instead, that went out to Mass due to Ted Kennedy's influence and this was during the Reagan years. I like Grand Forks and hope they get the tankers but I would not hold my breath, so to speak. Also, nothing is a done deal for the UAV's either. I would not be surprised if the military "re-assesses" things and puts them elsewhere. Once your base is on the realignment/closure list for good, it's history. It may take a few years, but it's history nonetheless. I hope I'm wrong but I think not. I dislike Republicans more than Democrats, by the way, but one has to call it correctly. Other than having the grin of a sex offender, Pomeroy does nothing and Dorgan's primary concern is chastising television media who show his bald spot rather than anything else. what great insight. thanks chewy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 As a practical matter, "Team North Dakota" and the rest of the honchos screwed up. They failed to explore the uses for the base in the event it was closed down. Given its proximity to Canada, a major N/S interstate, rail roads, a E/W US highway, its path under global air routes, the already built up infrastructure, etc., GFAFB would have been a great hub for international transit and commerce. Relying on the oft-fickle DoD for your economic well being is patently stupid IMHO. Perhaps some creative thinking, and appreciation for risk/reward, could have made this facility an economic driver, rather than an albatross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 As a practical matter, "Team North Dakota" and the rest of the honchos screwed up. They failed to explore the uses for the base in the event it was closed down. Given its proximity to Canada, a major N/S interstate, rail roads, a E/W US highway, its path under global air routes, the already built up infrastructure, etc., GFAFB would have been a great hub for international transit and commerce. Relying on the oft-fickle DoD for your economic well being is patently stupid IMHO. Perhaps some creative thinking, and appreciation for risk/reward, could have made this facility an economic driver, rather than an albatross. I think it is time to start writing team ND and ask them what they are doing about the GF Airforce base? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I think it is time to start writing team ND and ask them what they are doing about the GF Airforce base? The same thing that they did for UND against the NCAA.......nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 Grand Forks Air Force Base May Get New Tankers The Grand Forks Air Force Base is at the top of a list for the next generation of air refueling tankers. Today Senator Kent Conrad met with the base commander, Col.Diane Hill, to see what else can be done to secure the tankers. Conrad says he`s cautiously optimistic it will happen. 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.