DCN 696 1995 Defense Base Closure & Realignment Commission
AIR FORCE
Final Deliberative Hearing * Book
Slide Presentation
Review & Analysis AIR FORCE CATEGORIES
II CATEGORY I NUMBER 11
11 SPACE SUPPORT 11
Higblightcd catqprkr have installatioar DoD has ncomllrended for clorurc or realignment or Co~lamissionhas added for further considcntion for closure or realignment.
AIR FORCE CATEGORY: MISSILEILARGE AIRCRAFT
Andrcws AFB, MD I I Barksdale AFB, LA Excl McChord AFB, WA I1 Bealc AFB, CA I McConmll AFB, KS I Charleston AFB, SC I1 McGuirc AFB, NJ Dover AFB, DE I I Dycss AFB, TX I I Offitt AFB, NE -- I11 Ellsworth AFB, SD Excl Travis AFB, CA I Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Whiteman AFB, MO
rccornrncndation for realignment a& for further consideration BASE ANALYSIS
(C)= D recommendation for closure (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (*) = bCandidate for ftcrther consideration A-3 ISSUES Grand Forks AFB, ND
RBA STAFF FINDINGS Least capable All missile fields equally capable Less survivable geology
Fully capable of performing Lower alert rate mission 1 I Higher on-site depot support costs No effect on right to retain an I Restricts ballistic missile Interagency position resolves ABM deployment area at Cirand 1 defense options potential ABM obstacles
Requires demolition of existing Not necessary to demolish or ABM facilities relocate ABM facilities. Could send misleading signal to the former Soviet Union Cost No ABM-related costs Costs are greatly underestimated No ABM-related costs
Include housing demolition costs No housing demolition costs Core tanka r baa! Operational effectivenew and Agree with DoD Sustained high deployment rate fiscal efficiency
I I Overhead efficiencies Opcration~llocation I Important for Single Integrated DoD correctly assessed the Important for Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) and military value of Grand Forks Operations Plan (SIOP) global deployment support AFB when selecting it as core tanker base Upgraded mayand hydrant I Supported by CMCs and CSAF system, modem facilities,mning guarantees Tanker sairration in North central location Agree with DoD Northwest tanker saturation not an Northwest issue for Grand Forks AFB
1 I I Southcut (ankcr shortfall 1 Shortfall is for training only I Atgee with DoD Not a decisive issue ISSUES Minot AFB, ND
eld operational / More capable than Grand Forks I More capable than Grand More survivable geology leSlP Forks Highest alert rate of all missile units
Lowest on-site depot support costs of all missile units rtic missile Inactivate Minot missile field There are no ABM Potential ABM problem at Grand DllS only if there are ABM implications that preclude Forks resolved by interagency implications that preclude inactivation of Grand Forks review inactivation of Grand Forks missile field Minot alternative not required SCENARIO SUMMARY Grand Forks AFB
- - - - ~~.-. ------. I Realign Grand Forks AFB 11 Inactivate the 32 1 st Missile Group a Relocate Minuteman 111 missiles to Malmstrom AFB, MT Retain small number of silo launchers if required One time Coat (SM): 11.9 Annual Saviap (SM): 35.2 Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate)
Net Pnrtnt Value (SM):. , 447.1 I PRO I CON 11 IEliminates excess missile field Small number of silos may be retained II II Eliminates less capable missile field Less survivability
Lower alert rate
Higher on site depot support costs
Lowest cost to close SCENARIO SUMMARY Grand Forks AFB
Realign Minot AFB Close Grand Forks AFB. Inactivate the 91st Missile Group. lnactivate the 32 1st Missile Group Relocate Minuteman 111 missiles to Malmstrom AFB, MT Relocate Minuteman 111 missiles to Malmstrom AFB, MT Retain small number of silo launchers if required
Inactivate the 3 19th Air Refueling- Wing- and relocate squardons as operational requirements dictate One time Cost (SM): 173 One time Cost (SM): 215.3 Annual Savings (SM):36.1 Annual Savings (SM): 87.7 Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate) Return on Investment: 2000 (2 Ytan) Net Preacnt Value (SM): 453.7 Net Praent Value (SM): 960.2 PRO CON PRO CON
Eliminates excess missile field Eliminates more capable missile Eliminates excess large aircraft Reduces operational field base effectiveness for SIOP and deployment support More survivable geology than Provides substantial savings Grand Forks Warfighting CINCs want to Relieves tanker shortfall for retain Highest alert rate of all missile training in Southeast units Breaks up core tanker unit
Lowest depot support costs of all Disrupts near term readiness missile units BASE ANALYSIS Malmstrom AFB, MT
DOD RECOMMENDATION: Realign Malmstrom AFB. The 43rd Air Refueling Group and its KC-135 aircraft will relocate to MacDill AFB, FL. All fixed-wing aircraft flying operations at Malmstrom AFB will cease and the airfield will be closed.
11 CRITERIA I DOD RECOMMENDATION AIR FORCE TIERING II BCEG FLYING RATING Green- FORCE STRUCTURE 12 KC-135 I 11 ONE-TIME COSTS (S M) I 26.5 ANNUAL SAVINGS (S M) 4.2 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2002 (5 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 38.6 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 21.8 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL I CIV) 010 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL 1CIV) 667 I 17 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) -2.1 % I -2.2% ENVIRONMENTAL AsbestosISitine ISSUES REVIEWED Malmstrom AFB, MT
Northwest tanker saturation
No environmental constraints Lack of tanker capability in southeast U.S. Unencroached airspace Malmstrom airfield limitations for tanker maximum gross weight operations (Field elevation and runway length)
Capacity available to accommodate more tankers
A-Y ISSUES Malmstrom AFB, MT
ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Northweat tanker saturation Yes Did not address Agree - 70 tankers based at Fairchild AFB, WA 1 Y?Based I 6% Demand Lack of tankers in southeart Improves situation Malmstrom tankers do not fix the Southeast deficiency is for U.S. problem training not operational requirements 9% Based 1 27% Demand Yes-Pressue altitutude and Requirement for maximum gross Yes- Airfield elevation (3500') runway length weight take-offs is minimal and runway length limits takeoff gross weights
Capacity available to Excess capacity exists, but more Yes - Base can support two more Base can accept two more accommodate mnaircraft aircraft would ex& tanker squadrons squadrons with additional saturation in northwest MILCON - Exacerbates northwest tanker saturation SCENARIO SUMMARY Malmstrom AFB, MT
DOD RECOMMENDATION Realign Malmstrom AFB tankers to MacDill AFB, FL and close airfield fued wing operations One Time Costs (SM): 26.5 Annual Savings (SM): 4.2 Return on Investment: 5 yean (2002) Net Present Value (SM): 38.6 PRO I CON Relieves tanker saturation in northwest Does not reduce excess capacity in large aircraft infrastructure Decreases tanker shortfall in Southeast
Permits cost effective approach to operate MacDill airfield
MacDill becomes available for increased military training MacDill Air Force Base, Florida
199 1 DBCRC Recommendation Realign the aircraft to Luke AFB, AZ Move the Joint Communications Support Element (JCSE) to Charleston AFB,SC Close airfield Remainder of MacDill becomes an administrative base
1993 DBCRC Recommendation Retain JCSE at MacDill Airfield operation transfers to Department of Commerce (DOC) or other Federal agency
1995 DoD Recommcrdation Retain MacDill airfield as part of MacDill AFB Air Force continue to operate the runway DOC remain as tenant
DoD Justification DepSECDEF and CJCS validated airfield requirements of two unified commands at MacDill Air Force has responsibility to support the requirements Tampa International Airport cannot to support Unified Commands' requirements DoD requirements constitute approximately 95% of airfield operations More eficient for Air Force to operate the airfield from existing active duty support base SCENARIO SUMMARY MacDill AFB, FL Undergraduate Pilot Training Bases AIR FORCE CATEGORY: UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING (UPT)BASES
1 I 1 Randolph AFB, TX 1
1 Excl 1 She& AFB, TX 1
(C)- DoD -on for closure (X) - Joint CrossServicc Group option for closure (*) = Comntissiomr add forjbthcr consIdrration baoysd ai.flamu taoitqrnusu bbom ytia.gr3 Air Force UPT Capacity
Analysis based on meeting AIR FORCE Pilot Training Requirements Assumes 5-day work week to allow recovery capacity for unforeseen impacts Capacity expressed in "UPT graduate equivalents." CAPACITY REQUIREMENT Columbus 408 Bombermighter 394 Laughlin 424 AirliftITan ker 92 Reese 392 Fixed-Wing Upgrade 4 Vance 396 FMS 31 Subtotal 1,620 Subtotal 1,021 Close Lowest - 392 Intro to Fighter Fund. 57 L TOTAL 1,228 TOTAL 1,078 Capacity 1,228 AF Pilot Training Requirement -1.078 Excess 150 (12 %) Planned usage of excess capacity: Instructor Crossflow (T-37 to T-38): -39 Joint Primary Aircraft Training System Transition -100 Flight operations beyond 95% capacity will compromise training and safety UPT BASE ANALYSIS DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close ReAFB and redistribute/retire all assigned aircraft.
COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Columbus, Laughlin, and Vance FOR as a SUBSTITUTE for Reese.
CRITERIA REESE AFB AFB I LAUGHLINAFB VANCE AFB I (*I (*I AIR FORCE TIERING 111 1 I I FORCE STRUCTURE 21 T-IA 21 T-IA 48 T-37B 45 T-37B 48 T-37B 46 T-37B 51 T-38 57 T-3 812 1 AT-3 8 51 T-38 69 T-38
(C) = DoD recommendation for closure (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission add for firther consideration ISSUE Weather
-- DoD POSITION 1 COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Weather scored by assessing lcing more important than lcing accounted for in overall ceilings, crosswinds, and attrition crosswinds attrition rate figure rates Reese has option to divert to T-38 operations unsafe above 82 Weighting factor < 15% cross-town IFR airport degrees Fahrenheit Vance loses 4 dayslyear more Weighting factor = 30% than Reese Icing assessment not appropriate, Icing assessment not appropriate, use overall attrition rate only use overall attrition rate only I Best T-38 safety margin I Most important factor Icing assessment not appropriate, use overall attrition rate only Laughlin has best weather, least attrition Icing assessment not appropriate, Icing assessment not appropriate, use overall attrition rate only use overall attrition rate only Use 10 year "Weather History" to better reflect High Capacity ops ISSUE Airspace
R&A STAFF FINDINGS 11 . BASE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION -- T ~avecredit for ALL airspace I Missed large blocks of ainpce Did not give credit for all airspacc bordering within I00 nrn within 100 nm--only count4 areas routinely used for UPT Agree with community, rccomputcd area COLUMBUS 4b ,, Missed blocks of airspace shared Agree with community, with Meridian rccomputcd area LAUGHLIN 44 99 Airspace mccts requirements-- Agree with community more easily available if needed VANCE Proximity provides most efficient Agewith community training Highest volume of airspace in I 1 urn ISSUE Encroachment
BASE I DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION RdiA STAFF FINDINGS Sdlimpact on Functional Impacts detraining environment DoD weight too dl-huge Vdut impact on safety, bhhg Encroachment nonexistent I Weighting fe- 6% Weighting f~tor= 20% Apwith community COLUMBUS Impects safe Wining environment Agree with community Encroachment nonexistent LAUGHLIN Impacts safe training cnvimnmcnt Encrorchment nonexistent, buc remote from airline mutes VANCE 18 % mcmhment in Accident Apewith community Potential Zone 11, impact minor Zoning in-pk to restrict hture encroachment growth ISSUE Economic Impact
Vcrde County (24 % County UPT BASE ANALYSIS
Functional Value
(C)= DoD -011 for cbsun (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission a& fwJsrr1her consideralion I WITAWMTJA HOIZWMM03 HOITAaH3MM0335i Ud .& :as8 mo9I~A dm103 .& :& mo9 liA sed .- .- :gniW gniniatT gniyl9 &PI .* :gniW gninimT gniyl9 djPb :Amnia 8C-TAW-T bnr TC-T bsngiam IIA . . :hmio 8C-T bns TC-T ,I-T MiusIIA
3.8t :(Ma)-3 dTMA) 8.VE :(M2)q.iv& lur& &.St :(M2) qdvr2 kuA (nmY S) QQQI :jusmhevd no muhll (a-Y f) -1 :jnrhvaI me rrrhll 2.W :(Ma)wlrV jnsaaq hH 8.- :(M2)daV j#wrq hH VI03 OIIP H03 OIIP suhV hohau9 TPU ni hS VqM rlpiH hn mem3ni d TQU o gniaol3 whV LMoitxwS T¶U ni rlt4 aardymmui) bnucnirot-'I~A pinimT joli4 rmj-g~oipaihom ni yIIWflllfi6n 3ldtmalgJni yllruhiv etmmjriupa5l GQO 8C-T jqmi tit& bsnit~~103ton $f~)hq~8E-T ""~3x3 -8 di~~mm03 hj~&iovA -3 ~03~1~ muhaqrnd dgLI yd ImibaM - wol~Aby13~nu5I- rspmH AmdduJ - gnhni vilidixdi ed dgnieuoH ylims9 - l&mmmivn3 - gin& joliq bowsmi so13 at iwjt3waI drdo k 0)dp~r tndls1x3 jnnmnmivnii mB-RO t~yolqm3- woJ -OVA m3 M03JIM noitwbd - bnuo2 atnnqAbyuwnuX - gniwoH - jmll~x!l wieuoH ylimm'i - UPT SCENARIO SUMMARY
COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE I1 COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 111 I Laughlin Air Force Base: u. Vance Air Force Base: Close. 47th Flying Training Wing: 7 1st Flying Training Wing: Inace. m. . All assigned T-I, T-37 and T-38 aircraft: Redistribute/rttire. All assigned T-37 and T-38 aircraft: -. . One Timc Costs (SM): 56.2 One Timc Costa (SM): 533 Annual Saving (SM): 38.1 Annual Savings (SM): 32.1 Return on Invmtment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1998 (2 Yearn) Net Present Value (SM): 478.4 Net Prescnt Value (SM): 396.7 PRO I CON PRO I CON Highest operating cost I st in UPT Functional Value 3rd in UPT Functional Value Less flexibility in meeting Highest NPV Weather and unencroached increased pi lot training airspace and airfields ideal for Pilot requirements at other bases Training Lowest NPV Less flexibility in meeting MILCON Cost Avoidance Low increased pilot training - RunwaysIAprons requirements at other bases - Housing Economic Impact Highest (-2 1.4%) Economic Impact High (- 10.2%) Community Support Excellent - Medical costs - Employment - Education - Housing AIR FORCE CATEGORY: SATELLITE CONTROL BASES
TIER INSTALLATION I Falcon AFB, CO
(R)- DoD mxmndation for mlignmcnt Satellite Control Bases
I
Indicates Realianment BASE ANALYSIS Onizuka Air Station
DOD RECOMMENDATION: Realign. Inactivate 750th Space Group. Relocate 750th Space Group's hnctions to Falcon AFB, Colorado. Relocate Detachment 2, Space d Missile Systems Center, to Falcon AFB. Close all activities and frcilities associated with 750th Space Group, including family housing and the clinic.
I CRITERIA I DOD RECOMMENDATION AIR FORCE TIERING 111 I FORCE STRUCTURE Satellite control I ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 121.3 ANNUAL SAVINGS (S M) 16.1 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2007 (7 years) I NET PRESENT VALUE 84.2 BASE OPERATING BUDGET (S M) 16,879 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) 27010 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 2 1 5/83 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) -0.2% 1-0.5 % ENVIRONMENTAL Asbestos ISSUES Onizuka Air Station
capability in the event of war, Two filly functional satellite natural disaster, or sabotage Proposed BRAC 1995 action to control nodes are no longer dign Onizuka AS will not in Air Force policy requires any way increase risk associated
Onizuka AS since 1994
BRAC 1995 recommendation
it can close all housing and a federal airlldd weald be related support facilities aWe& daud SCENARIO SUMMARY Onizuka Air Station
DoD RECOMMENDATION Realign. Inactivate 750th Space Oroup. Relocate 750th Space Group's functions to Falcon AFB, Colorado. Reloc~rDetachment 2, Space and Missile Systems Center, to Falcon AFB. Close all activities and facilities associated with 750th SpcGroup, including family housing and the clinic.
. - Net Pment Vdue (SM):84.2 PRO I CON DoD rccommendahn will not in my way increase High one-time costs and reduced annual savings risk associated with satellite control or reduce =d-y
Air Force has om more satellite control installation than it mads to support future Air Force satellite contfol requirements
Oni& AS ranked lower that Falcon AFB when all eight criteria are applied
Falcon AFB has (1) superior protection against cumnt and future electronic cz~mchrmnt,(2) reduced risks associated with security and missiondisrupting contingencies (e.g., emergencies and natural disasters), and (3) significantly highclosure costs Lowry Air Force Base
Redirect
1991 Base Closure Commission recommended the closure of Lowry Air Force Base. All technical training be redistributed to remaining technical training centers or relocated to other locations. 100 1st Space Systmw Squadron, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and Air Force Reserve Personnel Center remain open in cantonment areas as proposed by the Secretary of Defense. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Change the 199 1 Commission recommendation that the 100 1st Space Support Squadron (now designated Detachment 1, Space Systems Support Group) be retained in a cantonment pru at the Lowry Support Center. Inactivate the 100 1st Space Systems Squadron. Some Detachment 1 personnel and equipment will relocate to Peterson AFB, CO, under the Space Systems Support Group, while the remainder of the positions will be eliminated. BASE ANALYSIS Lowry Air Force Base
DOD RECOMMENDATION: Redirect. Change the 199 1 Commission's recommendation that the 100 1st Space Support Sqwdron (now designated Detachment 1, Space Systems Support Omup) be retained in a cantonment area at the Lowry Support Center. The BRAC 1995 recommendation is to inactivate the 1001 st Space Systems Squadron. Some Detachment 1 ptrsonncl and equipment will relocate to Peterson AFB, Colorado, under the Space Systems Support Group, while the remainder of the positions will be eliminated.
CRITERIA 1 FORCE STRUCTURE Software sustainrnent for ballistic missile early warning system ONE-TIME COSTS (S M) 1.9 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 3 .O RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1998 (1.- year) * NET PRESENT VALUE 38.7 BASE OPERATING BUDGET (S M) 3.2 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) 6811 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 10110 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 / CUM) -0.01% / -0.8 % ENVIRONMENTAL Asbestos SCENARIO SUMMARY Lowry Air Force Base
1 DoD RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE (1 Redirect. Change 1991 Conmhh's ttammaMon. Inactivate Rcjcct DoD's wdonmd chmge motion language. 1001st Space Systems Sq- now designated Detachment 1, Inactivate 100 1st Space Systems Squadron, now dcsigMtcd Spsysterrusupport Group, ~~sotmDctachmcnt 1 Detachment 1, Space Systems Support Grwp, relocate some personnel and equipment to Peterson AFB, Colorado, d eliminate Detachment 1 personnel and equipment to PCtCr#H1 AFB, Colorado, I elimiMtc ranrinder of msitions, and close dl related fmilitits. Om Time CW(SM): 1.9 One Time Corb (SM): 1.9 AmdSavbp (SM): 3.0 Anrd Save(SM): 3.0 Return 0s Imvc+trrmt: 1M(1 year) Return cm Irvcctrcnt: 1998 (1 year) Net Pnwrt Vh(SM): 38.7 Net Praent Value (SM): 38.7 PRO CON PRO CON Air Fmt Mdnitl (hmmad is DoD rccommcndation f&led to DoD recomrncndrtion failed to consolidating space and wuning include closute of all related includc closure of all related systclns software S\IPPOI1 at fsilities IPetenon AFB Air Force WMts to close all Air Force wants to close all related Inactivation of Detachment 1 and related fsrcilitk facilities and opposes retention of Imoving its fUnctions will further "islands of operations" within consolidate sohare support at Air Force oppo+r ntcntion of clod bgscs Peterson AFB "islands of operations" within R closed bases Air Force is consolidating space Community supportr ~~ and warning systems softwptc &activation of unit d c10wrr of support at Peterson AFB all related building struct\lrts Community supports accelerated deactivation of unit and closure of I AIR FORCE CATEGORY: AIR FORCE RESERVE BASES
1Dobbins ARB, OA ( NAS Willow Grove ARS. PA 1
1&htt~ ARB, M 1 Westover ARB, MA 1
(R)= DoD eonfix realignment (C) = DoD mxmwmmMon for clowre (9 - Commissioner forjbther comiderclrion Air Force Reserve Bases
'I I I I \r \ L. ,% '7 ', I 7 /" "\ .i: , '. \ \. ,v, 7- Niagan Falls ,' -- i i I < (,r.'=enoral ~itchelja IAP ARS 1 ~innea~olis-StPaul a!, IAP ARS I i - - --,I,{ i
i 1 .March ARB \ \ -<\ i
O Eorgmtrdm ARB C $4 - y ,
- 1 1,1 \i Legend 1 ) ,gHomostud ARS Air Force Reserve F-16 Capacity
Base Closure Executive Group Minutes Excess of two F-16 Bases SECAF recommended one
Air Force Concerns with two closures Demographics and recruiting Community visibility Combat readiness Peacetime operational capability
Air Force Secretary supports recommendation AIR FORCE RESERVE: F-16 BASES
~ TIER [INSTALLATION I
(R) - DoD TCCO-n for realignment (C) = DoD -on for closure (*) = Commissioner adqor&ther consicdcrdion BASE ANALYSIS
DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Bcrgstrom ARB; transfer Headquarters, 10th Air Force (AFRES)to Navd Air Station Fort Worth Joint Restrve Base, Texas. COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Carswell ARS and Homestcad ARB FOR as ADDITIONS or SUBSTITUTIONS for Bergstrom ARB to reduce infillstructure costs.
(C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commission &@*thcr coru&ralion ISSUES REVIEWED Bergstrom Air Reserve Base
berveF-16 Force Strvctvrt Rductiorrr Community Support
ToblBucrCkwn ISSUES Bergstrom Air Reserve Base
I ISSUE DoD POSITION ( COMMUNITY POSITION I&AF'F FINDINGS Keep R~SCNCunit in place until 9 1 : Airport decision by Jun 93, Awtin obligating local taxpayer septtmber 30,1996 then Reserve unit will dn funds to honor commitment 93: Honor 91 commitment if Commitment conditional on Air airport economically viable by % Force drawdown requirements Austin: approved $400 million referendum to keep Reserve unit, control of airport by % (cargo), two airports until 98 Reaewe F-16 Force Structure Rcscnc must drawdown two More cost effective to dcactivatc Force structure reduction can be Reductiewa F- 16 squadrons Carswell or Homestead units I achieved by closun or conversion Deactivation of 924th FW Conversion actions alone can Closure is cost, not drawdown achieves drawdown objectives I achieve drawdown objectives 924th FW deactivation achieves Commitments from Air Force, 91 Deactivation permits complete greatest savings in category and 93 Commissions, and Austin closure of an installation community to keep unit Reserve Transfct of Hq 10th AF (AFRES) to NAS Fort Worth JRB quid 9 1/93 commitments conditionad I on drawdown requirements Air Force wcd FY 1994 cost data I Air Force mmpilcd base I Environmental cleanup delays I mtinnqn~mort costs unfairly I A ;- -1-t invo[veS no BERGSTROM ARB DECISIONS CATEGORY: AIR FORCE RESERVE (F-16)BASES s: 'Therefore, the Commission recommends that Bergstrom Air Force Base close and that the assigned RF-4 aircraft retire...The Air Force Reserve uaib shall remain in a cantonment area if the base is converted to a civilian airport. If no decision on a civilian airport is reached by June 1993, the Reserve units will be redistributed." c: "Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Bergstrom cantonment area will remain open and the 704th Fighter Squadron (AFRES) with its F-16 aircraft and the 924th Fighter Group (AFRES) support units remain at the Bergstrom cantonment area until at least the end of 1996." ISSUES 301st Fighter Wing, Camvell Air Reserve Station, Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base
ISSUE 1 DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION I RlrA STAFF FINDINGS Recruiting, readiness risks for Air Deactivation of 30 1st Reserve F- 16 cetegory excess Force Total Force strategy if more FW/Carswcll is force structure, capncity intentional--squadrons than one Reserve F- 16 base not cost, issue dispascd to increase recruiting closes potential Complete closurt and immediate Excess capacity in Resave F- 16 payback by closing Bcrgstrom NAS Fort Worth JRB provides catceory intentional and moving Hq 10th AF joint training opportunities and demographics and (AFRES) to NAS Fort Worth best in category Retain Carswcll Homestead JRB for operational and demographic Deactivation of 30 1st reasons regardless of disposition FWICarswell is force stn~~ture, of Bergstrom not cost, issue JoirrtReaerveBucCf~wep4 1 301st FW imperative to concept NAS Fort Worth JRB is BRAC NAS Fort Worth JRB is DoD 91 and 93 success modcl for joint use Unit deactivation would cause disruption and delay of joint 301 st FW cornerstone unit to Joint training, staging, and training opporhmities, cost NAS Fort Worth JRB deployment oppor~unities effectiveness I ISSUES 30 1st Fighter Wing, Carswell Air Reserve Station, Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base (Continued)
ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION I MASTAFF FINDINGS Cirmdvr. Cbwn Canwell closure provides Camwell: $7.9M plus $13.0 Agree with community CdCenp.rben minimal base closure savings MILCON nnt avoided at Bergstrom = S20.9M Bergstrom: $1 7.4 minus S 13.0 MILCON avoided at Bergstrom = W.4M Navy incurs $1.2M in overtread support cost if 301 st FW ISSUES REVIEWED Homestead Air Reserve Base
Air Force Rrnrvo F-16 Force Structure Rcduct&na
Tebl Bmc Ckrvre ISSUES Homestead Air Reserve Base
ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION I MASTAFF FINDINGS Rasewe F-16 Force Stnrctrrc Rume must drawdown two More cost effective to deactivate Force structure reduction cgn be Rsdurctionr I F- 16 squadrons I 924 th FW/Bergstrom I achieved by closure or conversion Derrctivation of 924th Closure is cost, not drawdown FW/Bcrgs&om achieves issuc drawdown objectives 924th FW/&rgjtrom deactivation 93 Commission directed return of Ductivation permits wmplcte achieves grecrtcst savings in 30 1st RCSCUCSqdron and closute of an installation 482nd Fighter Wing to -wry Cost-avoidance is in recurring Homestead No military construction cost- savings only avoidance at Homestcad DoD honoring 93 Commission Modcl reuse plan dcvtlopcd in Fodcral government and 93 recommendation 1 rrrpaae to 93 Commission Commission commitment to rrmmmnciation Homcstecrd Agrctment between Dadc County Congress committed $88 million and Base Conversion Agency for in FY 1992 sup~1cmcntal $1.4 million in annual operating appopriation for economic subsidies recovery of south WeCounty-- will be spent despite Homtsttad closure ISSUES Homestead Air Reserve Base (Continued)
DOD POSITION
ilitary value as primary reason rctrin Honrestead
Florida or Gulf of Mexico ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BERCSTROM ARB CARSWELL ARS HOMESTEAD ARB
Force Structure Reduction: Closurt will not impair US Demonstrates viability of joint NIA position of Chaitman, JCS ability to execute national basing and enhances joint military strategy training and operational effectiveness I- Force Structure Reduction: Close; otherwise Air Force will Remain open rcgdless of Remain open regardless of position of AF Chief of Staff use conversion actions to achieve disposition of Bergstrom disposition of Bergsttorn F- 1 6 drawdown objectives Total Base Closure Yes No Yes - - Commitments Yes (through Scg 30,%) Yes (Joint Reserve Base) Yes (Hurricmc Andrew rccovtry)
(C) - DoD T~CO~for chmrc (*) = Convnission addJbrjWkr consideration SCENARIO SUMMARY
924th Fighter Wing (AFRES): I-. 301st Fighter Wing (AFRES): hctkak.
AndSsvhp (SM): 17.8 Annual Slvinga (SM): 13.2 Return on Inv(~~tacat:1998 (1 Year)
Superior to Ekrgstrom in fighter Complete base closun Demographics, military tradition, training military value high tech cma support recruiting Imperative to joint reserve base Austin airport authority reducts Air Force support costs Opporhrnities fot joint training Need to move, MILCON for Mission flexibilitylexpansion SCENARIO SUMMARY
COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 2 Homestead Air Reserve Bw: m. 482nd Fighter Wing. (AFRES): Inachk. F-16 aircraft: . One Time Coob (SM): 12.6 Annual SavIngu (SM): 173 Rarm om Investment: lW(1 Year) Net Present Vak(SM): 228.6 PRO I CON
Achieves F- 1 6 drawdown I Highest military value in Reserve objective F- 1 6 category due to strategic location, access to airswrangcs Complete base closure I
I No MILCON cost-avoidance Provides Air Force realignment flexibility with 482nd FW I Remainder of $88 million 1 supplemental for south Dade County hurricane recovery lost for I Air Force MILCON
Economic impect far greater in Homestead than Miami Homestead Air Resewe Base 301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES)
Redirect
1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the Realignment of Hamestead Air Force Base. The 482nd F-16 Fighter Wing (AFRES) and the 301 st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) and the North American Air Defense alert activity will remain in cantonment areas. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Change the 1993 Commission recommendation as follows: Redirect the 30 1st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) to relocate to Patrick AFB, FL, its current temporary location. BASE ANALYSIS 301rt Rcrcuc Squadron
DOD RECOMMENDATION: Change the rtcommendation the 1993 Commission to transfa the unit back to Homcstcsd ARB, FL, and instead REDIRECI' the unit to remain at Patrick AFB, FL.
CRITEMA HOMESTEAD, n
I FORCE STRUCTURE 4 HC-130P/N 1 C-130E 9 HH-60G ONE-TIME COSTS (S M) 6.6 ANNUAL SAVINGS (S M) 1.5 I RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2002 (5 Ycars) NET PRESENT VALUE ($ M) 13.6 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) NIA PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIUCI V) 0 / 8 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIUCIV) 010 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC95lCUM) -0.2%I-0.2% ENVIRONMENTAL N/A ISSUES 301st Rescue Squadron Homestead ARB, Florida
ISSUE I DoD POSITION RECRUITING Demographics support Homestead can support also Patrick area can support COST TDY cost avoidance $1 Mlyear TDY costs exaggerated Homestead fxilitits piid by Hurricnc Andrew suppl funds-- MILCON at Patrick $4.5 M MILCON could increase to not a cost avoidance $18 M if 41/71 RQS do not transfer fiom Patrick I 41/7 1 RQS transfer likely IMPACT ON HOMICSTEAD Air Rtscrvc Base remains viable Reduces Air Force support of Still viable with 482 FW and Florida ANG airfield Air Deftnsc Dct MISSION Shuttle Support ideal mission for Proportion of Shuttle Support Shuttk Support Mission better at Reserve unit--retains Combat only 5% of unit flying- I Patrick support at Homestead with Det at Rescue tasking Combt Ranr tnining cnhnccd Patrick Frtcs 4 1/71 RQS for Combat I at patrick due to proximity to I Rescuc tasking I Avon Park range !K3 COMMISSION Upheld with 482 FW return fkom 30 1 RQS set-up for Redirect: Commitment upheld, 301 RQS COMMITMENT TO DADE MacDill, Florida ANG Det given Shuttle Support mission, Redirect due to mission COUNTY recruiting exclwivcly hm requirements Patrick am,delayed construction at Homestead 301st RQS SCENARIO SUMMARY
DoD RECOMMENDATION I 301111RQS: Rcdircct. Keep unit at Patrick AFB instead of returning to Homestead. Ow TheCortr (SM): 6.6 Annul Savw(SM): 1.5 Return on Invaatrw~t:2002 (5 Yews) 1 Net Pmmt Vah(SM): 13.6 , PRO I CON Recruiting not impacted I MILCON at Homestead paid by 92 Suppl Funds TDY cost avoidance $1 Miyear 1 Air Fom support to municipal airpart reduced Enhances Combat Rescue readiness training with Economic Impgct to Homestead community proximity to Avon Parlr Range Shuttle Support ideal for Reserve unit, best at Patrick Frees 4 1171 RQS for Combat Rescue bsking Homestead Air Reserve Base 726th Air Control Squadron
Redirect
1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the Realignment of Homestead Air Force Base. Relocate the 726th Air Control Squadron to Shaw AFB, SC. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Change the 1993 Commission recommendation as follows: Redirect the 726th Air Control Squadron to relocate from Shaw AFB, SC, its current location, to Mountain Home AFB, ID. BASE ANALYSIS 726th Air Control Squadron
DOD RECOMMENDATION: Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission to transfer the unit from Homestead AFB, FL, to Shaw AFB, SC, and instead REDIRECT the unit to Mountain Home AFB, ID.
CRITERIA HOMESTEAD, FL
FORCE STRUCTURE Air Control Squadron P~t90nncland Equipment ONE-TIMECOSTS ($ M) 7.9 ANNUAL SAVMGS ($ M) 0.2 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1997 (Idiatc) NET PRESENT VALUE ($ M) 4.2 BASE OPERAl'TNG BUDGET ($ M) NIA PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MILICIV) 010 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIUCIV) 123 I0 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC95KUM) -0.3% I -0.3% ENVIRONMENTAL NIA ISSUES 726th Air Control Squadron Homestead ARB, FL
Cancellation of Idaho Range FAA radar link is wok-mound to initiative has no impact on transfu of unit to suitable training airspace availability COST MILCON savings st Mountain Unit nconfiguntian fiom Agrcc with community squadron to element allows Home No MILCON savings dudfacility at Shaw UNIT RECONFIGURATION Reducing from squadron to Readiness status based on Concur element-sized unit squadron, but unit only manned for element
ECONOMIC IMPACT -0.3 0/, Concur Concur 726th ACS SCENARIO SUMMARY
COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 11 726th ACS: l&,&ct. Tnrnsftr from Shaw AFB, SC to Mountain Home AFB, ID. Ow Time Coats (SM): 7.9 Annual Savinp (SM): 0.2 Return or lavubent: 1997 (Immediate) Net Praent Vh(S.M): 4.2 PRO I CON Training enhanced at Mountain Home AFB Unit readiness suffers at Shaw AFB Small moving expense avoided AIR FORCE RESERVE: C-130 BASES . N/A IDobbins ARB. GA
1 N/A INAS Willow (3rove ARS, PA n
(C) = hDrecommendation for closure (+) = Commissiomr oddforjktkr consicleration Air Force Reasewe Bases I- --- - _.____._ Air Force Reserve C-130 Capacity
BCEG Minutes Excess of two C-130 Bases SECAF recommended one
Air Force Concerns wiih two closures Community visibility Demographics and recruiting Combat readiness and capability Peacetime operational capability
SECAF supports for closure O'Hare IAP ARS . . w NIA GEN MITCHELL IAP ARS, WI PI
NIA MINNEAPOUSST PAUL IAP A RS, MN (*) NIA NIAGARA FALLS UPARS, NY ('1 NIA O'HARE UP ARS, IL P) I NIA I YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN MPT, OH
(C) = DoD rtcommtndation for closure (*) = Commissioner candidate fwJivther consideration BASE ANALYSIS Category: Air Force Reserve C-130
DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Greattr Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station (ARS), PA. The 91 1th Airlift Wing will inactivate and its C-130 aircraft will be distributed to Air Force Reserve C- 130 units at Dobbins ARB, Georgia, and Peterson AFB, Colorado.
COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Gcn Mitchell IAP ARS, WI, Minneapolis-St. Paul IAP ARS, MN,Niagara Falls IAP ARS, NY, O'Hart IAP ARS, IL, and Youngstown-Warren MPT ARS, OH FORCLOSUREas ADDITION to or a SUBSTITUTION for Pittsburgh IAP ARS.
(C)= DoD recommendation for cl DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Greater Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station (ARS), PA. The 91 1th Airlift Wing will inactivate and its C-130 aircraft will be distributed to Air Force Rejerve C-130 units at Dobbins ARB, Georgia, and Peterson AFB, Colorado. COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Gcn Mitchell IAP ARS, WI, Minneapolis-St. Paul IAP ARS, MN,Niagara Falls IAP ARS, NY, O'Hare IAP ARS, IL, and Youngstown-Wamn MPT ARS, OH FORCLOSUREas ADDITION to or a SUBSTITUTION for Pittsburgh IAP ARS. If ANG air ruA#Y.j: d nuirr at O'Hare there wiU be buc operating rupport comb which would reduce kvcl of saviqp (C)= DoD mmmcndation for closw (*) = Commission fwjicrther consicdoration AIR FORCE RESERVE C-130 ANALYSIS SUMMARY Annual Saviny (SM): 15.5 Annual Savings (SM): 17.3 Annual Savings (SM): 15.2 Return on Invtatlntent: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1999 (2 Years) Net Present Value (SM): 206.0 Net Present Value (SM): 218.5 Net Present Value (SM): 189.5 Base Operating Budget (SM): 4.9 Base Operating Budget (SM): 5.9 Base Operating Budget (SM): 5.7 Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 97.7% Off Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 97.9% Off Manning: &Yr Avg- 98.6% Off 101.0% Enl 102.4 % Enl 11 Niagara Falls IAP ARS I Cen Mitchell IAP ARS I Youngstown-Warren MPT ARS 1) One Time Costs (SM): 24.1 One Time Costs (SM): 23.0 One Time Cosb (SM): 243 Annual Savings (SM): 16.4 Annual Savings (SM): 15.3 Annual Savings (SM): 15.2 Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: Immediate Net Prcscnt Value (SM): 213.3 Net Prtacnt Value (SM): 202.4 Net Prescnt Value (SM): 209.8 II Base Optrating Budget (SM): 6.2 I Base Operating Budget (SM): 4.9 Base Operating Budget (SM): 3.7 Manning: &Yr Avg- 92.9% Off Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 95.6% Off Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 96.3% Off 99.6% Enl 102.8% Enl 103.6.h Enl SCENARIO SUMMARY Pittsburgh IAP ARS, PA Close Pittsburgh IAP ARS, PA 1 Close O'Harc IAP ARS. IL One TheCorb (SM): 23.1 Fcwb(S~: 24.1 AdSlvkp (SM): 15.5 Anrual Savirgm (SM): 173 Return on Iavatrcct: 1 Year I Return on Investmemt: 1 Year Nd P- Valw (SM): 2M.8 1 Net Prw~atValue (SM): 2183 PRO I CON PRO I CON Reduces excess capecity One of the cheapest basto City of Chicago supports closure; ( Red- AFR presence in State needs airport property for revenue I opar Excellent recruiting area SupportJ force ductions producing development Emmus data used by Air Force in recommending Pittsburgh Highest annual savings Excellent recruiting area I AF supports closure I Reduces cost to City to relocate Reserve Component units I Reduces exms capacity I r o SCENARIO SUMMARY 11 Close Mi~polisSt.Paul IAP ARS, MN I Close Niagara Fdls IAP ARS, NY Om Time C& (SM): 23.8 One Time Corb (SM): 24.1 AnrdSavw (SM): 153 Annual Savkp (SM): 16.4 Return or I~vdmmt:1- (2 Ytm) Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Net Pmmt Vah(SM): 1%9J Net Prcrcnt Value (SM):2133 PRO 1 CON I PRO I CON Reduces excess capacity 1 Only Air Force flying unit in I High operating cost 1 LOSSof only AFR flying unit in Statc State Reduces excess capacity Supports forcc reductions Lowest in 20-Year NPV savings Supports force reductions Highest economic impact llent community support 1Clo* General Mitchell IAP ARS, WI I Close Youngstown MPT ARS, OH 1 ON Time Cwts (SM): 23,9 One Time Coeb (SM): 243 I AudSlvkp (SM): 153 Anmual SIvinp (SM): 15.2 Return on Invdmeak 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: Immedhte Net Pmmt V.kn (SM): 202.4 Net PmntValue (SM): 209.8 PRO CON PRO CON Reducts excess capacity Excellmt recmitng area High MlLCON cost avoidance Lowest opting costs Supports force reductions I Excellent community support I Single unit base I Good recruiting acs I Loss of only Air Force unit in I Red- excess upscity I I Supports force reductions I Air National Guard Bases - . ------AIR FORCE: AIR NATIONAL GUARD (C) = DoD recommendation for closure CATEGORY: AIR NATIONAL GUARD GENERAL ISSUES AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASES DO NOT READILY COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER AIR GUARD STATIONS BELOW BRAC THRESHOLD MUCH DATA COLLECTED AFTER BASE CLOSURE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ANNOUNCED SCENARIO SUMMARY Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA T' one T' Certr (SM): 1 8.3 AdSav- (SM): 3.9 Rchtn on Investment: 2003 (6 Yam) Net Pment Value (SM): 34.8 PRO I CON Cost effective for Air Force by eliminating overhead Costs increase to fed4 government positions and base operating support costs Dependent on McClellm AFB decision Positive recruiting 4retention effects SCENARIO SUMMARY North Highlands AGS, CA I I DoD RECOMMENDATION I Close North Hiphlands AGS, CA. Relocate unit to McClellan AFB, CA. ---- I Ome The Cds (SM): 1.3 Anmd Savinp (SM): 0.3 lktwr er Imvmtmmt: 2002 (5 Years) Net Pmmt Vah(SM): 2.9 PRO 1 CON Eliminates bese operating support personnel and Long retwn on illvestment costs Dependent on McClellan AFB decision Excess capacity at McClellan AFB Relocation of unit requires little expenditure BASE ANALYSIS Ontario AGS, CA DOD RECOMMENDATION: Closc Ontario Air Guard Station, CA;. Relocate units to March ARB, CA. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each rccommendcd closure. (C) = DoD lt~~mmdationfor closure (R) = DoD recommendation for dignmcnt (X) - Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closurc or realignment (*) - Commission addfor fither consi&ration SCENARIO SUMMARY Ontario AGS, CA - Close Ontario AGS, CA. Relocate unit to March ARB, CA. One Time Coda (SM): 0.9 Aururl Savw (SM): 0.1 Return M Imvuhmt: 2006 (9 Years) Net Prorclrt Vdme (SM): 0.8 PRO CON Eliminates base operating support pcrso~~land Long return on investment costs Excess capacity at Match ARB Relocation of unit requires little expenditure I No impact on recruiting I BASE ANALYSIS Ro~lynAGS, NY DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Roslyn Air Guard Station, NY. Relocate units to Stewart IAP AGS, NY FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each recommended closure. (C)- DoD recommenddon for closure (R) = DoD rcmmmhionfor realignment (X) = Joint Cnws Senice Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission add f~~fi..ther consideration ISSUES Roslyn AGS, NY are used to offset relocation costs NPV: Cost $1 1.3 M NPV: $8.9 million nsihthis situation unique Air Force did not use SCENARIO SUMMARY Roslyn AGS, NY DoD RECOMMENDATION Close Roslyn AGS, NY. Relocate unit to Stewart IAP AGS, NY Om TheC#b (SM): 14.2 AsrdSavtp (SM): 0.2 Rdun om Imv.+trmt: 1999 (2 Yeus) Net Pnmrt Vakw (SM): 8.9 PRO CON Cost effective when proceeds from sale of property Recommendation not cost efftctive if proceeds not arc considered realized, results in 100+ years R01 DOD policy discourages use of proceeds fiom land sales Procctds from sale of property may never be realized due to existing policies and practices BASE ANALYSIS Springfield-Beckley MAP AGS, OH DOD RECOMMENDATION:Close Springfield-BcckleyMAP Air Guard Station, OH. Relocate units to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each recommended closure. (C) = DoD rccommcndation for closun (R) = DoD recodionfm realignment (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission add forfivther co~~sideration ISSUES REVIEWED Springfield-Beckky MAP AGS, OH RevW c#b adnvhp rervlt im 11 yaar ROI Closure proposed during BRAC 1993 Fadibconcerm a! Wrigbt-Patbmom AFB Comumdty pmpoml ta roclrce operating eorb at SpringWd Sprirdldd-kWkrirl7t ISSUES Springfiekl-Beckky MAP AGS, OH -- ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION ] RU STAFF FINDINGS costs and uvings PmonneVB0~savings were ~aromlelimination Consistent with Air Force in 1 1 year ROI originally overstrttcd, but now ovcrsw Manoow Prognunming o~~&,ANG,~Mc- I Military construction costs I Military construction understated Followed standardid requirements and costs costingproccdures validated I Facility concerns at Wright- * Wright-Patterson AFB offers . Springfield-Beckley offers a * F-16 flight-lim facilities Patterson comparable operating superior operating available environment environment Conccms with other facilities Facility cornsare minor Concerns with condition of largely quality of life and can be worked some facilities and ability of dining hall to meet drill I I requirements I CO-uaiQ * ANG receptive 10 offa City provide fire crash rtscuc Pro@ would lower operating mtsat Springfield- during non-flying hours operating costs propo~only I I Save $480,000 annually I No fondcommitment 13 year ROI Sjxiqtkld-Becky besing ANG :"Keep units at civilian Strong community support Springfield-Bacldey presents ideal mtlement airports wherever possible" basing arrangement for ANG: Unit's community e visibility helps recruiting involvement costs keepscostslow cornrnunitv tics SCENARIO SUMMARY Springfield-Beckley MAP AGS, OH Close Springfitld-Beckley AGS, OH. Relocate unit to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. One Time Coda (SM): 24.6 Amdhirp (SM): 2.8 Return on Investment: 2008 (1 1 Years) Nd Prwe~tValue (SM): 14.0 PRO I CON ---- - Eliminates base operating support personnel and Long ROI quitad coots F-16 flight-line facilities available at Wright- Sacrifice quality fsilitics at Springfield for little Pattenon AFB return Consolidation will be cost-effective in long-run Economic impact on Springfield-Beckley MAP and community GrifRu Air Force Base Airfield Support for 10th Infantry (Light) Division Redirect 1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the realignment of Griffiss AFB. Runway would remain open as minimum essential airfield to support 10th Infantry (Light) Division from Fort Drum. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: To close the minimum essential airfield on Griffiss AFB Air Force will re-build Fort Drum airfield Air Force will provide mobility/contingency/training support from the airfield on Fort Drum Allows 10th Infantry (Light) Division to deploy 2 hours earlier BASE ANALYSIS Griffiss Air Force Base AirAeld Support for 10th Infrntry (Light) Division DOD RECOMMENDATION: RaUrrct. Clor, the Minimum htialAidid SCENARIO SUMMARY GriffIs Air Force Base Airfield Support for 10th Infantry (Light) Division AF will re-build airfield on Fort Dnun Allows to 10th Infatry Division to &ploy 2 hours earlier Griffiss Air Force Base 485th Engineering Installation Group Redirect Background: The 485th Engineering Installation Group performs the engineering, program management, and installation of communications and computer equipment at DoD facilities throughout North America and Europe. 1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the realignment of Gri assAFB 485th Engineering Installation Group would transfer to Hill AFB 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Inactivating the 485th Engineering Installation Group Relocating its installation hnction to Kelly AFB and McClellan AFB Relocating its engineering fbnction to Tinker AFB DoD justification for redirect is cost to renovate Hill AFB to accommodate the 485th Engineering Installation Group is costly By inactivating the unit and redistributing its functions, the Air Force intends to save money by avoiding MILCON and eliminating overhead G-Y SCENARIO S-Y Griflbs Air Force Base 485th Engineering Installation Group DOD RECOMMENDATION Redhct: Iuctlrah the 45th EnLiw+rllrg IuWlrtka Croup (EIC) Tnuufer peno~clto Tinker AFB, Kelly AFB, and McClellan AFB One Time Coab (SM): 1.9 AnrdSavbp (SM): 2.9 hbrnoa Lv-t: Immdiste Reducts overhead BASE ANALYSIS Griffrss Air Force Base 485th Engineering Installation Group DOD RECOMMENDATION: Redirect: Inactivate the 485th EIG. M)D CRITERIA 1 RECOMMENDATION I Communications Engineering Installation Group ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 1.9 ANNUAL SAVINGS (S MI 2.9 RETURN ON INVESTMENT Immediate NET PRESENT VALUE 52.2 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) NIA PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL I CIV) 7710 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL I CIV) o/o* ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 1 CUM) NIA - - ENVIRONMENTAL I NI A * Personnel realignments arc considmd as part of the 1993 action. ISSUES Malmstrom AFB, MT ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION 1 MASTAFF FII)(DINGS I Mockrn aircraft maintenance Concur-new frrcilities built in past Facilities can support additional Statc-of-the art friliiies are operations facilities h~m aircnrft becoming a in Air Fcrce Will go to waste without flying Missile Wing will 7frilities 1 mission I No environmental constraints ( Concur-Air Force gndcd Green- I Cleanest air and best flying. - weather ( Montana d North $clkota I I all year round ( baacs rclativcly cqua( Green Uncncroachod air space I Concur-Air Force graded I Agree 1 Montana d North hakota RECEIVER DEMAND VS TOTAL TANKER BASING OPERATIONS - LARGE AII~CRAF'I.'n~lil MISSI1,ES Sabca tcgorics ANALYSIS RESUI,'l'S at TIERING (3 Nov) Tlac followi~~ggrarlts rlwl clala rcfltcl lllc infomalion an wl~icl~rile DCEO ~nc~~~l~crsbnscd llleir ticring tletcr~~linn~ia~~.Illrorl~liltio~l ill Illis (-11ar1 wits tlpdafctl as rcsult of a II~IIII~~of factors klwcen inifirtl ticriag nntl final reco~ntne~wln~iau. ---.-.-.- Ihsc Na111c 1.1 1.2 I1 111 IV \I V I VI I Vl ll Green No Grab Oreerr area 4331 18 20 (;I~CII --Alhs- A IJI! - - 4,392 (43.9%L ---.--Ycllow .----.-. - Ilarkrtlula AYI) Grccll No Orule areen Circetl- 2211-378 5 9 9GG7.0%] ('irccn \'ellow .- -- .-. - - .-- .-L --.---.. - --...... -.Iltrlc A Ill) -(Ilrc11 No Oruh Ycllow OWCII - lW-567 3 4,795 (1 0.0%) --- Y cllow .-Y cll~,w-..------.I C'l~rrleslo~rA YII Ciralr No Grub Yellow ~tcali 4231- 100 14 30(I4) Ycllow .I Ycllow .I - + - ---.-- -- .---.. Grew No Yellow Grcea 3221-314 8 8 I5 (I I) C;nctl --Iluver AI;Il ar~k - .- - - 3. - .-Itctl ---- I. lbycss A l;ll Orcea No Grub Orcur (irec~r 1321-443 3 6 983 (12.7%) Circc11 Grct:tl ------I .------.--.----- Ells~vorllrAFll ' Yellow + No OrrJa Gree~r Qrecr~- 4 11-849 I 6,427 (12.6%) ---.-c - .-Yell~,~ ...--- Fulrclrlltl A PII Green - No Oracle Oreeta - C;rec~l - -._-3W-306 8 7,850 (1.576) ---.Yellow -I ----Ycllow ...... I <;rurrtl Vorks APU Yellow + Red Gr-11- ---Ycllow + 1291-731 2 7,054 (16.7'16) ----.Ycllow .I. -----Yellow .I. -I.lltle Ibck AFll Circe~r- NoOr& or to^ - Orm~a- --- 32W-347 8 7,798 (2.9%) -Ycllow----- .I. ---..Ycllow . - .r - hlnl~rtslro~~A 1;Il Gree~~- Green Oreeli - Yellow 321-797 I 6,722 (13.4'16) --Ycllow .I. (irce~l------I' Ci~.wn Clrutlc (Irccll -.-J(IcCUHIIL.II AVIb - h'o - Circc11 - 2241-347 6 _5,760 (2.3%) OWCII------Yellow---.-.. I. Circa1 Ycllow Circcli -hlcCvlrc APII No Grule + --- --6241-316 10 -1-3 627 (I4 .- ----.---Ycllow r ---.--..-.Ycll4,w hlitrot Allll (iret~r- , Yellow Glee11 - Y ellow 4.0 591-801 I 7,320 (29.75) Cil.cell - (it.cctl - ---. ------_I---_..__.. --Ofta144 A IJlI Yellow + , No Grule 0rw11 Yellow .I. --5 151- 15 1 13 -2-I6OHSJ4.R%) (;tee~~-.--- - -Yt:llow ----- I. Scol l A 1;Il Yellow No Grule YcHow + Ycllow 24W-528 5 ------2.216 245Q.4'Xa -, - -Ycllow.-.-..,-. .I .,-Ycllow ...... I -'l'rnvls A FIB Clrcol -.Na -- Grade Ycllow Ora~r- 14(d-2i)7 14 3 1,5'10 (lr1.89L'f-- - -Yellow.---- .I --Ycllow --- \\'b~lleit~n~uAPIB (ireen - No Gruclc Oreell - Ycllow + 32W-383 7 (1.55 1 (12.3%) Ycllow I. (;wet~ - OPERATIONS - LARGE AII1CRAli"I" nncl MISSI1,ES Subcntcgorics I TIERING OFBASES As am intermdials Lpin ilr Air Force Proems, llw DCEO nunilan wtab~is~lullllc fnllowlng liering of bases bnsuloll [la rclnlive ~neritof bases within the aubulegory u nruurccl using tl~cigllt selection criteria. Tier I represenla lltc Ligl~strelntivc merit, TIER I Allus MI) Barkstlnle APD Clrnrleston AFII Dover APB Dyes.$ AAFB Ffiirclriltl APD - Liltle Rock API3 McCo~rnellAFD Travis AFB Whitemrrn APB TIER I1 I3enlc AFI) . TIER 111 Ellsworth AP13 Grant! Forks AFD Scott AFB Vi3nqr3 TPU 8WA braqqsdZ (TPGGnl) mrr~or93aiminT toliq td, tmioG OTAHorul nrigoiq baitibom r ni TiU OTAM baa a3io'l riA anidme3 TY13M3HIUQ3H ?!$I a3ro'iI riA Z&I OTAVI ObS I rrjojd u2 2s .bnul rstdail 03 ortnl ?!8X JATOT _I :vi3rqu -313 lo apwbaaaa19 noijirnmT majr$i? gaiaiarT tt~i31iAylrmhq tniol - aJ,arj gninimt rdd~i"n.rsdmo8bn. yrrrmi-19rol wohavo nroW riA - &aamsliupEI OTAM - CATEGORY: UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING (UPT) STAFF ANALYSIS111 CORRECT DATA I OF MERIT I WEATHER 4.7 1 30 1 I I I AIRSPACE 20 3.4 5.6 4.5 5.3 ENCROACHMENT 20 8.6 8.9 10.0 6.9 AIRFIELDS 15 8.2 8.9 7.7 9.2 MAINTENANCE 10 7.4 7.4 6.4 6.6 FACILITIES GROUND TRNG 5 7.9 7.4 7.3 7.8 FACILITIES TOTAL: 100 6.2 6.9 7.2 6.3 RINK: 4 2 1 3 CATEGORY: UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING (UPT) STAFF ANALYSIS-IV DELETE ICING PARAMETER UPTJCSG I STAFF I RJEESE 1 COLUMBUS I LAUGHLIN 1 VANCE MEASURES WEIGHT (c) (XI (*I (*) (*I (x) OF MERlT Clorurc Closure Closure Clorure WEATHER I 30 AIRSPACE 20 ENCROACHMENT 20 MANTENANCE 10 FACILITIES GROUND TRNG 5 FACILITIES RANK: I UNWEIGHTED (C)= DoD rtcorsnwddtm for closw (X) = Joint Cross-Service Group option for closw (*) = CandWeforJivrkr cornideration ISSUE Infrastructure md Community Support ( Off-base Housing inadequate I Whole House upgrade 72% I Sanc DoD data miskding SaKknVTeachcr Ratio high EmploymcntlEducation Agree with community opportunities, low ratio Ofl-base transportation limited Off-bast low-cost housing abundant I I Medid care superior I Quality of Life best in category, essential for retention COLUMBUS Runways, aprons rated second in Inherent mission flexibility Fonner SAC hie category (F- 15 standard) 96% students, 63% instructors Agree with cuanmunity live in on-base housing State is hding S13.5M water/sewtr hook-up to base I ( Education opportunities I Right-sizing Mth-carc tied to community hosvital su~oort I ISSUE Infrastructure and Community Support (Continued) 1 BASE DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION I MASTAFF FINDINGS - - LAUGHLIN Runways, aprons rated lowest in Agree with community category (F- 1 5 standard) call to runways and aprons I Infrastructure sound Whole Hour upgrades underway Former SAC base Civilian Maintenance does all UPT engine work, won '93 Daedalions Trophy VANCE Runways, aprons rated highest in Top installation--"Manicured'* Agree with community category (F- 1 5 standard) !( Umbrella Contract eficiencies Most costeffective UPT base I Housing awarded four Oustandings Medical care top quality, $1 Slvisit Education support for member/spouse (25% / 50%) I I I Rental Home orogram I UNDERGRADUA'I'E FLYING TIMINING ANALYSIS RESULTS at 'I'IERING (18 Oct) I 1, TIM loUowing gndes alwl tlala reflect the inlotmallon on wllkb IIw BCEG numhrs bawd llvir liering (leterminr~ion. I~~fon~lrtio~~in ~lliscl1al.t ', was updated as the rcurll of a number of factors between initial liering and finnl reco~~ln)eada~ions. . 1 Base NUBBBC 1.1 I1 111 IV V V I VII r Vlll Cdunlur APR ORcn Omen Yellow 171-333 I 3,423 (8.4%) Yellow + Yelluw I.autbiln AFfl Yellow + Orocn - Yellow - 2W-275 2 4,115 (27.1%) Yellow Yellow .I. NdpbAFD Orcen - Orem - Yellow 2W-59 13 12,579 (2.0%) Green - Yellow - Mooso AFB Red G-n - Yellow - 151-259 I 3,446 (3. I%) Green - Yellow VweAFfl Own Orccn - _Yellow- 14-254 I 3,040 (I1.6%) Oreec~- Yellow r UNDERGBADUA'I'E FLYING TRAINING I TIERING OF BASES As m idcnntdirk step in ale Air Force Process, dte BCEO membce eslablisllcd llra following tiering of bases ksed on (Ire relitlive rncrit of ' buts within the subcalcgq as measured usin8 the eigld relcclioll crilcrir. Ticr Irepresents tlre Irillust relative nrerit, TIrn I Columbus APB Lauglrlin AFD Randolplr AFD Vance AFI) ,I TIER 111 Reese AFB AIR N SPACE - SATELLITE CONTROL Subcategory ANALYSIS RESULTS at TIERING (12 Dee) Iho folbwin( d data mfktthe inlMmtion on which the BCEa nwmbas badtheir tiering dekrmi~tion.Information in this durt wuupdd u th8 mull of a number of fcton b@twetninitial ticring and fi~vlrcco~ntnddionr. BanNan. 1.3 11 IS1 IV V VI VII VIIl PR&!O@AP1 Y&w+ Chon- Rd+ 579660 Never 4,722(2.5%] Yellow + Yellow + (Msrlrr AFI Ydlow + Ydlow Rd + 2911-82 10 4,U2 (0.5%)* Yellow+ Yellow t I 1 SPACE - SATELLITE CONTROL Subcategory TIERING OF DASES )J an inhwdk 11 the Ak Parer Roeas, the BCBO n#mkn srtnblirhcd the folloviq liering of baw based on ~ltcnlntive lnerit of buuwiun tk aubalcgory u mvwrd wing ihr oi~ht8election criteria. Tier I repMtlt the highat relative merit, TIER I Falcon AFB TIER I11 O~rizukaAFB BACK UP SLIDES ISSUES Bergstrom Air Reserve Bw ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION 1 MASF~F FINDINGS --- No negative impact I Long tradition supporting military High voluntberism rate for deployments High tech industry supports Air Force Reserve need for qualified recruits Cemmvmity support None Passed $400 million rcfeTtndurn to keep Reserve unit Capital expenditures to expedite Reserva move into cantonment Austin assumes costs of airport reducing Air Force BOS costs Large rctircd population in region ------' MOVC ~g I WAF(AFRES) to 924th FW/&rgstrom also a Bcrgstrom ARB cantonment cost I NAS Fort Worth JRB, MILCON subordinate unit--moving costs, effective with dher DoD and quid MILCON avoided at Bcrgstrom federal agencies Collocrrtcs with subordinate unit, mund Combat Radiness Center Closvc provides opportunity for 301 st FW/Carswell requires proximity to Army base! 0thDoD and fWagencies to (Fort Hood nearby) reuse ARB facilities (MILCON avoidance) Other DoD d federal agencies want to move to Bergstrom ARB -ArmyNG -NASA -Navy Resv -Dcf lnves Svc ISSUES Homestead Air Reserve Base 11 ISSUE DoD POSITION ( COMMUNITY POSITION 1 MASTAFF FINDINGS I( Demographics can easily support Miami is good source for AFRES Unit consistently meets recruiting recruiting requirements reservists I objectives and is currently stalrd at 101 percent Unit reflects ethnic diversity I I Cumulative economic impact is Economic impact 4-5 pcrunt in Concur with DoD and community addition to impact hmHurricane -0.2 percent Andrew Region is still recovering ISSUES Greater Pittsburgh IAP ARS, PA 1 ISSUE DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Air Force used Minneapolis-St Agree with communityco~t~:ted Paul data data pldunit lower -- No excess capcity to accept more 30 Acres more than Air Force Additional 30 acres available to aircraft reported, with opportunity to unit on memorandum of agreement acquire more at nominal fee lease with Allegchny County. Additional 47 acres available Criteria I1 - Yellow+ Asserted AF data incorrect and Agree with community-recent should be raised to Green airc:mft pavement analyses upgraded weight bearing capacity which was noson for lower military value Ckproxidty to other AFR Factor usad by Air Force to Suggested Pittsburgh could grow Agree with both positions C-13g unit - Youmn recommend Pittsburgh for closure and absorb manning fiom Youngstown if Youngstown closed ISSUES O'Hare IAP ARS, IL -- - -- ISSUE I DOD POSITION I COMM~IWrosri~oK I RDA STAFF FINDINGS 1 Did not address Air Force used Minneapolis-St Paul &tta Recently supported the 1 City of Chicago continuing efforts Deactivation of C-130 unit reduces deactivation of the C-130 unit if to acquire property City's costs of relocating units selected this round Local civic groups support Closure provides highest level of retention of AFR & ANG units at 20-year NPV savings 0'Hare Did not address Did not address Inclwion of MILCON would increase 20-year NPV savings Cbm pm te *AFR Factor usad in mmmcndation to Did not address 70 miles to Gen Mitchell C-130 udt - Cm Mibckll close Pittsburgh ISSUES Minneapolis-St Paul IAP ARS, MN ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Mwt cost effkknt unit in C-13 h,,jngs dad $1 80M 20-year NPV Agree with community. Ca-OrY relatively low Commission estimate of NPV= Air Force hwepdtion L Close om C- 1 30 unit Asserted Air Force Reserve wants Air Force identified an excess of cbonly one C-1M unit to close one C- 130 unit two units, but strongly supports only onc closure ISSUES Niagara FsUs LAP ARS, NY ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION I R&A STAFF FINDINGS Operating c-b (N-ulr y) COBRA wtd S5.7M base Base operating support contractor Inaccurate data used by Air Force operating cost salaries should not be included Agree with community, but cost is still highcst among the C- 1 30 units at S6.2M Economic impact 1.1% Second lagat ~~P~OYWin Niqm Agm with -unity ~gding County and is considcrcd its own dtatislid but impct is 0.5% statistical area. This action would for this action- impact 1.1% Orb Air Fm fbh Did not add- Community assertion Agrte with cornm~nity-hstunit unit in State other than Air National Guard ISSUES General Mitchell IAP ARS, WI 11 ISSUE I DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION I MASTAFF FINDINGS 11 I Yes - 4 aidwith S600K in 4 aircraft at no cost Concur in excess capacity II I minor construction 1 II Performs wheel and tire repair for Reviewed facility during base visit several C- 130 units Ch~roxbitY &r AFRES A factor udin --endation Some unit members currently Gen Mitchell 70 miles fiom C-1% umit - O'Harc to ciose Pittsburgh commute fiom Chicago area O'Harc 1hb Air Force h~ve*4 1 ~jdnot addttSS Community assertion - unit Agree with community; last personnel represent every county in Rcsuve flying unit other than Air State National Guard ISSUES Youngstown-Warren MPT ARS, OH ISSUE DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION MASTAFF FINDINGS ExphCapability Unit can expand by 8 aircraft with $1 8.7M in MILCON to support $22.5M in MILCON thru FY 97 $1 1.6M in MILCON growth of 8 aircraft to support growth. More funding programmed beyond 97. Opcntirg Cwb original COBRA S 1.9M Lowest for 8 aircraft Concur with community; we estimate S3.7M Insufficient data available for costs for unit growth Clolw Pmxhky to otber AFR C- Factor usod in selection of Did not address 55 miles to Pittsburgh 130 wit - Pitbbv* Pittsburgh and to support growth of unit AIR RESEItVE COMPONENT - AIR FORCE RESERVE S111)cnlcgol*y OVERALL DmName 1.1 11 111 IV V' VI VII VlIl brrlcrlrem ARB Yellow - Yclbw Ydlow + 34-84 2 1,s 13 (0.3%). Green - Green CurweU AFl YcCIow Ydht Ydlow 26/55 Ncver 975 (0.1 %) Oreen- Cime I)olbiwr AIU) Yellow+ &&n- Yellow W-110 3 10,774 (0.6%) Oreen - Oreen - (;en MLkhU IAPAItS YeUow + Yc)low Yellow 131-124 1 629 (0.1% Green - Green - Grerler PUtdw~hIAP ARS Onen - Yellow + Yellow 14-138 1 701(0.1% Or#n - Green - Criuour APB Yabw + Ydbw + Yellow 811-161 5 3,757 (4.3%)* Oreen - Yellow + liemestu4 AUU Ydlow + Yellow + Ydlow 81-194 0 693(0.1%)* hn- Yellow Mwch AYU Yrllow+ Yellow Om- 184-212 7 18,772 (1.8%)' Grcen - Yellow - hIlrwa@ol&-S1 PdIAP AUS Yellow+ Green- Yellow- 14-119 2 l,ll(.l%) Green- Yellow-1. NAS WUbw Crwa ANS Ycllow + Yellow Yellow lW-60 Nlr~araP.U1 IAP ANS YcHow + Yellow + Yellow 141 15 O'llare IAP. AUS Green - Ydlow + Yellow 141-152 \Vcrlovrr ARB Green - Yellow Orccn - 1491 You~grtewr-Warrenhl lvT AItS Yellow + Yellow + Yellow - 131- 107 Green - Circ?ecl- BASE ANALYSIS Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA M)D RECOMMENDATION: Clost Moffett Federal Airfield Air Guard Station, CA. Relocate unit to McClellan AFB, CA. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject cach recommended closure. --- CRITERIA MOFFETT FEDERALAIRFIELD AGS, CA (c) FORCE STRUCTURE Combat Rescue Group: HC- 1 30 aircnft/HH-60 helicopters ONE-TIME COSTS (S M) 18.3 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 3.9 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2003 (6 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 34.8 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 3.9 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) 6/13 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL 1 CIV) 8212 1 7 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 / CUM) -0.1W -0.5% . (C)= DoD rtc0Monfor closure (R) = DoD recomndation for realignment (X) = Joint Cross Service Groty altemrrtivc for closure or realignment (*) = Commission add fw@ther comi&ration ISSUES REVIEWED Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA Govmnrrt-wide cortr Closure can be accomplished outside of BRAC proccss Air Force cort anatysb Agmlncnt between NASA urd ANG ISSUES Moffett Federal Airfild AGS, CA ISSUE DoDPOSI'I'ION I COMMUNITY POSITION MASTAFF FINDINGS ------Govemmcnt-wide costs DOD cats only Costs should be viewed fiom a government-wide Costs will increase to federal perspective govcmment ROI: 6 years I ROI: Never NPV: S35M I NPV: CostS17.6M Air Force Cost Analysis: Air Force's cost analysis is flawed: Cost analysis is reasonable MILCON Requirements $9.2 M MILCON requirements have changed significantly MILCON figures have evolved but still reasonable Savings 3.9 M annually Claimed savings are suspect Savings reasonable Military Value of McClellan com@le Air Force performed no analysis of military value Air Force did not perform military value military value assessment of vs. Moffett Field Moffett Airfield offers more military value ANG positive effect Commander of California ANG thinks unit should on recruiting Qurrlity of facilities & remain at Moffett Field acce!B to ranges are comparable Agreement between ANG Agreement can be AFIANG made long-term commitment to remain at Agrctment can be terminated and NASA terminated I Mom Field by either party BASE ANALYSIS North Highlands AGS, CA DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close North Highlands AGS, CA. Relocate unit to McClellan AFB, CA. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each rccommcndcd closure. PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL 1 CIV) PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL 1 CIV) (C) = DoD mwmmmcMon for closurc (R) - DoD rcco- for realignment (X) - Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment , (*) = Commission add fwfiuther c011sideration ISSUES Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA 11 ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION I UASTAFFFMDMGS 1 Closurc can be Should be Moffctt Field AGS docs not meet BRAC threshold and Is a BRAC issue if service *omplilhcd outsideOf revidby BRAC should not bc cvaldthrough BRAC pocas submits to BRAC for review BRAC process ISSUES Spriagfwld-Beckley MAP AGS, OH H lSSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSI1ION R&A STAFF FINDINGS 11 1 I I C1osc d&ng BRAC Wright-Patterson F- 16 facilities Savings overstated in 1993 and . Flight-line fsilities now are now available due to continue to be overstated in 1995 available at Wright-Patterson I s Y I deactivation of unit I I More BOS savings chimed A. Missiles/Large 'Aircraft Grand Forks AFB, ND Minot AFB, ND Malmstrom AFB, MT MacDill AFB, FL (Redirect) B. Undergraduate Pilot Training Reese AFB, TX Columbus AFB, MS Laughlin AFB, TX Vance AFB, OK C. Satellite Control Onizuka AFB, CA Lowry AFB, CO (Redirect) D. Air Force Reserve (F-16) Bergstrom ARB, TX Carswell ARB, TX Homestead ARB, FL Homestead ARB (301 st Air Rescue Squadron), FL (Redirect) Homestead ARB (726th Air Control Squadron), FL (Redirect) E. Air Force Reserve (C-130) Greater Pittsburgh IAP ARS, PA Gen. Mitchell IAP ARS, WI Minneapolis-St. Paul IAP ARS, MN Niagara Falls IAP ARS, NY 07~areIAP ARS, IL Youngstown-Warren MPT Am, OH -- F. Air National Guard Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA North Highlands AGS, CA Ontario AGS, CA Roslyn AGS, NY Springfield-Beckley AGS, OH G. Redirects Griffiss AFB (Airfield), NY Griffiss AFB (485th EIG), NY AIR FORCE CATEGORIES CATEGORY NUMBER , SMALL AIRCRAFT SPACE SUPPORT 2 TECHNICAL TRAINING Highlighted categories have installations DoD has recommended for closure or realignment or Commission has added for further consideration for closure or realignment. AIR FORCE CATEGORY: MISSILE/LARGE AIRCRAFT (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (*) = Commission addfor firther consideration (M) = Missile Base MissilelLarge Aircraft Bases i ------I A Andersen AFB Guam A Hlckam AFB Hawaii BASE ANALYSIS DOD RECOMMENDATION: Realign Grand Forks AFB by inactivating the 321st Missile Group. COMMISSION ADD FOR CONSIDERATION Study Minot AFB FOR REUNMENTby inactivating the 91st Missile Group. Study Grand Forks AFB FOR CLOSURE;. - - CRITERIA GRAND FORKS, ND MINOT, ND GRAND FORKS, ND (R) (*) (R)(*) (Realign MM 111) (Realign MM 111) (Closure) AIR FORCE TIERING I11 I1 I11 BCEG FLYING RATING Yellow -t Yellow + Yellow + BCEG MISSILE RATING Red Yellow Red FORCE STRUCTURE 150 MINUTEMAN 111 150 MINUTEMAN 111 150 MINUTEMAN 111 48 KC-1 35 Aircraft 12 B-52 Aircraft 48 KC-135 Aircraft ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 11.9 17.3 2 15.3 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 35.2 36.1 87.7 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1998 (Immediate) 1998 (Immediate) 2000 (2 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 447.1 453.7 960.2 BASE OPERATMG BUDGET ($M) 26.7 26.7 26.7 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MILICIV) 802135 809/46 1,6841122 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MILICIV) 0/0 010 2,2671333 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC95lCUM) -3.1%1-3.1% -3.1%/-3.1% -13.4%/-13.4% ENVIRONMENTAL AsbestosISiting Siting AsbestosfSiting A (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (*) = Candidate fir Jirrtherconsideration ISSUES Grand Forks AFB, ND ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Missile field operational Least capable All missile fields equally capable Less survivable geology effectiveness Fully capable of performing Lower alert rate mission Higher on-site depot support costs Antiballistic missile No effect on right to retain an Restricts ballistic missile Interagency position resolves implications ABM deployment area at Grand defense options potential ABM obstacles Forks Requires demolition of existing Not necessary to demolish or ABM facilities relocate ABM facilities. Could send misleading signal to the former Soviet Union Cost No ABM-related costs Costs are greatly underestimated No ABM-related costs ~ncludehousing demolition costs No housing demolition costs Core tanker base Operational effectiveness and Agree with DoD Sustained high deployment rate fiscal efficiency Overhead efficiencies Operational location Important for Single Integrated DoD correctly assessed the Important for Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) and military value of Grand Forks Operations Plan (SIOP) global deployment support AFB when selecting it as core tanker base Upgraded runway and hydrant Supported by CMCs and CSAF system, modem facilities,zoning guarantees Tanker saturation in North central location Agree with DoD Northwest tanker saturation not an Northwest issue for Grand Forks AFB I Southeast tanker shortfall I Shortfall is for training only Agree with DoD Not a decisive issue ISSUES Minot AFB, ND ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FmDINGS Missile field operational More capable than Grand Forks More capable than Grand More survivable geology effectiveness Forks Highest alert rate of all missile units Lowest on-site depot support costs of all missile units Antiballistic missile Inactivate Minot missile field There are no ABM Potential ABM problem at Grand implications only if there are ABM implications that preclude Forks resolved by interagency implications that preclude inactivation of Grand Forks review inactivation of Grand Forks missile field Minot alternative not required i SCENARIO SUMMARY Grand Forks AFB 2 DoD RECOMMENDATION Realign Grand Forks AFB Inactivate the 32 1st Missile Group Relocate Minuteman I11 missiles to Malmstrom AFB, MT Retain small number of silo launchers if required One time Cost ($M):11.9 Annual Savings ($M): 35.2 Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate) Net Present Value (SM): 447.1 PRO CON Eliminates excess missile field Small number of silos may be retained Eliminates less capable missile field Less survivability Lower alert rate Higher on site depot support costs Lowest cost to close SCENARIO SUMMARY Grand Forks AFB I COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 1 COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 2 Realign Minot AFB Close Grand Forks AFB. 1 Inactivate the 91st Missile Group. Inactivate the 32 1st Missile Group 1 Relocate Minuteman I11 missiles to Malmstrom AFB, MT Relocate Minuteman 111 missiles to Malmstrom AFB, MT I Retain small number of silo launchers if required Inactivate the 3 19th Air Refueling Wing and relocate squardons as operational requirements dictate One time Cost ($M): 17.3 One time Cost ($M): 215.3 Annual Savings ($M):36.1 Annual Savings ($M):87.7 Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate) Return on Investment: 2000 (2 Years) 'Net Present Value ($M): 453.7 Net Present Value ($M): 960.2 PRO I CON PRO CON I Eliminates excess missile field Eliminates more capable missile Eliminates excess large aircraft Reduces operational field base effectiveness for SIOP and deployment support More survivable geology than Provides substantial savings Grand Forks Warfighting CINCs want to Relieves tanker shortfall for retain Highest alert rate of all missile training in Southeast units Breaks up core tanker unit Lowest depot support costs of all Disrupts near term readiness missile units BASE ANALYSIS Malmstrom AFB, MT DOD RECOMMENDATION: Realign Malmstrom AFB. The 43rd Air Rekeling Group and its KC-135 aircraft will relocate to MacDill AFB, FL. All fixed-wing aircraft flying operations at Malmstrom AFB will cease and the airfield will be closed. b CRITERIA DOD RECOMMENDATION AIR FORCE TIERING I1 BCEG FLYING RATING Green- FORCE STRUCTURE 12 KC-135 ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 26.5 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 4.2 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2002 (5 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 38.6 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 21.8 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) 0 10 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 667 / 17 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 1 CUM) -2.1% / -2.2% ENVIRONMENTAL Asbestos/Siting A-B ISSUES REVIEWED Malmstrom AFB, MT Northwest tanker saturation Modern aircraft maintenance and operations facilities on Malmstrom No environmental constraints Lack of tanker capability in southeast U.S. Unencroached airspace Malmstrom airfield limitations for tanker maximum gross weight operations (Field elevation and runway length) Capacity available to accommodate more tankers ISSUES Malmstrom AFB, MT ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Northwest tanker saturation Yes Did not address Agree - 70 tankers based at Fairchild AFB, WA 19% Based / 6% Demand Lack of tankers in southeast In~provessituation Malmstrom tankers do not fix the Southeast deficiency is for U.S. problem training not operational requirements 9% Based / 27% Demand Airfield limitations Yes-Pressure altitutude and Requirement for maximum gross Yes- Airfield elevation (3500') runway length weight take-offs is minimal and runway length limits takeoff gross weights ( Capacity available to Excess capacity exists, but more Yes - Base can support two more Base can accept two more accommodate more aircraft aircraft would exacerbate tanker squadrons squadrons with additional saturation in northwest MILCON - Exacerbates northwest tanker saturation SCENARIO SUMMARY Malmstrom AFB, MT DOD RECOMMENDATION Realign Malmstrom AFB tankers to MacDill AFB, FL and close airfield fured wing operations One Time Costs ($M): 26.5 Annual Savings ($M): 4.2 Return on Investment: 5 years (2002) Net Present Value ($M):38.6 PRO CON Relieves tanker saturation in northwest Does not reduce excess capacity in large aircraft infrastructure Decreases tanker shortfall in Southeast Permits cost effective approach to operate MacDill airfield MacDill becomes available for increased military training A MacDill Air Force Base, Florida 199 1 DBCRC Recommendation Realign the aircraft to Luke AFB, AZ Move the Joint Communications Support Element (JCSE) to Charleston AFB,SC Close airfield Remainder of MacDill becomes an administrative base 1993 DBCRC Recommendation Retain JCSE at MacDill Airfield operation transfers to Department of Commerce (DOC) or other Federal agency 1995 DoD Recommendation Retain MacDill airfield as part of MacDill AFB Air Force continue to operate the runway DOC remain as tenant DoD Justification DepSECDEF and CJCS validated airfield requirements of two unified commands at MacDill Air Force has responsibility to support the requirements Tampa International Airport cannot to support Unified Commands' requirements DoD requirements constitute approximately 95% of airfield operations More efficient for Air Force to operate the airfield from existing active duty support base SCENARIO SUMMARY MacDill AFB, FL DOD RECOMMENDATION REDIRECT One Time Costs ($M):N/A Steady State Savings ($M): N/A Return on Investment: NIA Net Present Value ($M):N/A PRO CON DepSECDEF directed Air Force to support Does not eliminate excess capacity combat commanders with operational airfield Redistribution of tankers to southeast for training More efficient to retain operations than to be tenant Retains within DoD capability to support combat commands ISSUES Malmstrom AFB, MT ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Modern aircraft maintenance Concur-new facilities built in past Facilities can support additional State-of-the art facilities are operations facilities three years aircraft becoming a in Air Force Will go to waste without flying Missile Wing will use facilities mission No environmental constraints Concur-Air Force graded Green- Cleanest air and best flying weather Montana and North Dakota all year round bases relatively equal [Jnencroached air space Concur-Air Force graded Green Agree Montana and North Dakota bases equal ( RECEIVER DEMAND VS I, OPERArI'IONS - LARGE AIRCRAF'I' nut1 MISSI1,BS Sr~l~calcgorics ANALYSIS RESU1,'I'S at TIERING (3'Nov) l'hc followi~~ggrndcs nsd (lain ~.cflectll~e information on wl~icltthe DCEO me~~hersbnsed tlrcir tiering tletcrl~liontioa. Illrorltii~lionill Illis t:llnrl wits tipdated as tllc rcstlll of n r~urllbcrof factors between inilir\l ticring nntl firlnl recol~~rnc~~tlntio~~s. OPERATIONS - LARGE AIIICItAl~rnncl MISSI1,ES Subcntegorics TIERING OF BASES As an intermedintc step in llle Air Forcc Process, ll~eBCEO nlenllxrs establisl~edtlic following tiering of bnscs based OII ~llcrcln~ive ~llerii of bases witl~inthe sukalegory ns n~easuredusing tlie ciglll seleclion criterin. Wcr I represents tbe liigl~estrelntivc incrit, TIER I Allus Mi3 ~nrkstlnleAFll Cl~arleston APB ' ' Dover APB Dyess AFB Fairclliltl AFB Little Rock AF13 McCo~~nellAPB Travis AFB Whiteman APB TIER I1 neclle APB Mallnslrotn APB 1 McCuire AT713 Minot MI3 Offu tt Am TIER II'I Ellsworll~AFL) Grant1 Forks AFD Scott AFB AIR FORCE CATEGORY: UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING (UPT) BASES TIER ( INSTALLATION 1 11 I ( Randolph AFB, TX 11 11 Excl I Sheppard AFB, TX II (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (X) = Joint Cross-Service Group option for closure (7 = Commissioner add for Jirrther consideration - Undergraduate Pilot Training Bases Air Force UPT Capacity Requirement increases 52 percent in six year closure period DoD Analyses UPT-JCSG: Two of Three Alternatives Closed one AIR FORCE UPT Base Air Force BCEG: Unacceptable Risk to Close Two SECAF recommends one closure: Reese Air Force Capacity Concerns Long-term requirements changing since SECDEF RECOMMENDATION Comfortable through 6-Year closure period Capacity model assumptions uncertain beyond Excess consumed by transition to Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (2001-2011) Unknowns: Air Force Reserve requirements, Pilot Retention, Airline Hiring, International requirements, Choice of new Joint Primary Aircraft Training System Air Force UPT Capacity Analysis based on meeting AIR FORCE Pilot Training Requirements Assumes 5-day work week to allow recovery capacity for unforeseen impacts Capacity expressed in "UPT graduate equivalents." Capacity 1,228 AF Pilot Training Requirement -1.078 Excess 150 (12 %) Planned usage of excess capacity: Instructor Crossflow (T-37 to T-38): -39 Joint Primary Aircraft Training System Transition -100 Flight operations beyond 95% capacity will compromise training and safety UPT BASE ANALYSIS DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Reese AFB and redistributelretire all assigned aircraft. COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Columbus, Laughlin, and Vance FOR CLOSUM as a SUBSTITUTE for Reese. ORCE STRUCTURE (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission add for further consideration ISSUE Weather 11 . BASE. . I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION I R&A STAFF FINDINGS I( ------Weather scored by assessing Icing more important than Icing accounted for in overall ceilings, crosswinds, and attrition crosswinds attrition rate figure rates Reese has option to divert to T-38 operations unsafe above 82 Weighting factor < 15% cross-town IFR airport degrees Fahrenheit Vance loses 4 daydyear more Weighting factor = 30% than Reese Icing assessment not appropriate, Icing assessment not appropriate, use overall attrition rate only use overall attrition rate only I Best T-38 safety margin I LAUGHLIN Most important factor Icing assessment not appropriate, use overall attrition rate only Laughlin has best weather, least attrition VANCE 46 9, Icing assessment not appropriate, Icing assessment not appropriate, use overall attrition rate only use overall attrition rate only Use 10 year "Weather History" to better reflect High Capacity ops ISSUE Airspace BASE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS I REESE Gave credit for &L airspace Missed large blocks of airspace Did not give credit for all airspace bordering within I00 nrn within 100 nrn--only counted areas routinely used for UPT Agree with community, recomputed area rC ,, COLUMBUS Missed blocks of airspace shared Agree with community, with Meridian recomputed area LAUGHLIN 66 99 Airspace meets requirements-- Agree with community more easily available if needed VANCE 66 ,9 Proximity provides most efficient Agree with community training Highest volume of airspace in UPT . ISSUE Encroachment BASE I DODPOSITION I COMMUNITYPOSITION I R&A STAFF FINDINGS REESE Small impact on Functional Impacts safe training environment DoD weight too small--large Value impact on safety, training Encroachment nonexistent I Weighting factor = 6% Weighting factor = 20% Agree with community COLUMBUS (( 99 Impacts safe training environment Agree with community I I Encroachment nonexistent I LAUGHLIN (lrnpacts safe training environment I Agree with community Encroachment nonexistent, base remote fiom airline routes I VANCE 18 % encroachment in Accident Agree with community I Potential Zone 11, impact minor Zoning in-place to restrict future I encroachment growth ISSUE Economic Impact BASE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS REESE -2.4 % None COLUMBUS -5.0 % One of top ten employers in state High economic impact $21 4 M Impact severe on agricultural community LAUGHLIN -21.4 % Closure would devastate Val Highest economic impact Verde County (24 % County Gross Product) Unemployment now at 14 % VANCE - 10.2% Community recovering from oil High economic impact industry decline UPT BASE ANALYSIS ISSUE REESE AFB COLUMBUS AFB LAUGHLIN AFB VANCE AFB (C) (XI (*I (*I (*) (XI I Pilot Training Capacity 392 408 424 396 UPT Base Fixed Costs 78.5 M 74.8 M 84.2 M 69.8 M Variable Costs per Graduate 245 K 237 K 245 K 232 K Air-to-Ground Gunnery Range -- YES -- -- Weather Attrition Rates (T-37lT-38) 27.1 1 27.0 22.5122.9 , 18.6 121.3 22.7 122.4 Economic Impact -2.4 % -5.0 % -21.4 % - 10.2% Functional Value Air Force 6.22 6.74 6.5 6.67 Staff Analysis 111 6.2 6.9 7.2 6.3 Staff Analysis IV 6.1 6.7 7.1 6.3 (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission addfor further consideration UPT SCENARIO SUMMARY DoD RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE I Reese Air Force Base: Close. Columbus Air Force Base: Close. 64th Flying Training Wing: I*. 14th Flying Training Wing: hctiv&. All assigned T- I, T-37 and T-38 aircraft: Utributelreb. All assigned T-37 and T-38lAT-38 aircraft: utelrem. One Time Costs ($M): 46.4 One Time Costs ($M): 58.6 Annual Savings ($M): 32.4 Annual Savings ($M): 37.8 Return on Investment: 1999 (2 Years) Return on Investment: 1999 (2 Years) Net Present Value (SM): 404.8 Net Present Value ($M):474.5 PRO CON PRO CON 4th in UPT Functional Value Closing a UPT base increases risk High NPV 2nd in UPT Functional Value Pressure Altitude and Runway in meeting long-term Pilot Training Air-to-Ground Gunnery Range Length impact T-38 ops Requirements virtually irreplaceable MILCON Cost Avoidance High Community Support Excellent T-38 operations not constrained - RunwaysIAprons - Medical costs by high temperatures - Environmental - Lubbock Hangar - Family Housing Lease Less flexibility in meeting Lowest cost to Close increased pilot training Off-Base Environment Excellent requirements at other bases - Employment - Education MILCON Cost Avoidance Low - Housing - Runways/Aprons Sound - Family Housing Excellent i UPT SCENARIO SUMMARY I COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE I1 COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 111 Laughlin Air Force Base: Close. Vance Air Force Base: Close. Inactivate. 47th Flying Training Wing: hctiv&. 7 1st Flying Training Wing: . . All assigned T-I, T-37 and T-38 aircraft: &d&ibutel&. All assigned T-37 and T-38 aircraft: Redlstrlbllte/retire. One Time Costs ($M):56.2 One Time Costs ($M): 53.3 Annual Savings ($M):38.1 Annual Savings ($M):32.1 I Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1998 (2 Years) I Net Present Value (SM): 478.4 Net Present Value ($M): 396.7 PRO I CON PRO I CON , Highest operating cost I I st in UPT Functional Value 1 3rd in UPT Functional Value ( Less flexibility in meeting- I increased pilot training Weather and unencroached 1 Highest NPV requirements at other bases airspace and airfields ideal for Pilot Training Lowest NPV Less flexibility in meeting MILCON Cost Avoidance Low increased pilot training - RunwaysIAprons requirements at other bases - Housing I Economic Impact Highest (-2 1.4%) I I Economic Impact High (- 10.2%) Community Support Excellent - Medical costs - Employment - Education - Housing Sheppard AFB UPT Capacity Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program (ENJJPT) Combines Air Force and NATO UPT in a modified program CAPACITY 320 PTR -285 35 (11 % Excess) Planned usage of excess capacity: -- Joint Primary Aircraft Training System Transition -- Air Force overflow for Primary and BomberBighter training tracks -- NATO Requirements CATEGORY: UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING (UPT) STAFF ANALY SIS-I11 CORRECT DATA -- -~- I UPT-JCSG STAFF REESE COLUMBUS LAUGHLIN VANCE MEASURES WEIGHT (c) (x) (*) (*I (*) (x) . OP MERIT Closure Closure Closure Closure WEATHER 30 5 .O 5 .O 7.0 4.7 AIRSPACE 20 3.4 5.6 4.5 5.3 ENCROACHMENT 20 8.6 8.9 10.0 6.9 AIRFIELDS 15 8.2 8.9 7.7 9.2 MAINTENANCE 10 7.4 7.4 6.4 6.6 FACILITIES GROUND TRNG 5 7.9 7.4 7.3 7.8 FACILITIES TOTAL: 100 6.2 6.9 7.2 6.3 RANK: 4 2 1 3 i UNWEIGHTED SCORE 6.75 7.20 7.15 6.75 AVERAGE RANK 3 Tie 1 2 3 Tie A (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (X) =Joint Cross-Service Group option for closure (*) = Candidateforfirther consideration &I5 CATEGORY: UNDERGRADUATE PILOT TRAINING (UPT) STAFF ANALYSIS-IV DELETE ICING PARAMETER UPT-JCSG STAFF REESE COLUMBUS LAUGHLIN VANCE MEASURES WEIGHT (c) (x) (*) (*) (*) (x) OF MERIT Closure Closure Closure Closure WEATHER 30 4.6 4.7 6.9 4.7 AIRSPACE 20 3.4 5.6 4.5 5.3 ENCROACHMENT 20 8.6 8.9 10.0 6.9 AIRFIELDS 15 8.2 8.9 7.7 9.2 MAINTENANCE 10 7.4 7.4 6.4 6.6 FACILITIES GROUND TRNG 5 7.9 7.4 7.3 7.8 FACILITIES TOTAL: 100 6.1 6.7 7.1 6.3 RANK: 4 2 1 3 UNWEIGHTED SCORE 6.68 7.15 7.13 6.75 AVERAGE RANK 4 1 2 3 - (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (X) = Joint Cross-Service Group option for closure (*) = Candidatefor further consideration 13-16 ISSUE Infrastructure and Community Support BASE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS REESE Runways, aprons rated third in Air Force rated runways, aprons Some MILCON needed for category (F- 15 standard) "Satisfactory" in 1993 report runway/apron upgrades Off-base Housing inadequate Whole House upgrade 72% Some DoD data misleading Student/Teacher Ratio high I Employment~Education Agree with community 1 opportunities, low ratio Off-base transportation limited I Off-base low-cost housing I abundant 1 Medical care superior Quality of Life best in category, essential for retention -- - COLUMBUS Runways, aprons rated second in Inherent mission flexibility Former SAC base category (F- 15 standard) 96% students, 63% instructors Agree with community live in on-base housing State is funding $13.5M waterlsewer hook-up to base I I Education opportunities Right-sizing health-care tied to community hospital support ISSUE 1 Infrastructure and Community Support (Continued) I BASE I DODPOSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION I R&A STAFF FINDINGS 1 LAUGHLIN Runways, aprons rated lowest in Three major upgrades since data Agree with community category (F-1 5 standard) call to runways and aprons Infrastructure sound Whole House upgrades underway Former SAC base Civilian Maintenance does all UPT engine work, won '93 Daedalions Trophy VANCE Runways, aprons rated highest in I Top installation--'Manicwed" Agree with community category (F-15 standard) I I Umbrella Contract efficiencies Most cost-effective UPT base I Housing awarded four Oustandings Medical care top quality, $1 51visit Education support for memberlspouse (25% 1 50%) 1 Rental Home program UNDERGIIADUATE FLYING TRAINING ANALYSIS RESULTS at TIERING (18 Oct) , 'The following gradu slcl clafn reflect lllc infonnalion on wl\icll the BCEG nnlembers based flleir tiering dstsrmina~ion.J~~lort~latiot~ ill illis ellart ', was updated as llle result of a natnbcr of factors between initial tiering and fitlnl reconln~c~~dations. I UNCLASSIFIED I UNDERGItADUATE FLYING TRAINING.'' 1 TIERING OF BASES As m lntcrmediatc step in UaAir Force Process, the BCEa memkrs eslnblisl~cdtl~o following tiering of bases bred on tlic reli~livenicrit of ' bases wihin Ua subcnlcgory as measured l~singLC eight sclcction criteria. Tier I represents tlle bigllesl relative nlerit, TIER I Colurnbus AFD Lauglllin AFB Randolplr AFl3 Vance APB '1 TIER I11 Reese AFB I,. . I UNCLASSIFIED I AIR FORCE CATEGORY: SATELLITE CONTROL BASES (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment Satellite Control Bases I - -- - . -.-.- -. Jndicates Realianment - I BASE ANALYSIS Onizuka Air Station DOD RECOMMENDATION: Realign. Inactivate 750th Space Group. Relocate 750th Space Group's functions to Falcon AFB, Colorado. Relocate Detachment 2, Space and Missile Systems Center, to Falcon AFB. Close all activities and facilities associated with 750th Space Group, including family housing and the clinic. CRITERIA DOD RECOMMENDATION r I AIR FORCE TIERING I11 FORCE STRUCTURE Satellite control ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 121.3 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 16.1 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2007 (7 years) NET PRESENT VALUE 84.2 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 16,879 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL 1 CIV) 27010 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 2 15/83 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) -0.2% / -0.5 % ENVIRONMENTAL Asbestos ISSUES Onizuka Air Station ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS National security implications Backup capability and Back-up required to eliminate Backup capability and of satellite control redundancy redundancy will not be lost with single failure points and provide redundancy for satellites will not (single node vs. dual node) realignment continuous, uninterrupted control be lost with realignment capability in the event of war, Two filly functional satellite natural disaster, or sabotage Proposed BRAC 1995 action to control nodes are no longer realign Onizuka AS will not in required Air Force policy requires any way increase risk associated geographically separated back-up with satellite control or reduce satellite control capability redundancy Single Node Operations Study 1994 study to assess impact of Air Force intended to close Study is not BRAC-related closing Onizuka AS Onizuka AS since 1994 Study is not connected to All costs for moving Detachment RDT&E effort to upgrade the Air 2 and classified tenants belong in Force Satellite Control Network BRAC 1995 recommendation Upgrade is not result of Onizuka One-time costs to close are $699 ~~reali~nmentand is required million (vs. $291 million BRAC) with or without realignment Air Force has one more satellite Air Force would like to close Air Force needs both Onizuka AS Classified tenants will not phase control installation than it Onizuka AS, but must to keep it and Falcon AFB satellite control out or move their missions until needs to support projected open to support remaining nodes after the BRAC 95 timeframe; future Air Force satellite classified tenants thus, recommendation is for control requirements realignment and not closure If Onizuka AS closes its family Air Force wants to eliminate Onizuka AS is the key tenant Air Force wants to convert housing and other support enlisted personnel and family operation to civilian personnel so functions, the whole concept of housing it can close all housing and a federal airfield would be related support facilities severely damaged I SCENARIO SUMMARY Onizuka Air Station 1 DoD RECOMMENDATION 1 Realign. Inactivate 750th Space Group. Relocate 750th Space Group's functions to Falcon AFB, Colorado. 1 Relocate Detachment 2, Space and Missile Systems Center, to Falcon AFB. Close all activities and facilities I associated with 750th Space Group, including family housing and the clinic. I One Time Costs ($M): 121.3 , Annual Savings ($M): 16.1 Return on Investment: 2007 (7 years) Net Present Value ($M): 84.2 PRO CON DoD recommendation will not in any way increase High one-time costs and reduced annual savings risk associated with satellite control or reduce redundancy Air Force has one more satellite control installation than it needs to support fbture Air Force satellite control requirements Onizuka AS ranked lower that Falcon AFB when all eight criteria are applied Falcon AFB has (1) superior protection against current and future electronic encroachment, (2) reduced risks associated with security and mission-disrupting contingencies (e.g., emergencies and natural disasters), and (3) significantly higher closure costs C-5 Lowry Air Force Base Redirect 199 1 Base Closure Commission recommended the closure of Lowry Air Force Base. All technical training be redistributed to remaining technical training centers or relocated to other locations. 1001 st Space Systems Squadron, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and Air Force Reserve Personnel Center remain open in cantonment areas as proposed by the Secretary of Defense. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Change the 1991 Commission recommendation that the 100 1st Space Support Squadron (now designated Detachment 1, Space Systems Support Group) be retained in a cantonment area at the Lowry Support Center. Inactivate the 1001 st Space Systems Squadron. Some Detachment 1 personnel and equipment will relocate to Peterson AFB, CO, under the Space Systems Support Group, while the remainder of the positions will be eliminated. BASE ANALYSIS Lowry Air Force Base DOD RECOMMENDATION: Redirect. Change the 1991 Commission's recommendation that the lOOlst Space Support Squadron (now designated Detachment 1, Space Systems Support Group) be retained in a cantonment area at the Lowry Support Center. The BRAC 1995 recornmendation is to inactivate the 100 1st Space Systems Squadron. Some Detachment 1 personnel and equipment will relocate to Peterson AFB, Colorado, under the Space Systems Support Group, while the remainder of the positions will be eliminated. CRITERIA DOD RECOMMENDATION I FORCE STRUCTURE Software sustainment for ballistic missile early warning system < ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 1.9 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 3.0 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1998 (1 year) NET PRESENT VALUE 38.7 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 3.2 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) 68/1 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 10/10 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 / CUM) -0.01% / -0.8 % ENVIRONMENTAL Asbestos . A SCENARIO SUMMARY Lowry Air Force Base 1 DoD RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE I Redirect. Change 1991 Commission's recommendation. Inactivate Reject DoD's recommendation and change motion language. 1001 st Space Systems Squadron, now designated Detachment 1, Inactivate lOOlst Space Systems Squadron, now designated Space Systems Support Group, relocate some Detachment 1 Detachment 1, Space Systems Support Group, relocate some personnel and equipment to Peterson AFB, Colorado, and eliminate Detachment 1 personnel and equipment to Peterson AFB, Colorado, remainder of positions. eliminate remainder of positions. and close all related facilities. One Time Costs ($M):1.9 One Time Costs (SM): 1.9 Annual Savings ($M):3.0 Annual Savings ($M):3.0 Return on Investment: 1998 (1 year) Return on Investment: 1998 (1 y Net Present Value ($M):38.7 Net Present Value ($M): 38.7 PRO 1 CON PRO CON I 1 Air Force Materiel Command is I DoD recommendation failed to 1 DoD recommendation failed to consolidating space and warning include closure of all related include closure of all related systems software support at facilities facilities Peterson AFB Air Force wants to close all Air Force wants to close all related Inactivation of Detachment 1 and related facilities facilities and opposes retention of moving its functions will fiuther "islands of operations" within consolidate software support at Air Force opposes retention of closed bases Peterson AFB "islands of operations" within closed bases Air Force is consolidating space Community supports accelerated and warning systems software deactivation of unit and closure of support at Peterson AFB all related building structures Community supports accelerated deactivation of unit and closure of all related building structures MOFFETT FIELD L I UNCLASSIRED 1 SPACE - SATELLITE CONTROL Subcategory ANALYSIS RESULTS at TIERING (12 Dec) The following grades and data reflect the information on which the BCEG members based their tiering determination. Information in this chart was updated as the result of a number of factors between initial tiering and fi~lalrecommendations. t Ilase Name 1.3 I1 111 IV v VI VII VIII Falcou AFB . Yellow + Oreen - Red + 5751 660 Never 4,722 (2.5%) Yellow + Yellow + I Onizuka AFB Yellow + Yellow - Red + 2911-82 10 4,082 (0.5%)* Yellow + Yellow + Appendix 5 30 1 UNCLASSIFIED I SPACE - SATELLITE CONTROL Subcategory I TIERING OF BASES A8 an intermediate step in the Air Force Process, the BCEG members established the following tiering of bases based on the rclnlivc merit of bases within the subcategory as measured using the eight selection criteria. Tier I represents the highest relative merit, TIER I Falcon APB TIER 111 O~lizukaAFB AIR FORCE CATEGORY: AIR FORCE RESERVE BASES 11 Dobbins ARB, GA I NAS willow rove ARS, PA II )IGrissom ARB, IN 1 Westover ARB, MA II (R) = DoD recommendation for realigninent (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commissioner add forhrther consideration Air Force Reserve Bases ------.. .------ * C-6 Bases 4 F-16 Bases I I A KC-1 36 Bases Air Force Reserve F-16 Capacity Base Closure Executive Group Minutes Excess of two F-16 Bases SECAF recommended one Air Force Concerns with two closures Demographics and recruiting Community visibility Combat readiness Peacetime operational capability Air Force Secretary supports recommendation AIR FORCE RESERVE: F-16 BASES TIER 1 INSTALLATION 11 (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commissioner add for further consideration BASE ANALYSIS DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Bergstrom ARB; transfer Headquarters, 10th Air Force (AFRES) to Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, Texas. COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Carswell ARS and Homestead ARB FOR CJIOSURIEas ADDITIONS or SUBSTITUTIONS for Bergstrom ARB to reduce infrastructure costs. CRITERIA BERGSTROM ARB CARSWELL ARS HOMESTEAD ARB (C) . (*I (*I FORCE STRUCTURE 15 F-16ClD 15 F- 1 6ClD 15 F- 16A/B ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 17.4 7.9 12.6 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 17.8 13.2 17.3 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1997 (Immediate) 1998 (1 Year) 1998 (1 Year) NET PRESENT VALUE 243.9 177.9 228.6 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 9.2 5.4 9.1 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL ICIV) 0 I263 01219 0 I247 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL I CIV) 0 1 103 010 O/ 127 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 ICUM) -0.1% I-0.1% -0.1% I-0.1% -0.2% 1 -0.2% ENVIRONMENTAL None Asbestos Asbestos/Flood Plain * A (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commission add for @her consideration ISSUES REVIEWED Bergstrom Air Reserve Base Commitments Recruiting Reserve F-16 Force Structure Reductions Community Support Total Base Closure Tenants Costs ISSUES Bergstrom Air Reserve Base ISSUE I DoD POSITION I - COMMUNITY POSITION I R&A STAFF FINDINGS 11 Commitments Keep Reserve unit in place until 91 : Airport decision by Jun 93, Austin obligating local taxpayer September 30,1996 then Reserve unit will remain hnds to honor commitment 93: Honor 9 1 commitment if Commitment conditional on Air airport economically viable by 96 Force drawdown requirements Austin: approved $400 million referendum to keep Reserve unit, control of airport by 96 (cargo), two airports until 98 Reserve F-16 Force Structure Reserve must drawdown two More cost effective to deactivate Force structure reduction can be Reductions F- 16 squadrons Carswell or Homestead units achieved by closure or conversion Deactivation of 924th FW Conversion actions alone can Closure is cost, not drawdown achieves drawdown objectives achieve drawdown objectives issue Total Base Closure 924th FW deactivation achieves Commitments from Air Force, 91 Deactivation permits complete greatest savings in category and 93 Commissions, and Austin closure of an installation community to keep Reserve unit Transfer of Hq 10th AF (AFRES) to NAS Fort Worth JRB required II 9 1/93 commitments conditioned on drawdown requirements ------I 11 Costs Air Force used FY 1994 cost data Air Force compiled base Environmental cleanup delays projected to 9714 operations support costs unfairly Airport development involves no for entire 3000 acre base detrimental reliance on Air Force Austin assumes control of airport commitment I in 96, no credit for reductions 1 D-7 11 BERGSTROM ARB DECISIONS CATEGORY: AIR FORCE RESERVE (F-16) BASES "Therefore, the Commission recommends that Bergstrom Air Force Base close and that the assigned RF-4 aircraft retire... The Air Force Reserve units shall remain in a cantonment area if the base is converted to a civilian airport. If no decision on a civilian airport is reached by June 1993, the Reserve units will be redistributed." 1993 COM-ION REPORT: "Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Bergstrom cantonment area will remain open and the 704th Fighter Squadron (AFRES) with its F-16 aircraft and the 924th Fighter Group (AFRES) support units remain at the Bergstrom cantonment area until at least the end of 1996." ISSUES 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell Air Reserve Station, Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base Number of Closures Recruiting, readiness risks for Air than one Reserve F- 16 base dispersed to increase recruiting Complete closure and immediate category intentional and moving Hq 10th AF joint training opportunities and Retain Carswell and Homestead (AFRES) to NAS Fort Worth best demographics in category for operational and demographic Deactivation of 30lst reasons regardless of disposition FW/Carswell is force structure, Joint Reserve Base Concept 301 st FW imperative to concept NAS Fort Worth JRB is BRAC NAS Fort Worth JRB is DoD Unit deactivation would cause 91 and 93 success model for joint use disruption and delay of joint 301st FW cornerstone unit to Joint training, staging, and training opportunities, cost NAS Fort Worth JRB deployment opportunities effectiveness JRB achieves cost efficiencies ISSUES 301st Fighter Wing, Carswell Air Reserve Station, Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base (Continued) ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Carswell vs. Bergstrom Closure Carswell closure provides Carswell: $7.9M plus $13.0 Agree with community Costs Comparison minimal base closure savings MILCON nnt avoided at Bergstrom = $20.9M Bergstrom: $17.4 minus $13.0 MILCON avoided at Bergstrom = $4.4M Navy incurs $1.2M in overhead support cost if 30 1st F W . deactivates ISSUES REVIEWED Homestead Air Reserve Base Air Force Reserve F-16 Force Structure Reductions Recruiting Total Base Closure Economic Impact Commitments Operational Location Range Access ,. ISSUES Homestead Air Reserve Base I ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION 1 R&A STAFF FINDINGS Reserve F-16 Force Structure Reserve must drawdown two More cost effective to deactivate Force structure reduction can be Reductions F- 16 squadrons 924th FWBergstrom achieved by closure or conversion Deactivation of 924th Closure is cost, not drawdown FW/Bergstrom achieves issue drawdown objectives Total Base Closure 924th FW/Bergstrom deactivation 93 Commission directed return of Deactivation permits complete achieves greatest savings in 30 1st Rescue Squadron and closure of an installation category 482nd Fighter Wing to Homestead Cost-avoidance is in recurring No military construction cost- savings only I avoidance at Iiomestead Commitments DoD honoring 93 Commission Model reuse plan developed in Federal government and 93 recommendation response to 93 Commission Commission commitment to recommendation Homestead Agreement between Dade County Congress committed $88 million and Base Conversion Agency for in FY 1992 supplemental $1.4 million in annual operating appropriation for economic subsidies recovery of south Dade County-- will be spent despite Homestead closure ISSUES Homestead Air Reserve Base (Continued) . ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS I Strategic Location Strategic geographic location as Frequently served as key facility Highest military value in well-positioned staging area for for operations in Caribbean and Reserve F-16 category Caribbean and Latin American Latin America (e.g., Grenada 93 Commission recognized contingencies and Haiti) military value as primary reason Supports CINCSOUTHCOM and to retain Homestead CINCACOM operations Range Access Proximity to overwater supersonic Unencroached land area and Undisputed strategic location airspace and Avon Park Gunnery strategic location cannot be and military value Range replaced by other airfields in Excellent training location for all Florida or Gulf of Mexico Frequent deployments by ACC services fighter units and joint service units ANALYSIS SUMMARY ISSUE BERGSTROM ARB CARSWELL ARS HOMESTEAD ARB (C) (*) (*I Force Structure Reduction: Closure will not impair US Demonstrates viability of joint NIA position of Chairman, JCS ability to execute national basing and enhances joint military strategy training and operational effectiveness Force Structure Reduction: Close; otherwise Air Force will Remain open regardless of Remain open regardless of position of AF Chief of Staff use conversion actions to achieve disposition of Bergstrom disposition of Bergstrom F-16 drawdown objectives Total Base Closure Yes No Yes Commitments Yes (through Sep 30,96) Yes (Joint Reserve Base) Yes (Hurricane Andrew recovery) (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commission addfor firther consideration SCENARIO SUMMARY - - - DoD RECOMMENDATION COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 1 Bergstrom Air Reserve Base: Close. Carswell Air Reserve Station: Close. 924th Fighter Wing (AFRES): Inactivate. 301st Fighter Wing (AFRES): Inactivate. F-16 aircraft: Redistribute or Retire. F-16 aircraft: Redistribute or Retire. Zlq. 10th Air Force (AFRES): Relocate to NAS Fort Worth JRB. One Time Costs ($M): 17.4 One Time Costs ($M): 7.9 Annual Savings ($M): 17.8 Annual Savings ($M): 13.2 Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate) Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Net Present Value ($M):243.9 Net Present Value ($M): 177.9 PRO CON PRO CON Achieves F- 16 drawdown Commitment to keep base open if Achieves F-16 drawdown Best demographics in category objective airport economically viable by 96 objective Superior to Bergstrom in fighter Complete base closure Demographics, military tradition, training military value high tech area support recruiting Imperative to joint reserve base Austin airport authority reduces Air concept Force support costs Opportunities for joint training Need to move, MILCON for Mission flexibilitylexpansion Hq 10AF Does not close a base--just a Efficiencies with other tenants lost force structure action SCENARIO SUMMARY COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE 2 Homestead Air Reserve Base: Close. 482nd Fighter Wing (AFRES): bctivate. F- 16 aircraft: mbute. . or One Time Costs ($M): 12.6 Annual Savings ($M): 17.3 Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Net Present Value ($M):228.6 PRO CON Achieves F- 16 drawdown Highest military value in Reserve objective F- 16 category due to strategic location, access to airspace/ranges Complete base closure No MILCON cost-avoidance Provides Air Force realignment flexibility with 482nd FW Remainder of $88 million supplemental for south Dade County hurricane recovery lost for Air Force MILCON Demographics support recruiting Economic impact far greater in Homestead than Miami Homestead Air Reserve Base 301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) Redirect 1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the Realignment of Homestead Air Force Base. The 482nd F- 16 Fighter Wing (AFRES) and the 301st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) and the North American Air Defense alert activity will remain in cantonment areas. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Change the 1993 Commission recommendation as follows: Redirect the 301 st Rescue Squadron (AFRES) to relocate to Patrick AFB, FL, its current temporary location. BASE ANALYSIS 301st Rescue Sauadron HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVELO- DOD RECOMMENDATION: Change the recommendation the 1993 Commission to transfer the unit back to Homestead ARB, FL, and instead REDIRECT the unit to remain at Patrick AFB, FL. FORCE STRUCTURE PERSONNEL REALIGNED ISSUES 301st Rescue Squadron Homestead ARB, Florida ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STMF FINDINGS RECRUITING Demographics support Homestead can support also Patrick area can support - COST TDY cost avoidance $1 Mlyear TDY costs exaggerated Homestead facilities paid by Hurricane Andrew Suppl funds-- MILCON at Patrick $4.5 M MILCON could increase to not a cost avoidance $18 M if 41/71 RQS do not transfer from Patrick 41/7 1 RQS transfer likely IMPACT ON HOMESTEAD Air Reserve Base remains viable Reduces Air Force support of Still viable with 482 FW and Florida ANG airfield Air Defense Det MISSION Shuttle Support ideal mission for Proportion of Shuttle Support Shuttle Support Mission better at Reserve unit--retains Combat only 5% of unit flying--can Patrick Rescue tasking at Homestead with Det at combat Rescue training Patrick Frees 4 117 1 RQS for Combat at Patrick due to proximity to Rescue tasking Avon Park range 93 COMMISSION Upheld with 482 FW return from 301 RQS set-up for Redirect: Commitment upheld, 301 RQS COMMITMENT TO DADE MacDill, Florida ANG Det given Shuttle Support mission, Redirect due to mission COUNTY recruiting exclusively from requirements Patrick area, delayed construction at Homestead 301st RQS SCENARIO SUMMARY DoD RECOMMENDATION 30 1st RQS: Redirect. Keep unit at Patrick AFB instead of returning to Homestead. One Time Costs ($M): 6.6 Annual Savings ($M):1.5 Return on Investment: 2002 (5 Years) Net Present Value ($M): 13.6 PRO CON Recruiting not impacted MILCON at Homestead paid by 92 Suppl Funds TDY cost avoidance $1 M/year Air Force support to municipal airport reduced Enhances Combat Rescue readiness training with Economic Impact to Homestead community proximity to Avon Park Range Shuttle Support ideal for Reserve unit, best at Patrick Frees 4 1I7 1 RQS for Combat Rescue tasking D-zo Homestead Air Reserve Base 726th Air Control Squadron Redirect 1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the Realignment of Homestead Air Force Base. Relocate the 726th Air Control Squadron to Shaw AFB, SC. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Change the 1993 Commission recommendation as follows: Redirect the 726th Air Control Squadron to relocate from Shaw AFB, SC, its current location, to Mountain Home AFB, ID. BASE ANALYSIS 726th Air Control Squadron HOMESTEADRVEBASE. PLORIDA DOD RECOMMENDATION: Change the recommendation of the 1993 Commission to transfer the unit from Homestead AFB, FL, to Shaw AFB, SC, and instead REDIRECT the unit to Mountain Home AFB, ID. ISSUES 726th Air Control Squadron Homestead ARB, FL L ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS READINESS TRAINING Combat readiness training suffers Links with remote Proximity to quality training at Shaw due to inadequacy of communications and FAA radars airspace and frequency of training airspace coverage and frequency solves poor coverage in training flight activity better at Mountain of training flight activity airspace problem Home Cancellation of Idaho Range FAA radar link is work-around to initiative has no impact on transfer of unit to suitable training airspace availability operating location COST MILCON savings at Mountain Unit reconfiguration from Agree with community Home squadron to element allows No MILCON savings reduced facility at Shaw UNIT RECONFIGURATION Reducing from squadron to Readiness status based on Concur element-sized unit squadron, but unit only manned for element ECONOMIC IMPACT -0.3 % Concur Concur 726th ACS SCENARIO SUMMARY COMMISSION ALTERNATIVE I1 726th ACS: &direct. Transfer from Shaw AFB, SC to Mountain Home AFB, ID. One Time Costs ($M):7.9 Annual Savings ($M):0.2 Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate) Net Present Value ($M): 4.2 PRO CON Training enhanced at Mountain Home AFB Unit readiness suffers at Shaw AFB Small moving expense avoided BACK UP SLIDES ISSUES Bergstrom Air Reserve Base DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION I ISSUE R&A STAFF FINDINGS 1 Recruiting I No negative impact 1 Long tradition supporting military Agree with community High volunteerism rate for deployments High tech industry supports Air Force Reserve need for qualified recruits Community support None Passed $400 million referendum Agree with community I to keep Reserve unit Capital expenditures to expedite Reserves move into cantonment Austin assumes costs of airport reducing Air Force BOS costs I I Large retired population in region I Tenants Move Hq 10th AF (AFRES) to 924th FWlBergstrom also a Bergstrom ARB cantonment cost NAS Fort Worth JRB, MILCON subordinate unit--moving costs, effective with other DoD and required MILCON avoided at Bergstrom federal agencies Collocates with subordinate unit, i Ground Combat Readiness Center Closure provides opportunity for 30 1st FW/Carswell requires proximity to Army base other DoD and federal agencies to (Fort Hood nearby) reuse ARB facilities (MILCON avoidance) Other DoD and federal agencies want to move to Bergstrom ARB -Army NG -NASA -Navy Resv -Def Inves Svc ISSUES Homestead Air Reserve Base ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Recruiting Demographics can easily support Miami is good source for AFRES Unit consistently meets recruiting recruiting requirements reservists objectives and is currently staffed at 101 percent Unit reflects ethnic diversity Economic Impact Cumulative economic impact is Economic impact 4-5 percent in Concur with DoD and community addition to impact fiom Hurricane -0.2 percent Andrew Region is still recovering - - AIR FORCE RESERVE: C-130 BASES = TIER INSTALLATION NI A Dobbins ARB, GA (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commissioner addfor firfher consideration Air Force Resenre Bases -- --- Homestead ARS ' * C-5 Bases $ F-16 Bases A KC-135 Baser Air Force Reserve C-130 Capacity BCEG Minutes Excess of two C-130 Bases SECAF recommended one Air Force Concerns with two closures Community visibility Demographics and recruiting Combat readiness and capability Peacetime operational capability SECAF supports for closure O'Hare IAP ARS 11 TIER INSTALLATION GREATER PITTSBURGH IAP ARS, PA (C). . GEN MECHELL IAP ARS, WI (*). . MINNEA POLIS-ST PA UL IA P A RS, MV 1*) 3, NIAGARA FALLS UPARS, NY /*I, I O'HARE L4P ARS, IL (f) YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN MPT, OH (*) (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commissioner candidate for firthe consideration BASE ANALYSIS Category: Air Force Reserve C-130 DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Greater Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station (ARS), PA. The 91 1th Airlift Wing will inactivate and its C-130 aircraft will be distributed to Air Force Reserve C-130 units at Dobbins ARB, Georgia, and Peterson AFB, Colorado. COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Gen Mitchell IAP ARS, WI, Minneapolis-St. Paul IAP ARS, MN, Niagara Falls IAP ARS, NY, O'IIare IAP ARS, IL, and Youngstown-Warren MPT ARS, OH F-as an ADDITION to or a SUBSTITUTION for Pittsburgh IAP ARS. CRITERIA GRTR PITTSBURGH (C) O'HARE (*) MINNEAPOLIS-ST PA UL (7 FORCE STRUCTURE 8 C-130 8 C-130 8 C-130 ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 23.1 24.1 23.8 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 15.5 17.3 15.2 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1998 (1 Year) 1998 (1 Year) 1999 (2 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 206.0 218.5 189.5 - - - ~ ------BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 4.9 5.9 5.7 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL I CIV) 0 1239 0 I 262 0 1216 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL 1CIV) 01 105 01 105 01 105 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) -0.1% / -0.1% -0.0% 1-0.1 % -0.1% I-0.1% ENVIRONMENTAL Non-attainment - Ozone Non-attainment - Ozone Non-attainment - CO 7 (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (7 = Commission add for further considerafion BASE ANALYSIS Category: Air Force Reserve C-130 DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Greater Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station (ARS), PA. The 91 1th Airlift Wing will inactivate and its C-130 aircraft will be distributed to Air Force Reserve C-130 units at Dobbins ARB, Georgia, and Peterson AFB, Colorado. COMMISSIONER ADD FOR CONSIDERATION: Study Gen Mitchell IAP ARS, WI, Minneapolis-St. Paul IAP ARS, MN,Niagara Falls IAP ARS, NY, O'Hare IAP ARS, IL, and Youngstown-Warren MPT ARS, OH FOR aOSUREas an ADDITION to or a SUBSTITUTION for Pittsburgh IAP ARS. If ANG air refueling unit remains at O'Hare there will be base operating support costs which would reduce level of savings & CRITERIA NUGARA FALLS (*) GEN MITCHELL (7 YOUNGSTOWN-WARREN (7 FORCE STRUCTURE 8 C-130 8 C-130 12 C-130 ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 24.1 23.0 24.3 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 16.4 15.3 15.2 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1998 (1 Year) 1998 (1 Year) Immediate NET PRESENT VALUE 213.3 202.4 209.8 ------BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 6.2 4.9 3.7 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) O/ 182 0 / 234 01261 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 01 105 O/ 105 01 178 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 / CUM) -0.5% / -0.6% -0.1% / -0.1% -0.3% / -0.3% ENVIRONMENTAL Non-attainment - Ozone Non-attainment - Ozone Non-attainment - Ozone (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (*) = Commission addfor further consideration AIR FORCE RESERVE C-130 ANALYSIS SUMMARY t- Grtr Pittsburgh IAP ARS O'Hare IAP ARS Minneapolis-St Paul IAP ARS One Time Costs ($M): 23.1 One Time Costs ($M):24.1 One Time Costs ($M): 23.8 Annual Savings ($M): 15.5 Annual Savings ($M): 17.3 Annual Savings ($M):15.2 Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1999 (2 Years) Net Present Value ($M): 206.0 Net Present Value ($M): 218.5 Net Present Value ($M): 189.5 Base Operating Budget ($M): 4.9 Base Operating Budget ($M): 5.9 Base Operating Budget ($M): 5.7 Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 97.7% Off Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 97.9% Off Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 98.6% Off 101.0% Enl 101.OOhEnl 102.4 Oh Enl Niagara Falls IAP ARS Gen Mitchell IAP ARS Youngstown-Warren MPT ARS One Time Costs ($M): 24.1 One Time Costs (SM): 23.0 One Time Costs ($M): 24.3 Annual Savings ($M): 16.4 Annual Savings ($M): 15.3 Annual Savings ($M): 15.2 Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: Immediate Net Present Value ($M): 213.3 Net Present Value ($M): 202.4 Net Present Value ($M): 209.8 Base Operating Budget ($M): 6.2 Base Operating Budget ($M): 4.9 Base Operating Budget ($M): 3.7 Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 92.9% Off Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 95.6% Off Manning: 8-Yr Avg- 96.3% Off 99.6% En1 102.8% En1 103.6% Enl b SCENARIO SUMMARY Pittsburgh IAP ARS, PA Close Pittsburgh IAP ARS, PA I Close O'H~IAP ARS, IL I One Time Costs ($M): 23.1 One Time Costs ($M):24.1 Annual Savings ($M):15.5 Annual Savings ($&I):17.3 Return on Investment: 1 Year Return on Investment: 1 Year Net Present Value ($M):206.0 Net Present Value ($M): 218.5 PRO CON PRO CON Reduces excess capacity One of the cheapest bases to City of Chicago supports closure; Reduces AFR presence in State operate needs Property for revenue ~~~~ll~~~recruiting ma Supports force reductions producing development Erroneous data used by Air Force in recommending Pittsburgh Highest annual savings Excellent recruiting area AF supports closure Reduces cost to City to relocate Reserve Component units I Reduces excess capacity Supports force reductions E-8 SCENARIO SUMMARY ...... ,.,.,.iijj~ii~jii~j~::~:f:~f:.~<::jjiii~:~:~~,:jjjjjji:~i:~:~:::::::::j:$i:~j:j:j:::~:+:~:::~:$:<:jp.'.j:><~j$:~:j:~jj~j:::~j:~:j~~~~:~.j:j:>~:::~~jj#$~~~j$::gj:j<:>j<:j:i<:j::<$:;:;:j$i~$~~~;;~:;:$ji~(i$$:~:~~~;~i:i~~$~~ .'Kc.: ,.,..:.:.:,?::: ...,.,...,'.'?:,:,:,:,> :j:~jj~;;B$$;z$i#~$$X$~:i;i@~j:>f:g~$j;;:jjji~j:j:$:j$j:jc:j:j<<:~$$j;ijj:~~2~~$$~:~:~<::$;$~<~i':~~?~~$j~::~:$~.j:$?+8~$~~g$$~j::t.<~~~:;;::~,.~.x:,: ~<.,.,.,.. :.:.:.:.>n;,.,,...... g;;;~~$;$;$$;$~$$$~$jj:~j2:i:jj;;j;;:~::~ ..:,:,:,:...... :::::: :?"::::: :;,::::::A:::,,,.:::: ..;:,> .:::,...... 2:: :,,,,.,,, ::.::;:;,.; ,,, ,, , ;...... ,, ...... ,...... ,, , , ,.., ,, , , , , . , yA- .,.,.,,,~~ ...... ".. ""'. ..,' ,, ...,.,.;....y.'='...... -1,: ...... ,...... ,.:::::2 ..'"'" ...... ,.; ""...... ,.,...... , ...... : :: ,,,,,,,. ::::,:,::.-...... "'""""~:;~~~y,:,:<,; ,:,.$ ,.;. .,,*.,., ,' ...... ;''...... '.'.'.'.'. .. .'.'.'.'.'.'...'...... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'* ...... ':. .'.'.'.'...'., ...... :.:. " '...... V...... ,.,. . .. .,. : ...... ,..., ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,,,,,,,. . ,;;;. ., , . ;, Y....,, "":.W:$*j:M.:.. >:.:.):.:.:.> ,.,.;.::::.:.:.:.: ...~.i::;;~:.:.:.x.:.*q.. ,It ::~:~CC.C~C~C.C.C.~~C.:.~.: .... x.>?.:*>:.:*:.:$>::'.x,: .,:,;:.: . ., ...... ,.. , , . , , , , . .,,...... ;,, ,, , -.%; ;:,"',::: ;: ,...... .::,::::::::::i::::<::::$:::::::i::::::::ji::::i::::ji:::::::~;:: :,;,:.,., ,; ,.,.,., :.,:.,:.,:.:.:,:,:.:.:.:.:,: ...... ; ...... f(: .:.:,:::::::::::":::j.:e:w,,,., :,:,:,:,:::.:.:::::w ...... ',',',',',','.'.' y~::::::::::::: ,...... "'""' ".... L.".'."'..." ...... >...... A...... :.:.:<<"""""""".'.'~"'..... ~i....,.,...... ~.~.~.~...~.~...~.~.~ ;,.,.. ,,. .A,, ,...,..... ,..,~..,,,, ,...... , .A,. ,.~.A~..,. .&.,,, , , , , .,, ,, ,,, ,,, ,, ., , , ,, , ,, ,,, ,,.,, ,,:K,,~.:,:,: ,:.:.:...... :,::::,::::::::...... ,, ::;:::,$:: :.:,:.,: 33:~.:,:.;,:.:,:.?: ..:.:,:.,. :.:.:,:.: ...... XX...... *.:.:,:.~$j8;>;d::::~~$~.~C:8I:8.~:j:ji~.~~~:~:i:~:j~;~~:>$;ij~j~j~.i~~~)ij~:j~~:~:j:~~~,~~~~~;~:~;~~~jjj~:~~ijjj$ijji~i:ijj~:. Close General Mitchell IAP ARS, WI Close Youngstown MPT ARS, OH One Time Costs ($M): 23.0 One Time Costs ($M): 24.3 Annual Savings (SM): 15.3 Annual Savings ($M): 15.2 Return on Investment: 1998 (1 Year) Return on Investment: Immediate Net Present Value ($M): 202.4 Net Present Value ($M): 209.8 PRO CON PRO CON Reduces excess capacity Excellent recruitng area High MILCON cost avoidance Lowest operating costs Supports force reductions Excellent community support Single unit base Good recruiting area Loss of only Air Force unit in Reduces excess capacity State Supports force reductions E-=t ISSUES Greater Pittsburgh IAP ARS, PA ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Operating costs (Non-salary) $5.7M Air Force used Minneapolis-St Agree with community-corrected Paul data data placed unit lower Expansion Capability No excess capacity to accept more 30 Acres more than Air Force Additional 30 acres available to aircraft reported, with opportunity to unit on memorandum of agreement acquire more at nominal fee lease with Allegehny County. Additional 47 acres available Military value Criteria I1 - Yellow+ Asserted AF data incorrect and Agree with community-recent should be raised to Green aircraft pavement analyses upgraded weight bearing capacity which was reason for lower military value Close proximi@ to other AFR Factor used by Air Force 10 Suggested Pittsburgh could grow Agree with both positions C-130 unit - Youngstown recommend Pittsburgh for closure and absorb manning fiom Youngstown if Youngstown closed L ISSUES O'Hare IAP ARS, IL ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Operating cost (Non-salary) $5.7M Did not address Air Force used Minneapolis-St Paul data 1993 Closure recommendation ~~~~~~l~ the City of Chicago continuing efforts Deactivation of C-130 unit reduces deactivation of the C-130 unit if to acquire property City's costs of relocating units ' selected this round Local civic groups support Closure provides highest level of retention of AFR & ANG units at 20-year NPV savings 0' Hare No MILCON programmed since id not address Did not address Inclusion of MILCON would 1993 increase 20-year NPV savings Close proximi@to other AFR Factor used in recommendation to Did not address 70 miles to Gen Mitchell C-130 unit - Gen Mitchell close Pittsburgh , ISSUES Minneapolis-St Paul IAP ARS, MN ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Most cost ellicient unit in C-130 savingsand cost data were $1 80M 20-year NPV Agree with community. category relatively low Commission estimate of NPV= $189.5M Air Force Reserve position is Close one C-130 unit Asserted Air Force Reserve wants Air Force identified an excess of close only one C-130 unit to close one C- 130 unit two units, but strongly supports only one closure A ISSUES Niagara Falls IAP ARS, NY h ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Operating costs (Non-salary) COBRA used $5.7Mbase Base operating support contractor Inaccurate data used by Air Force operating cost salaries should not be included Agree with community, but cost is still highest among the C-130 units at $6.2M Economic impact 1.1% Second largest employer in Niagara Agree with community regarding County and is considered its Own statistical area, but impact is 0.5% statistical area. This action would for this action impact 1.1% Only Air Force Reserve flying id not address Community assertion Agree with community-last unit unit in State other than Air National Guard + ISSUES General Mitchell IAP ARS, WI ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Expansion capability Yes - 4 aircraft with $600K in 4 aircraft at no cost Concur in excess capacity - minor construction Regional Maintenance function id not address Performs wheel and tire repair for Reviewed facility during base visit several C- 130 units proximi@lo Other A factor used in recommendation Some unit members currently Gen Mitchell 70 miles from C-130 unit - O'Hare to close Pittsburgh commute from Chicago area O'Hare Only Air Force Reserve flying id not address Community assertion - unit Agree with community; last unit in State personnel represent every county in Reserve flying unit other than Air State National Guard ISSUES Youngstown-Warren MPT ARS, OH - ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS ------Expansion Capability Unit can expand by 8 aircraft with $18.7M in MILCON to support $22.5M in MILCON thru FY 97 $1 1.6M in MILCON growth of 8 aircraft to support growth. More funding programmed beyond - 97. Operating Costs Original COBRA $1.9M Lowest for 8 aircraft Concur with community; we estimate $3.7M Insufficient data available for costs for unit growth Close Proximity to other AFR C- Factor used in selection of Did not address 55 miles to Pittsburgh 130 unit - Pittsburgh Pittsburgh and to support growth of 1 unit AIR RICSERVE COMPONENT - AIR FORCE RESERVE Snl~cnf~gory OVERALL Base Nnn~e 1.1 1I 111 IV V' VI VII V~II Utrgslrorn ARll Yellow - Yellow Yellow + 341-84 2 1,513 (0.3%)' Grcen - Green Carswell AFU Yellow Ydlow + Yellow 261 55 Never 975 (0. 1%) Grccn - Ci~ectl Dobbl~rsARU Yellow + arhn- Yellow 201-1 10 3 10,774 (0.6%) Greet1 - Grcen - <;en Mltchcll IAP AItS Yellow + Yellow Yellow 131-124 1 623 (0.1%) Green - Gretn - Greater Pillsburgl~UP ARS Green - Yellow + Yellow 141-138 1 701 (0.1%) Green - Cree11- Grlssotlr AFIl Yellow + Yellow + Yellow 811-161 5 3,757 (4.3%)' Green - --Yellow -1- llo~~~esleadAll0 Yellow + Yellow + Yellow 81-194 0 693 (0.1%)' Grcetr - Yellow hlarclt AltU Yellow + Yellow Green - 1841-212 7 18,772 (1.8%)' Green - --Yellow - hlln~~eapolts-StPaul IAP AltS Yellow + Grcen - Yellow - 141-1 19 2 l,lll(Ol% Green- Ycl1ow.1. NAS Willow Grove ARS Yellow + Yellow Yellow lW-60 3 26,933 (EFGrccrr - Greet1 - Nlogara Fells IAI' AIIS Yellow + Yellow .t. Yellow I41 l IS 1 1,039 (1.1%)) Green - Yellow .I O'llare IAP, AnS Green - Yellow + Yellow 141-152 1 4,584 (O.lYo)* Grect~- C;rcct, - \Veslover ARll Green - Yellow Orcell - 14W 190 7 2,268 (0.8%)' Cirec~r- Ycllow I GYou~~slo~vn-Warre~~hlIvf A11S Yellow + Yellow + Yellow - 131-107 2 1,193(0.5%) Green - Cirectl - AIR FORCE: AIR NATIONAL GUARD 1 TIER I INSTALLATION 11 (C) = DoD recommendation for closure Air National Guard Bases ------.- -- .- . - .. .. - I Indicates Closure I CATEGORY: AIR NATIONAL GUARD GENERAL ISSUES AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASES DO NOT READILY COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER AIR GUARD STATIONS BELOW BRAC THRESHOLD MUCH DATA COLLECTED AFTER BASE CLOSURE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ANNOUNCED SCENARIO SUMMARY Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA DoD RECOMMENDATION I Close Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA. Relocate unit to McClellan AFB, CA. One Time Costs ($M): 1 8.3 Annual Savings ($M): 3.9 Return on Investment: 2003 (6 Years) Net Present Valuc ($M): 34.8 PRO CON Cost effective for Air Force by eliminating overhead Costs increase to federal government positions and base operating support costs Dependent on McClellan AFB decision Positive recruiting and retention effects BASE ANALYSIS Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Moffett Federal Airfield Air Guard Station, CA. Relocate unit to McClellan AFB, CA. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each recommended closure. CRITERIA MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD AGS, CA (C) FORCE STRUCTURE Combat Rescue Group: HC-130 aircraft/HH-60 helicopters ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 18.3 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 3.9 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2003 (6 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 34.8 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 3.9 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) 611 3 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 8212 17 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) -0.1 %/ -0.5% (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Comntission addforfurther consideration ISSUES Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA ISSUE DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Governrnent-wide costs DOD costs only Costs should be viewed from a government-wide Costs will increase to federal perspective government ROI: 6 years ROI: Never NPV: $35M NPV: Cost $1 7.6 M Air Force Cost Analysis: Air Force's cost analysis is flawed: Cost analysis is reasonable MILCON Requirements $9.2 M MILCON requirements have changed significantly MILCON figures have evolved but still reasonable Savings 3.9 M annually Claimed savings are suspect Savings reasonable Military Value of McCIellan comparable Air Force performed no analysis of military value Air Force did not perform vs. Moffett Field military value military value assessment of Moffett Airfield offers more military value ANG positive effect Commander of California ANG thinks unit should on recruiting Quality of facilities & remain at Moffett Field access to ranges are comparable Agreement between ANG Agreement can be AFIANG made long-term commitment to remain at Agreement can be terminated and NASA terminated Moffett Field by either party BASE ANALYSIS North Highlands AGS, CA DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close North Highlands AGS, CA. Relocate unit to McClellan AFB, CA. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each recommended closure. CRITERIA NORTH HIGHLANDS AGS, CA (C) , FORCE STRUCTURE Combat Communications ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 1.3 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 0.3 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2002 (5 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 2.9 , BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 0.2 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL I CIV) 1I0 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL I CIV) 313 6 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 / CUM) O.O%/O.O% .r (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission addforfurther consideration SCENARIO SUMMARY North Highlands AGS, CA DoD RECOMMENDATION I Close North Highlands AGS, CA. Relocate unit to McClellan AFB, CA. One Time Costs ($M): 1.3 Annual Savings ($M): 0.3 Return on Investment: 2002 (5 Years) Net Present Value ($M): 2.9 PRO CON Eliminates base operating support personnel and Long return on investment costs Dependent on McClellan AFB decision Excess capacity at McClellan AFB Relocation of unit requires little expenditure I BASE ANALYSIS Ontario AGS, CA DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Ontario Air Guard Station, CA;. Relocate units to March ARB, CA. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each recommended closure. CRITERIA ONTARIO AGS, CA (C) FORCE STRUCTURE Combat Communications, Weather ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 0.9 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 0.1 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2006 (9 years) NET PRESENT VALUE 0.8 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 0.1 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL I CIV) 110 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 3/22 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) O.O%/O.O% (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (R)= DoD recommendation for realignment (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission addfor further consideration SCENARIO SUMMARY Ontario AGS, CA DoD RECOMMENDATION I Close Ontario AGS, CA. Relocate unit to March ARB, CA. One Time Costs ($M): 0.9 Annual Savings ($M): 0.1 Return on Investment: 2006 (9 Years) Net Present Value ($M): 0.8 PRO CON Eliminates base operating support personnel and Long return on investment costs Excess capacity at March ARB Relocation of unit requires little expenditure No impact on recruiting F- I I BASE ANALYSIS Roslyn AGS, NY DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Roslyn Air Guard Station, NY. Relocate units to Stewart IAP AGS, NY FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each recommended closure. + CRITERIA ROSLYN AGS, NY (C) FORCE STRUCTURE Combat Communications, Electronic Installations ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 14.2 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 0.2 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1999 (2 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 8.9 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 0.6 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL ICIV) 212 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 513 3 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) O.O%/O.O% ? - (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Comn~issionadd for further consideration ISSUES Roslyn AGS, NY ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Cost effective only when When $22.4 million from sale of NIA If proceeds NOT used: proceeds from sale of property land used: are used to offset relocation costs ROI: 100+ years ROI: 2Years NPV: Cost $1 1.3 M NPV: $8.9 million Use of proceeds from sale of DoD policy states generally N/A Air Force may never realize Property should not be used, but Air Force proceeds from sale of considers this situation unique Property Air Force did not use proceeds from sale of property in any other recommendation * SCENARIO SUMMARY Roslyn AGS, NY DoD RECOMMENDATION Close Roslyn AGS, NY. Relocate unit to Stewart IAP AGS, NY One Time Costs ($M): 14.2 Annual Savings ($M): 0.2 Return on Investment: 1999 (2 Years) Net Present Value ($M): 8.9 PRO CON Cost effective when proceeds from sale of property Recommendation not cost effective if proceeds not are considered realized, results in 100+ years ROI DOD policy discourages use of proceeds from land sales Proceeds from sale of property may never be realized due to existing policies and practices BASE ANALYSIS Springfield-Beckley MAP AGS, OH DOD RECOMMENDATION: Close Springfield-Beckley MAP Air Guard Station, OH. Relocate units to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. FOR CONSIDERATION: Accept or reject each recommended closure. i CRITERIA SPRINGFIELD-BECKLEY MAP AGS, OH (C) FORCE STRUCTURE Fighter Group: F- 16 aircraft, Combat Communications ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 24.6 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 2.8 RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2008 (1 1 Years) NET PRESENT VALUE 14.0 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) 2.6 PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL / CIV) 5/22 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL / CIV) 561233 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) O.O%/O.O% i (C) = DoD recommendation for closure (R) = DoD recommendation for realignment (X) = Joint Cross Service Group alternative for closure or realignment (*) = Commission addforfurther consideration ISSUES REVIEWED Springfield-Beckley MAP AGS, OH Revised costs and savings result in 11 year ROI Closure proposed during BRAC 1993 Facilities concerns at Wright-Patterson AFB Community proposal to reduce operating costs at Springfield Springfield-Beckley basing arrangement ' ISSUES Springfield-Beckley MAP AGS, OH ISSUE I DoD POSITION I COMMUNITY POSITION ( R&A STAFF FINDINGS Kevised costs and savings result PersonneVBOS savings were Personnel elimination Consistent with Air Force in 11 year ROI originally overstated, but now overstated Manpower Programming accurate Military construction costs Office, ANG, AFMC Military construction understated Followed standardized requirements and costs costing procedures validated Facility concerns at Wright- Wright-Patterson AFB offers Springfield-Beckley offers a F-16 flight-line facilities Patterson comparable operating superior operating available environment environment Concerns with other facilities Facility concerns are minor Concerns with condition of largely quality of life and can be worked some facilities and ability of dining hall to meet drill requirements - - Community proposal to reduce ANG receptive to offer City provide fire crash rescue Proposal would lower operating costs at Springfield during non-flying hours operating costs proposal only I Save $480,000 annually I No formal commitment Springfield-Beckley basing ANG : "Keep units at civilian Strong community support Springfield-Beckley presents ideal arrangement airports wherever possible" basing arrangement for ANG: Unit's community visibility helps recruiting involvement I keeps costs low I I community ties I I ( recruiting SCENARIO SUMMARY Springfield-Beckley MAP AGS, OH DoD RECOMMENDATION I Close Springfield-Beckley AGS, 011. Relocate unit to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. One Time Costs ($M): 24.6 Annual Savings ($M): 2.8 Return on Investment: 2008 (1 1 Years) Net Present Value ($M): 14.0 PRO CON Eliminates base operating support personnel and Long ROI required costs F-16 flight-line facilities available at Wright- Sacrifice quality facilities at Springfield for little Patterson AFB return Consolidation will be cost-effective in long-run Economic impact on Springfield-Beckley MAP and community ISSUES Moffett Federal Airfield AGS, CA T ISSUE DoD POSITION COMMUNITY POSITION R&A STAFF FINDINGS Closure can be Should be Moffett Field AGS does not meet BRAC threshold and Is a BRAC issue if service of reviewed by BRAC should not be evaluated through BRAC process submits to BRAC for review BRAC process ISSUES Springfield-Beckley MAP AGS, OH are now available due to continue to be overstated in 1995 available at Wright-Patterson deactivation of a unit Grifltiss Air Force Base Airfield Support for 10th Infantry (Light) Division Redirect 1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the realignment of Griffiss AFB. Runway would remain open as minimum essential airfield to support 10th Infantry (Light) Division from Fort Drum. 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: To close the minimum essential airfield on Griffiss AFB Air Force will re-build Fort Drum airfield Air Force will provide mobility/contingency/training support from the airfield on Fort Drum Allows 10th Infantry (Light) Division to deploy 2 hours earlier BASE ANALYSIS Griffiss Air Force Base Airfield Support for 10th Infantry (Light) Division DOD RECOMMENDATION: Redirect: Close the Minimum Essential Airfield CFUTERIA DOD RECOMMENDATION FORCE STRUCTURE Support Fort Drum Deployments ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 9.9 I KETURN ON INVESTMENT 2004 (6 Years) I NET PRESENT VALUE 75.7 BASE OPERATING BUDGET ($ M) N/A PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL I CIV) 0115 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL I CIV) 010 ECONOMIC IMPACT (BRAC 95 I CUM) -0.1 W-6.1% ENVIRONMENTAL EAIEIS required at Fort Drum SCENARIO SUMMARY Griffiss Air Force Base Airfield Support for 10th Infantry (Light) Division DOD RECOMMENDATION r Redirect: Close the minimum essential airfield on Griffiss AFB. AF will support the 10th Infantry (Light) Division from the airfield on Fort Drum AF will re-build airfield on Fort Drum One Time Costs ($M): 51.5 Annual Savings ($M):9.9 Return on Investment: 2004 (6 Years) Net Present Value ($M):75.7 PRO CON Saves money Allows to 10th Infantry Division to deploy 2 hours earlier * Griffiss Air Force Base 485th Engineering Installation Group Redirect Background: The 485th Engineering Installation Group performs the engineering, program management, and installation of communications and computer equipment at DoD facilities throughout North America and Europe. 1993 Base Closure Commission recommended the realignment of Griffiss AFB 485th Engineering Installation Group would transfer to Hill AFB 1995 DoD recommendation proposes: Inactivating the 485th Engineering Installation Group Relocating its installation function to Kelly AFB and McClellan AFB Relocating its engineering function to Tinker AFB DoD justification for redirect is cost to renovate Hill AFB to accommodate the 485th Engineering Installation Group is costly By inactivating the unit and redistributing its fbnctions, the Air Force intends to save money by avoiding MILCON and eliminating overhead G-Y SCENARIO SUMMARY Griffiss Air Force Base 485th Engineering Installation Group 1 DOD RECOMMENDATION Redirect: Inactivate the 485th Engineering Installation Group (EIG) Transfer personnel to Tinker AFB, Kelly AFB, and McClellan AFB One Time Costs ($M):1.9 Annual Savings ($M): 2.9 Return on Investment: Immediate Net Present Value ($M): 52.2 PRO CON Saves money Reduces overhead BASE ANALYSIS Grifiss Air Force Base 485th Engineering Installation Group DOD RECOMMENDATION: Redirect: Inactivate the 485th EIG. CRITERIA DOD RECOMMENDATION FORCE STRUCTURE Communications Engineering Installation Group ONE-TIME COSTS ($ M) 1.9 ANNUAL SAVINGS ($ M) 2.9 RETURN ON INVESTMENT Immediate NET PRESENT VALUE 52.2 BASE OPERATIIVG BUDGET ($ M) NIA PERSONNEL ELIMINATED (MIL I CIV) 7710 PERSONNEL REALIGNED (MIL I CIV) OIO* (BRAC 95 I CUM) NIA NIA * Personnel realignments are considered as part of the 1993 action.