Tanker mission list to be narrowed next week; Hoeven makes case for GFAFB
December 6, 2012 at 1:41 pm in Grand Forks Herald
The U.S. Air Force will announce Wednesday its list of air base finalists to receive new tanker missions. Sen. John Hoeven said he met this week with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh to again make the case for Grand Forks Air Force Base being selected as a site. Continue Reading
GFAFB and places like it are one of the reasons we havea financial cliff. They are Cold War anachronisms which serve no purpose than to bring in pork and characterize politicians as caring about their states. California already got shellacked years ago, losing March, Norton, George, and others. Eventually GF and Minot will join the lst.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
26
This air base has some value with less crowded air space. Or at least that was the spiel used to bring the UAVs here.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
3
unfortunately this is a misconception. our airspace is one of the most saturated in the country thanks to UND.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I agree completely. GFAFB has been a runway looking for a mission for the better part of a decade. It should have been closed years ago.
As I have noted several times, ND loves small government. Just look at people on these boards go on & on about taxes & government intrusion in their lives.
They love small government until you mention cutting funding for agriculture, defense, or entitlements. In other words: NIMBY is alive & well in ND
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
22
Tell that to the Recon squadron of Global Hawks, the Dept of Homeland Security and the Predators and the Fargo ANG and their Predators.
Maybe that “runway looking for a mission” is more in use than your limited scope of knowledge is aware of.
Like or Dislike:
17 
9
Not likely Captain but nice try. Look back at how hard our politicos worked to get all of those things placed there in an attempt to keep the base.
Face it, the base lost its mission (reason for being) and has been trying desperately to find a reason to exist ever since.
It is doubtful that ND warranted two bases during the height of the cold war. It most surely does not warrant them now.
If you do not believe me, ask the Air Force which bases it would like to close and redivert the money elsewhere. GF and Minot are always on the list. The reason they survived the last round of base closing had nothing to do with national security (why we have bases) and everything to do with our congressional delegation.
NIMBY simply is not appropriate in defense spending. It is rife, but still inappropriate.
Like or Dislike:
7 
15
So what would you have them do, all knowing about everything nurse?
Abandon it?
Great idea.
Kick the recon squadron out, close the UAV center and UAV ops which is quickly becoming the US Military combat/recon vehicle of choice?
Just ignore the fact that ND has the best air space for training in the nation?
Just have the DHS UAV’s relocate to Montana to an airfield they would have to construct?
What to do with the BRAND NEW infrastructure and the less than 10 year old runway?
The base is practically brand new, how can you justify just abandoning it?
If a base ever existed that should have been eliminated it was McConnell in Kansas where every year is just another chance of it getting wiped out by a Tornado.
But no, go ahead and abandon the one place that actually makes sense to keep.
Too bad we dont have someone of your vast military knowledge making budgetary and National Defense decisions.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
Captain: first off, I’m not the one who wants to close the base, its the Air Force. I think they would have all of the data they need to make the decision.
Secondly, every base that has ever been on the BRAC list has made the same arguments you are making: we are the best in the DOD at what we do; we just built a boatload of new base housing; we just revamped our sewer system, etc etc etc.
The point being the DOD has excess capacity they want to get rid of. It is money down the drain that is preventing them from using the money where it is needed most. It has been almost twenty years since they closed and realigned bases. The needs of the services have changed but people’s addiction to the federal teat has not.
If not GF then who? Why are our pains any worse than Omaha?
We need to quit worrying about the economic impact and start thinking about what our warfighters need to do their jobs. It is as simple as that.
If GF closes there will be people who are 5 years away from retirement who will lose their jobs. They will never find a comparable job again. Being 50 I understand age discrimination.
That said, the same is true with Omaha or anywhere else on the list.
As I said above, NIMBY is not appropriate when it comes to defense spending. What is needed and what works is appropriate.
The base is valuable, it will be absorbed or converted. I cannot think of one single closed base that is just empty. It takes a decade but all are successful in their new lives.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
FlyingNonsense – another expert on nothing with not a clue what goes on in the military or the value of the base.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Have you been on the base in the last few years? There is nothing going on out there at all. It is like a depressed little town that would make Pine Ridge look like it has full employment. Buildings and offices are empty of people.
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
obviously YOU have not been out at the base recently.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
Just this summer and every week or so for 12 years with an all access pass. Good enough?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Gene, you may be somewhat correct with GF. But Minot may be a completely different story. I used to think the very same thing until I went on a canoe trip with a friend who’s father teaches at military institutions. He told us that most people don’t realize it but if you think about going to war what are your most important asset?. And, if you look at Minot from a strategic point of view it is located directly above and near the border of two very important such assets. One is an oil refinery. The other being a large dam and power generator (not to mention power generation facilities also in the area). No country would ever not have direct protection of such valuable assets. In war, these are two of the very first things your enemy attacks. And with a dam you not only have the power generation, but if you can blow out a dam at the top of your system it will take out the others on it’s way down. So, while the normal person might think such bases are a waste of money, from a military point of view they are much more valuable than one might think.
Like or Dislike:
16 
5
With today’s technology, an airbase is not going to protect a dam, nor an oil field. In the same way we whacked Saddam’s Iraq with smart bombs, anyone could take our stuff out.
Like or Dislike:
9 
12
Well Gene I have to agree with you on that one! Minot has bombers and missiles. They have no defense against incoming! Their mission is to strike other targets!
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Well then i guess we dont even really need a military then do we?
Lets just close the military down and go about our business.
We can divert all that Defense spending to welfare programs so even more people can just not work.
Good plan.
What kind of person tries to equate Saddams ability to protect his nation to ours?
Give me a break.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
And now with the oil boom in ND, being able to protect the second largest producer of your country’s oil would even make such a base even more important.
Like or Dislike:
17 
5
Sorry Rick, B-52 do not protect against cruise missiles. They are offensive, not defensive. No one is coming over the top to bomb us. Any attack that included ND would be from missiles.
Minot may survive because of their missiles, not their planes. Either way, there is no chance of those assets protecting anything.
Neither ICBM or B52 can protect against terrorists or missiles, which is what you would have to worry about.
Like or Dislike:
9 
7
arent you just an encyclopedia of military tactical knowledge?
Ever hear of a tiny little thing called DETTERENT?
“Noun : A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from some act. ”
No one is going to fire missles into our backyard as long as we have the capability of getting our missles and bombers airborne to destroy them as well.
But lets continue to listen to you and your ilk and cut the defensive capabilities to the bone to pay for your precious welfare programs and see how long it takes for someone to decide the chance is good that they may get away with it.
flippin hippies!
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
OK Dr. Strangelove lets bring you back to reality. If anyone other than a superpower (Russia, China, etc) is going to nuke the US it is going to be a terrorist. First: they probably won’t hit us, they will hit Israel.
Second, since terrorism is a tactic and not a location (something GWB could not get through his head to the detriment of an entire generation of soldiers), after the bad guys set off a suitcase bomb in Denver, LA, or NY who are we going to retaliate against? Who are we going to nuke in return?
Mutual Assured Destruction only worked when you had an adversary who wanted to live. MAD is completely useless against a suicide bomber. By definition he/she is going to die anyway so they have nothing to be deterred from.
Finally: the missing Russian suitcase nuke will not detonate in a nuclear explosion. They are too sensitive and too many parts are missing. What you will have is a giant “dirty bomb” and lots of panic. More people will die from the reaction to the bomb than from the bomb itself. They are a terror weapon. Not a weapon designed to inflict mass casualties.
Remember: as horrible as 9/11 was, many more people die every year from drunk drivers than were killed on that sad day. This will be much the same.
In any case, if you only have one or two suitcase nukes stolen from Russian stockpiles, you are not going to waste them on ND; with or without bases. It is one of the benefits of living here: no one from outside the country wants to kill you.
People from within: that is another story all together.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Some more flying nonsense from that great expert on all things military. I would really like to know your experience in this field be it military service or some strategic planning institution. I suspect you are just an internet expert with an opinion on everything – most of it the nonsense type stuff you spew here.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
What part of excess capacity is confusing you Billn. I’d be happy to explain how getting rid of unneeded inventory and expenses helps the overall health of the corporation if you are confused.
You are acting like the USAF is begging for GF to remain open and Congress is shutting it down against their wishes. Quite the opposite is true.
May I suggest a little more time on CSPAN and a little less time on Fox?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
When all those bases closed in California did their economy magically improve?
How about the nations economy?
Interesting.
Seems to me there is ZERO correlation with closing bases and saving money since the Govt just spends it on more useless stuff.
Lets just have two bases in the USA this way all our eggs will be in one basket and the enemy will need less weaponry to take us out.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
You need to check your facts Captain. All of the towns that had bases took a hit. It lasted between 10-15 years, then their economies improved. Most are doing better now than when the base was in service. There are exceptions (Vallejo with Mare Island Naval Shipyard is a ghetto) but overall they survived just fine.
Your statement proves why the bases need to be looked at: have we as an economy become so dependent on military spending we cannot survive without it? In other words Eisenhower was not only correct, but probably erred on the low side?
How did we win the cold war? It was not with bullets. We won the cold war by bankrupting the former Soviet Union. Almost 50% of their GDP was involved in defense. Their economy simply could not keep up.
We run the risk of doing the same.
If we need defense spending to keep the country afloat, it is probably better in the long run if we have our depression now when we are the big dog on the block than 50 years from now when we are broke and in danger of being taken over by the Chinese.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
What a stupid statement. Grand Forks was the home of a Minuteman missile wing for many years and that wing contributed mightily to the defense of this country. In addition the numerous bomber, fighter and tanker missions from the base have helped keep this country strong. The people from that base have become part of the fabric of northeastern North Dakota. I retired from the Air Force at Grand Forks in 1981 but elected to stay in the area and raise my family. I held several other jobs and contributed my taxes to the economy without complaint. After my final retirement in 2003 I moved south for a warmer climate but would return in a heartbeat if the chance arose. It is the whiners like you who do nothing but contribute your negative expert opinion on almost every article in the paper and who represent the negative aspects of a great state. Try making a positive contribution by doing out and making a difference in the community.
For fiscal cliff causes, look to your boy Barack Obama and the clueless liberals who support him and have their hands out for their rewards. 47 percent will soon grow to much more. My parents used to tell me that my generation was ruining this country. I am now 73 years old and can say that this country has now officially gone to he–. It only took 4 years to dumb down the public to the point where the takers and the gimees outnumber the makers and people who made this country a success.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
And how are you enjoying all those socialist programs you are living on? You know that government check called Social Security. That government check for retiring from the Air Force that the private sector use to get but corporate America took away. Or how about that socialized medicine that the tax payer is picking up the tab for, like your prescribtion drugs? Furthermore, since you were in the AF you never even saw battle.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Don’t you need to build the tankers before you can station them somewhere? Last I heard they were still having trouble awarding the contracts.
I think Grand Forks would be a good location seeing that they haven’t slowed down the construction on base and just about every building is new or newly renovated. A lot of wasted tax dollars, but it’s done now so we should get our moneys worth out of it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
dont know why thats so hard for others to comprehend bob but they cant wrap their noggins around it for some reason.
This is virtually a brand new base and one that would have had new Tankers years ago if it werent for some corrupt woman awarding contracts to Boeing with the caveat that they hire her son in law.
She did her time in jail and is out already, yet her trangressions set the program so far back we still dont have the new acft.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Boeing was awarded the contract earlier this year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love how the one thing everyone is so quick to cut is the one thing that is actually listed in the Constitution as a Government responsibility.
The Govt is responsible for raising a military force to protect us.
No where in the Constitution does it talk about Medical care, Welfare checks, and or Social Security.
No where does it talk about interest free loans to corporations, Grants to Universities and start up companies.
Yet mention one military installation and BAM! Theres the reason for the fiscal cliff.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
True and false Captain. The constitution most certainly does provide for the national defense. However, every single one of our fore fathers were against large standing armies. They came from Europe where the military had too much power. Why do you think the French admired us so? Their Army was forever taking over the civilians.
More does not equal better. You are trying to protect jobs. While admirable it only increases our safety if you are protecting the right jobs.
Eisenhower said it best. He warned against what we now have.
He was smarter than most people realized.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
Eisenhower was president whne I was a kid. He always seemed a grandfather figure. It was only later when I actually read his “military-industrial complex” speech that I came to recognize his insight. He was a product of that complex, yet was brave enough to warn others of it.
Like or Dislike:
17 
4
If you truly had a clue about the current DOD as it stands you would know it is at its smallest size in recent history.
We dont have enough people to fix the assets we have and we dont have enough people to fight the wars that are being fought.
The budget is overblown because of congress insisting on buying more and more 100 billion dollar aircraft that the Air Force Generals say they DONT want.
This is not about large standing Armies, this is about a federal government overspending on stuff we dont need.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily the Govt gets people to ignore the real problems by yelling “SQUIRREL” and yo uall look and start barking about bloated military and too many people etc… yet you havent got a clue.
You want to fix the economy?
Start by insisting Congress not get pork barrell spending projects, start by insisting that no congressman or woman gets to send tax payer money back to their state.
Let the states raise their taxes accordingly to meet these projects they want and if the people dont like it they can move.
Enough with the hating on the military already!
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Captain: our size does not seem to have hurt us. We are the biggest, baddest kid on the block. No other country even has one aircraft carrier the size of a Nimitz carrier and we have 12. We are not lacking in resources.
We are talking about EXCESS capacity. What part of EXCESS do you not comprehend. EXCESS means above what is needed. We do not need 25% of what we have. It is EXCESS to what the DOD says we need to complete our mission. EXCESS Capt. EXCESS.
Remember when Iraq first got going and units started coming home to dilapidated barracks with substandard electrical wiring, leaking faucets and mold everywhere? Remember the father who put the YouTube video up and got a 4 star apology?
Why did that take place? The reason, in part, was all of the money spent keeping places open that are simply redundant. Did you know we have over 300 M1A1 tanks in storage because they are EXCESS to what the force requires, but a congressman got a law passed that requires the Army to keep buying multimillion dollar pieces of equipment we cannot use and do not need?
Excess capacity hurts our nation’s defense. I figured a hawk like you would have figured it out already. Or are you just looking out for your own interests at the detriment to those kids getting shot at?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
The original phrase Eisenhower wanted to use was “military industrial congressional complex” but decided he didn’t want to ruffle too many feathers. The future president of the U. of Mn., Malcolm Moos, wrote the speech for the Pres.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I think it’s more accurate to say he contributed greatly to it. There is no doubt that Ike himself and his brother Milton also participated. Not to mention those on Moos’ staff.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Right now keeping military bases open serves only onr purpose. It keeps unemployment dow a little.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
spelling correction; (one) purpose & (down) a little.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So in your world we just close them all until we are attacked and then open them up for business?
Good plan.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
After reading a lot of these posts it truly saddens me to think that a lot of you actually step into a ballot box to cast a vote.
It appears to me that the vast majority of you dont deserve the right to cast that vote as you seem to have forgotten that it is and has been the great American Military that has allowed you that freedom and that right.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
So the German, Japanese, Italian, N. Vietnamese, Chinese et al armies didn’t create the right of their people to vote or did the US make that happen too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Capt you are right. Those whom you address are the 47 percent who are trying to make themselves the 51 percent who will bankrupt the country with their hands held out and constant whining. The dems have managed in just a few short years to dumb down the country to the point where their class warfare has succeeded in convincing the homosexuals, unions, hispanics and blacks that only the Democrats can be their saviors and masters. I served 20 years in the military of this country and after the last election would not recommend anybody join the military to preserve, protect and defend what it is that Democrats are trying to achieve.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Sorry Billn: I am hardly the 47%. I pay way too much in taxes of all types to ever qualify for that designation. What I hate is having my money wasted, and keeping excess capacity is a waste of money.
If the AF wanted or needed GF it would act accordingly. It also would not have put the base on the list for closure the last two BRAC rounds. As I said, keeping the base has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with our politicos.
If America is to survive, we need to spend money where it is needed, not waste it. That means up to 1/4 (25%) of US bases will be realigned, merged, and closed. It also means we stop producing products we don’t need (M1A1 tanks) and divert the money to products we do need.
If the DOD was a business it would have closed years ago. The DOD will never make a profit, but that does not mean it has a carte blanche to waste money.
I am one of the few who hopes the fiscal cliff comes to fruition. As I have detailed before, I think it would be one of the best things that could possibly happen to America. When the patient is bleeding to death nothing else matters until you staunch the flow.
What you and Captain are suggesting is putting pressure where it is not needed in the hopes that the bleeding stops in the opposite extremity.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Remember grand forks got the base because crookston didn’t want it. The original site was highway 2 and mn 32.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Baloney! The land was bought and given to the Air Force by the citizens of Grand Forks.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Because Crookston didn’t want it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
For Captain and Billn who seem to forget that it is not civilians who are clamoring for base closures, but the military. This is from the Washington Times, June 13, 2012:
“Both the House and Senate Armed Services committees have produced fiscal 2013 spending bills that deny Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s request to set up a Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) next year — the sixth since 1988.
Some in defense circles say it is the result of election-year politics and members of Congress will realize next year that they need to heed top Pentagon officials who have testified that they have too much infrastructure and not enough money.
“It is election-year posturing,” said an aerospace executive who monitors BRAC.
Others are not so sure, saying base closings would put thousands of people out of work in a tepid job market.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/congress-wont-let-panetta-close-bases/#ixzz2EldleBgV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Like or Dislike:
2 
1