Statements and Testimony - Informational Hearing - 8/11/05 - Washington, DC - Page: 2 of 9
This legal document is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Guard fighter and tanker force share this same experience. Critically, we believe it is
essential that any major change in the squadron size for various aircraft be analyzed
clearly and with data that can be properly evaluated.
The GAO's recent finding that the Air Force did not properly analyze the restructuring of
the B-1B fleet (GA-02-846) is an important reminder that the "best military judgment" is
not always sufficient for restructuring decisions.
In this instance, the potential for great harm by following these unvalidated
recommendations is significant. For the Air Guard, increasing the squadron sizes as laid
out in the BRAC recommendations would mean closing 6 units, leaving five states
without an Air Guard flying unit, and creating 23 enclave bases. Such dramatic changes
should not only be justified with clear data and analysis, but should also be consistent
with on-going studies like the QDR, Mobility Requirements Study, and the Tactical
Airlift Study that are defining future requirements.
AGAUS believes that programmatic issues like adjusting squadron sizes and moving
aircraft should not be included in the Commission's final BRAC recommendations.
In terms of legal requirements, the Commission does not appear to be legally bound to
retain the recommendations for consolidated Air Guard squadrons as the only detail
provided in the force structure submissions given to Congress is that the Air Force will
have 10 AEFs. No definitions of optimal squadron sizes were included in those
submissions
It is the military judgment of the Adjutant Generals that using the BRAC process to
legally establish concepts that have not been properly analyzed and that are not part of
reducing excess infrastructure is a dangerous precedent to set.
When you change squadron sizes, you get to a second major concern - the creation of
enclave bases.
When I testified on June 30, 2005 in Atlanta, I shared with the Commission our concerns
about this construct. Since then we have not received any additional information, nor
gotten any explanation that dispels those concerns. The Department of Defense letter of
14 July 2005 to this Commission indicated that there were Air Force deliberations
regarding enclaves, but did not address the three critical substantive concerns - first, that
there was not an adequate budgeting strategy for enclaves; second, that no consideration
was given to the impact on recruitment and retention; and third, that no consultation
occurred to determine the actual needs of governors for homeland defense and emergency
response. It appears to us that bases would be shrunk to such a degree that they could not
accommodate the growth required for a follow-on mission that might be available two to
five years down the road. Absent a clear path forward we believe these enclaves are
closures that will happen slowly, but without the more stringent review of closures done
during the BRAC process. In addition, while the Air Force can routinely move its Active
Duty personnel to follow its weapons systems, we see the potential for severe personnel
losses in the Guard because of members' traditional ties to their communities. Those ties
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legal Document.
United States. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Statements and Testimony - Informational Hearing - 8/11/05 - Washington, DC -, legal document, August 13, 2005; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc20543/m1/2/: accessed April 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.