BRAC
I recently had an email 'conversation' with an unnamed but informed source about the coming Base Realignment and Closure proceeding. (Wow, I feel like a journalist. I'm starting to feel so...so...liberal...ack...higher taxes...safe, legal and free...urp...Bush is bad...) Sorry about that.
If we operate from the assumption that the ICBM missile mission is safe but to be cut, the the 'source' had this to say: "Malmstrom has the most up to date best geographically distributed missiles. Some believe it would be the last to close and Warren and Minot would go first. My guess on Rumsfeld is that this process will be mission oriented (list was done in the first 4 years) and the politics to this date have been shut out (much to the dismay of the politicians and the press would never tell you that). The press is too busy covering all the Johnny come lately blowfish going to DC a week before list release to get their sound bits in. The appointment of the commission when congress was convened for Easter Break just bolsters my belief that this BRAC will stick to mission based principles. If it does, that bodes well (very well) for [Great Falls/Malmstrom]. If it does not, it is anyone's guess."
The 'source' also pointed out that MANG will be utilizing Malmstrom's now-dormant runway during the upgrade of the runway at the Great Falls International Airport. "There is a concept out there that several Air National Guard units will be combined during BRAC. It fits with the train as you are deployed philosophy shift currently happening in the Pentagon. We are not sure if this would mean MANG relocates to Malmstrom or that one wing is at Malmstrom and one is at the airport (training would still be joint). "
Consider me cautiously and optimistically pessimistic.
6 comments:
Interesting analysis. Of course, being an active-duty member I officially have no opinion about BRAC or the installations that are selected. :-)
I think you are spot-on on your analysis. However, just 'utilizing' the runway at Malmstrom would be very problematic, unless quite a lot of funds are spent.
After it was decommissioned in the last BRAC, the tower was removed. None of the electrical systems have been touched in a decade. Engineering tests would have to be done on the runway surface.
Reopening that runway would be a great thing for all of Northcentral Montana, but it would not be an insignificant project.
The runway was sighted as one of the reasons we lost the refueling wing. It would be very costly to fix and maintain.
My understanding is that the air traffic can be controlled from GTF. I found that hard to believe, but have been assured that it is the fact.
And as far as the cost of maintaining the runway, that is a relative thing. All runways have to be maintained. How do we price out comparatively?
Last week a friend of mine said "They will never close the Base!"
I replied, "That's what they said about the mines in Butte and the smelter in Anaconda..."
It would be interesting to know projections of how many people would actually leave Great Falls if the Base closed. There are 500 civilian jobs.
The Trib has published figures that suggest about 40% of the economy in Cascade County is tied (directly and indirectly) to Malmstrom AFB. If it closes, we're probably looking at another Butte (no offense to Butte, it's a nice town).
Post a Comment