6/29/2005

On BRAC, MANG, and the Malmstrom Runway

There has been much discussion of late in GF about these three topics. Here's what I know (or think I know):

Runway: The main work that needs to be done is lighting, painting, etc. The runway is generally in good shape, but the old tower that was out there has been torn down. If the runway is to be used for fighters, barriers would be required.

F-16 flights at Malmstrom could be controlled from the tower at GTF. Even if a new tower were built at Malmstrom, it would probably be redundant as it is likely the GTF tower would remain primary in any event. The ground operations would be handled at Malmstrom. This could be handled easily.

At one point, a figure of $20 million was bandied about. The electrical and barriers would be $6-8 million. I believe that number also included a tower at $8 million. The remaining dollars were likely fuel farm recertification. While the foregoing represent an educated guess of my source, they would account for the $20 million discussed.

The runway itself is in very good shape, and even at $20 million it is a bargain. It is 11,500' x 200', concrete, and to construct it today you would be looking at $50-60 million just for the runway. You would still be facing the collateral expenditure of $20 million for the accessories. Plus this runway is encroachment free which is virtually unmatched.

The GTF Airport Board voted yesterday to consider an application to take 'possession' of the runway. GTF would not actually operate the runway, but would then 'lease' it to all comers, including MANG. This is an ingenious way devised by Cynthia Schultz that might make a move of MANG from GTF to Malmstrom more palatable for the BRAC Commission.

BRAC/MANG: The BRAC Commission looks at a number of military factors, both air and ground. As one might expect, our air assets are virtually unmatched (and unmatchable) given all of the open space.

Our ground assets, though, place us well at the bottom of the pack in military ratings. These are things such as fuel capacity, etc., and in some of the areas we do not even meet minimum qualifications.

One expert I spoke with yesterday opined that, without a move of MANG to Malmstrom, the likelihood of retaining the fighter wing is virtually nil without a political miracle.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Just curious if a rumor I heard about the runway at Malmstrom has any merit. The story I heard when I worked on base was... the runway had surface treatment issues. As in... the surface of the runway was bad. Chips, rocks, etc... all over the place. Again, only a rumor.