Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

  1. #1
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,983

    AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    July 19, 2005

    Pope, AFIT added to list
    of potential base closures


    By Gordon Trowbridge
    Times staff writer




    The independent base closings panel on Tuesday added Pope Air Force Base and the Air Force Institute of Technology to a list of potential closings, but left several other Air Force proposals unchanged.



    The Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission only briefly addressed the most controversial aspect of the Air Force’s base-closings plan: the proposed shift of hundreds of Air National Guard aircraft from bases around the country.

    Tuesday’s votes do not mean definite closure for any of the dozens of installations considered. They merely add bases to the hundreds of closing and restructuring recommendations proposed by the Department of Defense. Seven votes from the nine-member panel were required to add an installation Tuesday, and another seven are needed to include those additions in a final list due in September.

    The vote on Pope allows the commission to consider rejecting a Pentagon plan to turn the base’s real estate over to neighboring Fort Bragg, but to base 16 Air Force C-130 cargo planes there as a tenant unit.

    The Pentagon plan would move Pope’s current fleet of C-130s and A-10 attack planes to other locations, and move 16 C-130s from reserve-component bases in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to what would become an Army-operated air field. The movement of Air National Guard planes embroils Pope in the ongoing Guard controversy, in which several state governments have objected to removal of planes from their Guard units.

    One commissioner, retired Adm. Harold Gehman, objected to adding Pope. “We’re taking one little piece of this Air National Guard mess we have,” which makes little sense, Gehman said.

    Other commissioners suggested that by adding Pope to the list, the panel would allow its staff to perform research that would shed light on the Guard controversy. That led to a long and sometimes confused conversation on the proposal. Chairman Anthony Principi called for a vote, “there being no confusion whatsoever,” a joke that brought laughter from the hearing room.

    The panel also voted to examine consolidation of three military postgraduate schools: AFIT at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and the Naval Postgraduate School and Defense Language Institute, both in Monterey, Calif. The commissioners discussed placing all three at a site in California, but some, including retired Air Force Gen. Lloyd Newton, said they wanted to consider other locations.

    Commissioners also voted to consider closing Galena Forward Operation Location, Alaska, an alert base for air-defense aircraft. The commission seems likely to shift that operation to Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, which under Pentagon plans will remain open mostly as host for Cope Thunder exercises.

    The panel rejected proposals to add Moody Air Force Base, Ga., and Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D., for further review.

    Commission staff had suggested Moody as a possible location for Navy aircraft from Oceana Naval Air Station, which the panel added to the closings list on Tuesday. That would have required movement of several Air Force units from the base. But, ultimately, the panel decided Moody was a poor fit for the Navy’s carrier aircraft. Grand Forks would lose its current fleet of KC-135 tankers under the Pentagon’s plan, but remain open for Predator and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles, which Air Force officials say they want to add at the base. Commissioners had worried that the UAV plans were not solid enough to leave the base open, but ultimately decided the promises of Vice Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley during testimony on Monday were sufficient.


    Back to top

    Printer Friendly Version

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Member ochre's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,266

    Re: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    I have lived in Monterey (DLI alum actually) and the Dayton area. If the government wants to save money there is no comparison in property values between the two. Dayton is much cheaper...
    4009



  4. #3
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,983

    Re: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    Quote Originally Posted by ochre
    I have lived in Monterey (DLI alum actually) and the Dayton area. If the government wants to save money there is no comparison in property values between the two. Dayton is much cheaper...
    Than again, we are talking about the government.

  5. #4
    Member ochre's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,266

    Re: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    My Dad has his master's degree from AFIT. I'd like to see it stay in Dayton.
    4009



  6. #5
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,042

    Re: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    A few Lts I work with are scheduled to begin at AFIT pretty soon.

    The argument is going to be facilites. AFIT is currently expanding their classroom space and Monterey doesn't have the square footage to support AFIT.

    Spend millions to build lecture halls only to move the school a few years later. Gotta love government committies justifying their existance.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  7. #6
    Dunnilicious creek14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Beavercreek
    Posts
    11,774

    Re: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    I took a series of classes at AFIT. Shook out to be 17 hours of Physics graduate credits. I still wake up in a cold sweat when I think about it.

    It needs to stay where it is.
    Will trade this space for a #1 starter.

  8. #7
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,042

    Re: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    Quote Originally Posted by creek14
    I took a series of classes at AFIT. Shook out to be 17 hours of Physics graduate credits. I still wake up in a cold sweat when I think about it.

    It needs to stay where it is.

    They don't call that place the "widow-maker" for nothing.

    It makes no sense to take an engineering graduate school away from a base full of engineers. It needs to stay where it is.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  9. #8
    Hey Cubs Fans RFS62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    16,601

    Re: AFIT at Wright-Patterson may consolidate to California

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmered
    Spend millions to build lecture halls only to move the school a few years later. Gotta love government committies justifying their existance.

    Nothing the government does is cost efficient. Nothing.

    FEMA makes the post office look like Delta Force. Good intentions muddled by layers of government red tape.
    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    ~ Mark Twain


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25