WT Forums

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's broad proposal to shut down or shift Air National Guard units, including a Connecticut unit at Bradley International Airport, may not be allowed under the ongoing round of military base closings, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The memo, prepared by the general counsel's office of the independent commission reviewing the base closings, could stymie the Defense Department's efforts to streamline or eliminate as many as 30 Air Guard flying units from Maine to Texas.

Dated Thursday, the legal opinion said the use of the base closure law to relocate, disband or move Air Guard units from one state to another could be outside the scope of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. And it said that in some cases the proposals could present legal problems and deviate from the criteria in the base closure law.

Officials reading the memo declared it good news for states that are trying to keep their guard units in place. BRAC officials could not be reached for immediate comment.

"Report of this memo is certainly welcome news to the state of Connecticut," said Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn. "The BRAC Commission is asking the right questions about whether the Pentagon has the legal right to take away planes and equipment from National Guard facilities without the consent of the states."

The Pentagon has proposed moving the Connecticut Guard's A-10 "Warthog" jets of the 103rd Fighter Wing from its Bradley base to Massachusetts, robbing the Connecticut Guard of one of its largest, most prominent and active units.

The memo backs up complaints made by state officials in several of the BRAC hearings.

"In our conversations with the BRAC Commission, we've raised the same concerns about the Air Force's failure to consult with both the Massachusetts National Guard and the Coast Guard," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. "We're confident that the BRAC Commission will correct the errors made in this process to follow the true intent of the BRAC law."

The memo also notes that the Pentagon already has the authority to reposition aircraft within the Air Force, but any changes in location of Air National Guard aircraft must have the consent of the state's governor.

Massachusetts officials, who have been fighting the proposal to close Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, said the memo echoed their own arguments.

"This raises very serious questions about the whole rationale for the Otis closure recommendation," said Steve Schwardron, chief of staff for Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.

State officials have blasted the proposed Air Guard restructuring, saying the Pentagon trod on state's rights.

They have warned that the shifts could erode homeland security.

They will do what they want to do..........period.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

This is crap. I understand it's the Governer's job to have as many jobs in his state as he can, and we all know military bases = jobs, BUT those are not his planes. They belong to the FEDERAL government. When the people working them get paid, the money comes from the FEDERAL government. When someone is arrested for trespassing on a Guard or Reserve base, they are charged under FEDERAL law. Plain and simple these people are putting their own desires ahead of what is best (supposedly, although that's another debate) for the effeciency of the military. Honestly, I never liked the idea of the National Guard. It belongs to the state, except when activated it belogs the the Fed? No. There should be AD and Reserve. You don't see anyone arguing over who the Reserve belongs to, do you?

"The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan

I dont want to get into the financial aspects of it jack but you are so right. If there were just AD and reserves it would solve huge problems between the technician work force and the AGR work force. That would make it much more efficient also.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

I have never understood why governors needed fighters, anyway.

Coach

Dittos. The jets should be attached to the reserves and the soldiers should be Guard.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

Who knows, maybe this furor will initiate some policy changes. Then again...

"Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." - Carl Zwanzig

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This is crap. I understand it's the Governer's job to have as many jobs in his state as he can, and we all know military bases = jobs, BUT those are not his planes. They belong to the FEDERAL government. When the people working them get paid, the money comes from the FEDERAL government. When someone is arrested for trespassing on a Guard or Reserve base, they are charged under FEDERAL law. Plain and simple these people are putting their own desires ahead of what is best (supposedly, although that's another debate) for the effeciency of the military. Honestly, I never liked the idea of the National Guard. It belongs to the state, except when activated it belogs the the Fed? No. There should be AD and Reserve. You don't see anyone arguing over who the Reserve belongs to, do you?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree. And as a sidenote, that clown Ted Kennedy fighting for Otis ANGB is laughable at best. But back on subject, I do wonder about the issue......yes the feds own the equipment, and IMO are free to do with it as they please. And I believe that the feds can take the planes, and the bases and infrastructure belongs to the Guard for their dispositon....they can do with it as they like.

But this does bring up an interesting question I thought of: We all know that many Guard units have aircraft that are of much higher capability than their active-duty counterparts...some F-16s an A-10s to be exact. And so far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), that many of these upgrades these Guard planes have were funded by the state? If that is true, and if the feds "repo" the planes, would the feds (who own the planes) have to reimburse any money to the state for the equipment upgrades on these more-capable planes that the state may have put their own $$$ into, or is that just the "cost of doing business"

And in the same vein, if the state keeps the now-closed base, do they have to reimburse any federal $$$ that were poured into the base to build new facilities, etc? Or is that also a wash for the feds?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I have never understood why governors needed fighters, anyway.

Coach
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree.

IMO, in this whole mess, the state units are just trying to find ways to preserve what's best for them......which I'd expect any state to do, realistically. But in a perfect world, I'd like to think they'd do what's best for all. Even so, like I said above, I can buy that the state owns the facilities (even with fed money infused), and the unit itself. In that vein, that's why I think the feds are simply relocating the equipment with many of these units, vice ordering the unit actually shut down. In most cases, they seem to be keeping the actual unit around with either a new mission (ala Happy Holligans possibly becoming UAVs), or as sort of a manpower-augment function. As an aside, the sad part of all this is the nostalgia that will disappear, but that's the price of changing times, unfortunately. I wish Williams AFB was still open to have gone to UPT at, but oh well.

Like everyone else here, I think the idea of a govenor having a "state" air force is just silly, at least on the surface. However, if you look at how the Air Guard came to be, it makes sense. After WWII, the army air corp wanted to find a way to keep combat seasoned pilots available. It had been proven that if a fighter pilot survived his first half dozen or so missions, his effectiveness and ability to survive was greatly enhanced. Long story short, they ended up in the National Guard. The idea didn't include activating a whole unit and deploying them as a seperate and complete combat piece, rather, just take the pilots and integrate them with existing Air Force units. That's the reason so many Air Guard units had fighters and not cargo aircraft.

We have seen the evolution of the concept from a flying club for pilots (I've been around long enough to testify that it was exactly that) to what we have today..and I've questioned why the Air Guard continued to exist. The answer, at least as explained to me by a two star one night, also makes sense. I asked him flat out why there even IS an Air National Guard. It's all about numbers, both dollars and end strength. I know it's hard to believe in today's era of recruiting and retention problems but there was a time when the Air Force kept bumping up against a personnel ceiling and, hand in hand with that, a budget crunch. The Air Guard allows the Air Force to maintain a bunch of combat ready squadrons, available at the stroke of a presidential pen, without affecting the personnel numbers (the Air Force reserve is counted against the total number, the Guard is not) and without draining any dollars from its budget. It was, and continues to be, a good deal for the Air Force which is why they've never pushed to convert the Air National Guard to Air Force Reserve. Can you imagine the screaming if the Air Force told congress it needed another 5 or 6 BILLION dollars per year just to maintain what they have? What the Air Force is now finding out is there's a price afterall. That price is control of the unit by the govenor of the state to which they're assigned.

Old Chief

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I have never understood why governors needed fighters, anyway.

Coach


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Coldwar ERA, Govt Incapacitated from Nuclear weapons ETC.. Their is an ops Plan In all Local Govts that describe defense of Civic Centers and Logistical Areas. Our Constitution requires Civil Leadership of the Military. Hence Forth the Legislature and Governership at the State Level. Never learned this until I went through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. It had described Specifically Several Studies By the FBI and Defense DEpt that Outlined Strategic areas and entities to protect.

"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the white bellies of their wives and daughters."
-Genghis Khan

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

The Gov here threw at fit about shutting down the Springfield ANG F-16 Squadron and told them "their his planes due to the money the state has put in to them and up keep of the base and upgrades"
Plus all the trained TECHS and PILOTS, The state in the past 15 YRS has went from A-37's ,A-7'S ,C-130's to F-16,s .
they almost got an A-10 squadron before the C-130's because they contacted me to see if I would interested in joining up with the guard.
Because I was qualified IN BOTH AFSC's but wouldnt give be a TECH slot if I did or atleast a Stripe. But they got the F-16'S so didnt miss out.

Funny thing is now it looks like their going to get their wish and they'll stay here.

I get confussed with the whole thing "ART'S and TECH'S",even more confussed when your shift is 2/3rd's active and 1/3rd ARTS.
I was yelled at for cutting back ARTS without making them take"HOURS OF LEAVE".

goose

Goose

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Old chief are you telling me there not just big flying clubs for pilots ? Yeah right ! But seriously, I agree it is a mes because in todays ops tempos the US needs to maintain these force levels and it cant do it if all of the forces are transferred to the reserves. But I still think that is a bullshit answer and that it would solve a lot of problems if they would make us reservists. In our instance, we are just 7 miles from Westover Air Force Base. It was the home of the Eighth Air Force for many years and still has the longest runways on the east coast with the exception of I believe Patrick or whatever the primary landing strip is for the Space Shuttle. regardless, my point was , that it is really pointless to have three flying outfits (The Patriot Wing of C5's at Westover, Barnes A10's, and Bradleys A-10's) and two hellicopter units all within twenty miles of each other, when you could put them all at Westover and still have room. But they cant because Westover is reserves and we are guard. They told us that we come out of two different kitties of money. I dont know if its true but if it is, its innefficient and a poor reason.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !