WT Forums

Thanks for clearing that up Coach.
IMO, for every pilot in a unit to change airframes instead of changing units sounds extremely time consuming and wasteful. So it would make perfect sense for the government to do that.



They say that the only two things certain in life are death and taxes. I prefer them in that order.

Hi All
What the hell is this about Barne,s getting F-15's???????
We better not lose the A-10's !!!! I had nightmare's the last time
their was talk about getting the lawn darts , To be honest about the
whole base closure and realignment SHIT !!! i really think were going to be in big trouble if the shit hits the fan!!!! We don't need super bases. Thats just an easier target to hit an take-out .....
When will we know what the end decision will be ????
We don't need the fast movers !!! their hard to spot flying over my house. Later Dana
Long live the HOG <img src=newicons/icon_hog.gif border=0 align=middle>........................... rumsfeld<img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>

dcway

I suspect the appeal decision will happen quickly, nobody knows how this will play out and what will happen if the 2nd district rules for the state since the A-10 piece of the puzzle needs iron from the losing units to plus-up the other units. If the BRAC wins the appeal, it's the death knoll once the president signs it.

Anyone from Mass know what happened with the Otis case?

OC




Judge Blocks BRAC's Air Guard Plan; Feds Appeal
September 8, 2005
By LYNNE TUOHY, Courant Staff Writer



A federal judge in Hartford Wednesday took the extraordinary step of barring the Base Realignment and Closure Commission from recommending that the state be stripped of its entire squadron of Air National Guard A-10 fighters, the strongest attack to date on BRAC's authority and tactics.

The injunction ordered by U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello does not stop BRAC from forwarding its recommendations for military base closures and reconfigurations nationwide to President Bush by today's deadline. But it exempts from those sweeping recommendations inclusion of the A-10 Thunderbolts now under the command of the Connecticut Air National Guard and Gov. M. Jodi Rell, as the state's commander in chief.


Rell was at Air National Guard headquarters at Bradley International Airport attending a send-off party for a National Guard contingent heading to the hurricane-ravaged South when word of the ruling reached her.

"She was ecstatic," said Kevin Rasch, Rell's legal counsel, who informed her of the ruling that is bound to resonate in other states.

The commission had recommended retiring or removing all the planes of the 103rd Fighter Wing, a squadron with an 82-year history in Connecticut. The Pentagon sought to consolidate the Bradley-based unit with another A-10 wing at Barnes Air National Guard Base in Westfield, Mass.

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, representing BRAC, filed notice Wednesday evening that they would appeal Covello's ruling to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.

The commission's proposals for removing and consolidating Air National Guard units have created a political and legal maelstrom that has intensified as today's deadline approached.

Covello's ruling was filed just hours after a federal judge rejected a challenge in Missouri to BRAC recommendations to close an air base in St. Louis. Also on Wednesday, Massachusetts state officials launched their federal court attack on BRAC recommendations affecting bases there, principally the closing of Otis Air National Guard Base.

A federal judge in Philadelphia sided recently with Pennsylvania's governor in challenging a proposal to remove Air National Guard forces from Willow Grove, while federal courts in New Jersey and Illinois have rejected similar challenges by officials in those states.

Only in Connecticut have opponents of BRAC recommendations scored such a resounding - though potentially short-lived - victory.

"We are in seriously uncharted legal territory," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in an effort to temper his optimism. "But there is no precedent for a state winning when BRAC acted lawlessly."

If BRAC lawyers prevail in the 2nd Circuit before the recommendations reach the president, Connecticut officials would have little viable recourse. A 1994 U.S. Supreme Court ruling held that once BRAC "commits decision making to the discretion of the President, judicial review of the President's decision is not available."

Bush has said he will forward BRAC's recommendations to Congress for final action, rather than back to BRAC for reconsideration.

Although more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed challenging BRAC's authority and recommendations, Connecticut's was unique for several reasons.

It was the only state facing elimination of its entire Air National Guard fleet, which brought into play federal laws dictating when a state's governor had to consent to changes in the "branch, organization or allotment" of a National Guard unit.

Covello said this was such a case, despite arguments by Justice Department lawyer Matthew Lepore that BRAC's recommendations centered on taking aircraft already owned by the federal government and not disrupting personnel.

"Certainly, relocation of the aircraft in this case would leave pilots and other military personnel trained to support a flying mission with nothing to do and, in this way, constitute a dramatic change in the allocation and allotment of that unit," Covello stated.

Blumenthal had secured a temporary restraining order and then filed a request for a preliminary injunction - a legal strategy designed to seek instant relief while leaving a fall-back lawsuit in place. It was a risk that paid off, but only after Blumenthal convinced Covello the state would suffer irreparable harm in the interim, but would win in the end.

Covello ruled that the state already suffered harm when the federal government disregarded Rell's right to veto any changes to the guard unit, and would suffer permanent harm once the recommendation to remove the planes reached the president. Lepore's arguments that any BRAC plan adopted by Congress might not be acted upon before the 2011 deadline did not dissuade Covello.

Connecticut also offered the testimony of Thaddeus J. Martin, adjutant general for the state of Connecticut and commander of its National Guard forces. Martin said he'd been involved in many National Guard conversions of equipment and operations in the course of his career, but none before this in which the federal government showed no deference to the state and its leadership. And, he noted, the BRAC recommendation flies in the face of its own stated objective of saving money.

"What we're dealing with here is a disconnect," Martin testified Wednesday. "The aircraft are moving. The people are staying. The infrastructure is staying. Hence, there's no cost savings. ... I know of no cost savings derived from the decision to take the aircraft out of the Bradley air base."

Martin said that over 1,200 employees in his command, 384 are directly linked to the A-10 planes, either as pilots or maintenance staff. And because it was made public in May that the government wanted to remove Connecticut's planes, Martin said he has had great difficulty recruiting new staff.

"It's affected our ability to recruit pilots into a unit with a target on our backs," Martin said.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Anyone from Mass know what happened with the Otis case?

OC

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

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politic ... etail.html

BOSTON -- A judge was poised to rule on Massachusetts' bid to keep Otis Air National Guard base off the chopping block, as a federal commission was to send its recommendations Thursday to President George W. Bush.

Massachusetts is one of several states to challenge the findings of the federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission on the grounds that changes to their National Guard units or bases must be approved by governors. The others have had mixed results.

Gov. Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas Reilly are seeking the restraining order to block the commission from including the recommendation to close Otis in its final report, which still must be approved by Bush and Congress.

U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole acknowledged after a hearing Wednesday that his decision on a restraining order might come too late, but noted he only received the state's lawsuit that afternoon.

"I realize that there are some risks that events will overtake the ruling," O'Toole said.

Lawyers for the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department argued that the decision to close a military base should be left up to the federal government, not the states. They also argued the court has no jurisdiction because no final decision has been made.

Under the commission's plan, Otis would be closed, but all 18 of the F-15s of the 102nd Fighter Wing currently stationed there would be transferred to Barnes Air National Guard base in Westfield.

While some in Westfield are welcoming the decision, which could bring extra jobs and improvements to the area, the closing of Otis is a huge loss on Cape Cod. With about 500 jobs, it is one of the largest employers on the Cape and an important part of the local economy.

The plan also would transfer the A-10 attack jets now stationed at Barnes out of Massachusetts.

Washington state also filed suit Wednesday to block the plan to move Air National Guard planes out of the state.

Other challenges to the BRAC recommendations have resulted in conflicting decisions.

On Wednesday, two federal judges agreed to block the base closings commission from recommending changes at Air National Guard bases in Connecticut and Tennessee, which governors argued couldn't be altered without their authority.

A federal judge in St. Louis, however, threw out a similar Missouri lawsuit, saying she had no authority to hear the case because the decision on the move was still preliminary.

A judge sided with Pennsylvania's governor regarding a base there, but courts in Illinois and New Jersey concluded they don't have jurisdiction over the base closing commission process. Officials in Illinois and New Jersey have appealed.

TG out

<img src="http://www.x-plane.org/home/topgun/Personnel/A10logo.jpg" border=0>
Top Gun's Photography

_________________
If it Flys, shoot it

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegio ... at=&page=1


BOSTON - A federal judge on Thursday denied Massachusetts' bid to block the federal government from closing Otis Air National Guard base on Cape Cod.

U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. dealt a serious blow to state officials' efforts to keep Otis from closing by denying the temporary restraining order sought by Gov. Mitt Romney and Attorney General Tom Reilly.

The decision came on the day an independent commission was scheduled to submit its final plan for closing and realigning U.S. military bases to President Bush. But the U.S. Supreme Court was asked Thursday to step in and block the recommendations from being delivered to the White House. ....

This is not a total victory for Connecticut, this just means the supreme court won't hear the case until the appeals court has made its decision. It is however, something the state was worried about because if the U.S. Supreme court had sided with the administration, the whole appeals process would have been null and void.

OC

HARTFORD, CT. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request from the Bush administration Thursday to keep the Bradley Air National Guard base on a list of proposed closings and realignments at military installations across the country.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg left the legal fight to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was scheduled to take up the matter Friday.

"This Court should not short-circuit the normal review process about a showing of irreparable harm stronger than presented here," she wrote.

The decision came on the same day that the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's recommendations were due to President Bush.

The report that is sitting on GW's desk right now.

http://www.brac.gov/finalreport.asp

Appeals court allows inclusion of Bradley in BRAC report
By John Christoffersen, Associated Press Writer | September 9, 2005

NEW YORK --An appeals court issued an emergency stay Friday to restore Bradley Air National Guard base to a list of nationwide closings and realignments of military installations.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Friday after hearing testimony from the federal government and Connecticut officials.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he will consult with Gov. M. Jodi Rell before deciding if he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Our position is still solid and sound," Blumenthal said after the ruling. "We will absolutely continue this fight."

Attorneys for the federal government did not comment.

At issue is the government's plan to remove all the jet fighters from the Bradley base in East Granby. U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello in Hartford on Wednesday blocked the Base Closure and Realignment Commission's recommendation to realign the Bradley base and its 103rd Fighter Wing. The case was appealed by the federal government.

Rell said she was disappointed.

"This ruling does not appear to deal with the merits of our case. It is certainly not the end of our legal battles," she said.

State officials say the realignment is illegal because Rell, the commander in chief of the Connecticut National Guard, didn't give her consent. State officials also said that Connecticut would become the only state without an Air Force flying mission, leaving it at risk during a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

"To simply presume the BRAC process requires ignoring and disregarding the governor and the law really in my view is reprehensible," Blumenthal told the appeals court.

Judge Rosemary Pooler pressed Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter on whether the issue called for review by the courts.

"If there is review, it's at a later stage," Letter said.

Letter warned that if Connecticut succeeded, other governors could press the same argument.

"And the BRAC system simply disintegrates," Letter said.

Blumenthal said after the ruling that the federal government had conceded that the issue is subject to court review at some point.

The federal government had also sought a stay of execution of Covello's order from the U.S. Supreme Court, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg declined to intervene Thursday. Her ruling left open the possibility that the administration could file another appeal later that could be heard by the full court.

The commission's recommendations involve more than 800 military installations nationwide. The panel submitted its report Thursday to President Bush without the Bradley realignment, but said it would reinsert its Bradley recommendation if the judge's ruling is overturned.

Under the realignment plan approved by the commission, the 15 A-10 Thunderbolts at Bradley would be sent to the Air Force's pool. Staffing at the Bradley base would remain the same.

I finally read over the BRAC recommendations as it pertains to the A-10. If approved it looks as though we will have 8 units with A-10’s. Let me know if I missed something

Ft Smith - 18
Idaho - 18
Martin State - 18
Selfridge - 24
Barksdale - 24
Whiteman – 24
Moody - 48
DM – can’t remember the total number at there


capche-capche da - we go forward together

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

There are like 70something at DM I think.

They say that the only two things certain in life are death and taxes. I prefer them in that order.

Hi All
Now is this another way for them to retire the HOG?????
I don't remember any talk on in the past couple years to
retire them this soon!:( Also i'd like to know the thinking behind
all this, it seems to me that the military is getting cut back way to much. Again we don't need alot of super bases !!!!! just easier
targets to take out in 1 shot....
KEEP THE HOGS AT BARNES !!!!!!!!!!!!! Dana
Long Live The Hog <img src=newicons/icon_hog.gif border=0 align=middle>.........................

dcway

Hitler, you left out Spang, Osan, Barnes, Nellis, and Eglin...think that's the rest

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Hitler, you left out Spang, Osan, Barnes, Nellis, and Eglin...think that's the rest
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Mug's

I sure did, not sure what I was thinking.

As for Barnes, I thought they where going to lose their hawgs if the recommendations are approved.

Guess that makes it 12 A-10 Bases if Approved.

Ft Smith, Idaho, Martin State, Selfridge, Barksdale, Whiteman, Moody DM, Nellis, Eglin, Span and Osan.

capche-capche da - we go forward together

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Now is this another way for them to retire the HOG????? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Dana, if you look at the plan for the engine upgrades, it's only about two thirds of the present fleet and if you read the BRAC report, it mentions retiring quite a few airframes. This is probably the only way to make sense out of what they're trying to do. If you look at the Bradley proposal, all it does is take away the airframes. The base remains open, the people stay (guess they run around the ramp flapping their arms and make airplane noises) and the aircraft go into a pool. The Willow Grove piece is even worse. They keep the people and don't even have a base..how does THAT work? My understanding of the BRAC process was that it was a way to save money and get rid of excess real estate. In Bradley's case, it does neither and to a lesser extent, the same at the Grove. In the meantime, you knock out four (Barnes, Bradley, Willow Grove and Battle Creek) C-1 units and spend millions equipping and training a new unit who, btw, won't be C-1 for a minimum of 3 years. Dunno, I'm scratching my head over this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Hitler, you left out Spang, Osan, Barnes, Nellis, and Eglin...think that's the rest
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Actually, Eglin doesn't count, it's not an operational unit and only does OT&E with 2 aircraft..I think the same applies at Nellis but I'm not sure. You can't really count Barksdale and don't count all the aircraft at DM either because it's a training wing with only one squadron having an operational requirement.

OC

I didn't think Eglin should count either.
Nellis counts as much as the 2 training squadrons at DM.

They say that the only two things certain in life are death and taxes. I prefer them in that order.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Dana, if you look at the plan for the engine upgrades, it's only about two thirds of the present fleet and if you read the BRAC report, it mentions retiring quite a few airframes. This is probably the only way to make sense out of what they're trying to do. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Very bad gamble to make.....getting rid of aircraft in order to fund engines (if in fact that's what they're trying to do). I would hope that isn't it, since that's a great way to cut our own throat by making the fleet rapidly unsustainable money-wise with the fewer airframes.

They wont learn until their faced with an emergency that needs the
A-10 like if I remember right the start of this war on terror,they didnt have enough than.

Goose


LIVE FREE OR DIE
<img src="http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5917/scan00020br.jpg" border=0>

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In the meantime, you knock out four (Barnes, Bradley, Willow Grove and Battle Creek) C-1 units and spend millions equipping and training a new unit who, btw, won't be C-1 for a minimum of 3 years. Dunno, I'm scratching my head over this one.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Chief you've brought up some valid points, I feel for the guys who are deploying overseas in support of ongoing operations. This is surely going to affect their deployment length and how often that they will have to go. Not just in the A-10 community but across all branches of military service.

I wonder if with ongoing operations and deployments to support rescue / rebuilding efforts due to Katrina the BRAC is a good ideal at this time. Sure seems it would be better suited if they would just postpone the whole thing for a few years and then come back and reaccomplish the review.

capche-capche da - we go forward together

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

Actually I believe Willow Grove ends up like Barnes according to the report. The 111th stays at the Grove with the Enclave of Army Reserve and PA Guard 270th unit. The final report they sent to GW kinda helps clarify some things. They actually suggest..but dont recommend..not retiring any A-10s.

More head scratching..be damned if I know what the DoD is up to except to retire the A-10 little by little.

From this morning's news wire;

AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE WILL NOT BE CLOSED

BOSTON-State officials declared Monday that Otis Air National Guard Base will not be closed as originally thought, a reversal they said came as a result of legal action last week, but which the Base Realignment and Closure Commission said was made with little fanfare over two weeks ago.

"Otis has a new lease on life" said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who had fought the closure of the Cape Cod military installation.

All parties agreed that the base will retain the bulk of its 500 jobs, although some positions will be moved across state when an 18 plane wing of F-15 fighter planes is reloacated to Barnes Air National Guard Base in Westfield. Barnes is still slated to lose a wing of A-10 attack aircraft.

I thought they always stated to leave Otis open for the USCG station that is there?

hmm

TG out

<img src="http://www.x-plane.org/home/topgun/Personnel/A10logo.jpg" border=0>

http://topgunphotography.milavia.net/index.htm

_________________
If it Flys, shoot it

yeah but now it is going to be a sat-imagery site, along with the USCG.

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

_________________
YGBSM !

Old Chief/Jackb

Careful about discounting units just because of test or training. It take the same resources to keep A-10s flying over Nevada as it does over Iraq.

As far as long term Brac predictions my guess is that the overall sight picture will lose about 10-15 A-10's, with most being drawn to the bone yard from Elison and Pope. Hell might have been planned all along to pay for PE. If Moody goes I can't see all of Pope disappearing, more likely the planes get broken up between other units.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Careful about discounting units just because of test or training. It take the same resources to keep A-10s flying over Nevada as it does over Iraq.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'd go along with that statement if I hadn't worked the test birds. How about 15 Red X's before the airplane crossed the hangar rails? Once we opened it up, I ran out of 781 pages to put all the grounding write-ups in. I agree that it SHOULD take the same resources but in the case of those jets, it's a totally different Air Force, it's all about the test schedule..hell, the war would be over before the calendar/hourly inspections were completed.

OC

One thing I've noticed readign all these reports and news articles about BRAC is that there is no timetable for all this stuff to happen. Working on the assumption that now that the President has approved the report it will happen (I really don't see Congress stopping it), how long will it be before things start happening? Is there a specific start or stop date buried somewhere I haven't seen? Or does thsi all just get added to the Pentagond "to do" list?


They say that the only two things certain in life are death and taxes. I prefer them in that order.