A BRAC Commission A BRAC Commission Perspective on Air Force C-Perspective on Air Force C-

130 Consolidation 130 Consolidation RecommendationsRecommendations

Michael H. Flinn, Ph.D.Michael H. Flinn, Ph.D.

IntroductionIntroduction

Of all recommendations submitted for Of all recommendations submitted for consideration of the Base Closure and consideration of the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission, Realignment (BRAC) Commission, those of the Air Force were most those of the Air Force were most problematicproblematic

Recommendations to consolidate Recommendations to consolidate tactical airlift aircraft at Little Rock AFB, tactical airlift aircraft at Little Rock AFB, AR were especially contentiousAR were especially contentious

The Air Force The Air Force RecommendationsRecommendations

Remove 77 C-130H and E models from seven Remove 77 C-130H and E models from seven installationsinstallations Two active and five Air Reserve Component (ARC)Two active and five Air Reserve Component (ARC)

Consolidate aircraft at Little Rock AFB, ARConsolidate aircraft at Little Rock AFB, AR

Aircraft from two additional ARC units would Aircraft from two additional ARC units would be used to “backfill” those removed from be used to “backfill” those removed from Pope AFB, NC (Pope Army Air Field)Pope AFB, NC (Pope Army Air Field)

ARC units would be realigned or closedARC units would be realigned or closed

Home StationNumber at Installation

ModelNumber

Recommended for Little Rock AFB

Dyess AFB, TX 32 C-130H 24Reno-Tahoe IAP AGS, NV 8 C-130H 8

Niagara Falls ARS, NY 8 C-130H 8

Schenectady County Airport AGS, NY

4 C-130H 4

Mansfield-Lahm AGS, OH 8 C-130H 4

General Mitchell ARS, WI 8 C-130H 4

Pope AFB, NC 25 C-130E 25

Total 77

8

24

25

4 8 4

4

B1-B

A-10

Air Force ProblemAir Force Problem Many C-130E Models in inventory are over Many C-130E Models in inventory are over

40 years old40 years old

Maintenance issues have led to aircraft Maintenance issues have led to aircraft being grounded or flight restricted being grounded or flight restricted

Repairs estimated to cost $10 M and take Repairs estimated to cost $10 M and take 3 years per plane3 years per plane

C-130J intended as replacement has had C-130J intended as replacement has had technical and procurement problemstechnical and procurement problems

Air Force RationaleAir Force Rationale Address documented imbalance in C-130 Address documented imbalance in C-130

Active/Reserve manning mixActive/Reserve manning mix

Streamline “maintenance and operation of Streamline “maintenance and operation of this aging weapon system”this aging weapon system”

Installation’s inability to accommodate the Installation’s inability to accommodate the optimal ARC squadron size of 12 C-130soptimal ARC squadron size of 12 C-130s

Lower military value of installations Lower military value of installations

Air Force MethodologyAir Force Methodology Air Force evaluated 154 installations for closure or Air Force evaluated 154 installations for closure or

realignmentrealignment

Recommendation considerationsRecommendation considerations Treat all installations equallyTreat all installations equally Do not prejudge an installation based on its current missionDo not prejudge an installation based on its current mission Emphasize an installation’s military valueEmphasize an installation’s military value

Air Force developed mathematical tools for assessing Air Force developed mathematical tools for assessing military valuemilitary value Web-based Installation Data Gathering and Entry Tool Web-based Installation Data Gathering and Entry Tool

(WIDGET)(WIDGET) BRAC Analysis ToolBRAC Analysis Tool Air Force Cueing ToolAir Force Cueing Tool Scenario Tracker DatabaseScenario Tracker Database

WIDGETWIDGET

Online tool used to collect and manage Online tool used to collect and manage installation operational and capacity datainstallation operational and capacity data

BRAC Analysis ToolBRAC Analysis Tool

Hierarchical model “weighted” Hierarchical model “weighted” collected data to assign a “Mission collected data to assign a “Mission Capability Index” (MCI) for determining Capability Index” (MCI) for determining an installation’s military valuean installation’s military value

Lower MCI = Lower Military ValueLower MCI = Lower Military Value

Lower Military Value = Greater Lower Military Value = Greater Likelihood of Realignment or ClosureLikelihood of Realignment or Closure

Air Force Cueing ToolAir Force Cueing Tool

Combined MCI values with:Combined MCI values with: Base capacity informationBase capacity information Environmental dataEnvironmental data Force structure projectionsForce structure projections

To develop various “beddown” To develop various “beddown” scenariosscenarios

Scenario Tracker DatabaseScenario Tracker Database

Tracked beddown scenarios Tracked beddown scenarios considered by the Air Force Base considered by the Air Force Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG)Closure Executive Group (BCEG)

BRAC Commission AnalysisBRAC Commission Analysis DoD released BRAC recommendations on DoD released BRAC recommendations on

13 May 200513 May 2005

BRAC Commission staff began analyzing BRAC Commission staff began analyzing recommendations immediately thereafterrecommendations immediately thereafter

BRAC Commissioners and staffBRAC Commissioners and staff Visited selected installationsVisited selected installations Attended public hearingsAttended public hearings Met with Air Force personnel, elected officials, Met with Air Force personnel, elected officials,

and concerned citizensand concerned citizens

BRAC Selection CriteriaBRAC Selection Criteria(Military Value)(Military Value)

1.1. Current and future mission Current and future mission capabilitiescapabilities

2.2. Availability and condition of land, Availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspacefacilities and associated airspace

3.3. Ability to accommodate contingency, Ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge, and future total mobilization, surge, and future total force requirementsforce requirements

4.4. Cost of operations and manpower Cost of operations and manpower implicationsimplications

BRAC Selection CriteriaBRAC Selection Criteria(Other Considerations)(Other Considerations)

5.5. Extent and timing of potential costs Extent and timing of potential costs and savingsand savings

6.6. Economic impact on existing Economic impact on existing communitiescommunities

7.7. Ability of infrastructure of both the Ability of infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving existing and potential receiving communities to support communities to support recommendationrecommendation

8.8. Environmental impactEnvironmental impact

BRAC Commission FindingsBRAC Commission Findings

Problems associated with C-130 Problems associated with C-130 consolidation recommendationsconsolidation recommendations Incorrect or obsolete dataIncorrect or obsolete data Bias towards large active duty Bias towards large active duty

installationsinstallations Inconsistent use of MCI valuesInconsistent use of MCI values Creation of additional infrastructureCreation of additional infrastructure Contradiction with tactical airlift Contradiction with tactical airlift

organizational principlesorganizational principles Legal discrepanciesLegal discrepancies

Incorrect or Obsolete DataIncorrect or Obsolete Data

Operating or capacity data for all 7 of the Operating or capacity data for all 7 of the affected ARC installations were incorrectaffected ARC installations were incorrect Mansfield-Lahm MAP AGS could support > 8 C-Mansfield-Lahm MAP AGS could support > 8 C-

130s130s Reno-Tahoe IAP and Yeager Airport AGS could Reno-Tahoe IAP and Yeager Airport AGS could

support 12 C-130ssupport 12 C-130s General Mitchell ARS could support 16 C-130sGeneral Mitchell ARS could support 16 C-130s Pittsburgh IAP ARS could support 20 C-130sPittsburgh IAP ARS could support 20 C-130s Annual operating costs at Niagara Falls ARS had Annual operating costs at Niagara Falls ARS had

been reduced by $450,000been reduced by $450,000

Bias Towards Large, Active Bias Towards Large, Active Duty Installations Duty Installations

Airlift MCI values ranged from 2.45 to 79.43Airlift MCI values ranged from 2.45 to 79.43

Mean value was 44.69 Mean value was 44.69

Standard deviation of 15.76Standard deviation of 15.76

Of 78 installations with MCI values > meanOf 78 installations with MCI values > mean 52 (66.6%) were active duty installations 52 (66.6%) were active duty installations 26 (33.3%) were ARC installations26 (33.3%) were ARC installations

Of 76 installations with MCI values < meanOf 76 installations with MCI values < mean 59 (77.7%) were ARC installations 59 (77.7%) were ARC installations 17 (22.3%) were active duty installations17 (22.3%) were active duty installations

Bias Towards Large, Active Bias Towards Large, Active Duty InstallationsDuty Installations

BCEG weighting emphasized an BCEG weighting emphasized an installation’sinstallation’s Mission (46%)Mission (46%) Condition of infrastructure (41.5%)Condition of infrastructure (41.5%)

Far more than an installation’sFar more than an installation’s Ability to accommodate contingency and Ability to accommodate contingency and

mobilization operations (10%)mobilization operations (10%) Operating and manpower costs (2.5%)Operating and manpower costs (2.5%)

Inconsistent Use of MCI Inconsistent Use of MCI ValuesValues

Pope AFB, NC: MCI = 69.99Pope AFB, NC: MCI = 69.99

Dyess AFB, TX: MCI = 65.95Dyess AFB, TX: MCI = 65.95

Little AFB, AR: MCI = 63.25 Little AFB, AR: MCI = 63.25

Creation of Additional Creation of Additional Infrastructure Infrastructure

Little Rock AFB would Little Rock AFB would require $246.7 M in MILCON require $246.7 M in MILCON to support additional C-to support additional C-130s130s

Contradiction With Tactical Contradiction With Tactical Airlift Organizational PrinciplesAirlift Organizational Principles

OrganizationaOrganizational principles for l principles for air mobility air mobility installations:installations: GeographicallGeographicall

y separatedy separated Located near Located near

or with or with primary usersprimary users

Legal DiscrepanciesLegal Discrepancies

BRAC process focusBRAC process focus Infrastructure restructuringInfrastructure restructuring

Air Force recommendation focusAir Force recommendation focus Programmatic restructuring Programmatic restructuring ““Moving tails”Moving tails”

Programmatic restructuring could be Programmatic restructuring could be accomplished outside of the BRAC processaccomplished outside of the BRAC process

More Legal DiscrepanciesMore Legal Discrepancies Recommendations retiring 47 C-130s Recommendations retiring 47 C-130s

conflicted with Senate Bill 1043 Sec. 34conflicted with Senate Bill 1043 Sec. 34 ““The Secretary of the Air Force may not retire any The Secretary of the Air Force may not retire any

C-130E/H tactical airlift aircraft of the Air Force in C-130E/H tactical airlift aircraft of the Air Force in Fiscal Year 2006”Fiscal Year 2006”

Recommendations conflicted with Title 32 USCRecommendations conflicted with Title 32 USC ““[N]o change in the branch, organization, or [N]o change in the branch, organization, or

allotment of a [National Guard] unit located allotment of a [National Guard] unit located entirely within a state may be made without the entirely within a state may be made without the approval of its governor”approval of its governor”

Other IssuesOther Issues

Reaction to the cancellation of C-130J Reaction to the cancellation of C-130J procurements by PBD 753?procurements by PBD 753?

Attempt by active Air Force to recapitalize its Attempt by active Air Force to recapitalize its aging airlift fleet at the expense of the ARC? aging airlift fleet at the expense of the ARC?

Significant exodus of experience ARC Significant exodus of experience ARC personnel?personnel?

BRAC Commission ConcernsBRAC Commission Concerns

BRAC Deputy General Counsel BRAC Deputy General Counsel cautioned that Air Force cautioned that Air Force recommendations conflicted with recommendations conflicted with other legal authorities (Title 32 USC)other legal authorities (Title 32 USC)

Including these recommendations Including these recommendations endangered the entire BRAC processendangered the entire BRAC process Rejection by President or CongressRejection by President or Congress Successful legal challenge in the courtsSuccessful legal challenge in the courts

BRAC Commission BRAC Commission ConclusionConclusion

The BRAC Commission concluded the The BRAC Commission concluded the Air Force recommendations significantly Air Force recommendations significantly deviated from the eight selection deviated from the eight selection criteriacriteria

The BRAC Commission was compelled The BRAC Commission was compelled to find an executable solutionto find an executable solution

BRAC Commission BRAC Commission RecommendationsRecommendations

Rather than “moving tails” the BRAC Rather than “moving tails” the BRAC Commission distributed aircraftCommission distributed aircraft To meet the Primary Aircraft Authorized To meet the Primary Aircraft Authorized

(PAA) requirements(PAA) requirements ““[e]stablished by the … [e]stablished by the …

recommendations of the Secretary of recommendations of the Secretary of Defense, as amended by the [BRAC] Defense, as amended by the [BRAC] Commission”Commission”

The Commission then recommended the The Commission then recommended the PAA for the appropriate installationsPAA for the appropriate installations

Practical Effect of BRAC Practical Effect of BRAC Commission RecommendationsCommission Recommendations ARC installations and ARC installations and

personnel were minimally personnel were minimally affectedaffected

Rather than “moving tails” Rather than “moving tails” from one installation to from one installation to another, aircraft were placed another, aircraft were placed into a hypothetical “Bucket”into a hypothetical “Bucket”

Aircraft in bucket lost Aircraft in bucket lost installation associationsinstallation associations

Provided flexibility to allocate Provided flexibility to allocate aircraft as requiredaircraft as required

Home StationNumber

Recommended for Little Rock AFB

Model Post BRAC PAA

Dyess AFB, TX 24 C-130H 24Reno-Tahoe IAP AGS, NV 8 C-130H 8

Niagara Falls ARS, NY 8 C-130H 8

Schenectady County Airport AGS, NY 4 C-130H 4

Mansfield-Lahm AGS, OH 4 C-130H 0

General Mitchell ARS, WI 4 C-130H 0

Pope AFB, NC 25 C-130E 16

77 Total

Article LocationArticle Location

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/ahttp://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/flinn.htmlirchronicles/cc/flinn.html