A BRAC Commission Perspective on Air Force C-130 Consolidation Recommendations Michael H. Flinn, Ph.D.
Introduction <ul><li>Of all recommendations submitted for consideration of the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commiss...
The Air Force Recommendations <ul><li>Remove 77 C-130H and E models from seven installations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Two act...
 
77 Total 25 C-130E 25 Pope AFB, NC 4 C-130H 8 General Mitchell ARS, WI 4 C-130H 8 Mansfield-Lahm AGS, OH 4 C-130H 4 Schene...
8 24 25 4 8 4 4 B1-B A-10
Air Force Problem <ul><li>Many C-130E Models in inventory are over 40 years old </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance issues have ...
 
Air Force Rationale <ul><li>Address documented imbalance in C-130 Active/Reserve manning mix </li></ul><ul><li>Streamline ...
Air Force Methodology <ul><li>Air Force evaluated 154 installations for closure or realignment </li></ul><ul><li>Recommend...
WIDGET <ul><li>Online tool used to collect and manage installation operational and capacity data </li></ul>
BRAC Analysis Tool <ul><li>Hierarchical model “weighted” collected data to assign a “Mission Capability Index” (MCI) for d...
Air Force Cueing Tool <ul><li>Combined MCI values with: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Base capacity information </li></ul></ul><ul...
Scenario Tracker Database <ul><li>Tracked beddown scenarios considered by the Air Force Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG...
BRAC Commission Analysis <ul><li>DoD released BRAC recommendations on 13 May 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>BRAC Commission staff ...
BRAC Selection Criteria (Military Value) <ul><li>Current and future mission capabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Availability an...
BRAC Selection Criteria (Other Considerations) <ul><li>Extent and timing of potential costs and savings </li></ul><ul><li>...
BRAC Commission Findings <ul><li>Problems associated with C-130 consolidation recommendations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incorr...
Incorrect or Obsolete Data <ul><li>Operating or capacity data for all 7 of the affected ARC installations were incorrect <...
Bias Towards Large, Active Duty Installations  <ul><li>Airlift MCI values ranged from 2.45 to 79.43 </li></ul><ul><li>Mean...
Bias Towards Large, Active Duty Installations <ul><li>BCEG weighting emphasized an installation’s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mi...
Inconsistent Use of MCI Values <ul><li>Pope AFB, NC:  MCI = 69.99 </li></ul><ul><li>Dyess AFB, TX:  MCI = 65.95 </li></ul>...
Creation of Additional Infrastructure  <ul><li>Little Rock AFB would require $246.7 M in MILCON to support additional C-13...
Contradiction With Tactical Airlift Organizational Principles <ul><li>Organizational principles for air mobility installat...
Legal Discrepancies <ul><li>BRAC process focus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure restructuring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A...
More Legal Discrepancies <ul><li>Recommendations retiring 47 C-130s conflicted with Senate Bill 1043 Sec. 34 </li></ul><ul...
Other Issues <ul><li>Reaction to the cancellation of C-130J procurements by PBD 753? </li></ul><ul><li>Attempt by active A...
BRAC Commission Concerns <ul><li>BRAC Deputy General Counsel cautioned that Air Force recommendations conflicted with othe...
BRAC Commission Conclusion <ul><li>The BRAC Commission concluded the Air Force recommendations significantly deviated from...
BRAC Commission Recommendations <ul><li>Rather than “moving tails” the BRAC Commission distributed aircraft </li></ul><ul>...
Practical Effect of BRAC Commission Recommendations <ul><li>ARC installations and personnel were minimally affected </li><...
Total 77 16 C-130E 25 Pope AFB, NC 0 C-130H 4 General Mitchell ARS, WI 0 C-130H 4 Mansfield-Lahm AGS, OH 4 C-130H 4 Schene...
Article Location <ul><li>http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/flinn.html </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Brac C 130 Presentation

1,162 views

Published on

An overview of the BRAC 2005 decision makng process relative to the recommendation fo consolidate C-130s at Little Rock AFB, AR.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,162
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Brac C 130 Presentation

  1. 1. A BRAC Commission Perspective on Air Force C-130 Consolidation Recommendations Michael H. Flinn, Ph.D.
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Of all recommendations submitted for consideration of the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission, those of the Air Force were most problematic </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations to consolidate tactical airlift aircraft at Little Rock AFB, AR were especially contentious </li></ul>
  3. 3. The Air Force Recommendations <ul><li>Remove 77 C-130H and E models from seven installations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Two active and five Air Reserve Component (ARC) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consolidate aircraft at Little Rock AFB, AR </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft from two additional ARC units would be used to “backfill” those removed from Pope AFB, NC (Pope Army Air Field) </li></ul><ul><li>ARC units would be realigned or closed </li></ul>
  4. 5. 77 Total 25 C-130E 25 Pope AFB, NC 4 C-130H 8 General Mitchell ARS, WI 4 C-130H 8 Mansfield-Lahm AGS, OH 4 C-130H 4 Schenectady County Airport AGS, NY 8 C-130H 8 Niagara Falls ARS, NY 8 C-130H 8 Reno-Tahoe IAP AGS, NV 24 C-130H 32 Dyess AFB, TX Number Recommended for Little Rock AFB Model Number at Installation Home Station
  5. 6. 8 24 25 4 8 4 4 B1-B A-10
  6. 7. Air Force Problem <ul><li>Many C-130E Models in inventory are over 40 years old </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance issues have led to aircraft being grounded or flight restricted </li></ul><ul><li>Repairs estimated to cost $10 M and take 3 years per plane </li></ul><ul><li>C-130J intended as replacement has had technical and procurement problems </li></ul>
  7. 9. Air Force Rationale <ul><li>Address documented imbalance in C-130 Active/Reserve manning mix </li></ul><ul><li>Streamline “maintenance and operation of this aging weapon system” </li></ul><ul><li>Installation’s inability to accommodate the optimal ARC squadron size of 12 C-130s </li></ul><ul><li>Lower military value of installations </li></ul>
  8. 10. Air Force Methodology <ul><li>Air Force evaluated 154 installations for closure or realignment </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendation considerations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Treat all installations equally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not prejudge an installation based on its current mission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasize an installation’s military value </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Air Force developed mathematical tools for assessing military value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web-based Installation Data Gathering and Entry Tool (WIDGET) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BRAC Analysis Tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Air Force Cueing Tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scenario Tracker Database </li></ul></ul>
  9. 11. WIDGET <ul><li>Online tool used to collect and manage installation operational and capacity data </li></ul>
  10. 12. BRAC Analysis Tool <ul><li>Hierarchical model “weighted” collected data to assign a “Mission Capability Index” (MCI) for determining an installation’s military value </li></ul><ul><li>Lower MCI = Lower Military Value </li></ul><ul><li>Lower Military Value = Greater Likelihood of Realignment or Closure </li></ul>
  11. 13. Air Force Cueing Tool <ul><li>Combined MCI values with: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Base capacity information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Force structure projections </li></ul></ul><ul><li>To develop various “beddown” scenarios </li></ul>
  12. 14. Scenario Tracker Database <ul><li>Tracked beddown scenarios considered by the Air Force Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG) </li></ul>
  13. 15. BRAC Commission Analysis <ul><li>DoD released BRAC recommendations on 13 May 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>BRAC Commission staff began analyzing recommendations immediately thereafter </li></ul><ul><li>BRAC Commissioners and staff </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visited selected installations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attended public hearings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Met with Air Force personnel, elected officials, and concerned citizens </li></ul></ul>
  14. 16. BRAC Selection Criteria (Military Value) <ul><li>Current and future mission capabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge, and future total force requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of operations and manpower implications </li></ul>
  15. 17. BRAC Selection Criteria (Other Considerations) <ul><li>Extent and timing of potential costs and savings </li></ul><ul><li>Economic impact on existing communities </li></ul><ul><li>Ability of infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving communities to support recommendation </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental impact </li></ul>
  16. 18. BRAC Commission Findings <ul><li>Problems associated with C-130 consolidation recommendations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incorrect or obsolete data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bias towards large active duty installations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inconsistent use of MCI values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation of additional infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contradiction with tactical airlift organizational principles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal discrepancies </li></ul></ul>
  17. 19. Incorrect or Obsolete Data <ul><li>Operating or capacity data for all 7 of the affected ARC installations were incorrect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mansfield-Lahm MAP AGS could support > 8 C-130s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reno-Tahoe IAP and Yeager Airport AGS could support 12 C-130s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>General Mitchell ARS could support 16 C-130s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pittsburgh IAP ARS could support 20 C-130s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual operating costs at Niagara Falls ARS had been reduced by $450,000 </li></ul></ul>
  18. 20. Bias Towards Large, Active Duty Installations <ul><li>Airlift MCI values ranged from 2.45 to 79.43 </li></ul><ul><li>Mean value was 44.69 </li></ul><ul><li>Standard deviation of 15.76 </li></ul><ul><li>Of 78 installations with MCI values > mean </li></ul><ul><ul><li>52 (66.6%) were active duty installations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>26 (33.3%) were ARC installations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Of 76 installations with MCI values < mean </li></ul><ul><ul><li>59 (77.7%) were ARC installations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>17 (22.3%) were active duty installations </li></ul></ul>
  19. 21. Bias Towards Large, Active Duty Installations <ul><li>BCEG weighting emphasized an installation’s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission (46%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Condition of infrastructure (41.5%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Far more than an installation’s </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to accommodate contingency and mobilization operations (10%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operating and manpower costs (2.5%) </li></ul></ul>
  20. 22. Inconsistent Use of MCI Values <ul><li>Pope AFB, NC: MCI = 69.99 </li></ul><ul><li>Dyess AFB, TX: MCI = 65.95 </li></ul><ul><li>Little AFB, AR: MCI = 63.25 </li></ul>
  21. 23. Creation of Additional Infrastructure <ul><li>Little Rock AFB would require $246.7 M in MILCON to support additional C-130s </li></ul>
  22. 24. Contradiction With Tactical Airlift Organizational Principles <ul><li>Organizational principles for air mobility installations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Geographically separated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Located near or with primary users </li></ul></ul>
  23. 25. Legal Discrepancies <ul><li>BRAC process focus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure restructuring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Air Force recommendation focus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Programmatic restructuring </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Moving tails” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Programmatic restructuring could be accomplished outside of the BRAC process </li></ul>
  24. 26. More Legal Discrepancies <ul><li>Recommendations retiring 47 C-130s conflicted with Senate Bill 1043 Sec. 34 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The Secretary of the Air Force may not retire any C-130E/H tactical airlift aircraft of the Air Force in Fiscal Year 2006” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recommendations conflicted with Title 32 USC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ [N]o change in the branch, organization, or allotment of a [National Guard] unit located entirely within a state may be made without the approval of its governor” </li></ul></ul>
  25. 27. Other Issues <ul><li>Reaction to the cancellation of C-130J procurements by PBD 753? </li></ul><ul><li>Attempt by active Air Force to recapitalize its aging airlift fleet at the expense of the ARC? </li></ul><ul><li>Significant exodus of experience ARC personnel? </li></ul>
  26. 28. BRAC Commission Concerns <ul><li>BRAC Deputy General Counsel cautioned that Air Force recommendations conflicted with other legal authorities (Title 32 USC) </li></ul><ul><li>Including these recommendations endangered the entire BRAC process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rejection by President or Congress </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Successful legal challenge in the courts </li></ul></ul>
  27. 29. BRAC Commission Conclusion <ul><li>The BRAC Commission concluded the Air Force recommendations significantly deviated from the eight selection criteria </li></ul><ul><li>The BRAC Commission was compelled to find an executable solution </li></ul>
  28. 30. BRAC Commission Recommendations <ul><li>Rather than “moving tails” the BRAC Commission distributed aircraft </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To meet the Primary Aircraft Authorized (PAA) requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ [e]stablished by the … recommendations of the Secretary of Defense, as amended by the [BRAC] Commission” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Commission then recommended the PAA for the appropriate installations </li></ul></ul>
  29. 31. Practical Effect of BRAC Commission Recommendations <ul><li>ARC installations and personnel were minimally affected </li></ul><ul><li>Rather than “moving tails” from one installation to another, aircraft were placed into a hypothetical “Bucket” </li></ul><ul><li>Aircraft in bucket lost installation associations </li></ul><ul><li>Provided flexibility to allocate aircraft as required </li></ul>
  30. 32. Total 77 16 C-130E 25 Pope AFB, NC 0 C-130H 4 General Mitchell ARS, WI 0 C-130H 4 Mansfield-Lahm AGS, OH 4 C-130H 4 Schenectady County Airport AGS, NY 8 C-130H 8 Niagara Falls ARS, NY 8 C-130H 8 Reno-Tahoe IAP AGS, NV 24 C-130H 24 Dyess AFB, TX Post BRAC PAA Model Number Recommended for Little Rock AFB Home Station
  31. 33. Article Location <ul><li>http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/flinn.html </li></ul>

×