Say it aint so! Rumsfeld is closing the MIRAMAR Air Base!

The future of Marine Aviation is grim. The Corps plans to eliminate 36% of its fighter-attack aircraft (F/A-18s and AV-8 Harriers) as part of the Navy-Marine TacAir Plan. The V-22 tilt-rotor remains "in development" and soaring costs allow only half the number desired to be funded each year. Meanwhile, the Corps will buy new engines to extend the life of its ancient CH-46Es, yet again. This has delayed plans to overhaul and upgrade 111 of the Corps 165 CH-53Es. Now there is talk of buying new CH-53Ks, since the ageing Echos may be too costly to rebuild. However, there will be no funds for years as the V-22 program continues to eat up a half billion dollars a year just for research and development, while the H-1 upgrade program is taking longer and costing much more than planned. So the Corps must scrap a dozen CH-53Es each year starting in 2010 as they become too old to fly safely.

Since Marine Air will become smaller, the Corps must trim overhead. The 2005 Base Closing and Realignment (BRAC) round provides a great opportunity. The Navy/Marine plan is to deactivate three active-duty Navy F/A-18C squadrons in 2003. The Marines will assign six more F/A-18 squadrons to allow one per Navy Carrier Air Wing (CAW). The Navy and Marines have also announced they will each disband a reserve F/A-18 squadron this year. Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is the plan, and its optimistic since the Corps hopes to increase funding for aircraft procurement from $2 billion in FY2004 to $6 billion in FY2009. Eventually, the Marines plan to disband seven active-duty fighter-attack squadrons to afford the expensive F-35/JSF).

The best way to save money for more aircraft is to shut down excess air stations. Looking at all major Navy/Marine air stations, the best candidate for the 2005 BRAC is MCAS Miramar. MCAS Cherry Point, MCAS Camp Pendleton, and MCAS New River are key installations. MCAS Yuma or MCAS Beaufort could close, but they haven't the high housing costs, urban encroachment, or air traffic problems of Miramar. MCAS Kanehoe Bay has high housing costs, but is also used by the 3rd Marine Regiment and many other units, including Navy squadrons since NAS Barbers Point closed in 1999.

While Miramar is a beautiful base, it is surrounded by a booming urban area whose vocal residents complain about noise, which is why the Navy happily left in 1997. Newly arrived Marine helicopters generate even more noise than jets, so thousands of local residents are furious. In addition, Miramar has the highest off-base housing costs of any air station, costing the Corps several thousand dollars a year more per Marine, which also denies junior officers and enlisted a chance to buy a home. For example, the 2003 housing allowance for a Marine Captain (O-3) at Miramar costs the Marine Corps $17,556 a year, whereas a Captain at Yuma gets $11,220 a year while one at NAS Lemoore gets $10,272.

In addition, training is limited by congested civilian air traffic and quiet time for the locals. Moreover, San Diego needs another airport and Miramar is the only practical location. While these problems are manageable today, imagine the Miramar area in 2020 after the local population, air traffic and road traffic have doubled again. Dispersing Miramar aircraft to other Marine Corps and Navy air stations will save the Corps hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Keep in mind that actions approved by the 2005 BRAC will not become reality until 2007-2009. The headquarters for the 3rd Marine Air Wing can move up to Camp Pendleton to join its parent, III MEF and the 1st Marine Division. Here is a detailed plan to disperse the two Marine Air Groups at MCAS Miramar:

Since the Navy is leaning on the Corps to provide ten squadrons for its carriers, the Navy can at least host four squadrons assigned to its CAWs based at NAS Lemoore. After all, the Marines have agreed to host two Navy F/A-18 squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point and two more at MCAS Beaufort. Since the Navy already plans to deactivate three more squadrons, in addition to four it disbanded a few years ago when four Marine F/A-18 squadrons were assigned to CAWs, there should be plenty of room at Lemoore.

The Marines have yet to announce what they will do about MAG-12 at MCAS Iwakuni, Japan, which has one permanent F/A-18 squadron, and two maintained there through six-month "UDP" rotations; which requires at least six stateside squadrons to support. Assigning six more Marine F/A-18 squadrons to CAWs will make Iwakuni UDPs impossible, even though the Navy says it will assign three of its F/A-18C squadrons to the Marines to allow one for Iwakuni. So the only option is to end Marine F/A-18 UDPs and assign a second permanent squadron at Iwakuni, while another Marine F/A-18 squadron will be assigned to the CAW in Japan at NAS Atsugi near Tokyo.

VMFAT-101 (F/A-18D) - this training squadron can move to NAS Lemoore, MCAS Beaufort, or MCAS Yuma

Of course there could be a dramatic change in plans. If three aircraft carriers are decommissioned, the Navy will not need MAG-11 aircraft. However, so long as Marines host four Navy squadrons at its east coast bases, the Navy should host four Marine squadrons at Lemoore. Since the Marines already plan to disband seven fighter-attack squadrons as the F-35 comes into service, MAG-11 and its four squadrons at Lemoore may disappear by 2020 anyway.

Helicopter basing is more complex because of the need to support infantrymen on a daily basis. It seems ideal to expand nearby MCAS Camp Pendleton. However, that airbase is located in a valley and expansion onto hillsides is very difficult. In addition, this airbase suffers from the same problems as Miramar in regards to air traffic problems and high off-base housing costs. Marines have discussed the value of a permanent air station at its main training base at 29 Palms, California for over 20 years. They already operate an "expeditionary" airstrip there with metal matting. Using BRAC money to simply move all of MAG-16 to a new MCAS 29 Palms is possible. This airbase wouldn't require long runways, just helicopter pads and hangers. This is an expensive option and may prove wasteful since the Corps must deactivate several helicopter squadrons anyway. It will be easier to move squadrons to other bases and disband MAG-16 headquarters to trim overhead.

Marines need a mix of helicopters in Southern California to support three deployable MEUs with composite helicopter squadrons. With the loss of Miramar, this will require the addition of an HMM and HMH squadron to MCAS Camp Pendleton. Fortunately, Pendleton hosts two training squadrons which can be based almost anywhere, HMMT-164 and HMT-303. In fact, the new V-22 training squadron was recently formed at MCAS New River, so HMMT-164 will eventually disband anyway. The Corps must eventually cut an HMH squadron from MCAS New River as the CH-53E inventory declines. Perhaps one can be cut a couple years early to open space for training squadrons in 2008. Another option is to move an active duty HMH up to NAS Willow Grove where a reserve HMH squadron already operates, or move an active HMM to NAS Norfolk where a reserve HMM operates, or any squadron to MCAF Quantico.

MCAS Camp Pendleton hosts two HMM squadrons today, plus HMMT-164; yet it hosted four HMM squadrons until 1999 when two were moved to spacious MCAS Miramar, so there is room for two more HMMs at MCAS Camp Pendleton. (see MAG-39 composition in 1998 [pdf page 25])

HMM-165 (CH-46E)- returns to MCAS Camp Pendleton; HMMT-164 to MCAS New River in 2008

Projecting future helicopter inventory is difficult because of delays to the V-22 tilt-rotor. However, current HMM CH-46E squadrons are already short aircraft. The Corps is down to 226 CH-46Es for 17 flying squadrons (plus six for HMX-1). Given this need for 210 in service, 226 are not enough since many are in maintenance depots, especially as the Corps begins a program to replace their engines. Therefore, the Corps should disband at least one HMM squadron to fill out other squadrons and free headquarters manpower.

Peacetime CH-46E attrition may require another HMM to disband by 2008; or HMM-161 can squeeze into MCAS Camp Pendleton or move to MCAS Yuma or MCAS Kaneohe Bay or NAS Norfolk, or join the two Marine reserve helicopter squadrons at Edwards AFB. Perhaps these squadrons can be reactivated after 2020 if enough V-22s are purchased, but that would be a surprise. Keep in mind that cutting squadron headquarters will not reduce the number of CH-46Es in service.

This leaves three CH-53E squadrons which must move before MCAS Miramar finally closes around 2009. Plans to reduce the CH-53E fleet will end HMH six-month UDP rotations to MCAS Futnema, Japan; as it did with HMM squadrons a decade ago. Permanent basing of one HMH squadron from MAG-16 there seems certain.

MCAS Kanehoe Bay is left with the worst aircraft in the Corps. While the average CH-53D is a year newer than the CH-46Es, there are fewer than 40 left in service, which are not needed to support ship-based deployments. Unique parts are expensive since CH-53Ds are no longer flown by the US Air Force, the US Navy, and not even by the Marine Corps Reserve. More importantly, the 226 CH-46Es have recently undergone SLEPs, and serve as the backbone for forward deployed Marine task forces.

The CH-53Ds were scheduled to retire in FY 2006, now that has been delayed pending the uncertain arrival of V-22s. The Corps should scrap the Delta's in 2006 and move two HMHs to Hawaii. The "Delta" Marines can transition to V-22s or CH-53Es, thus increasing manning levels throughout the Marine Corps. If enough V-22s are procured, there will still be room for a couple V-22 squadrons at Kaneohe Bay with two HMHs aboard, although a couple HMH squadrons must deactivate after 2010 anyway as the CH-53E inventory falls.

Keep in mind that shuffling helicopter squadrons is not required if the Corps moves a few helicopter squadrons to a new MCAS 29 Palms, which may be the most cost effective solution in the long term since that would save many hours of transit flying time to support exercises there. The Corps can wait until 2005 to access the progress with the V-22 program and plans to triple aviation procurement funding to estimate how many squadrons the Corps will have in service after 2009. Meanwhile, the Corps should implement a spending and hiring freeze at Miramar while options are considered.

With the deactivation of the single reserve flying squadron VMFA-134 at Miramar, reserve aviation support units can move northward to train and support operations at nearby MCAS Camp Pendleton.

The Marine Corps operates a dozen small "VIP" aircraft at MCAS Miramar. They could move to NAS North Island or into a new BRAC funded hanger at MCRD San Diego, adjacent to Lindbergh Field. As part of the turnover of Miramar, San Diego must agree to allow these aircraft to use Lindbergh field. Marines can simply open a gate to allow an aircraft to taxi over and fly away. If Federal Express moves to Miramar, it will vacate its hangers adjacent to MCRD. It would be simple for MCRD to establish a Marine Air Facility there for VIP aircraft and the KC-130 squadron from Miramar.

San Diego county has numerous naval facilities scattered about. While the Marines disperse flying squadrons and close their air station, naval activities may remain as part of nearby bases, such as the Navy brig, buildings used by reserve units, and some family housing areas. Other buildings may be retained for the Navy, Marines, and US Government to replace leased space elsewhere in the county. Meanwhile, residents of San Diego county can enjoy safer, cleaner and quieter skies, with many options for new parks and recreational facilities. No city is a good location for a major military airbase, and closing Miramar should be supported by those who oppose growth since it will reduce activity. City leaders must realize that closing Miramar will benefit over 99% of San Diegans. They should contact Congressmen and Department to Defense officials to insist that MCAS Miramar appears on the 2005 BRAC list. Civilian employees from MCAS Miramar can be gradually absorbed by other Navy and Marine Corps bases in the area while Miramar closes from 2005-2009.

While San Diego takes over most of Miramar, its reuse will be controversial. A second airport may not be needed right away, especially if a cargo only airport opened at Miramar to free space at Lindbergh for passengers. It might make sense to develop land at small Montgomery Field or the small Palomar airport by moving their operations to Miramar. However, unless San Diego stops growing, it will need a second major airport, and Miramar is ideal. It will relieve the traffic congestion along freeways as the wealthier people who travel most often will not drive downtown to fly. Keep in mind that a second airport will not increase passenger air traffic in the county, it will merely relieve congestion at Lindbergh, which means flights will be safer with fewer delays. Flights will also be cheaper as more airport gates mean more competition, with much greater convenience for residents and increased property values for those living near the airport. Finally, newer commercial aircraft have engines which produce half the noise of older models, and any jet engine is less annoying that the whomp- whomp of large, slow helicopters.

In 2020, Marines will be thankful they left Miramar when they had a chance. Despite dire forecasts of future Navy and Marine aircraft inventories, some officers will express concerns. What if aircraft prices miraculously fall and squadrons can be reformed? What if World War III occurs and another airbase is needed?

There is plenty of open space in California and Congressmen would be anxious to build a new airbase. However, NAS El Centro is little used, ideally located, and has plenty of space to expand to serve as a major fixed-wing base. There is also a little used airbase at the Navy's massive China Lake complex. There are plenty of options for helicopter bases at 29 Palms, and even the Marine Base at Barstow could expand Daggett Field. The only certainty is that San Diego will continue to grow while air and ground traffic becomes worse, while the inventory of Marine aircraft will drop sharply, leaving the Corps with too much expensive airbase infrastructure. The best way to retain more Marine squadrons is to close Miramar to free funds to procure several more aircraft each year. The 2005 BRAC provides the perfect opportunity for both the US Marines and residents of San Diego county to improve their future.

This list appears to be bogus. The Lexington Institute is a center left leaning organization which has a number of financial sustainers and staff who loath Rumsfeld.
The rationale for this list seems to be to trip off a preset series of 'outrage' statements from Congressional Rumsfeld haters. Another goal is to stir up anti-Bush sentiment in some heavily Repub areas. This is not to say that the facilities listed were not on some initail brainstorm list of bases for the BRAC 95.

Here is an official response stating the list is bogus.
From the SD N County Times
Pentagon official: Base closure lists 'bogus'

By: DARRIN MORTENSON - Staff Writer

As local leaders rev up their lobbying machine to save the region's military installations from the Pentagon's next round of base closures in 2005, documents have surfaced on the Internet and in print parading as official lists of recommended closures.

Some cite several San Diego County bases, including Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, and North Island Naval Air Depot as installations on the Pentagon's death row for installations.

But a top Pentagon official said Friday that the lists are false and misleading.

Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood said lists being mistaken for documents from the Base Realignment and Closure Commission are speculation at best, and hoaxes at worst.

"If there is any other way I can say this, let me know: There is no BRAC list," he said slowly, enunciating every single syllable as he spoke from his office in Washington, D.C. "Any list out there is 100 percent bogus."

Flood, spokesman for the undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, is often cited as a key expert on the commission and said he has "been working here since it all started in 1988."

Anxiety about base closures has swept through communities across the country as they face what is expected to be the most severe cut in military infrastructure since the commission was established in 1988.

Fears run especially high in San Diego, where 12 military bases and concomitant defense industry generate an estimated $18 billion each year, according to the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp.

Too early for list

Flood said that there is no base closure list until the secretary of defense publishes one. The official list has to come from a special commission, which hasn't even been formed yet. And the commission has yet to be nominated by the president or confirmed by the Senate, he said.

President Bush is not supposed to pick his nominees until March 2005, so the Senate can confirm all nine members by May 16.

The commission then has until Sept. 8, 2005, to report its recommendations to the president, who then has until Sept. 23 to approve or reject the list to Congress.

Congress then has 45 days to make changes, and the president has until Nov. 7, 2005, to give his final approval or veto.

All of that is a long way off, Flood said.

In the next two years, however, the military services will study ways to streamline their activities and dump as many as 25 percent of their installations based on guidance given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2002.

Despite criticism and resistance from some generals, Rumsfeld has promised to transform the military into a much leaner, lighter and flexible force. He has emphasized creating joint service activities and installations to adapt to a post-Cold War world.

"At a minimum, BRAC 2005 must eliminate excess physical capacity; the operation, sustainment and recapitalization of which diverts scarce resources from defense capability," he said in his Nov. 15 base closure "kick off" memo. "However, BRAC 2005 can make an even more profound contribution to transforming the department by rationalizing our infrastructure with defense strategy. BRAC 2005 should be the means by which we reconfigure our current infrastructure into one in which operational capacity maximizes both war-fighting capability and efficiency."

Too early for list

Deep cuts planned

Rumsfeld's undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, Raymond DuBois, has promised that the 2005 cuts will draw more blood than the previous base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. Those years saw 97 installations closed, and 55 consolidated, saving the federal government more than $20 billion, according to the Pentagon.

Flood says the base lists now circulating that he terms bogus are probably unauthorized spinoffs from independent studies commissioned by communities trying to hang onto their piece of the military pie in the face of major cuts.

Communities around the country, including San Diego, already have started lobbying, and the base closure process is sure to become fodder for 2004 political campaigns.

San Diego County launched its campaign to save the region's 12 bases in July, when supervisors voted to follow reports done by the regional chamber of commerce and by an independent defense consulting group indicating that San Diego bases were on the chopping block.

The county effort piggybacks earlier efforts by the city of San Diego, which dispatched Mayor Dick Murphy to Washington and hired Defense Conversion Resources LLC ---- a consultancy headed by former Assistant Navy Secretary William Cassidy ---- to study the possible impacts of local base closures and to lead the lobbying in Washington.

According to the San Diego Economic Development Corp., Cassidy told city officials in April that it was crucial "we don't just wait around a year and a half and then start playing the political game."

San Diego already has its big guns deployed in Congress.

Local lawmakers oppose closures

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-San Diego, is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-San Diego, is a member of the influential House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Hunter recently blocked an effort by some in Congress to derail the 2005 commission, and Cunningham recently vowed to try to prove the value of local bases to security and readiness, following Rumsfeld's early hints that a base's military value would trump economic impact as criteria for inclusion on the base commission's list.

Flood said that while communities are right to prepare and to study possible effects, specific military installations cited in locally contracted studies such as San Diego's are based on criteria that haven't even been decided on by the Department of Defense.

A preliminary list of criteria for selection isn't due from Rumsfeld until Dec. 31, and final criteria are due Feb. 16, he said.

In light of Rumsfeld's planned "transformation" of the military, Flood said the criteria will not be based on the previous five BRAC commissions.

"That's not going to stop people from postulating and speculating," Flood said. "They're just getting everyone all excited. You can't have a list until you've done the analysis. And we're not even close."

Contact staff writer Darrin Mortenson at (760) 740-5442 or dmortenson@nctimes.com.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.