Senator Murkowski Questions Air Force’s Actions About Eielson AFB

Accuses Air Force of working to break plan to delay moving F-16s

Tools

By Sam Friedman - Fairbanks Daily News-Miner / sfriedman@newsminer.com

Story Created: Sep 6, 2012 at 8:49 AM AKDT

Story Updated: Sep 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM AKDT

Three F-16 Fighting Falcons fly in formation over the Pacific Alaska Range Complex. Photo Credit: Courtesy: USAF

FAIRBANKS — Alaska's senior U.S. Senator accused the Air Force Wednesday of taking steps to break the service's commitment to delay for one year any plan to move Eielson's F-16s out of the Interior.

In a letter sent to new Pacific Air Force Commander Gen. Herbert Carlisle, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said a U.S. Air Force contractor has been discussing plans to do an environmental assessment required for the F-16 transfer.

“I write today to express my concern about some disturbing news suggesting that contrary to commitments that senior leaders have made to the Alaska congressional delegation and congressional defense committees, the Air Force continues to move forward with plans to downsize Eielson Air Force Base,” she wrote.

Specifically, Murkowski said a team leader with contractor SAIC, Inc. said last week that the contractor will begin “preparatory work in anticipation” of an environmental assessment the Air Force would need to move the F-16s to Anchorage.

A spokesman for the Air Force command that was working on the F-16 transfer did not immediately return an e-mail requesting comment for this story. However, a letter U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz sent in June announcing the one year delay mentions plans for both this environmental assessment and a housing study.

Murkowski spokesman Matt Felling said the environmental assessment may be a sign the Air Force plans to move the F-16s, because it’s one of the steps required for the transfer.

“The environmental assessment was not a condition to move forward it was a component of moving forward,” he said. “It was part and parcel with the plan.”

The Air Force proposed the F-16 move among budget cuts known as the Force Structure Change proposed in February as a way to fulfill a mandate from Congress to reduce the service’s costs. The Air Force said moving the F-16s to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson would save money by letting the Air Force cut duplicate jobs now done in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Alaska’s Congressional delegation objected to the Air Force’s plan, arguing it would not really save the Air Force money and would harm Fairbanks’ economy.

In June the Air Force announced it would delay the F-16 move for one year while the Air Force studied the move.

In addition to securing the delay from top military leaders, Alaska’s delegation have supported language in next year’s military budgets that specifically blocks the Air Force from making any of the Force Structure Change cuts. The budget has not yet been signed into law.

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

Robo said on Friday, Sep 7 at 10:28 PM

It takes time for the studies required -- better to do them now then wait till a decision next year and the military reports that savings will be significant and justify the decision....and don't believe these F16s are designated for air defense duties, but troop support.

101343856
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Mandy Gershon said on Friday, Sep 7 at 12:34 PM

Not one news station in Alaska has mentioned the fact that the Russians invaded our air space twice this past summer. Despite that, it's been made clear by Putin that he plans to dominate the Arctic. Personally, I'd feel better having both bases fully equipped to deal with any future problems.

101309521
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Anonymous said on Friday, Sep 7 at 11:55 AM

I got the cure - have the DoD build an oil refinery in Alaska to make fuels for all equipment and then they can sell regular and diesel to gas stations... Imagine that - DoD making money...what a concept...

101306085
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Mark said on Friday, Sep 7 at 8:28 AM

Cost savings are good, but the economic impact to Fairbanks is bad; that is understood. But, as the arctic warms and there is more activity and resource development in the area, does it make sense to base all intercept aircraft in Anchorage? I'm not an expert either, but common sense tells me patrol time in the arctic will decrease, need for in-flight refueling will increase, and/or more aircraft will have to rotate to station. There is more to it than duplicate jobs and equipment. And then there is the issue of disaster. Another 9.2 magnitude earthquake near Anchorage, and the vast majority of your combat and transport aircraft are damaged or stuck on Elmendorf runways?

101288035
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Me said on Friday, Sep 7 at 4:37 AM

Gee a study to move, sound like futher review and study the whole plan...just as she asked for!

101268272
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Anonymous said on Thursday, Sep 6 at 11:59 PM

DOD budget is being cut, and Leas-a wants to make sure none of the cuts hit her district, but votes for 'smaller gov'mint'. Go figure. As Pres said tonight....you do the math.

101258176
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

guest said on Thursday, Sep 6 at 4:06 PM

When you claim taxes are to high and you want less government this is what you get. What, you thought only things you don't want are going to be cut?

101236666
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Joe said on Thursday, Sep 6 at 1:10 PM

Lisa stop your pandering! This is a shared sacrifice culture when we have these hard times. EVERYONE even AK.

101225075
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

taxpayer said on Thursday, Sep 6 at 11:24 AM

yeah well you can take more taxes from my paycheck so I can hear those astronomical prices flying by...

101217765
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Dan, USAF Retired said on Thursday, Sep 6 at 11:09 AM

Admittedly, I have not studied this plan, but offer these words: - I would bet the duplicate costs of having fighters in Fbks & Anc are significant. Maintaining equip in the extreme cold of Fbks is super expensive - for troops and equip. - Is there a strategic advantage here? Fbks is likely only minutes away at supersonic speeds. -I spent over 20yrs in Air Force flying units and formulated budget in my units. The costs of maintaining aircraft and crews are astronomical. -How about giving the public a little snapshot of the projected savings: ie duplication, additional $ related to extreme cold etc. -Can we please think "long term" here, even though such a move would negatively impact the Fbks local economy. If it boosts the Anc economy and saves big dollars to taxpayers - is that not a good thing in the long run? -I am NOT an expert. I DO have common sense. I DO think long term. -What happened to "listening to our Generals" re: Defense? Doesn't this apply in AK?

101216736
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Doug said on Thursday, Sep 6 at 9:51 AM

The pentigon staff manage the military for efficiency and effectiveness, and have done so for a long time. They have extensive backgrounds in their fields and perform these duties day in and day out for most of their lives. What makes the senator wiser and in a position to question their actions? Besides, I thought the military was in the business of protecting the countries interests as efficiently and economically as possible, not to "support the fairbanks economy". The support to local communities is a side benefit, not a requirement, for military establishments!

101210606
Inappropriate? Alert Us!

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 1000 Characters Left

KTVA CBS 11 | Anchorage, Alaska News and Weather and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum.
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.