In April, a 26-member Site Activation Task Force team, with the Pacific Air Forces in the lead, traveled to Eielson Air Force Base as well as Joint base Elmendorf-Richardson to study the impact of moving the F-16 squadron from Eielson to the Joint Base near Anchorage.

That team determined that after an initial outlay of $5.6 million in the Fiscal Year 2013, the move would save $14.6 million over the next 5 years. The savings was cited as coming from increased manpower savings stemming from the discontinuation of 81 military positions through consolidation of maintenance supervision overhead and basic support functions.

In addition to the initial savings, the Air Force states that it will incur other savings beginning in 2016 after what they call proposed base operating support manpower adjustments. These savings are said to be $90 million a year from 2016 on.

“Eielson Air Force Base is, and will continue to be, a valuable strategic location as part of the Total Force,” said Brig. Gen. Mark McLeod, Director of Logistics, Pacific Air Forces, and SATAF team lead. “The base will remain the home station for the Alaska Air National Guard’s 168th Air Refueling Wing and will provide critical training through the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex supporting major joint training exercises such as Red Flag, Distant Frontier and Northern Edge.”

After hearing the results of the Air Force Site Activation Task Force’s report on the proposed move, Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski issued a release. Murkowski pointed out hidden costs that were not factored into the equation, saying, “Contrary to their opening estimate, this proposal would actually cost money, not save money, in FY13 – to the tune of over five and a half million dollars. That number itself could escalate, too, if more deficiencies are found. There is no reason to start spending money until we know environmental impacts, housing assistance costs at Eielson, housing availability, and other factors. This calculation also calls into question the savings projected down the line.

“The Air Force’s report says that housing in the Anchorage area is ‘suitable/available’ within 20 miles of JBER, but a recent report by the McDowell Group shows a housing deficit in and around Anchorage for the next two decades. Today I wrote a letter to the Commander of the 673^rd Air Base Wing at JBER asking him what the plan is for housing around the base.

“Today the Air Force acknowledged that some housing assistance funds may be needed for relocation of active duty airmen and their families, along with the potential for home construction down the line – for a plan that is supposed to save money. The money that comes with these possibilities is not a part of any proposal and no funds have been requested for that purpose.

Senator Murkowski pointed out that addition monies would be needed for a previously unmentioned Environmental review. “In February, the Air Force didn’t think any environmental review was needed. Today, they acknowledge a review is needed, but it won’t be completed before December 2012 – well into FY13– and the Air Force acknowledges the entire plan is contingent on the environmental review. That, too, will cost more money. The Air Force is trying to get this plan in the air but it is nowhere near ready for takeoff.

Senator Murkowski introduced a bill in the Senate, S. 2073, on February 6th prohibiting the move of the base. The bill has not yet gone to committee, but Washington insiders say that the bill has a 1% chance of even getting out of committee.

Alaska’s lone Representative to Washington, Representative Don Young, also released a statement after the report was issued. In it, he too was sceptical of the numbers in the report.

“Since first hearing of the Air Force’s plans to move the 18th Aggressor Squadron, I have requested two things from the Air Force. First, that they consult local leaders, especially those in Fairbanks. Second, that they justify the data behind the proposed move – mainly the cost versus benefit numbers. After much prodding, I am pleased that the Air Force is working with and engaging local leaders, but I am still concerned that the numbers still do not add up.

“Today, after seeing the first real data behind this move, I believe there are still many important questions that remain unanswered. Before finalizing this move, the Air Force must prove to me and to all Alaskans that this move will not require additional and expensive construction, will not adversely affect U.S. national security or readiness, and will not leave Alaskan airmen literally out in the cold as they try to find housing in a saturated Anchorage housing market.

Representative Young pointed to the importance of the Eielson Base. “Moving forward, the Air Force must demonstrate that the Alaska National Guard 168th Refueling Wing remains mission capable and that Eielson, as one of the most strategically important refueling bases in the world, remains strong and is not part of some ‘backdoor BRAC’ process. Eielson is too important to Fairbanks, too important to Alaska, and too important to the safety and security of our great nation.”

Alaska’s junior Senator Mark Begich felt the same of the proposed move, he said, “The bottom line is we have yet to see a comprehensive five-year analysis detailing the total budgetary ramifications of the relocation and long-term plan for Eielson,” Begich said. “The Air Force needs to be straight with Congress. We cannot make major decisions impacting the budget, military operations, and our military families based on incomplete data and inconsistent information.”

Senator Begich, who sits on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, was able to insert language into the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act that would require the General Accounting Office to develop objective criteria to ensure that the decisions made by the Department of Defense on the Eielson move are appropriately analyzed. The language also puts on hold for at least a year any move of the base as well as any other bases across the country that would reduce the number of the civilian work force below 300 people. The bill has passed out of the committee, but is yet to be enacted by the Senate. The House version of the bill does not have this language inserted.

Senator Begich said of the successful insertion of the language, “This is great news for Alaska as we would get at least another year to force the Air Force to prove up its claims that moving the F16 Aggressor Squadron from Eielson to JBER will ultimately save money across military branches,” Begich said. “I hold fast to my belief those cost-savings will not ultimately add up, and the F16s will stay put just like they did when a similar proposal was considered and rejected in 2005. This bill clearly expresses the intent of the Senate to reject a BRAC without BRAC authorization.”

Additionally, Senator Begich worked on securing the future of Eielson. He and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) worked on a provision which requires the Air Force to take into account Priority 1 and 2 air refueling missions, like those performed at Eielson, in establishing criteria for future strategic basing decisions, like the next generation air refueler (KC-46). The Air Force would be required to report to Congress on how the scoring of these missions will be incorporated into its model.