PDA

View Full Version : RED-FLAG AK cancelled



loggie94
03-28-2013, 06:40 AM
"Air Force cancels Red Flag-Alaska training" (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-air-force-cancels-red-flag-alaska-training-032713/)

OK, I get that we'll save a bunch of bucks not sending units all the way up to Fairbanks for this exercise, but I wonder if they factor in the cost of all that infrastructure and manpower going unused during that timeframe as well when they work out the numbers?

And, no offence to the hard-working folks in Fairbanks, but if we're not hosting an exercise then, how about furlowing them the whole time and keep other folks employed where they are still doing a mission? ;)

Yet another example of the AF acting like a two-year-old trying to hold its' breath until we get our way...

Robert F. Dorr
03-28-2013, 08:21 AM
They must have been under pressure to show that they're prepared to cancel something directly related to the mission rather than something frilly and superfluous like Thunderbirds appearances. This affects real training and capabilities.

KellyinAvon
03-28-2013, 09:13 AM
They must have been under pressure to show that they're prepared to cancel something directly related to the mission rather than something frilly and superfluous like Thunderbirds appearances. This affects real training and capabilities.

It seems like RED FLAG-AK and having agressors up there were Buzz Moseley's ideas. Having dealt with crap he thought was a good idea (CSAR transfer back to ACC after 3 years in AFSOC, after all, it's just a "patch change") maybe we should just dump it. He gave us deployed AF Bands after all.

crwchf16
03-28-2013, 03:59 PM
Big Blue has been wanting to close the active duty side of Eielson and move it to Elmo for a while now. Their justification is that it'll save the AF money but they have not been able to produce reliable figures to back that up. I'm wondering if this is just another nail they are trying to put into Eielson's coffin.
Alaska's strategic location in the world was recognized over 80 years ago by Billy Mitchell hmself. With our strategic shift to the Pacific theater, does it make sense to close a perfectly good air base within a few hours' flight of almost any point in Asia?

JD2780
03-28-2013, 04:27 PM
Big Blue has been wanting to close the active duty side of Eielson and move it to Elmo for a while now. Their justification is that it'll save the AF money but they have not been able to produce reliable figures to back that up. I'm wondering if this is just another nail they are trying to put into Eielson's coffin.
Alaska's strategic location in the world was recognized over 80 years ago by Billy Mitchell hmself. With our strategic shift to the Pacific theater, does it make sense to close a perfectly good air base within a few hours' flight of almost any point in Asia?

No but let so keep Hancom open. Dumb

Robert F. Dorr
03-28-2013, 05:45 PM
Big Blue has been wanting to close the active duty side of Eielson and move it to Elmo for a while now. Their justification is that it'll save the AF money but they have not been able to produce reliable figures to back that up. I'm wondering if this is just another nail they are trying to put into Eielson's coffin.
Alaska's strategic location in the world was recognized over 80 years ago by Billy Mitchell hmself. With our strategic shift to the Pacific theater, does it make sense to close a perfectly good air base within a few hours' flight of almost any point in Asia?

Glad you provided this reminder.

RobotChicken
03-28-2013, 05:53 PM
:spy Where will they send airpeople that need a time out' when they make a mistake? Oh yea, just discharge them! Cold weather burns more calories though......:caked

grimreaper
03-28-2013, 09:09 PM
Big Blue has been wanting to close the active duty side of Eielson and move it to Elmo for a while now. Their justification is that it'll save the AF money but they have not been able to produce reliable figures to back that up. I'm wondering if this is just another nail they are trying to put into Eielson's coffin.
Alaska's strategic location in the world was recognized over 80 years ago by Billy Mitchell hmself. With our strategic shift to the Pacific theater, does it make sense to close a perfectly good air base within a few hours' flight of almost any point in Asia?

There is still the 168 ARW there. Let the Guard maintain the base.

It does not make a lot of sense to keep and entire AD Wing at a base year-round when all they are there for is Red Flag. The old F-16's there are only aggressors and have no combat mission.

RFScott
03-28-2013, 09:31 PM
:spy Where will they send airpeople that need a time out' when they make a mistake? Oh yea, just discharge them! Cold weather burns more calories though......:caked

Oh they still have good ol Thule Air Base for that.....

Robert F. Dorr
03-28-2013, 11:12 PM
Oh they still have good ol Thule Air Base for that.....

Is there a U.S. presence at Thule today? I don't remember more than a handful of Americans stationed there when I visited in April 1993.

RobotChicken
03-28-2013, 11:46 PM
Is there a U.S. presence at Thule today? I don't remember more than a handful of Americans stationed there when I visited in April 1993.

:usa2 Google it Mr. Dorr..600 US and Danish service folks there. :faint2

imported_Shove_your_stupid_meeting
03-30-2013, 12:48 AM
Red Flag-AK?


It's not Maple Flag anymore?


And why would they cancel this? It was an easy money maker and a great exercise to get some practice in for when the Russians take over. :(

AKNate
03-30-2013, 01:21 AM
only reason 16's are there now is Begich stopped it. Have to support the community and if you take 500 personnel away, then Fairbanks economy takes a dive.

imnohero
03-30-2013, 01:49 AM
As I recall, "red flag alaska", at the time it was implemented, it was debated whether it was Moseley pumping up PACAF and the F22 "polar bomber intercept" nonsense. At the very least, it was an unnecessary and expensive "training exercise" for the zipper suits squad, given that the entire infrastructure supporting that sort of training was already in place in Nellis.

In any case, good move by the AF to cancel (at least for one year) this. Saves a couple million, anyway, better than nothing.

Alaska (or rather the polar region) is strategically important if you are flying manned long range bombers that have limited range. With the advent of refueling capability, the strategic necessity of having numerous polar bases has decreased somewhat. Shoot, they don't even deploy the B2, they launch and recover from CONUS.

Quixotic
03-30-2013, 05:44 AM
There are plenty of advantages to having Eielson host Red Flags, the main one being the Alaska Range Complex, which is a whole lot of play area that is for the most part, deconflicted from any civil air traffic. Furthermore, Eielson has a sh!t ton of ramp space and you can bet that if anything serious kicks off in the Pacific, every square inch of it will be used.

But yea, the heating bill for that base in winter is a cold and bitter pill from what I hear.

VFFTSGT
03-30-2013, 06:20 AM
Now if we could cancel ordinary exercises aka ORE's that are a waste of time and money.