There are reports filtering back to Fairbanks that Air Force planners might want to end the Red Flag training exercises at Eielson by 2012, which would leave the base without a major Air Force mission.

That would throw the future of Eielson Air Force Base into question and create a threat to the local economy similar to what we faced four years ago when the Defense Department recommended a near shutdown of the base.

“Eielson’s military value is high because of its close proximity to valuable airspace and ranges. Eielson is, however, an expensive base to operate and improve,” the Air Force said four years ago.

“The Air Force recommends realigning Eielson, but keeping the base open in a ‘warm’ status using the resident Air National Guard units and a portion of the infrastructure to continue operating the base for USAF/Joint/Combined exercises,” the 2005 proposal said.

The action would have meant the loss of about 4,700 jobs, directly and indirectly, the government said.

The Defense Department plan was blocked when the base closure commission voted against the transfer of thousands of airmen and a collection of F-16s.

That doesn’t mean the future of Eielson is assured, especially because it remains an expensive base to operate and improve.

I have asked members of the congressional delegation if they can confirm these reports about Red Flag training exercises going away in the 2012 military budget.

They cannot.

A spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, “We have made inquiries through channels to appropriate Air Force officials who respond that they aren’t permitted to comment on pre-decisional matters involving future budget years.”

I don’t take a lot of confidence from that line. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Doesn’t mean it’s not.

But it should surprise no one if high-ranking people in the Pentagon who thought four years ago that Eielson was too expensive still hold that opinion.

I’ve also been told that operating expenses were an important factor in the recent decision under which Eielson fell out of favor as a place to host the next generation of Air Force jet, the F-35.

The decision on F-35s must have been, to some degree, a natural result of not having a 40-year senator in the U.S. Senate.

This goes beyond party affiliation. Alaskans need to accept the reality that neither Sen. Mark Begich nor Sen. Murkowski nor Rep. Don Young will ever have the clout that Sen. Ted Stevens did, especially on military matters.

For many years Stevens was the most influential member of the Senate on military spending, which is why a lot of programs and projects ended up in the 49th state that would have otherwise gone to the Lower 48.

But don’t forget, he was in the Senate when the BRAC proposal on Eielson was made and he was not facing any of the legal and political controversy that followed. That could be an indication of the serious challenge facing the state.

The post-Stevens era is bound to be different for Alaska.

It won’t do any good to beat up on the Air Force. Military planners know about political firepower and they don’t want to face the wrath of other senators that now control their budgets.

So what happens now?

Our congressional delegation and our governor should put this at the top of their priority list and create a united front.

They need to find out if it’s true that Eielson funding might be in jeopardy and start making plans to address our options.