Eielson on short list of bases that could host F-35 fighters
Published Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — Eielson Air Force Base is on a short list of military installations that could become home to the Air Force’s newest aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The short-listing also sets in motion a process of environmental impact studies of each of the six locations.
In January, the Air Force’s chief of staff released a road map laying out which installations could host future weapons systems, such as the F-35s, Eielson public affairs officer Lt. Frank Hartnett said.
“In January, Eielson was in the running with 33 other locations,” he said. “Now, we’re down to a list of six. It’s a promising development, but it’s really important for people to understand that just because we’re on this list doesn’t guarantee that the F-35 will wind up here.”
Other locations on the short list are Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina; Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho; Moody Air Force Base in Georgia; Hill Air Force Base in Utah; and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The EIS could winnow the list as air quality, human impacts and other factors are evaluated.
The F-35s are “cutting-edge technology,” Hartnett said. While some F-35s are in the air, the aircraft continue to be refined. The fighters are equipped with stealth technology and are expected to phase out a number of other aircraft, including the F-16s that currently fly at Eielson and the A-10 Thunderbolt II.
Hartnett couldn’t say how many bases would receive F-35s. Generally speaking, he said, the military doesn’t put all its eggs in one basket, and it is possible different bases could house the fighters for different purposes, such as training or air defense.
People can offer comments at scoping meetings in November about issues the military should study in the EIS. Meetings will be held at 6 p.m. on Nov. 12 at Delta Junction, Nov. 13 at Fairbanks and Nov. 14 at Anchorage. The sites of the meetings are still being arranged, Hartnett said.
Contact staff writer Rena Delbridge at 459-7518.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I was on Eielson the other day and I couldnt believe the amount of new infrastructure being buiilt. A huge new PX system, an even more impressive field house with an indoor football field.
This isnt the same base that had to be saved from the brack commission not that long ago. They have plans for Eielson
Awesome, the JSF is the most incredible fighter plane made thus far, in my opinion, they can go from supersonic to a hover @ something like 30,000' or more, amazing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIsIzjVi7...
The Air Force's version of the JSF will not hover, thats the Navy's version. Its a very impressive version none the less.
I also heard a rumor that the base may be placed on the BRAC listing again as soon as Obama is elected. The military and DoD will be shrinking once he's in office.
As far as new construction, I was one of the last to leave a base in Greece when it was closed. There was new constrcution and remodeling going on until the day before they locked the gate. The money was already allocated and there was no way to collect a refund so they let them build until the very end.
Yes, another BRAC round is inevitable. Probably doesn't matter who's president, but it will be worse with Obama.
We need local reps who understand how critical that issue is (since the BRAC law is intended to listen to communities primarily).
Woodie Salmon, Guttenberg, holy smokes. Speaking of which, i haven't seen a campaign site for either of them but there is one for a challenger to Woodie. www.wardsattler.com ads listed at the top are interesting but haven't heard them yet. Has anyone heard them?
I heard the guy challenging Guttenberg yesterday (WIll Finley)on the radio yesterday
I was pretty impressed with what he said.
A new BX is not going to save Eielson if they do decide to BRAC it. I really wouldn't mind if they did close the base down.
an oil refinery, the pipeline, military bases, and now new fighters... i hope that none of our enemies target the Fairbanks/North Pole area for having all of this stuff.
lol, they would regret it.
There are fighters in the area for a reason......and it's not for show.
Dellroy, yes you are right. A lot of the new construction you and everyone else sees going on Eielson had been projected and funded years ago. The contracts were awarded and contractors were paid, so they have to complete the project anyway. As like what happened in many of the BRAC bases right after Desert Storm.
With the possibility of a new aircraft finding a home at Eielson, the sound of freedom will continue.
God Bless America, God Bless Our Troops and God Bless the Sound of Freedom!
The biggest argument against Eielson being part of BRAC is what's happened in Georgia. Continued tensions with Russia may provide a bigger incentive to keeping the base than anything our Congressional contingent could offer.
as a resident of Eielson who was here during the first BRAC event, the range and open airspace played a big part in the base staying, along with the size of the flightline, and the outstanding support of the local government and citizens. I remember like yesterday when the team of big-wigs from Washington came to Eielson to talk BRAC and saw signs hanging up along side the road and on the fence lines everywhere saying SAVE EIELSON. I was proud to be Air Force, proud to be an Alaskan citizen, and proud to be American, and still am...
I got kinda choked up about it. Still do.
It's nice to be wanted.
Once again using defense dollars to prop up local economies and ignore true national defense. Eielson is useful as a training facility but otherwise has never served any militery function. The missiles at Greely serve more of a true military purpose. During the last BRAC hearing Uncle Ted said Eielson fighters were stategic weapons that could be used to attack Beijing. Pure fantasy. As a former WWII pilot he knows better.
Fighters are intended as tactical battle field weapons, think returning to base to re-fuel and re-arm and return to the battle. A stategic weapon would be bombers that lay waste to a nation's infrastructure and economy. If a true military purpose could be rationalized then Eielson would have to be closed in favor of up-grading Elmendorf as being closer to the potential action and in the unlikely posiblilty just as capable of dealing with any issues in the northern part of the state.
By the way, other than the bases themselves, the only targets are Pump One, the Yukon bridge, and Valdez. All are most exposed to missile attack with the posibility of the bridge being a real obscure terrorist target. Fighters are of no use protecting them.
So why waste money maintaining a base just so local merchants can get richer. Oh yes, our merchants rip off the military and pass the savings on to us.
Actually Mike, Eielson has a longer runway tahn Elmendorf, comparable ramp space for heavies and bombers such as the B-52 and the largest cargo a/c the c-5. Eielson is also closer to the range, which is negligable at fighter plane speeds, but still acknowledgeable. Strategic location allows for over-the cap penetration into possible adversary airspace. What also benefits Eielson is it's proximity to Fort Wainwright. Getting botts from the ground to the air and into the area of responsibility faster than without Eielson.
As for targets, let's not forget the pipeline as well as the very fact that Alaska is a state of the United States but is so thinly populated and densely forrested that a landing invasion force could, in fact, land on the beaches and get a foothold before we knew they were there.
As for propping up the local economy, I don't agree. However, I do not have proof to back up my opinion on this one so I can't really mount a substantial arguement. i speculate that North Pol would feel some effect, but nothing detrimental. As for Fairbanks; that little metropolis is going to grow, and grow fast regardless of what military bases are close by.
pardon me, that "botts" was suppose to be boots
More noise and pollution. Keep the F-35s in the lower 48.
Nothing personal, but the military isn't a very gracious neighbor, the facilities look like prisons with their new fences and clear areas. Add sonic booms, depleted uranium, untold amounts of soil and ground water contamination, and I think we have enough.
Oh, and toss in some gangland drive by shootings. Great.
Gotta take the bad with the good, outraged. You're going to get the same problems with any major factory or industrial enterprise. We just do our best to minimize those problems. And fortunately, Eielson is far enough out to mitigate the noise problems.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.