Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/13/2001 03:39 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 3 - F-22 RAPTOR AIRCRAFT AT ELMENDORF AFB Number 0071 CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the first order of business would be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Relating to the deployment of F-22 Raptor aircraft at Elmendorf Air Force Base. Number 0170 JOHN JOERIGHT, Intern with Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State Legislature, presented SJR 3 on behalf of Senator Leman, sponsor. He explained that SJR 3 encourages the United States Air Force to deploy its second wave of F-22 Raptor aircraft at Elmendorf Air Force Base (AFB), for several reasons. First, during the construction phase alone, the aircraft will generate between $150 million and $300 million to the Alaskan economy, creating 146 new jobs. Second, the F-22 Raptor will replace the aging F-15 "air superiority" aircraft, ensuring United States air dominance for the next three decades. MR. JOERIGHT informed members that air superiority is a prerequisite to successful military operations. Alaska is a "forward" base, with perhaps the most strategic location in North America. With other nations on the verge of developing fighter aircraft on a par with the F-15, Alaska should have the world's best fighter aircraft to combat lethal threats from foreign powers. MR. JOERIGHT pointed out that committee packets included current information on the F-22. He advised members that Major Art McGettrick of Langley AFB in Virginia was online to answer technical and tactical questions, and Lieutenant Colonel Larry Jones of Elmendorf AFB was online to address questions pertaining to Elmendorf-specific impacts. Number 0308 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the first wave of staging will be at Langley AFB. Number 0345 MAJOR ART McGETTRICK clarified via teleconference that the preferred alternative of the U.S. Air Force is Langley AFB, pending the results of the environmental study and a final decision by the U.S. Department of Defense; it is not official yet. In answer to a further question, he said the original operational "bed-down" for the F-22 begins in 2004. The first squadron becomes operational in 2005, but the other two squadrons in this first phase will be complete by 2007. Between 2004 and 2007, therefore, the Air Force would like to put three squadrons in one location; that is the first base. Elmendorf AFB is one of five being considered, with Langley AFB the preferred alternative. In two or three years, the Air Force would go through the same process again, with another environmental study, to determine the second operational base. Number 0480 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what locations Elmendorf AFB is competing with for that second "wave" of F-22s. MAJOR McGETTRICK specified that the initial five bases were Langley AFB, Eglin AFB in Florida, Tyndall AFB in Florida, Mountain Home AFB in Idaho, and Elmendorf AFB. No decision has been made, he said. But unless something changes significantly, he suspects that if Langley AFB gets the first three squadrons, then the remaining four F-15 bases would be considered for the second round. Depending on what BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure Commission] does, perhaps another base would be added, but that is not the expectation. Number 0581 LIEUTENANT COLONEL LARRY JONES specified via teleconference that he would address any questions relative to Elmendorf AFB specifically. "My responses will be caveated based on the environmental impact study to this point," he added. "Again, the final of this environmental impact study for round one of the operational bed-down, the F-22, will be released in April." Number 0625 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the written sponsor statement indicates one bonus of having the F-22 at Elmendorf AFB would be a significant addition of new personnel [846] over a three-year period. It further indicates that two of the F-15C squadrons would be replaced by three [F-22] Raptor squadrons. She asked how many personnel would be affected if [Elmendorf AFB] were to get these Raptor squadrons. LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES specified that replacing the two smaller C-model squadrons with the three larger F-22 squadrons would equate to an increase of 286 assigned military and civilian personnel at Elmendorf AFB. The [846] number relates to jobs that include the construction phase and the upgrade-of- the-facility phase that would occur between 2002 and 2005. Number 0720 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what kind of facilities upgrades would be required for the new aircraft. LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES answered that there are several proposals right now at Elmendorf AFB, although not specifically based on the F-22; those are infrastructure upgrade requirements being undertaken in that timeframe anyway. Primary new construction for the first three squadrons of F-22s would include a firing squadron; F-22 operations and maintenance squadrons; eight-bay drive-through facilities to hangar the airplanes; and any restoration and composite repair facility. In addition, there would be upgrades to some aprons and (indisc.), along with some new construction, and an upgrade to the engine shop and some other structures. Number 0794 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Major McGettrick whether he knows if the Air Force plans to replace all of the F-15s in the fleet with F-22s. He inquired about the potential of Elmendorf AFB competing with other bases for that second wave. MAJOR McGETTRICK said in answer to the first question, "they" are not building enough F-22s to replace every squadron at every base; right now, with the current "buy," the plan is for 339 aircraft, which would not replace one-for-one the amount of F- 15s. Those numbers could increase or decrease in the future, he noted. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested that if there hasn't been a decision to replace the entire fleet of F-15s, then, for those bases with F-15s the desire would probably be to replace those F-15s in their entirety, rather than deleting one squadron of F- 15s and adding another squadron of F-22s, just because of the mechanics of it. MAJOR McGETTRICK responded: You're right on that. I have ... no ability to predict what decision they would make, but that would be a consideration. And the other one may be, ... as the next BRAC rounds occur, maybe there'll be one or two less bases competing because of that. But ... I have no idea what decisions will be made along that line. Also, as far as how does Elmendorf compete, in the ... draft environmental impact statement that is currently going final now, it appears to have competed very well. I don't [know] if additional bases would be added. The plan, at least for this first round, was to only consider current F-15C bases because the F-22 is considered a replacement for the F-15C. So, I think it would be a significant change to consider a base that currently has other aircraft, but, once again, I guess I could not rule that out. Number 1026 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many F-22s would be needed to replace the F-15Cs at Langley AFB. MAJOR McGETTRICK answered that he believes Langley AFB has "in the high 60s" for F-15s now, but he didn't have a copy with him of the draft environmental impact statement (EIS), which lists that information. He added, "What they're talking about, for the additional operational bed-down, is 72 combat-coded aircraft, with several extras for attrition reserve." LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES specified that Langley AFB currently has "66 combat-coded and then the attrition reserve." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many would be required at Elmendorf AFB to replace the F-15Cs. LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES answered that there is a slight difference between what would be required to replace the F-15Cs at Elmendorf AFB or any given base, as far as covering the mission. It really comes down more to infrastructure report. He explained that normally, they've found that if they "bed down" multiple squadrons at a location, there is a "synergy there for the support side of it, to lessen the cost." Although he didn't know the answer, the EIS study was based on the first round of bed-down, which includes 72 F-22s, but that doesn't mean in the follow-on rounds that necessarily they would be looking at 72, which would be three "24 PA" squadron F-22s. [The second round] could one or two [squadrons]. MAJOR McGETTRICK agreed with Lieutenant Colonel Jones that on the additional rounds, they would like to put three squadrons in one place, for a building-block approach, so that the first squadron can help train the next, and so forth, to get a synergy of resources in personnel. That second round may just be one or two squadrons, rather than three. Number 1167 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked: If a fewer number of F-15Cs are being replaced with F-22s, why is the EIS necessary, and what would it show as far as an impact? LIEUTENANT COLONEL JONES answered that "we" do an EIS whenever bedding down a new weapons system, at any location. It is not necessarily an increase of numbers of aircraft at a location. Every aircraft is different. The F-22 is structurally different "avionics-wise" from the F-15. The sound contours are different, as are the engine emissions, the flight profiles, and how training is done. The EIS is done regardless of the numbers that are bedded down at a location. Number 1235 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that an EIS is a matter of public record. He asked whether there is any potential for getting into a classified area. MAJOR McGETTRICK responded that the EIS is entirely unclassified. It still covers pretty much the full gamut of impacts, including those related to economics, visual factors, noise, emissions, groundwater, "and all those things that we're required by law to do years in advance of any kind of bed-down." CHAIR CHENAULT noted the presence of Representative Masek, Senator Leman, and Representative Foster. Number 1308 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 1, line 15, which read: WHEREAS the United States Air Force plans to begin deploying the F-22 Raptor in 2005 and to procure 339 F-22 Raptor aircraft by the end of 2013; and She noted that President Bush is looking at the military "from the top down," and said she has read articles suggesting that some programs underway are open for discussion. MAJOR McGETTRICK said the new [federal] administration is looking at every system and service, with studies and proposals being done right now to look at less F-22s and more F-22s, "just depending on what decision they make." He emphasized that it is unknown what the decision will be, then added: It's very clear, for those familiar with the program and its capabilities, and what the threat is out there, that the F-22 or something very much like it is needed in the near future for the United States to be able to handle the threat. But you are correct in saying that hopefully it will still be supported, but we can't guarantee that. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether, in Major McGettrick's opinion, [the legislature] is wise to insert a specific deadline and count regarding the F-22. MAJOR McGETTRICK answered: At this point in the program, they are on track to meet the initial operational capability at that first base, in December of 2005. We could see, maybe, some changes in the matter of a handful of months, but there is no indication or reason we have right now that it would change significantly from the dates that we have. Those dates are for the initial base, though. The second bed-down would not occur until somewhere in the 2007 or 2008 timeframe for that next phase. Number 1481 CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether anyone had questions; there was no response. Number 1548 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI read from page 2, line 15, which stated: WHEREAS the strategic location, joint training opportunities, and experimentation opportunities, together with unmatched community support, in Alaska have been noted by senior military leaders in Alaska; REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested Alaska's strategic location, joint training opportunities, and experimentation opportunities sell Alaska above and beyond any other location, "in addition to our unmatched community support." She asked Senator Leman whether he would be averse to amending that "whereas" clause to add more superlatives, to say that it has been "positively noted", for example, or that "our strategic location is ... unmatched or unparalleled." SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SJR 3, concurred that Alaska is unique, saying he is delighted that the military leaders have said the same thing. He indicated that for many military people, Alaska is the top request for assignment. He said the language sounds good to him as written, but he has no problem with amending it to add more. CHAIR CHENAULT closed public testimony. Number 1682 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment to "beef up that 'whereas'" [page 2, beginning at line 15]. She suggested it could be as simple as saying "these assets have been noted positively by senior military leaders in Alaska." REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred and suggested adding even more zeal to it. He pointed out that military leaders across the country, not just senior military leaders in Alaska, have recognized the importance of the strategic and training opportunities at Elmendorf AFB. Ample information out there suggests Elmendorf AFB is a vital asset to the defense of the country. He referred to the BRAC and commented, "We fared extremely well; in fact, we grew as a consequence of that. That's a recognition right there of the importance." He mentioned perhaps taking out "in Alaska" and adding some national flavor. He suggested there would be a couple of days to do a floor amendment. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed with Representative Kott's suggestion that it shouldn't be limited just to military leaders in Alaska. She stated, "I wouldn't have any problem just saying, 'Let's adopt a conceptual amendment to beef it up, not limited ... to just those senior military leaders in Alaska,' and have it fixed up in [the House] Rules [Standing Committee]. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she thought it was a good idea. CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether everyone concurred. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it sounded fine. [There were no objections stated, and the conceptual amendment was treated as adopted.] Number 1840 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move SJR 3, as amended, out of committee with the attached zero fiscal note; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection, HCS SJR 3(MLV) was moved out of the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs. [This action was rescinded later in the meeting in order to adopt another amendment before moving the resolution from committee.] SJR 3 - F-22 RAPTOR AIRCRAFT AT ELMENDORF AFB Again brought before the committee was SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Relating to the deployment of F-22 Raptor aircraft at Elmendorf Air Force Base. Number 1302 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to rescind the committee's previous action that day in moving HCS SJR 3(MLV) from committee, in order to add a second amendment. There being no objection, SJR 3 was before the committee again. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT proposed amending page 2 so that General Schwartz receives the resolution, since this is his installation. He said he had talked to the sponsor about adding other individuals, and asked Senator Leman to clarify. SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, clarified that he had suggested adding three people: Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defense; [Lieutenant] General Norton Schwartz; and Admiral Dennis Blair. Those three individuals are listed on SJR 8 [which the committee had just heard]. He thanked Representative Kott for bringing this to his attention. Number 1184 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT amended his motion to include the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, General Schwartz, and Admiral Blair. There being no objection to the amendment, it was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move SJR 3, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, HCS SJR 3(MLV) was moved out of the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|