Legislature(2011 - 2012)ANCH LIO Rm 220
09/17/2012 10:00 AM House ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Base Realignment and Closure Rounds and Developing Strategies for Retention of Military Installations in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
September 17, 2012
10:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Joe Paskvan
Senator Joe Thomas
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Charlie Huggins
Representative Craig Johnson
PUBLIC MEMBERS
Brigadier General George Cannelos - retired
Lieutenant General Tom Case - retired (via teleconference)
Colonel Tim Jones
Major General Jake Lestenkof - retired
Chick Wallace (via teleconference)
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ROUNDS AND DEVELOPING STRATEGIES
FOR RETENTION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS IN ALASKA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE HYJEK, Partner
Hyjek & Fix
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as a consultant to the Department
of Military & Veterans' Affairs, provided testimony regarding
the upcoming base realignment and closure (BRAC) and a strategic
plan.
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Adjutant General/Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony regarding the upcoming
BRAC.
CHICK WALLACE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony regarding the upcoming
BRAC.
McHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner/Adjutant General
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided response to testimony during the
hearing on base realignment and closure rounds and developing
strategies for retention of military installations in Alaska.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:04:21 AM
CO-CHAIR BILL WIELECHOWSKI called the Joint Armed Services
Committee meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Representatives Feige,
Lynn, Peterson, and Saddler and Senators Davis, Paskvan (via
teleconference), Thomas (via teleconference), and Wielechowski
were present at the call to order. Public members in attendance
were Brigadier General Cannelos - retired, Lieutenant General
Case - retired (via teleconference), Colonel Tim Jones, Major
General Lestenkof - retired, and Chick Wallace (via
teleconference). Also in attendance was Senator Coghill.
^Base Realignment and Closure Rounds and Developing Strategies
for Retention of Military Installations in Alaska
Base Realignment and Closure Rounds and Developing Strategies
for Retention of Military Installations in Alaska
10:04:42 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that the only order of business
would be a presentation related to the base realignment and
closure (BRAC) rounds and developing strategies for retention of
military installations in Alaska.
10:07:22 AM
STEVE HYJEK, Partner, Hyjek & Fix, reviewed his work history,
including prior work with Alaska during the 1995 base
realignment and closure (BRAC). He said an area of concern is
the Budget Control Act, which includes sequestration, a
mechanism that could be activated by January 2013 and would
double the $487 billion in reductions to military. He said the
focus should be not only on BRAC but also on budget construction
and implementation, personnel reductions, and movements of
missions and equipment. He said the secretary of defense
requested authority for the BRAC process to conduct two rounds:
one in fiscal year 2013 (FY 13) and one in FY 15. Currently,
the BRAC has not been approved and likely will not be approved
by U.S. Congress this year; therefore, there will not be a round
of BRAC in FY 13. He said the potential is reasonably strong
that Congress may take favorable action toward approval for a
BRAC round in calendar year 2013. He said the secretary of
defense will push hard for the FY 15 BRAC; however, some
political pundits predict it won't happen until 2017. He
explained that if the BRAC does not take place until 2017, the
bulk of the savings will not be seen until 2022, and since the
Budget Control Act puts pressure on finding $487 billion in
savings between now and 2021, the BRAC would not do the
secretary of defense much good if it does not occur until 2017.
MR. HYJEK said everyone is preparing for budget cuts and force
structure adjustments. He said there was an air force misstep
this year, when an attempt was made to move the 18th Aggressor
Squadron from Eielson Air Force Base, but there is a strategic
pause in place because of legislation, and the secretary of
defense has committed not to move forward with any of those air
craft or personnel movements while Congress is considering the
FY 13 defense budget. He said the eventual force structure
adjustment in the military will reduce personnel by over 100,000
people.
10:12:49 AM
MR. HYJEK turned to Alaska and his strategic plan. In response
to Co-Chair Wielechowski, he agreed to stop periodically during
his presentation to answer questions.
10:13:55 AM
MR. HYJEK said slide 2 of his briefing provides an outline of
topics that will be discussed, including the strategic plan -
what has been done to date and what is anticipated in the plan
going forward - as well as other issues that are not the focus
of the plan, but color the recommendations and are near-term
issues that need addressing in order to include FY 13
legislative budgetary actions. He said slide 3 is entitled,
"State Military Installation Strategic Plan."
MR. HYJEK said his team, including people in his firm and
retired General Carrol H. "Howie" Chandler, visited each of the
major installations in Alaska in June. The timing of the visits
was unfortunate, he said, because it was during the heat of
battle between the delegation and the state and the commander at
that time of Pacific air forces, as well as the U.S. Air Force,
regarding the 18th Aggressor Squadron proposed alignment to
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER). He said, "The guidance
that was provided to mend the installations was that -- it was a
view that our visit could be linked to that issue, and so they
were told to stick pretty much to a script of their mission
brief, to respond to direct questions only that were with
information the public domain, and then any other follow on
questions would need to be run back through the major command
for disposition and potential response." He said everyone was
very professional and was following orders. He said the bulk of
the information that has enabled the progress his team has made
thus far has come from the Alaska Guard. He said his team
submitted 62 questions to active duty installations and received
a letter in late July from Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) indicating
that any information the team might wish to have would be in
either the Site Activation Task Force (SATAF) report provided by
the Air Force, associated with the 18th Aggressor Squadron
proposed movement, or would be subject to a Freedom of
Information Act request.
MR. HYJEK said with the change of command in PACAF, his team
plans to make another run at securing the information, now that
the environment has changed. He said General Carlisle has
committed to an open and congenial as possible relationship, and
his team does not want to do anything to jeopardize that. He
said the team is conducting back channel discussions with PACAF
and the U.S. Army in Alaska. He said Major General Garrett was
brand new when his team arrived, and General Katkus has also
been discussing information requests with Alaskan Command
(ALCOM). He said the team has reason to believe it will receive
information in the near future; however, it has made a phased
plan. Phase one focuses on the Guard, while Phase 2 will be the
omnibus state plan, which will include some details on active
duty installations, with a projected completion date sometime in
October.
MR. HYJEK said the team is not sitting on its hands waiting for
information; it has reached out to other agencies, including the
state department and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense
for Policy in the Pentagon, to get information and to conduct
discussions on some potential initiatives, including potential
options for realignment of more advanced F16s from either the
Pacific or from Europe to one of the bases in Alaska. He said
the team has also had conversations with "the air staff" and
some other elements in the Pentagon regarding new mission
opportunities with new air frames, including the joint strike
fighter, the KC46 "future tanker," and air frames that fly
without a pilot. Finally, he said, the team has been asking the
U.S. Department of Defense, particularly the U.S. Army and Air
Force, about personnel plans for FY 14 and beyond made as part
of their reaction and adjustments to the force structure issues
that came up this year. Mr. Hyjek said he would discuss the
two-point plan, which would be shown in a PowerPoint
presentation as phase 1 - the reserve component, and phase 2 -
the active component, including JBER, Eielson Air Force Base,
and Fort Wainwright.
10:20:36 AM
COLONEL JONES observed that there are a relatively small number
of information requests made to the U.S. Army in Alaska, and he
asked why.
MR. HYJEK answered that it was difficult to determine what
needed to be requested. He said the team received a command
brief comprised of 10-12 slides, and it was able to ascertain
information, such as base operation support costs. He indicated
that requests for other information regarding encroachment
issues, future military construction, and the future defense
plan, have not yet been answered, but when they are, that will
allow the team to do a follow-up request.
10:22:04 AM
SENATOR THOMAS said he is disappointed with the disingenuous
approach to releasing information, as well as the reluctance to
release information, related to Eielson Air Force Base
(Eielson). He said he thinks it is odd that questions regarding
cost resulted in so little information other than the conclusion
given, and he expressed his hope that Mr. Hyjek is correct that
there will be a better relationship through which the team can
gather information in future.
MR. HYJEK said public and private statements have been made by
General Carlyle indicating that he has a desire for a more
transparent process when working with the state. He said the
intent of the visit was about how Alaska could place itself in
the most optimal situation in the future, and reiterated that he
does not want this issue to become a point of contention with
the commands.
10:24:34 AM
MR. HYJEK stated that slide 4 shows how the team develops a
strategic plan by: using the BRAC 2005 criteria is the baseline
against which all the installations are evaluated; using
information from all of the service teams, as well as from the
BRAC commission; reviewing all the data that was prepared by the
U.S. Army in 2008 for the "grow the force" evaluation of army
installations, as well as the limited amount of data regarding
the force structure adjustments proposed by the U.S. Air Force;
taking into account the revision of military strategy,
highlighting the Asian and Pacific focus, for example, by
providing a balance in the refueling capabilities in Hawaii
versus Alaska; focusing on capability, cost, and power
projection, particularly with Alaska as a strategic platform;
not viewing the installation as a single entity within the
perimeter of the base itself, but looking at areas where
services can be shared with local communities; avoiding a narrow
view of having just an Alaska set of installations; finding
areas of collaboration; and considering tanker placement.
MR. HYJEK said having completed the analysis, the team will
provide a matrix that pits the installations against the BRAC
criteria and score installations: red for poor, yellow for
fair, green for good, and blue for excellent. Then it will
provide recommendations for courses of action. Further, the
team will consider a holistic view in terms of what the state
can do for the military industry and vice versa. One example,
he said, is how collaborative efforts in terms of energy policy
could benefit both parties.
10:29:40 AM
MR. HYJEK, in response to Co-Chair Wielechowski, said the top
four out of eight criteria used in 2005 are called military
value criteria, and they focus on: operational readiness and
joint war fighting; diverse climate, terrain, and contribution
to homeland defense; the ability to support surge operations,
which he said is a fine balance; and the installation of man
power cost, which includes how an installation ranks with others
of its size and type and whether there have been spikes in
costs. He said the last four criteria are called the tie
breakers, and they are: cost of base realignment action
(COBRA), which takes into consideration closing costs versus
cost savings and generates a net present value cost to determine
how soon there would be a pay back from closing an installation;
economic impact, which is important to the communities but least
important to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD); the ability
to absorb in a community, which is consideration of growth; and
environmental issues. In response to a follow-up question, he
confirmed that these criteria are in statute and will be used in
the next BRAC round. He said the team hopes to have a draft
plan ready in mid- to late-October.
10:33:53 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said the issue of economic impact is important
to Fairbanks, Alaska, and he asked Mr. Hyjek for his
recommendation regarding whether or not to emphasize that
concern to DoD.
MR. HYJEK responded that it is a reasonable issue, and clarified
that he did not mean that DoD does not care about the issue;
however, he emphasized that it is not a driver in DoD's analysis
to determine which bases to expand, close, or realign. He said
it is rare for a community to not want to keep its military
base, so DoD expects economic impact to be discussed. He said
the commission will want to see how significant the impact is,
particularly if it affects education.
10:34:58 AM
BRIGADIER GENERAL CANNELOS, regarding strategic location, said
those who live in Alaska like to believe that it is the center
of the universe, which can reach out and touch Europe and Asia
more quickly. He asked if that is self-evident to the decision-
makers or should be highlighted for them with good maps and
graphic illustrations.
MR. HYJEK responded that those who do the first cut in the
analysis of the BRAC are number crunchers and don't focus on
economic impact; later on consideration of operational trade-
offs, such as location and capability will come into play. He
said he does not believe everyone in DoD realizes the strategic
position of Alaska. He related an example of his experience
with Luke Air Force Base, in Phoenix, Arizona, and the
educational process that was necessary to illustrate the
compatibility of the installation with current and future
operations. He said Alaska's process is an educational one and
will not be a short-term victory.
10:38:05 AM
GENERAL CANNELOS complimented Mr. Hyjek for any involvement he
might have had related to Luke Air Force Base.
10:38:22 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked Mr. Hyjek for his opinion regarding "the
quality of the numbers that are being crunched about Alaska
bases."
MR. HYJEK distinguished the difference between the 18th
Aggressor Squadron force structure adjustment versus the BRAC,
which are two separate groups with two different processes. He
said the reason for the BRAC process and commission is because
all too often there is flawed analysis and data. Nevertheless,
the BRAC's oversight does not mean the process is flawless.
10:40:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired as to the life expectancy of the
KC-135R base tankers currently based at Eielson Air Force Base
and the possibility that those tankers will be moved to
Fairchild.
MR. HYJEK said there is no discussion of movement of tankers
from Eielson to Fairchild, and it is highly unlikely. He said
when the KC-46 basing goes forward, the odds on favorites for
active duty installation is Fairchild Air Force Base and the
odds on favorite for the Air Guard facility is Pease Air Force
Base in New Hampshire. He said the view is that Washington
State would likely get the KC-46. He noted that Boeing is in
Washington. He said the KC-135R is going to be around for a
long time, because of budget restraints. He said Phase 1,
including the school house, the active duty operational base,
and the guard base, involves approximately 60 aircraft. Phase 2
won't be considered until 2020.
10:43:11 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN offered his understanding that earlier Mr. Hyjek
had indicated that there are F-16s in Asia and Europe that
"they" are trying to get to the bases in Alaska. Regarding
readiness criteria, he asked if it is a consideration that
Eielson Air Force Base is not subject to higher risks of
earthquake or volcanic ash in the atmosphere.
MR. HYJEK clarified that neither the DoD nor the U.S. Air Force
is looking at that; it is his team, as consultants to the State
of Alaska, that is looking at the opportunity for the potential
of having aircraft currently based overseas come to Alaska. He
explained the reason the team is looking at those two
capabilities is because of the capability of the aircraft that
are located in Europe and Japan. He said Eielson Air Force Base
would be a focus, but the objective is to first get the aircraft
into the state. He said the team is looking for opportunities
to generate or initiate action, but there are no DoD initiatives
or plans underway to do anything in the F-16 or F-35 air frames
at this time.
10:45:13 AM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the worldwide BRAC process considers
earthquakes or volcanic ash as risk factors.
MR. HYJEK answered that it is probably in the mix, but said he
is not sure how high in the profile it is considered. He
recalled an installation in the BRAC 2005 where the potential
for tornadoes was considered. He said environmental issues of
that nature and their impact on operations are considered.
10:46:09 AM
SENATOR THOMAS expressed concern that the bean counters do the
first review. He said he thinks that is short-sighted, because
the first consideration should be strategic location. He
offered his understanding that that was the top priority in the
list previously stated by Mr. Hyjek. He said he thinks defense
systems have been developed in the past to shorten the conflict.
He stated his belief that location is extremely important and
that an analysis of a war could prove that.
MR. HYJEK responded that the team intends to push strategic
location as a critical issue. He reminded the committee that
his responsibility is to give the most honest opinion about how
the process goes forward. He said before the number crunching
begins, the last list is pulled up. If an installation has
survived in the past, that will be considered. The next factor
examined is cost, including those costs that may not have been
previously considered. He said from a pure cost standpoint, the
Army War College in Pennsylvania would not be in that state, but
because there are other things that have happened in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, and because every senior army leader has been
through the college, that installation will not be moved. He
said at the last, most senior level of review, the input of
sponsorship and combatant commanders becomes of great value,
because the four-star level has only so much time for review.
He said, "If they really care and they have a concern or they're
a real supporter, that's good for me to know; and if they don't
care, then I probably have to go with the experts on my staff
who put this recommendation in front of me."
10:51:48 AM
GENERAL CANNELOS, regarding the joint war fighting criteria,
asked if the possible loss of Eielson Air Force Base would
diminish the joint capability of Fairbanks and adversely affect
Fort Wainwright.
MR. HYJEK said he does not think there would be a ripple effect,
because the review would consider impacts of other
installations. He said Fort Wainwright is an attribute for
Eielson Air Force Base, and the Air Force would not be allowed
to do something that would jeopardize the Army.
10:52:48 AM
GENERAL CASE noted that he has not heard mention of the training
mechanism.
MR. HYJEK confirmed he had not yet discussed that. He remarked
upon the unique environment of the Arctic and working in it. He
said the problem is most wars have been fought in the desert or
jungle, not the Arctic environment, and he stressed the
importance of recognizing how that environment can affect a
future conflict. He said the team is trying not only to push
the strategic location, but also the unique training
environment. He stated, "We have to work hard to make sure that
there's not a tradeoff of that training environment in Alaska
versus a cost-savings measure someplace else."
10:54:45 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked if there is a difference in the process
this time around.
MR. HYJEK explained that the BRAC was originally envisioned as a
cost-savings ability to get rid of excess infrastructure, reduce
operational costs, and realign forces to be the most efficient
from an operational and cost perspective. The last BRAC was
transformational: the U.S. Army used it as a vehicle to bring
troops back from overseas and avoid a fight over which base was
going to be the beneficiary; the U.S. Air Force used the last
BRAC to realign assets that were in the Guard to move them to
active duty and adjust the reserve component as it saw fit; the
U.S. Navy Marine Corps used it to get rid of excess industrial
capability that it could no longer afford to keep. This time
around, he opined, the strategy by the U.S. Air Force was to use
the force structure to do whatever it wanted to do in the Guard,
by virtue of manning equipment and location and focusing the
BRAC on active duty installations, because the next BRAC is all
about saving money. He said Secretary of Defense Leon E.
Panetta is focused on cutting costs while still delivering
capability. He said the way to do that is by closing active
duty installations. In terms of the U.S. Air Force, that means
fewer fighters. He offered further details. In regard to the
U.S. Army, Mr. Hyjek said until the actual mixed force design
comes out, one can only surmise that heavy forces are going to
take more hits than the light forces will. He offered an
example. He said he thinks the U.S. Army is also going to
consider industrial operations. He said force structure will be
used to "tee up" what all the military services want to go after
in a future BRAC. Budgeting for military construction (MILCON)
combined with force structures will be leading signals to what
will be considered.
10:58:42 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked if it is fair to look at this as three
phases of one process.
MR. HYJEK answered yes. He said, "The BRAC will be the
culmination of these other processes feeding into it."
10:59:22 AM
MR. HYJEK said slide 5 relates to the team engaging with the
delegation and the state on issues that exist now and into the
future. He said the 18th Aggressor Squadron's SATAF [report]
affected the team's ability to get data, and he reminded
everyone that there is a strategic hold related to that. He
reiterated that there were C-130s that would be impacted, as
well as the 176 at JBER. He said there is a change of command
at PACAF and the team is working to build the relationship with
PACAF. The team has also worked with General Carlyle, who
understands the importance of good relationships. Regarding
budget, he said Congress will not finish the 13 appropriations
bills by September 30, so the government will operate in a six-
month continuing resolution, which will fund DoD at the 2012
budget, minus 5 percent. As a result, defense appropriations
bills will be kicked out until next year. He expressed his hope
that next year Congress will look at issues with commercially
directed spending, which then potentially would have an impact
with regard to military construction projects in Alaska. Mr.
Hyjek said sequestration would begin in January 2013 if nothing
changes. He said both Congress and the Administration are
concerned about the potential occurring and are looking for ways
to negotiate an agreement; however, no significant action will
take place until a lame duck session in the November-December
time frame. In terms of the future, he reiterated that some say
a BRAC will be authorized in 2013, while others say it will be
2017. He said Secretary of Defense Panetta is being asked to
hold off on force structure adjustments, moving people, and
saving money, but attain a $487 billion cut, and he cannot do
that without BRAC authority; therefore, he may allow a greater
pause on force structure adjustments and roll those into the
BRAC process. He said everyone should be concerned that if a
2015 BRAC is approved next year, the fiscal year from which the
DoD uses data to make its decisions will already be half over.
He concluded, "That's why, as we get our plan completed, we may
urge for some quick action on some items that the state has
control over, which could potentially create a beneficial impact
for each of the installations."
11:03:23 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there are other installations at
risk in Alaska, other than Eielson Air Force Base.
MR. HYJEK said there are risks of either negative realignment or
some reduction in force, but not risks of a significant negative
action, such as taking away a major unit. He expressed concern
about Fort Wainwright's costs. He said in 2005, the Army Basic
Study Group ranked 97 Army installations against a set of
criteria, one of which was "cost of operating against the
capability provided," and Fort Wainwright ranked 97 out of 97.
Obviously negative action was not taken on Fort Wainwright in
'05, but [the state] should be prepared to address that. Mr.
Hyjek stated that his focus is greater on the northern tier of
installations in Alaska, but clarified that does not mean the
southern tier installations should not be prepared for the next
BRAC. He said, across the board, joint basing has not delivered
as many of the benefits that DoD thought it would. He said he
thinks joint basing will be studied in the BRAC round to
determine whether or not the process should be continued.
11:06:27 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many bases across the U.S. might
be at risk, and he asked for comparatives with previous BRAC
years.
MR. HYJEK said it is difficult to provide a hard number. In the
2005 BRAC, there were roughly 80-100 proposed closures and 200-
250 realignment actions. Next time there will be fewer
alignments and fewer closures; however, the closures will be
bigger. In terms of citing other installations, he expressed
concern for Ellsworth Air Force Base [in South Dakota] and Red
River Army Depot in Texas. He clarified that he is not saying
those are the two that face the greatest threat, but said the
Air Force cannot afford to continue to support the fighter
bomber bases they have and the Army cannot continue to support
its industrial operations when they can be done by the private
sector.
11:08:31 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, regarding joint basing, asked if Mr. Hyjek was
talking about unwinding current joint basing decisions or not
doing it more in the future.
MR. HYJEK answered that not doing it in the future is a clear
possibility, whereas unwinding would have to be reviewed.
11:09:19 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked if there are any real simple actions that
Alaska could take now.
MR. HYJEK said one item that would be in the team's report is
related to low cost power for military installations, but he
said he would not recommend it unless it would produce a savings
to the state of at least 8 to 10 percent.
11:11:04 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said he looks forward to the conclusions
in the report.
11:11:31 AM
MR. HYJEK, in response to a series of questions, reiterated his
previous statements about the foreseen timing of future BRACs.
He said the Air Force is doing its preparatory and due diligence
work in the event that it can execute in 2014. He offered an
example. He said hypothetically, if the 18th Aggressor Squadron
were to leave, it would adversely affect the long-term viability
of the 168th [Aggressor Squadron]. He said it is a Domino
effect.
11:17:15 AM
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Adjutant General/Commissioner,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, confirmed that the
Air Force plans for everything. For example, it considers
having a wing on a commercial air field and whether there is
"any component of Eielson that could remain in order to support
it." He said, "We have a 24-hour-a-day mission, 7 days a week,
365 days out of the year; that wasn't part of the calculations,
so they're having to deal with that." He said the Air Force is
considering what it can do to make the 168th more relevant,
which includes how much fuel it pushes. He said, "So, we're a
very viable unit; it's just a matter that if they close the base
they're still going to have to identify where we're going to be
located."
11:18:30 AM
MR. HYJEK, in conclusion, emphasized that the plan the team will
propose is not a reactive one; it recognizes that if a BRAC
occurs or even if force structure adjustments are made, DoD will
shrink. Notwithstanding that, he said there are areas with room
for movement, and the team wants to be as proactive as possible
to seek new mission opportunities. He said as the team
completes its plan, it will identify both near-term and longer-
term issues for consideration by the state and by the
legislature. He said there is good cause for optimism that
there will be improved lines of communication with the command,
which is sensitive to the issues in Alaska. He said the bottom
line is that the BRAC is a three-element process, with near- and
short-term issues pending, and the potential of a BRAC as early
as 2015.
11:20:28 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, regarding future missions, observed that
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and drones seem to be the most
cost-effective to deploy. He asked if they are being considered
by other states or are "up for grabs."
MR. HYJEK responded that remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and
"cybers" are "the flavor of the day." He said the state should
be careful to select a segment of the RPA or cyber areas where
there is a need. He said the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) will not allow the RPA to be flown outside of restricted
air space. He relayed that current RPA technology lacks de-
icing capabilities, which is a limiting factor for Alaska. He
stated that the Air Force looks towards the Air Guard for
"reach-back" capabilities, where it can fly from the U.S. to air
frames elsewhere in the world, track targets, gather
intelligence, and execute against targets through various
missions that the Air Guard can perform. Regarding the cyber
areas, he recommended filling a niche where there is growth
capability, which means focusing on aggressor squadrons rather
than running a network operation center, for example. He said
RPA and cybers are two areas on which the team will focus.
11:22:55 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER recollected that General Case had referenced
the training capabilities of the joint Alaska Pacific Range
complex. He asked if it would be beneficial for Alaska's suit
if the state made additional commitments to the Northern Rail
Extension to improve access to the Joint Pacific Alaska Range
Complex (JPARC).
MR. HYJEK said he has no good answer yet and would need more
review.
11:23:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN read that some are advocating for
improvement of the missile defense system. He asked if there
would be increased funding and spending in Alaska to upgrade Ft.
Greely.
MR. HYJEK offered his understanding that the U.S. Army continues
to plan to make investments in the infrastructure and capability
of Fort Greely. Furthermore, he said the team received
information last week that there likely would be expansion of
the missile interceptor tracking and defeat capability in the
Lower 48, particularly as more challenges are discovered related
to the missile defense network in Europe.
11:25:02 AM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired as to how Alaska's efforts stack up
compared to that of other states.
MR. HYJEK said he thinks Alaska is doing just fine. He said
Alaska has certainly demonstrated a clear and credible deterrent
to the U.S. Air Force in terms of the way the state, the
delegation, and the community came together in regard to the
18th Aggressor Squadron issue, which says a lot in terms of non-
BRAC actions. He stated, "In terms of the ability ... of the
state to PACAF, air mobility command, and the major commands on
side, I think we're equal or ahead of other installations of
other states in the country." He said he would give Alaska a B
grade at this point, and he said his team is trying to help the
state reach a higher grade. Some states have their heads in the
sand, waiting, unprepared, for a BRAC to happen, but history
shows those locations do not do well. In response to a follow-
up question, he said he does not know which states have the gold
standard, but suggested that Kansas may be a good example,
because it has kept its governor's military council intact and
come to Washington, D.C., twice a year to meet with DoD
officials. He noted that Kansas was "the sixth largest gainer"
in the BRAC 2005.
11:28:28 AM
GENERAL KATKUS offered praise to Mr. Hyjek for his presentation
and expertise. Regarding the unfortunate timing mentioned
previously by Mr. Hyjek, he said the [18th] Aggressor Squadron
move set the stage for a confrontational environment. He said
senior leadership has demonstrated that it realizes all of
Alaska is being considered when determining how to make the
state a better place in which the military operates. Regarding
Colonel Jones' prior comment about the information from the U.S.
Army in Alaska, he noted that tomorrow he would meet with Major
General Garrett to converse and generate more questions. He
said last week he met with General Stephen Hoog and identified a
way to get that information to [Mr. Hyjek], who is working hard
on Phase 1, but needs information to move forward. He said
General Carlyle has established that he wants a good working
relationship with Alaska, and both General Hoog and Major
General Garrett are in the position to make that happen.
GENERAL KATKUS clarified that while [Mr. Hyjek] has many
contacts, he does not have insider information, but he is
setting Alaska up to be in "the best position." Regarding the
National Guard, he confirmed that cyber and RPA are the buzz
words of the day. Alaska also has two factors in its favor:
space and the Arctic. He stated that Alaska operates in mid-
course range, which is the perfect spot in which to be working.
He said a lot of money needs to go into the boost phase and the
terminal phase. General Katkus stated that the U.S. Northern
Command (NORTHCOM) has identified that the reconnaissance
surveillance deficit exists in terms of the Arctic. He said the
Arctic is going to be an area for military, DoD, and Coast Guard
growth in Alaska.
11:31:41 AM
GENERAL CANNELOS stated that the 176th Wing is the biggest and
most complicated wing in the Air Guard, and it includes
strategic airlift, tactical airlift, and rescue. He said
someone considering only costs could cut one of those missions
but keep the wing.
MR. HYJEK agreed, but noted that almost every one of those
missions currently is tied to an active duty fight. He offered
examples. He said there are few "130s" out there, so he
recommended highlighting the association with the 130s remains,
which is protection that can be provided.
11:33:21 AM
CHICK WALLACE in Fairbanks, regarding the cost of towers, asked
if there is any cost relationship between natural gas and coal,
because Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright uses coal,
which is a cheap source of power generation. He asked if Mr.
Hyjek is suggesting that the state should build a gasline.
MR. HYJEK said he is not making that recommendation to the
state, but is recommending that the state review the total net
cost of current coal-fired operations both to the state and the
DoD, including consideration of environmental compliance, system
improvements, and low-cost power payments made to Alaskans in
the civilian community, and then consider the significant
investment that would be required for natural gas and whether
some of those other costs would go away as a result of using
natural gas. He said he does not know the answer, but thinks it
is something that needs to be considered.
11:35:07 AM
McHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs, stated that the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
is working closely with Mr. Hyjek and the legislature and plans
to provide information to them so that the military can be part
of the energy solution. He confirmed that his office is not
advocating for one particular solution, but wants everyone to be
aware that "DoD is affected just as much as maybe the private
home owner in the area."
11:35:49 AM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI expressed his thanks for the presentation
and subsequent information provided.
11:36:01 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
Armed Services Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:36 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|