Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:41 am

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060307/news_1m7airport.html

It's official - the board has voted 5-3 to keep Miramar and North Island as "potential" sites.

I still hope for cool heads and that some kind of joint use can be arranged. If it can happen at HNL, it can happen at SAN.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
LMP737
Posts: 6227
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:07 am

Big difference between operations at HNL and Miramar. Besides the board can vote as often as they like and in the end it's a moot since the DOD can tell them to go pound sand.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:16 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 1):
LMP737

The DOD has basically already said that. I believe that the SDCRAA wants to keep all options open as long as possible, because we all know that things can change tomorrow, let alone 5, 10, 15 years.

Aaron G.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:53 am

I'll bet $1 that Mirmar MCAS comes out on the next BRAC. The base just bearly survived this round.
 
CX747
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:06 am

The next BRAC? Exactly what are they going to cut next time around? You can't cut anymore fat because there isn't any. Maybe if we just chip away a little at the bone we can come up with more savings.

I KNOW, we can have 1 big superbase in Oklahoma. We will have every aircraft, soldier and marine stationed there. Then we can have a big Navy superbase in a remote island off of Alaska. There we go, we are out of everyone's way.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:14 am

I don't forsee Miramar, North Island or Pendleton being used as a joint base. There is just too much traffice and military work going on at those bases.

Miramar has a massive operation with Marine Corp F/A-18s, CH-46s, Hueys and other aircraft. Pendleton is another Marine Corp base that sees massive use by Marine Corp aircraft along with USAF transports picking up materials etc. North Island would be the most suseptable. The S-3 fleet has been retired and I beleive that only leaves the P-3s. That being said, the P-3 fleet is pretty big and with the 737 replacement aircraft on line, that base will have a new aircraft and "lease" on life. Why not take public lands for a public airport?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:44 am

Quote:
Why not take public lands for a public airport?

Because there is no "public land" for an airport. The only large flat airport-capable pieces of land left that could be used are Miramar, North Island, and Camp Pendleton.

Remember, San Diego is a unique location - hemmed in by Mexico on the south, the Pacific on the west, Camp Pendleton on the north, and mountainous terrain to the east. It is, for all intents and purposes, a walled city with VERY little flat terrain.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
visityyj
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:23 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:09 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 5):
Miramar has a massive operation with Marine Corp

I thought Miramar was USN now
 Confused
 
smitty747
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:22 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:01 am

As noted in the Miramar historical website:

"In 1993, the Base Realignment and Closure Committee recommended closing the El Toro and Tustin air stations and moving the Marines to Miramar. Top Gun and the Navy’s F-14 Tomcat and E-3 Hawkeye squadrons were relocated and the base was once again redesignated as Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. Marines began arriving in August 1994, and by 1997 MCAS Miramar was fully operational."
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:06 am

Some things to consider:

If approved, Joint use would require substantial development of an airfield and terminal complex. By the time the legal issues are shaken out it will be at least 2016 before ground can be broken. Well after the 2012 BRAC. It will then be another 5-7 (2021-2023) years before it would open for use. Miramar will have a completely different operation by then, if it even remains past the 2012 BRAC.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 4):
The next BRAC?

2012

Quoting CX747 (Reply 5):
Miramar has a massive operation with Marine Corp F/A-18s, CH-46s, Hueys and other aircraft.

1. Miramar has F/A-18 non-training operations which are moving to Yuma to replace the Harriers being retired this year. They did not re-assign the units in the AVPLAN, but that is where they are going. This will leave behind the CH-46's and the CH-53's. The tranining F-18's will remain until the JSF transition is complete.

See page 64 of link #1 below.

2. The CH-46's will be replaced by the MV-22 Osprey by 2011. The CH-53 replacement is unknown at this time. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the MV-22 has not been released yet, even though it was completed in 2003. It was pulled before the BRAC which should tell you something about the results. A split or single facility is being considered for this aircraft between Pendleton and Miramar pending the EIS which should be out shortly. The could all end up at Miramar, they could all end up at Pendleton or they can be split between the two. There are four squadrons currently slated for the 3rd MAW.

See page 50 of link #1 below.

MV-22 Environmental Impact Statement Website:

http://www.mv22eiswest.net/

2. The training F-18's will remain in place until the F-35 JSF is integrated fully by 2023 (notice this coincides with when an airport would likely open there), then the F-18's used for training will be removed from service. The training for the JSF will take place in Florida at Eglin AFB, the Marines will operate the VSTOL "Harrier Type" version that does not require pattern carrier landing as the F-18's do. The Navy Carrier version will be at Leemore. Initial studies showed that the F-35 JSF environmental impact for the STVOL version will not work at Miramar. A prefered dual site JSF basing between Miramar and Yuma is proposed (4 squadrons at each base), but it is highly likely that due to the environmental issues all of the West Coast JSF's will go to Yuma (total of 8 squadrons). The reserve JSF unit would likely remain, but it's impact due to there being only 10 vs. 40 aircraft is very minor, and compatible with Joint Use. Marine JSF numbers have been reduced to 11 Active and 3 Reserve Squadrons. 8 at Cherry Point/Beaufort and 8 at Yuma (or 4 at Miramar and 4 at Yuma) and 1 in Okinawa.

JSF Training page 6 Link #2.

Link #1 - Marine AVPLAN - The number and size of Squadrons has changed.

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/M...ocuments/AVPLAN%20April%202005.pdf

Link #2 - 2005 BRAC Results - JSF Training:

http://www.brac.gov/docs/final/Chap1JCSGEducationandTraining.pdf


C-130's and C-9's and any other Fixed Wing Airlift Aircraft are totally compatible with Joint Use. Helicopters present speed issues, but the routes used currently would keep them north of the airfield and approach paths anyway as they do today and away from the neighbors.

My opinion:

Move the MV-22's to Pendleton
Send the JSF to Yuma
Move the CH-53's to North Island
Retain the Reserve Units and other base facilities at Miramar
Retain the C-130's at Miramar
Build the airport and one heck of a MAC terminal
Close Lindbergh freeing up the airspace for North Island.

[Edited 2006-03-08 00:12:58]
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:43 am

Changes to fleet size of JSF mentioned above due to TACAIR Integration:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21488.p...rch='CRS%20TACAIR%20Integration'

[Edited 2006-03-08 00:53:38]
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:48 am

Which Miramar is being discussed, east or west?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:06 am

West. It has been determined that East does not work because of the mountains to the East (meaning the Cuyamacca Mountains etc, not the terrain that can be removed). Aircraft won't be able to get down to make East Miramar.

If you read though the resources on the SAN website as I've been doing, you can see the mess this really is. Every site, but Miramar, has monster hurdles. They even took a re-look at Otay/TJ etc... They've looked at everything. Every other site is an environmental nightmare. Pendleton, Rancho Guieto (spelling), Otay, Silver Strand... You name it. There just isn't any flat land left without a major problem without the Airport Authority becoming a giant home bull dozer.

Some spots on the interactive map have PDF's with pages of data.

http://www.san.org/authority/assp/resources.asp

The only Otay spot that doesn't interfere with Mexico wipes out 30,000 and noise impacts 60,000.

[Edited 2006-03-08 02:25:19]
 
phuebner
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:37 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:09 am

SAN Airport Authority Shows It Has A Pair... (by Boeing7E7 Feb 28 2006 in Civil Aviation)

NOT AGAIN! Didn't we already go through this? Let's not get started on this topic and start pissin' everybody off!
Remember this, Your Body is a temple Not a pull toy!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:18 am

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 13):
Let's not get started on this topic and start pissin' everybody off!

Pot and Kettle.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:23 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
West.

Good and finally.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
It was been determined that East does not work because of the mountains to the East (meaning the Cuyamacca Mountains etc, not the terrain that can be removed). Aircraft won't be able to get down to make East Miramar.

I've driven through the area when I used to go to Grossmont College, I've never seen the point of putting an airport out there.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 13):
SAN Airport Authority Shows It Has A Pair... (by Boeing7E7 Feb 28 2006 in Civil Aviation)

NOT AGAIN! Didn't we already go through this? Let's not get started on this topic and start pissin' everybody off!

Maybe you could grow a pair?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
phuebner
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:37 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:32 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 15):
Maybe you could grow a pair?

Well, well, well, here we go. You are a senior at Embry-Riddle therefore you are "qualified" to tell me to "grow a pair". We already went through this subject matter and here we are, going through it again. I pointed that out, hoping that people would be apt and able to comprehend the idea of not beating a dead horse but here you are Lehpron deciding that you want to stoop low and tell me to "grow a pair". If that's all you have for an engineering student. GO FOR IT!
Remember this, Your Body is a temple Not a pull toy!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:35 am

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 16):
We already went through this subject matter and here we are, going through it again.

Different topic. Same airport. Different discussion. The other thread was also pleasant for a time.
 
CX747
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:06 am

Why won't the STOVL version be able to operate out of Miramar? How does that operation negatively effect the surrounding area? Also, are Marines purchasing only the VSTOVL version or mixing it up? With increased cooperation between the Navy and Marine Corp, the Marines deploy on carriers several times a year. In fact, 2+ squadrons of Marine Corp F/A-18s deploy alongside USN fighter units on carriers. Therefore, the take off and landing patter at Miramar will be important. Miramar belongs to the miltary and has been there for quite some time. Whether there are fighters based there or helicopters the base is in a great area that allows for close operation to the carriers and Pendleton. Also, I'm going to plead ignorance and ask, where are the F-35s going to be based? Are the definitley going to Yuma?

I'm sorry but I just see this as a land grab by civilians. The military has to start being smart. Having a base in San Diego is a great attractor to young men and women. Who doesn't want to live in San Diego or be base there? Being Based in Yuma or another base in the middle of nowhere is not attractive. If you want somebody to serve 20+ years, there has to be some sort of carrot. Low pay, long times away in the desert and oh ya when you are home, instead of living in beautiful San Diego, you now get to live in Yuma.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:32 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
Why won't the STOVL version be able to operate out of Miramar? How does that operation negatively effect the surrounding area?

Noise and emissions. The same reason the AV-8 isn't there.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
Also, are Marines purchasing only the VSTOVL version or mixing it up?

STVOL only.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
In fact, 2+ squadrons of Marine Corp F/A-18s deploy alongside USN fighter units on carriers. Therefore, the take off and landing patter at Miramar will be important.

Navy 18's are at Leemore. The Marines convert to all F-35. The pattern used at Miramar is already noise restrictive at Miramar and is a limitation on what they can do there. Stage IV commericial aircraft in 20 years will be 50-60% quieter. As an example, the 787 has a projected Stage IV noise contour equal to that of a 737NG. The 737/A320 replacement should be about equal to a 90 seat RJ and less than a Boeing 717.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
Also, I'm going to plead ignorance and ask, where are the F-35s going to be based? Are the definitley going to Yuma?

Marine F-35's will be based at Cherry Point and Yuma, possibly a split unit at Miramar. There are 8 squadrons for the West and 8 for the East. The most Miramar would see is 4 squadrons of 10 (40) vs. the 100+ they have assigned now.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
I'm sorry but I just see this as a land grab by civilians.

A $90 billion economic loss to the San Diego region by 2027 says otherwise. This issue has been beat to death for 30 years. The only other option is a nightmare at Lindbergh of poor road access, insufficient gates, high fares and delays.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 18):
If you want somebody to serve 20+ years, there has to be some sort of carrot. Low pay, long times away in the desert and oh ya when you are home, instead of living in beautiful San Diego, you now get to live in Yuma.

The average cost of a home in San Diego is over half a million, average condo over $300k, average rent is $1,200 a month. Ugly carrot.
 
CX747
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:44 am

Actually the prices sound like New Jeresy. The benefits would be it is warm all year round and I'm right by the beach. I don't see you living in the middle of Oklahoma by Tinker AFB?

Also, I'm aware that the Navy has F/A-18s at Lemoore, the question was about the Marine Corp F/A-18s that fly from carriers. 2 squadrons on the west coast and two squadrons on the east coast are attached to Navy Carrier Air Wings. If F-35s can't environmentally operate at Miramar (what kind of nonsense is that?) then why are they looking to at a possible split?

While you seem extremely educated on the subject, all of the news media says the exact opposite. I'm wondering where the middle "gray" area is.

I know this would be a reach, but if they can make Chek Lap Kok out of nothing, then why can't we level hills etc? Or maybe just maybe take civilian land for a civilian airport?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:55 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
Actually the prices sound like New Jeresy. The benefits would be it is warm all year round and I'm right by the beach. I don't see you living in the middle of Oklahoma by Tinker AFB?

They aren't proposing closing the base entirely - they are proposing joint use with a mix of compatible operations. There is no proposal to close or alter Pendleton (except for buildign a new airfield for the Marines above the flood plain), North Island, the Ship Yards, Point Loma, MCRD or any other base. All in San Diego. I've been to worse Air Force bases than Tinker. Minot why not and Malmstrom come to mind. Bases should be about strategic cost effective placement, not creature comforts. Be that what it may, there would still remain (even with Joint use) the highest concentration of military in the West within San Diego County.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
Also, I'm aware that the Navy has F/A-18s at Lemoore, the question was about the Marine Corp F/A-18s that fly from carriers.

There will be no Marine F/A-18's by 2023, right about the time a new airport would open there. None at all. All F-18's will be assigned to the Navy at Leemore.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
If F-35s can't environmentally operate at Miramar (what kind of nonsense is that?) then why are they looking to at a possible split?

Because 4 squadrons (40 aircraft) have less of an environmental impact than 8 squadrons (80 Aircraft). The 1 Reserve squadron (10 Aircraft) would have less of an environmental impact than 40 or 80 aircraft. Environmental impact is based on the totality of the operation, the aircraft pattern and types of aircraft. Yes, commerical aircraft create environmental issues as well, they are however substantially quieter and emissions are considerably less and more tightly regulated. The environmental measures that would be placed on a commerical airport would include minimal APU use and Electric/CNG vehicles. Natural Gas power generation to put power back on the grid, LED lighting where possible (Airfield and Terminal), displaced thresholds to reduce the noise footprint (especially at an airport that doesn't have to worry about snow and can put the entire approach light system in the runway reducing the footprint by 2400-2800' to each runway end), quiet climb standards and about a dozen other measures that would not be placed on the Military.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
While you seem extremely educated on the subject, all of the news media says the exact opposite. I'm wondering where the middle "gray" area is.

The news media doesn't even understand what happend with regard to the BRAC and the JSF training, much less any other future ops. They take Base Commander input as the gospel truth when public Federal Level documents say otherwise. The same thing happened in Austin, TX.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
While you seem extremely educated on the subject,

I went through this in the 1990's only to see the work thrown out the window by politics. This is deja vu for me. If it's not solved now, then the capacity will very apparent by the 2012 BRAC to the public. If people vote it down now, then the work done to justify the recommendation and the argument that the decision was the right one will be very apparent as the airport gets closer to reaching it's maximum capacity. The decision would simply be placed back on the ballot and dealt with at the next BRAC.

You have two things going that would likely prevent the recomendation from passing right now:

1. People don't see 20 years down the road, they see about 5-10 (San Diego is notorious for fixing a problem after the fact).
2. There's a war going on.

It's not a matter of if Miramar will become an airport, it's a matter of when. If it's now, it will cost half as much and keep a military presence at Miramar. If it happens later, it will cost twice as much and leave the Military out of Miramar all together with a full BRAC closure at some point. Miramar has the highest cost per member of any base in the nation. That's a very tough pill to swallow for a military that will face some very major budget decisions when we're done in Iraq. Decisions like more strike fighters or a beach?

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
I know this would be a reach, but if they can make Chek Lap Kok out of nothing, then why can't we level hills etc? Or maybe just maybe take civilian land for a civilian airport?

It's all been looked at. Every place where a hill can be leveled has a rabbit eating chickweed species that is protected. The remote Campo site is on top of a sole aquifier and the Desert site has airspace problems with the military operating areas (not to mention the hurdles of even getting there). Even SAN has an endangered species on the airport that prevents a second parallel taxiway on the South side of the airfield.

As for putting an airport in the Bay, San Diego's Bay isn't big enough, such a project would have to be done in the open ocean and a floating concept was looked at, but doesn't work because the platform undulates and rises with the tide. The result is an airfield that pitches and rolls and doesn't have a stable field elevation as well as access problems for passengers, fuel in particular and cargo. The only place to build direclty on the shore out into the ocean that would likely work is a military communications site that the military won't give up, even then, the water would be about 300' deep at the end of the runway. In addition, San Diego isn't in China it's in California.

Here's a link to all 32 site studies that have been looked at, they even did a full GIS surface survey of the entire county looking for potential options:

http://www.san.org/authority/assp/resources.asp

[Edited 2006-03-09 00:25:32]
 
CX747
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:30 am

Sorry, I'm still a little bit confused. I tried several searches on google, but all of the information was outdated. So, I have several questions that hopefully you can answer.

Are the Marine Corps F/A-18s currently based at Miramar moving? If they are being re-based, where are the current Harriers going? Also, by 2023 I don't think there will be any F/A-18As or Cs operating anywhere.

Where will the Marine Corp base their west coast F-35s?

Where are the new V-22s going to be based?

Where will the replacement CH-53Xs be based? This program is going forward so the Corp will have new -53s by say 2012.

Are Super Cobras or Hueys based at Miramar?

Thanks is advance.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:10 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 22):
Are the Marine Corps F/A-18s currently based at Miramar moving? If they are being re-based, where are the current Harriers going? Also, by 2023 I don't think there will be any F/A-18As or Cs operating anywhere.

The F-18's that are not used for training are to move to Yuma to replace the retiring AV-8's. The training birds will remain until the JSF is in operation begining in 2015-2016. The Yuma AV-8's are being retired this year as are 2 F-18 squadrons one perminantly due to TACAIR integration (Page 64 - Note, the Force goal has changed in Quantity - there are now 17 Active F-35's and 3 Reserve due to the joint tranining facility at Eglin and program cost) :

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/M...ocuments/AVPLAN%20April%202005.pdf

Quoting CX747 (Reply 22):
Where will the Marine Corp base their west coast F-35s?

They don't know. They haven't done the final environmental. Inital studies said no on Miramar which is why they have been buying land around Yuma to expand. They would like to place 4 squadrons of 10 at Miramar as a dual basing with Yuma. If not, they will all go to Yuma (Page 16 - Footnotes):

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/M...ocuments/AVPLAN%20April%202005.pdf

Quoting CX747 (Reply 22):
Where are the new V-22s going to be based?

Miramar, Pendleton or a split as with the JSF - they propose 4 squadrons at Miramar and 3 at Pendleton (Page 16 and 50):

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/M...ocuments/AVPLAN%20April%202005.pdf

Quoting CX747 (Reply 22):
Where will the replacement CH-53Xs be based? This program is going forward so the Corp will have new -53s by say 2012.

It's unknown, but their operations are compatible as are the C-130 Operations. Some are going to convert to MV-22 post 2013 (Page 54 above link). They may even be at North Island long term. The BRAC substantially changed North Island by splitting out the Depot (Page 21).

http://www.brac.gov/docs/final/Chap1JCSGIndustrial.pdf

Quoting CX747 (Reply 22):
Are Super Cobras or Hueys based at Miramar?

They are all at Pendleton (Page 56) MAG-39 PEN:

http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/AVN/M...ocuments/AVPLAN%20April%202005.pdf

What makes the understanding of what is where is that the Command is at Miramar. All of the aircraft are assigned to Miramar, but they aren't actually at Miramar. They are split between Miramar, Pendleton and Yuma. They move aircraft from facility to facility without actually changing the assigned base.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14337
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:16 am

There is alot of change going on with all the Service Branches in "Transformation", alot of it has to do with making forces and units easier to deploy.

The major emphasis is on the Pacific, Guam and Hawaii are turning into Super Bases for all the Major Branches.

Hawaii:

25th Division Army- Stryker Brigade, Multi Functional Aviation Brigade
Air Force - Hickam is currently receiving C-17s, and recently announced they are to receive F-22s.
Navy- More Ships and Subs, and eventually a Carrier.

Guam:

Marine Corps- 7,000 Marines are being withdrawn from Okinawa. Of that 1,000 Marines will move to Central Japan and 6,000 Marines will move to Guam.
Navy- 4 Los Angeles Class Attack Submarines are now homeported in Guam
Air Force- B-52s and B-1 Bombers are foward deployed to Guam from Bases in the Mainland US on a permanent basis, also facilties to accomodate B-2 Bombers and F-22s have been built.

My thinking is that the Marines should create a Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Kaneohe Bay Hawaii by moving their MV-22s, CH-53s, C-130s from Miramar to Kaneohe Bay, to make room for additional Marines at Kaneohe Bay the Navy should reestablish NAS Barbers Point.

The Navy should move their Patrol squadrons from Kaneohe Bay back to NAS Barbers Point, also to support a Carrier which is likely to be homeported at Pearl Harbor sometime in the Future a "couple" of squadrons from a West Coast based Carrier Air Wing should move to Barbers Point.

To summarize, Navy/Marines close Miramar and turn it over to San Diego for a new airport. Kaneohe Bay receives additional aircraft and manpower from Miramar and Navy re opens Barbers Point.

It moves Navy and Marine assets closer to Pacific Thearters, while Miramar would close Barbers Point would re open.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:27 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 24):
The Navy should move their Patrol squadrons from Kaneohe Bay back to NAS Barbers Point, also to support a Carrier which is likely to be homeported at Pearl Harbor sometime in the Future a "couple" of squadrons from a West Coast based Carrier Air Wing should move to Barbers Point.

Interesting twist....

Question. Did they go with 11 or 12 carriers? That would change the West as well as far as where aircraft go.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14337
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:47 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 25):
Question. Did they go with 11 or 12 carriers? That would change the West as well as far as where aircraft go.

I hope they keep twelve Carriers but apparently they are going to go to 11, although Congress has mandated the Navy must have 12 active Carriers. Well hear more about this in the coming months.

What ever the outcome whether it's 11 or 12 active Carriers they are going to have 6 Carriers based in the Pacific.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
bennett123
Posts: 10759
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:43 am

Why not upgrade Lindbergh?.
 
Lostintime
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:07 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:21 am

With all these ideas that keep coming up for the airport why has the floating airport idea been put away. Looking back at some old (2005) articles talking about the possibility it would cost in the neighborhood of 10 billion dollars (realistically probuably closer to 20 billion). However with the thought of an airport with the maglev train to reach it the price is being stated in the same general area 15 to 20 billion dollars, has the commision given any thought to reopening the floating airport idea? I know on the SDCRAA website it talks about the ideas why a floating airport wouldn't be good but it seems as if they have are holding onto a hope and prayer and not looking at all possibilities.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:06 am

I guess LAX and SAN are going to end up with the same plan: send them to ONT.
 
PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:11 am

Quote:
Why not upgrade Lindbergh?

 rotfl 

Have you SEEN Lindbergh? Barely 550 acres just north of downtown, it is the essence of convenience but the model of impracticality.

There is NO way to expand without displacing thousands and costing as much money as a floating airport or desert site with MAGLEV train.

It will be maxed out by 2015, and citizens' love for it has kept it where it is. Replacement sites are virtually non-existent.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
CX747
Posts: 6596
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:02 am

There is no way to expand Lindenbergh without displacing thousands? Exactly how many military men and women will be dispaced if Miramar or North Island is turned over for civilian use? I understand the civilian side of the argument but the bases were there first, do have a use and in all reality they are not going to close. The civilian population has plenty of land, what they don't want to do is use that land. Rabbits and chickweeds etc are more important to them. Thats fine, thats their perogative. What they are saying though is, we don't have any land that we want to disturb but you have plenty of land that we want to use. Pound rocks folks. If I want a pool in my backyard, but don't want to chop down the beautiful trees, I don't ask my neighbor and the town if I can use my neighbors backyard.

Also, a few post ago, it was mentioned that the Marine Corps F/A-18s are going to move to Yuma. When is this move going to take place? Supposedly it was going to take place when the Harriers are retired but that is not for many years.

In regards to the F-35, it seems that where it is going to be based is still up in the air. They haven't even decided if Eglin AFB is going to be the joint training base. It seems that Cannon AFB is now making a play to host all of the services and their intial F-35 training squadrons. When the Navy was about to take delivery of the F/A-18E and F they looked at where they were going to base them. One proposal was splitting the squadrons on the east coast between Oceana and Beaufort. While that idea was floated around, the basing ended up being the same way that the Tomcats were based.

While it does seem that Miramar's size is going to decrease slightly, it still seems that it is going to be a vibrant base. 4 squadrons of F-35s, several squadrons of CV-22s, several squadrons of CH-53Es then CH-53Xs along with the resident C-130. These squadrons can't have nearly the same "environmental" impact that 20+ fire breathing squadrons of F-14 Tomcats and F-4 Phantoms had.

I can understand the frustration that people living in San Diego must feel. Being boxed in by several military facilities and having jets overhead all day. That being said, taking land from the military to make your lives easier etc is unacceptable in my opinion. What you need to do is find a way to use the current land you have work better.

The economic viability of a base changes just like the potential economic viability of a civilian house. Would you want the town taking your house because you are not as economically viable as another possible family?

Here is my example.

In 1977 my Fighter Wing (Family) consisted of 2 squadrons. Squadron 1 (Dad) and Squadron 2 (Mom) were home based at W Air Force Base for three years. In 1980 Squadron 3 was introduced (Me) and I was orignally home based at W Air Force Base also. In 1983 Squadron 4 (Brother) was introduced and the Figther Wing was moved from W Air Force Base (Old House) to P Air Force Base (New House). From 1983 to 2002 P Air Force Base had 4 fully function Squadrons. It meant alot to the community and spended $$$ and time there. In 2002 Squadron 4 had a detachment at S Air Force Base (College) and Squadron 3 deployed to the other side of the country to F Air Force Base (Flight School). At that point in time P Air Force Base was now reduced to just Squadron 1 and 2. Its economic output decreased along with its needs. It seemed that its impact upon the community etc had decreased and would only decrease further. 3-4 months later though Squadron 3 was back at P after completing its schooling at F Air Force Base. So, the economic viability was increased one again.

Okay, if you followed that this long here is the point. Bases and their tenants change from year to year decade to decade. Just because it seems that Miramar is going to decrease in size doesn't mean it actually will. What if the Joint Base training idea of the F-35 falls through? It is the current Sec Of Def's idea. He won't even be around when F-35 starts operations. Whose to say the next Sec doesn't undo everything and walla Miramar has F-35 training?What if more CV-22s are purchased than originally thought and Miramar is their home base? What if the Air Force bases 2 squadrons of F-35Bs at Miramar to be closer to the ground troops and the CAS mission?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: San Diego To Keep Military Sites In Study!

Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:17 am

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 27):
Why not upgrade Lindbergh?.

Single runway with no room for a second that can support 58 gates. There are already 45. The demand is for a a gate a year. There will be 55 in 2009-2010 meaning game over in 2013. Even if one assumed airlines could meet demand with larger aircraft you're talking about 10,000' of gate space (which doesn't exist) for it and 15 million boardings a year on a roadway that is already congested with close to 9 million boardings a year. Also, unlike Gatwick, Lindbergh has a curfew which isn't going to change.

Quoting Lostintime (Reply 28):
With all these ideas that keep coming up for the airport why has the floating airport idea been put away. Looking back at some old (2005) articles talking about the possibility it would cost in the neighborhood of 10 billion dollars (realistically probuably closer to 20 billion). However with the thought of an airport with the maglev train to reach it the price is being stated in the same general area 15 to 20 billion dollars, has the commision given any thought to reopening the floating airport idea? I know on the SDCRAA website it talks about the ideas why a floating airport wouldn't be good but it seems as if they have are holding onto a hope and prayer and not looking at all possibilities.

That assumes the remote sites. A facility at Miramar would be around $7 billion. One reason the floater/sinker whichever way you look at it was the roughly $18 billion price tag (the quote was from the person suggesting the idea - the same company proposed a floating platform to add to SFO in the bay which was between $1.5 and $9 billion for a single runway - call it fuzzy math) and the enormous technical hurdles. Floating something in a bay is one thing, floating it in the Pacific Ocean is another. The only thing that would make the remote sites feasible is if another agency took on the high speed transportation. The airport itself is around the $7 billion mark, which is about right.

SFO Floating Runway - notice the inadequite safety areas starting on page 6 which are "open" to allow aircraft to fall through....That's called a design flaw folks adding millions if not billions to the price tag not to mention assumptions about weight and the associated affects on structure - For SAN it would be a solid platform about 6,000 wide and 15,000' long - Call the environmentalists a monolith just landed:

http://www.floatinc.com/SFIAProposal.pdf

Quoting CX747 (Reply 31):
There is no way to expand Lindenbergh without displacing thousands?

Not without displacing about 20,000 and noise impacting another 30,000.

Look at this map:

http://www.san.org/documents/assp/Concept_SDIA.pdf

Quoting CX747 (Reply 31):
In regards to the F-35, it seems that where it is going to be based is still up in the air. They haven't even decided if Eglin AFB is going to be the joint training base.

Eglin - Cannon. It's not Miramar for the training and Yuma is even closer to Cannon if one considers minimizing distance between major maintenance depots and shared training areas.

It should also be noted Arizona is pushing for the F-35's (Marine and Air Force) and John McCain not only serves on the Senate Armed Forces Committee but the Senate Transportation Committee as well. Ironically, he could be key to the end decision on this because of his desire to benefit Arizona locally and Air Transportation on a national level. While a local issue to build an airport, the affects of it's construction on a national level are substantial given Southern Californias capacity problems.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 31):
While it does seem that Miramar's size is going to decrease slightly, it still seems that it is going to be a vibrant base. 4 squadrons of F-35s, several squadrons of CV-22s,

Assuming they are permitted environmentally to get them. Even without training - which is going to be removed from Miramar in the airport build out time frame - Miramar will drop from 110,000 operations a year to about 30,000 - 80 operations a day - SAN does that in two hours. That is rather significant. We're talking about a base in California in the center of the 7th largest city in the nation with neighbors who if not for a war would be pitchign a fit, not the middle of New Mexico.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 31):
I can understand the frustration that people living in San Diego must feel. Being boxed in by several military facilities and having jets overhead all day. That being said, taking land from the military to make your lives easier etc is unacceptable in my opinion. What you need to do is find a way to use the current land you have work better.

What your missing is the History on this and how retired military politicians (one now in jail for bribes) undermined a public vote and a base closure in the 1990's. Were it not for said criminal, Miramar would be close to opening as a commercial airport today.

He even tried to undermine it this time:

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg28558.html

"The San Diego International Airport is a public airport that receives federal
dollars through the FAA. As an appropriator, Congressman Cunningham is a
steward of taxpayer dollars and takes that responsibility very seriously."

Sure he does:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/index.html

[Edited 2006-03-10 03:48:44]

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos