Locating Air Force Base Sites

In the year 2003, the Department of Defense began preparing for yet another Base Realignment and Closure Commission Review intended to eliminate unnecessary infrastructure. Since 1988, four Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) reviews have been instrumental in the closing 30 of 102 major Air Force installations. Focused on rising deficits and growing national debt, the presidential administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and William J. Clinton (1993-2001) have publicized these actions as a means of eliminating expensive and unnecessary overhead. From the military perspective, the reviews have permitted the Air Force and its sister services to adjust and relocate their assigned forces and activities to deal with the ending of the Cold War and its turbulent aftermath. The relocation of USAF units and functions is by no means a recent phenomenon. It has taken place continuously since the birth of United States air power with attendant consequences for individual citizens and their communities. To many Americans the most visible and personally significant reminder of their nation s air power is an Air Force base located within or near their community. Whether an operational air base with an active flight line, a logistics depot, a research complex, or a facility with a combined function, these installations employ thousands of military and civilian personnel and pump millions of dollars into the local economy through payrolls and the purchases of goods and services. To some civilians the air base provides a secure economic livelihood; to others it represents a competitor for economic resources, a source of noise and chemical pollution, and a potential safety hazard. Such opposite perceptions may influence a military basing decision, but not decisively. To the professional airman's mind, the major value of an installation must be its contribution to the effective application of air power.

This volume, a preliminary, groundbreaking effort planned and produced within a prescribed period of time, is intended as a reference work offering historical perspective on current basing issues. It examines four critical periods in the history of USAF basing. During the first period, from 1907 through August 1947, expansion of the Army's air force in response to two major wars established a foundation for the current basing network. The second period, September 1947 through 1960, saw a rapid expansion to support the rise of the United States Air Force as the major instrument of strategic deterrence. Radical retrenchment, followed by politically enforced stability, characterized the third period, 1961 to 1987. From1961 through the mid-1970s, base infrastructure contracted steadily in response to changes in military threat, budgetary pressures, and the retirement of obsolete aircraft.From 1977 through 1987, strict interpretations of the National Environmental Policy Act effectively paralyzed basing actions, despite a moderate expansion of the force after 1980. During the fourth period, 1988–2003, the ending of theCold War resulted in a substantial drawdown of force structure. The reality of sharply reduced forces, in combination with budgetary pressures, created a political consensus that permitted base closures and realignments to resume. Through1987, the decision to open or close bases was, at least formally, strictly an executive branch prerogative. Beginning in 1988, the establishment of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission initiated the formal participation of Congress in basing decisions.The decision to open or close bases during the first three periods — 1907 through August 1947, September 1947 through 1960, and 1961 to 1988— was, at least formally, strictly an executive branch prerogative. During the fourth period,1988–2003, the establishment of the Base Realignment and Closure process initiated formal participation by Congress in basing decisions. In 2003, the Department of Defense began preparing for yet another Base Realignment and Closure Commission Review intended to eliminate unnecessary infrastructure. This study offers the public a historical perspective on BRAC-directed actions by documenting and explaining rationales that have informed the decisions to locate the major operational units and activities within the continental United States, excluding Alaska,during these periods.

Except in a few instances, since World War II no American soldier or sailor has been attacked by enemy air power. Conversely, no enemy soldier orsailor has acted in combat without being attacked or at least threatened by American air power. Aviators have brought the air weapon to bear against enemies while denying them the same prerogative. This is the legacy of the U.S. AirForce, purchased at great cost in both human and material resources.More often than not, aerial pioneers had to fight technological ignorance, bureaucratic opposition, public apathy, and disagreement over purpose.Every step in the evolution of air power led into new and untrodden territory, driven by humanitarian impulses; by the search for higher, faster, and farther flight; or by the conviction that the air way was the best way. Warriors have always coveted the high ground. If technology permitted them to reach it, men, women andan air force held and exploited it-from Thomas Selfridge, first among so many who gave that "last full measure of devotion"; to Women's Airforce Service Pilot Ann Baumgartner, who broke social barriers to become the first Americanwoman to pilot a jet; to Benjamin Davis, who broke racial barriers to become the first African American to command a flying group; to Chuck Yeager, a one-time non-commissioned flight officer who was the first to exceed the speed of sound; to John Levitow, who earned the Medal of Honor by throwing himself over a live flare to save his gunship crew; to John Warden, who began a revolution in air power thought and strategy that was put to spectacular use in the Gulf War.Industrialization has brought total war and air power has brought the means to overfly an enemy's defenses and attack its sources of power directly. Americans have perceived air power from the start as a more efficient means of waging war and as a symbol of the nation's commitment to technology to master challenges, minimize casualties, and defeat adversaries.