Laughlin AFB, TX

Installation Details Page 1 of

Topics

Service Info Announcements Active Duty Reserve National Guard Veterans Retirees Service Links Community Associations

I Find Old Buddies Reunions Reference Installations Equi~ment Forms Guides Multimedia Historical

I Marketplace

Combat Fliaht Simulator 2:

Pacific Theater

Take to the hostile skies of World War I1 with Microsoft's realistic computer

game.

I Game Center

Laughlin AFB, TX Del Rio, TX

Major Units Base Operator: 47th Flying Training Wing DSN: 732-1110 (210) 298-3511

First, choose a category:

Installation Data dd & .A

@

Second, choose a topic:

; (P Overview "u

Laughlin Location Del Rio, Texas 150 miles west of San Antonio and 6 miles from Old Mexico

Major Command: Air Education and Training Command (AETC)

Primary Weapon Systems: T-37, T-38, TlA

Mission: The primary mission is to conduct undergraduate pilot training for the USAF as directed by HQ AETC, to conduct T- 37m-38 pilot training for designated foreign nations as directed by HQ AETC and to provide normal base support for satisfactory maintenance and operation of assigned and attached units, organizations, and detachment.

TELEPHONE: DSN 732-35 11 OR (830)298-35 1 1

Laughlin Army Air Field was named after Lieutenant Jack T. Laughlin, the first Del Rio Army Air Forces casualty of World War 11. His B- 17 was shot down over Java. Laughlin's training mission began in July 1942 under the Army Air corps. The mission of the base at that time was to transition pilots into the Martin B-26 "Marauder". In 1945, the base closed and the land was leased to sheep and goat raisers in the area. In 1962, Undergraduate Pilot Training was implemented at Laughlin and

DCN:11685

Installation Details Page 2 of

has remained its mission ever since. Laughlin used the T-37 in the primary phase of training and the T-33 in the advanced phase. In 1964, the T-38 replaced the T-33. In 1965, the T-41 "Mescalero", a single engine plane, was used in the first phase of student training to identify students in need of additional help and identify likely eliminees before sending them to UPT. Civilian instructors conducted the training at Del Rio International Airport. This training now takes place at Hondo, Texas near San Antonio. A new eara began at Laughlin in 1993 as the 47th Flying Training Wing implemented specialized undergraduate pilot traint (SUPT) and brought on board the TlA Jayhawk, the first new aircraft to be used at AETC's flying training wings in over 25 years. Lauglin's mission has remained the same since 1962-training top quality military pilots.

Laughlin AFB: Installation Installation Overview

INsme : 47 MSSIDPF POC : Relocation Assistance 1 Manager

l~ddress : 427 Liberty Drive I

l ~ a r n e : General Deliverv I

City : Laughlin AFB

Phone : 830 298-5222 IDSN 732- 5222

l~ddress : 477 4th Street Suite 1 I

State : TX IziP : 78843

Fax : 830 298-41 77 I DSN 732-41 77

!city : Laughlin AFB l ~ t a t e : TX I Z ~ D : 78843-5144 1

I Comment : Commercial: Base Operator (830) 298- 3511 DSN: 732-1110

Name : Laughlin AFB, Texas

City : Phone : (830) 298-351 1

Militarv Network ( About Us I Newsletters Advertisinq In& I Affiliate Proqram ( H e l ~ and Feedback

~ r .&ac~ Policy I User Aqreernent 1 02005 Military Advantage : ' I< b x ! % .*i * p i th :r,F..l~r~&~te~ C U I ~ ~ L I , Z T : I . .

POC : Base operator

State : TX 1 zip : Fax :

DCN:11685

SITE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - Air Force Base Structure Report - As Of 30 Sept 03

NAME BLDGS BLDGS NEAREST ZIP BLDGS OWNED BLDGS LEASED TOTAL ACRES

COMPONENT CITY PHONE CODE OWNED SQFT LEASED SQFT ACRES OWNED PRV($M) MIL CIV OTHER TOTAL

South Dakota Dakota Ridge Family Hsg Annex Ellsworth AFB 30e Foss Field ANG .

OTHER SITE(S) : 107

AF A d i e Rapid City 57701 AF Active Box Elder 605-385-5056 57706

Air Natl Guard Sioux Falls . 605-988-5700 57104

South Dakota Total:

Tennessee Amold Air Station McGhee Tyson Airpo13 Memphis IAP Nashville IAP

OTHER SITE(S) : 2

Texas - Air Force Plant No 4 Brooks Ci Base Camp Bullis Training Annex Dyess AFB Ellington Field Goodfellow 801 Leased Hsg Annex Goodfellow AFB Hondo Municipal Airport Kelly Field Annex Lackland AFB Lackland Training Annex Laughlin AFB Laughlin AFB Aux 1 Randolph AFB Seguin AF Auxiliary Field Sheppard AFB

OTHER s m ( s ) : 45

Utah - Hill AFB L i e Mountain Test Annex Salt Lake Ci IAP ANG

AF Active Manchester Air Natl Guard Alcoa Air Natl Guard Oakville Air Natl Guard Nashville

Tennessee Total:

AF Active Fort Worth AF A t i i e San Antonio 210-536-1 110 78235 AF Active San Antonio AF Active Abilene 9 15-696-2864 79607

Air Natl Guard Genoa 281-929-21 10 77034 AF Active AF Active AF Active AF A d i e AF A t i i e AF A t i i e AF A d i e AF A t i i e AF At i ie AF Active AF Active

AF Adive AF A t i i e

San Angelo San Angelo San Antonio San Antonio San Antonio San Antonio Del Rio Spofford Universal Ci Seguin Wichita Falls

Clearfield Ogden

Texas Total:

Air Natl Guard Salt Lake City 801695-2200 841 16

US Locations that do not meet criteria of at least ten (10) Awes AND at least $1OM PRV. US Territories and Non-US Locations that do not meet criteria of at least ten (10) Acres OR at least $lOM PRV.

AIR FORCE - 13

DCN:11685

47th FLYING TRAINING WING

...- LAUGHLIN AFB, TEXAS 4!&@E%3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Ms. Tanya Cruz BRAC Commission

16-17 June 2004 ///FINAL///

PURPOSE OF VISIT: Orientation Visit to the 47 FTW

14 Jun 05 / 1530

I

Thursday, 16 June 2005 . i

2238 Arrive Del Rio International Airport, via Continental Flight 9853 Met by: Maj Ralph Korthauer, 47 FTWISEF

2300 Depart Del Rio International Airport for LaQuinta Inn, Del Rio, Texas, via rental car Escorted by: Maj Ralph Korthauer

2315 Arrive LaQuinta Inn, at leisure

Frkky, 17 June 2005

0830 Depart LaQuinta Inn for Laughlin AFB, via rental car

Note: Maj Korthauer will meet Ms. Cruz in the lobby of the LaQuinta Inn and escort her to Laughlin AFB.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

DCN:11685

Arrive Wing Headquarters, proceed to conference room for briefings Met by: Col Teresa Daniell, 47 MSGICC

47th Flying Training Wing Mission Brief, briefed by Col Teresa Daniell IFF Briefing, briefed by Lt Col Scott McCreedy, 87 FTSIADO

Attendees: Ms. Tanya Cruz Col Teresa Daniel Mr. Bob Wood, 47 FTWIMX Lt Col Martin Gearhart, 47 OGICD Lt Col Marc Pincince, 47 MSGICD Lt Col Susan Baker, 47 MDSSICC Lt Col Scott McCreedy Maj Ralph Korthauer

SEATING:

1 Screen I

47 FTW Conference Room Bldg 338

n Room Layout V

Ms. C m

Entrance -

1030 Depart Wing Headquarters for windshield tour Driven by: Col Teresa Daniell Attendees: Ms. Tanya Cruz

Lt Col Marc Pincince


DCN:11685

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

47 FTWICC SEDAN 1 - Col Daniel1 2 - Ms. Cruz 3 - Lt Col Pincince 4 - Vacant

Arrive Wing Headquarters, prepare for departure

Depart Laughlin AFB via rental car


DCN:11685

LAUGHLIN TELEPHONE NUMBERS:

Laughlin Command Post:

Laughlin Base Ops:

Laughlin Vehicle Trans:

47 m ~ c c :

Protocol:

Maj Ralph Korthauer:

DSN: 732-5 167 Comm: (830) 298-5 167

DSN: 732-5308 Comm: (830) 298-5308

DSN: 732-5 120 Comm: (830) 298-5 120

DSN: 732-4700 Comm: (830) 298-4700

DSN: 732-4709 C o r n : (830) 298-4709 Cell Phone: 765-4025

DSN: 732-540515662 C o r n : (830) 298-540415662


DCN:11685

Education & Training Joint Cross-Service Group

the single most weighted factor in nominating a base for initial UAV training. DoD Installations conducting UAV training are: m

Choctaw OLF, FL Fort Huachuca, AZ Indian Springs AFB, NV

4. Capacity Analysis Methodology.

FT Subgroup capacity analysis measured runway, airspace, ramp space and ground- training facilities that support fixed and rotary wing flight training operations. It is based on existing/approved curriculum requirements, existing infrastructure, and FY 2004 obligated military construction funding. Metrics and analysis calculations were based on aircraft currently assigned to a particular base.

The two primary resources the E&T JCSG FT Subgroup measured are: 1) runway@) and, 2) airspace capacity. FT Subgroup used the methodology described in FAA Advisory Circular 150.5060-5, "Airport Capacity and Delay Manual" as their basis to calculate runway capacity for fixed-wing aircraft. This methodology defines the number of runway operations users could conduct during daylight hours over the course of a year. The approach accounts for weather conditions, the number and configuration of runways (main and outlying fields), the mix of aircraft, and the percentage of touch-and-go operations at home station and auxiliary fields. FT Subgroup calculated airspace requirements based on training events in each flying training syllabus to determine, as a hnction of student throughput, the number and size of dedicated blocks of airspace required for each type of training event (e.g., contact, formation flying, etc.). This approach summed dedicated airspace required to perform all flying events and compared this area (sq. nm as "shadow on the ground") with the available Special Use Airspace controlled/scheduled by the installation. Due to the fact a single block of airspace may support many types of training events during a single day, there is no viable way to calculate a fixed Maximum Potential Capacity for airspace. Instead FT determined Maxi~nuin Capacity using a time component (1 1 - hour window for each of the 244 student training days each year) and airspace requirement relationship for syllabus-driven and overhead training events. An increase in the number of flight hours (over 11 hours per day) or number of days dedicated to flight training (over 244 days per academic year) would decrease the number of blocks of airspace, and subsequently the amount of airspace required for a specific syllabus objective when measured for a set number of students. Given the notion that the combination of training events a given block of airspace could accommodate is infinite, the group was unable to distinguish an upper limiting factor to detennine Maximum Potential Capacity. Prudent scheduling may well result in more training without a commensurate increase in special use airspace. That said, it is important to note the amount of airspace and its location relative to the main operating base are important considerations because safety demands most flying events take place during daylight hours. This combination of factors may limit the ability to

DCN:11685


Excess Capacitv is an installations current capacity minus current usage plus surge capacity. For example, current capacity (standardized/peacetime operations) minus current usage (certified Data Call #1 responses) may be greater than Current Capacity minus Surge Capacity (20% of current usage).

6. Capacity Analysis Results. The capacity analysis for E&T JCSG FT Subgroup yielded the following results:

a. Undergraduate Flight Training General: FT Subgroup worked with Service BRAC offices to collect certified data for Capacity Analysis. Tables in this Report are as follows: 1) Runway Capacity Analysis Table includes annual runway operations (current usage) and 20% surge based on FY03 data, 2) Airspace Capacity Analysis Table includes syllabus requirements per sortie, annual pilot training throughput requirements and the total square miles of ownedkcheduled airspace, 3) Ramp (Apron) Analysis Table includes the total square yards of reported ramp space divided by the footprint of the aircraft (typeimodellserie s) times the number of aircraft assigned, and 4) Ground Training Facility Analysis Table includes the total number of available seats for student throughput requirements for each syllabus.

DCN:11685

Education & Training Joint Cross-Service Group DCN:11685

ATlS * 1 14.4 269.9

LAUGHLIN TOWER * J EPORT DIAGRAM LAUGHLIN AFB (KDLF)

AFD- I 1 1 [USAF] DEL RIO, TEXAS

J 125.2 392.0 TANKS \ GND CON

8 L 8

2

\

w

JUNE 2004 1 ANNUAL RATE OF CH

0 . l 0 W

138.75 275. CLNC DE

120.5 335.

ANGE

< ELEV 9 1078 00 h(

RWY 13L-31R ELEV PCN 30 R/C/W/T

,I 063 RWY 13C-31C

IAK- 15 PCN 30 F/B/W/T o RWY 13R-31L

4 '4 .- PCN 14 F/A/W/T ' X

,

RPORT DIAGRAM DEL RIO, TEXAS LAUGHLIN AFB (KDLF)

DCN:11685

Page 1 of 2

Subject: Bases with Largest Job Gains

Frank, You were asking me this morning about what bases with job gains may deserve visits by the Commissioners. My take on this: the Defense Sec. did provide the answer for us in today's report. Please see the attached Excel file for bases that make to the list. The cutoff is 1.5 percent of job gains as a percent share of total employment in the area. I'll be here Monday to answer you. Have a great weekend! Duke

Bases With the Largest Job Gains Job Gains As a Percent of Region's Total Employment

[Based on BRAC 2005 Report by DoD (vol.l), May 20051

t Walton Beach, FL

val Station Bremerton

Referenced page

DCN:11685

I Laughlin Air Force Base, TX DCN:11685

Questions:

Lauehlin AFB, TX Commission Staff Base Visit

1. Please describe the overall mission of Laughlin AFB.

2. How does the Secretary of Defense's recommendation impact Laughlin AFB and its mission?

3. Please describe any unique feature@) of Laughlin AFB that would contribute to its military value that may or may not have been taken into account.

4. Does your installation have sufficient capacity to handle the incoming personnel?

a. Which facilities on base have a shortage or are overcapacity? If available, could you please provide how much the shortage or overcapacity of these facilities is?

b. If the Secretary of Defense's recommendation is approved, which facilities will then have a shortage of or excess capacity?

5. Are you aware of any issues with the community's ability to accommodate this increase (e.g. housing market, schools, health care, etc.)?

6. If the recommendation were approved, are there any implementation costs or savings that may not have been taken into account?

a. For example, will there be any necessary construction or rehabilitation requirements at Laughlin AFB as a result of the Secretary of Defense's rec.ornmendation?

b. Will there be any environmental costs not taken into account?

DCN:11685

Education & Training Joint Cross-Service G1-0up

Section 1: Introduction

The Flight Training (FT) Military Value Analysis captured and compared data that revealed DoD installations' suitability to host Undergraduate or Graduate-level Flight Training sub-functions, e.g., Undergraduate Fixed-wing Pilot Training, Undergraduate Rotary-wing Pilot Training, Undergraduate NavigatorAVaval Flight OfficedCombat Systems Officer Training, Graduate-level Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Initial Joint Training, and Initial Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training. FT survey questions targeted DoD's 12 primary flight-training installations and all DoD-owned bases that could reasonably accept the JSF or UAV training missions. To create a meaningful measure of merit and final ranking, FT developed survey questions that captured specific information for each installation as it related to six global attributes relevant to each of the following sub-functions: Airfield Capacity, Weather, Environment, Quality of Life, Managed Training Areas and Ground Training Facilities. The final ranking provided a list of installations ranked most-to-least dear as they relate to the specific sub-function examined. The FT military value analysis followed the E&T JCSG methodology and Military Value Scoring Plans approved by the ISG.

\li( fleetion 2: Militarv Value Score

The following charts provide the numerical score by sub-function and location within the purview of the E&T JCSG Flight Training Subgroup:

- - -

Education and Training JCSG Flight Training Suberou~

f

,

t

62.69 17.85

62.28 16.09 8.00 8.02 5.73 16.93 7.5 1

1

Undergraduate Fixed- wing Pilot

Installation

NAS Pensacola, FL r

Laughlin AFB, TX yance AFB, OK NAS Meridian, MS b

Mi'Va' Score

68-40

65.37 63.23

62-94

Airfield

17-29

19.23 18.79

18-69

Weather

10.63

8.83 6.67

8.44

Environ- ment

8.94

9.08 10.07

7.96

QoL

7.26

5.39 5.13

5.12

Managed Training

13.98

12.61 12.22

14.71

GT Facilities,

10.29

10.23

10.34

8.0 1

DCN:11685


Undergraduate Fired-wing Pilot (continued)

Education and Training JCSG 4

Columbus AFB, MS

Sheppard AFB, TX

Randolph AFB, TX

Moody AFB, GA

Flight Training Subgroup

I I I I I I I I

Weather

10.23

Environ- ment

9.0 1

60.22

59.73

57.60

56.24

I Education and Training JCSG I

Airfield

17.10

Installation

NAS Corpus Christi, TX

Undergraduate Rotar y-wing Pilot


QoL

5.10

Score

60.38

17.98

18.5 1

17.82

18.88

I

E I

L * 1 - P t

T\ d

v; - Ki

Nk

Sh;

*Yl

Col l

*Ra.

Beat

*She

Managed Training

13.40

7.28

8.47

6.77

6.25

Environ- ment

7.81

6.72

Weather

11.49

9.84

Installation

Fort Rucker, AL

NAS Whiting Field, FL

GT Facilitie:

5.53

I

Undergraduate Navi'ator/naval Flight Officer/Combat Systems Officer

9.00

8.03

7.00

9.72

QoL

5.21

5.53

Score

81.37

67.50

Airfield

23.59

16.92

3.95

5.15

4.94

2.9 1

Managed Training

22.87

20.39

Weather

9.15

6.85

7.26

5.36

8.79

9.24

Environ- ment

10.36

9.47

10.16

11.13

9.62

10.09

Installation

NAS Pensacola, FL

Sheppard AFB, TX

Laughlin AFB, TX

Vance AFB, OK

NAS Kingsville, TX

NAS Corpus Christi, TX

GT Facilities

10.40 1

8.10 -

10.78

9.24

10.70

9.49

QoL

7.26

5.15

5.39

5.13

4.22

5.10

Score

73.07

70.92

70.04

68.00

65.10

64.90

1 1.23

10.33

10.38

8.99

Airfield

14.37

15.6 1

16.2 1

14.81

14.62

13.75

Managed Training

18.03

18.46

15.55

16.09

15.77

19.28

GT Facilities

13.90

15.38

15.47

15.47

12.08

7.44

DCN:11685


stems Offier (continued) I I

Columbus AFB, MS 63.90 0 Moody AFB, GA 5.32

I Education and Training JCSG I Flight Training Subgroup

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Graduate-level Initial Joint Training Site

Installation MilVal Score

r

Airfield Weather Environ- ment Trainin Facilities t

ance AFB. TX 64.24

khaw AFB. SC 1 63.98

I Columbus AFB, MS I 62.84

Beaufort. SC 59.43 - I * ~ h e ~ o a r d AFB. TX 1 58.38

i i ~ o o d v AFB. GA 1 57.10

5, *Note: Four installations added for analysis at the request of the Services.

DCN:11685


I

Section 3: Results of Analysis

- Education and Training JCSG


Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Initial Joint Training Site I

The FT Subgroup was able to compile a useful measure of merit regarding Military Value of training installations. Overall, NAS Pensacola received the highest score for Undergraduate Fixed Wing Pilot Training and Fort Rucker received the highest score for Undergraduate Rotary Wing Training. Although only 2 installations currently conduct Undergraduate Navigator / Naval Flight Officer 1 Combat Systems Officer training, all 11 undergraduate flight training bases were included in the scoring for comparative analysis. Laughlin AFB received the highest score for this function. Since there are no installations that host JSF training, the Flight Training subgroup evaluated 965 airfields within CONUS against criteria developed by the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office for the Initial Training Site. Of the 3 1 bases that met the initial criteria, 20 were eliminated using military judgment. The Services subsequently requested 4 of the eliminated bases (based on military judgment) be reconsidered and included in the list of 11 remaining bases. Eglin AFB received the highest military value score for the list of 15 bases "best" suited for hosting the Initial Joint Training Site for the JSF. For UAV training, the Army requested that FT Rucker be included in military value scoring along with the 3 sites that currently train UAV operators. FT Rucker received the highest score of the 4 sites.

Installation

FT Rucker, AL Choctaw NOLF, FL FT Huachuca, AZ

Indian Springs, NV

Weather

13.1 1

1 3.46 10.22 13.59

Score

78.39 73.66 58.25 57.06

Environ- ment

11.20

10.86 10.21 10.74

Airfield

16.53 7.76 10.69 10.37

QoL

5.39 7.26 2.54

0

Managed Training

19.85 22.67 18.64 16.52

GT Facilities

12.30 1 1.65 5.94 5.85

DCN:11685


RANGES AND COLLECTIVE TRAINING SUBGROUP MILITARY VALUE ANALYSIS

Section 1: Introduction

The scope of military value analysis for the Ranges and Collective Training subgroup includes all DoD Active Component and Reserve installations and processes that support collective training capabilities to include Service unit, and interoperability (cross-service) and joint training functions, and test and evaluation (T&E) functions. This assessment includes training, test and evaluation (T&E) ranges, and training simulations centers. For purposes of MILVAL analysis of capability, Army and Air National Guard ranges are included in this analysis. As training and T&E are distinctly different functions, separate training and T&E military values were determined for each function. The Range and Collective Training military value analysis followed the E&T JCSG methodology and Military Value Scoring Plans approved by the ISG.

Section 2: Militarv Value Score

A numerical score by function and location is provided for each approved sub- function within the Range and Collective Training Subgroup purview:

Education and Training JCSG Range and Collective Training Subgroup

Train in P Installation/Location Eglin AFB, FL Fort Wainwright, AK Facsfac San Diego, Ca White Sands Missile Range, NM Fort Bliss, TX Yuma Proving Ground, AZ Comnavmarianas, GU Pacmisranfac Hawarea Barking Sands, HI Navairwarcenwpndiv Pt Mugu, CA Facsfac Vacapes Oceana, VA CG MCB Campen, NC

Numerical Military Value Score 63.60 62.63 61.81 59.72 56.55 52.40 50.18 49.1 8 48.85 48.59 46.73

DCN:11685

Education & Training Joint cross-Service Group

I Range and Collective Training Subgroup I Training (Con tin ued) InstallationILocation I Numerical Military Value Score

I Dugway Proving Ground, UT I 45.84 I

NAS Whidbey Island, WA Fort Polk. LA

I COMNAVAIRWARCENWPNDIV China Lake, CA I

46.17 45.91

I NAVSTAKAIRWARCEN Fallon. NV I 45.43 I

I Fort Carson, CO

NAVSTA Pearl Harbor, HI CG MBB cam^ Leieune. NC

I MCAS Yuma. AZ I 44.17 I

-

45.42 45.20

I Fort Lewis. WA I 44.16 1 - -

I CG MAGTF TRNGCOM. CA I 43.79 1 I Nellis AFB. NV I 43.57 I

I Fort Hood. TX W I 4 1.69 I

AIRWARCENACDIV, Patuxent 42.50

Luke AFB (Goldwater), AZ (- % -% 41.70

FACSFAC Jacksonville, FL Fort Knox. TN

4 1.68 41.01

NAVUNSEAWARCENDIV Keyport, WA Fort Drum. NY

-

40.54 40.33

- - -

Edwards AFB, CA Fort Bragg, NC Fort Stewart, GA Cannon AFB. NM

I Fort Rucker. AL I 36.37 I

-

40.30 38.86 I

38.42 38.37

NTC and Fort Irwin, CA NAS Key West. FL

- - - I Fort A P Hill, VA I 35.00 I

38.3 1 I

36.4 1

I Fort Sill. OK I 34.92 I

DCN:11685



I

Training (con tin ued) Installation/Location I Numerical Militarv Value Score

/ NAS Pensacola. FL m .I

I 34.03 1

I Panama Citv. FL I I

Key Field, MS Shaw AFB, SC NAVSURFWARCEN, COASTSYSSTA

33.98 33.82 33.47

I Bucklev AFB. CO I 33.05 I

I 11 1

Fort Huachuca, AZ P

33.13

Selfridge ANGB, MI Fort Campbell, KY Hancock Field AGS, NY Fort Sam Houston, TX Fort Riley, KS MCAS Beaufort, SC Hulman Regional APT AGS, IN Carswell ARS, NAS Fort Worth Joint Reserve. TX Schofield Barracks, HI Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD McConnell AFB, KS Fort Eustis. VA

- -

32.78 32.49 32.33 32.25 32.18 32.17 3 1.9 1 3 1.69

3 1.67 3 1.64 31.16 3 1.03

- - - - --

Fort Richardson, TX CG MCAS Cherry Pt, NC

- - - - 1

NAS JRB Ft Worth, TX 28.56 I

I

30.77 30.37

Fort Dix, NJ Fort Leonard Wood, MO COMNAVSPECWARGRU One, CA COMSUBFORPAC Pearl Harbor. HI

29.1 1 28.83 28.7 1 . 28.63

Fort Benning, GA CG MCB Hawaii

28.41 n

28.0 1 NAS Kingsville, TX Seymour Johnson AFB, NC Fort Gordon, GA

Fort McCoy, WI Vandenberg AFB, CA I

27.68 27.5 1 27.49

27.09 27.02

DCN:11685


4- Education and Training JCSG

Range and Collective Training Subgroup Training (con tin ued)

1 Holloman AFB. NM I 24.85 I

Installation/Location Mountain Home AFB, ID Eielson AFB. AK

, COMSTRKFIGHTWINGPAC Lemoore, CA COMNAVSPECWARCEN, CA

Numerical Military Value Score 26.77 . 26.45 26.13 I

25.96

- - I MCMWTC Bridgeport, CT 1 23.49 I Atlantic City IAP AGS, NJ Kirtland AFB, NM

1 Barksdale AFB. LA I 23.33 I

24.02 23.57

I NAS Whiting Field Milton. FL I 23.23 I 1 Fort Jackson, SC 23.04 I 1 NAS Meridian. MS I 22.94 I

' Hamsbure IAPAGS. PA I 22.34 I

COMSUBLANT Norfolk, VA Lambert - St. Louis IAP AGS. MO

22.71 22.48

U I

AS Corpus Christi, TX Moodv AFB. GA

I 21.58 2 1.26

- - - - -

Redstone Arsenal, WA Fort Smith Regional Apt AGS, AR

1 NAVSURFWARCENDIV Dahleren. VA I 16.75 I

-- - - 20.95 19.10

FCTCLANT, Dam Neck, VA Mcchord AFB. WA

I Elmendorf AFB. AK I 16.70 I

18.59 16.93

I Tucson IAP AGS, AZ I 16.70 I I NAS New Orleans ARS. LA 1 16.09 I

I Davis-Monthan AFB. AZ I 14.12 I

Klamath Falls IAP AGS, PA Offutt AFB. NE

--

I Whiteman AFB. MO T p p 13.84 1

15.14 14.34

I DULUTH IAP AGS, MN I 13.73 I -- 1 ~ a u ~ h l 6 AFB, TX I 13.30

I Vance AFB. OK I 13.20 I 1 Columbus AFB, MS 13.14

I I I ~ V 711sworth AFB, SD 13.12

DCN:11685



Training (con tin ued) Installation/Location Numerical Military Value Score NAS Atlanta, GA 13.01 Tyndall AFB, FL 12.97

Great Falls IAP AGS, MT 12.55 Pope AFB, N C 12.00

--

Des Moines IAP AGS, IA 1 0.49 Springfield-Beckley MPT AGS, OH 10.10 Sheppard AFB, TX 10.04

Ellington Field AGS, TX Boise Air Terminal AGS, ID Dane County Regional, Truax Field AGS, WI Hawthorne Army Depot, NV Rome Laboratory, NY Dvess AFB. TX

Sioux Gateway APT AGS, IA 9.23 Capital APT AGS, IL 9.22

1 1.87 11.85 1 1.20 10.91 10.87 10.69

1 Tulsa IAP AGS, OK 1 8.7 1

Randolph AFB, TX Joe Foss Field AGS, SD

r

Fort Wayne IAP AGS, IN Dannelly Field AGS, AL West Point Mil Reservation, NY Anniston Army Depot, AL Lincoln Map AGS, NE Bradley IAP AGS. CT

9.17 9.16 9.14 9.13 8.97 8.80 8.72 8.72

W. K. Kellogg APT AGS, MI Barnes MPT AGS

8.66 8.63

DCN:11685


Education and Training JCSG Ranges and Collective Training Subgroup .

Testing and Evaluation (T& E) (Continued) - Installation/Location I Numerical Militarv Value Score

-- - - - -

~ O R T RUCKER MCASBEAUFORT-SC FORT LEONARD WOOD ELLSWORTH AFB

MCCONNELL AFB

- - - - - - -

40.65 4

40.03 39.10 37.13 35.96

- - - - - - - -

FORT BRAGG FORT HOOD BUCKLEY , AFB

COMSUBLANT-NORFOLK-VA MCMWTC

Section 3: Results of Analvsis

- -

35.26 35.09

I

33.93 33.63 30.27

CG-MCB-CAMPEN

HAWTHORNE ARMY DEPOT

Training

-

30.20

28.7 1

The Range Training Sub-working Group, using Military Value analysis guidance as established by OSD, provided a means to rank-order rangeslrange complexes/operating areas (OPAREAs) on the measure of merit and quantifiable attributes. Four DoD selection criteria were weighted based on relative importance in assessing the Military Value of training rangeslrange complexes/OPAREAs. A range's military value is predominantly its ability and capability to support the training mission. The cost was not the primary discriminator for the Range Training Sub- working Group in the calculation of Military Value. The Range Training Sub-working Group followed the Recruit and Train principle as defined in Policy Memorandum Two and Final Selection Criteria 1 through 4. Shear un-encroached space and the number of environments a range has available were major factors in the Military Value analysis. The Range Training Sub-working Group addressed 14 attributes across the 4 criteria resulting in a prioritized"l -n" list of training rangeslrange complexes/OPAREAs.

DCN:11685

C)a : t !lie22 t rlii: lo F ~ l e : S: \CYPF\T)ASI.i-lA\E:d11cat.ion and 'I'r n i n ! :1c~\F1 l q h t T r a r n l z y S~bgroup\+S(:enario EX'? 0 0 4 6 P i r e d l ! y A?\COBKA 6 . 1 0 Update Eiiv w i t h LC; Changes\E&TCCI46H COBRA VKRS 6 . I S 5 May 9 5 . C 9 H

O p t - l u r i Pky N a m e : Scenaz l o Ek'I'004CR S t d F c t r s F l l e : C:\CORKA\COI3RA 6.10\BRAC2005.SFF

T h ~ s sccnarro real1 y n e d A l r Foxcc? Primary ' J f i d e r y r d u d t c P i l o t T r a z n l n g and X n C r o t h c t l o n t o F l y h t e r Fundement a1 s P i l o t T r a l n l n g o u t ot Moody AFB t o a comiri n i i r 1 on of C o l umhu:; Afs't3, I , m g h l r n AFB, R a n d o l p h AE'R, Sheppard AFB, and Vance AFH. I t also reliqrls A l r Force N~viya tzor /Cornba t System O f f i c e r k l i g h t t rill n I ng from Randolph AE'H t o NAS Pcnsacola.

DCN:11685

. T.*T -c:,w7.= 2XE.2

;r.fs XrS. ?rag %anage Su;r 23ztrac

L I-'ERSi)Wt!. ..:: $!o.':x Per 2;en K8V I.'.: :es !t34 Y i S C

:,THE2 SILT, P3S

c.-hi'". FIAT . RSE E:viror-xnia: x:sn CaCtr.3~: : Tire O t h e r --".,. ;c.r- C X T I M E

DCN:11685

DCN:11685

... 3: . - ? ' < 3 : : ~ 7 , , 2 - -.. -." . -

" 5 s . - , . - .,. 73- + 3 > , - . - ,;* .. -.<'{.

3.. * - - , -

c:.. ..: b . 3 ' - -. ' ' ? ! '".

.,I :;ss: - - > . " -- --

; st.?': ?..- ' ? ? > . > :L:'~EE'~

i: ?: :Lp':;:.

t L L --... ... 5 9 ' 5 . . . . .

sh.z.- ira ~ F u P I ; ~ ;-slur: iSc I,:[' isa.nj??lsr.g

DCN:11685

DCN:11685

DCN:11685

*.gO.L?; . . . . . .

PC'." . " L

a:?.: $ I Q ' i a3i. S

3 ~82.00: F)? : . . . . . .

:W>O; 5SPlJdS;;ITL ;rt;. panm sxpd 3 0 2 : ~ ~

DCN:11685

DCN:11685

COBPA SCSCWElE:RECAP;aOSi l iO i lS :% C H W G S REPOX? 'CORRA ~6.10) Lata As Of 5 , 5 , 2 : C 5 : 2 .":15 AY ?eport <'rented 9 5 / 2 ' . 0 5 :C:28:?5 k?

,--G?epa r fawn t : cennrio Flle : S:iCYPF!MSJ.SR\Ed-cst;un dnd 7ra:nlnqiFlifh: ?i;.s:r.ing SdxJroup\Scena~:o 2&": ~ 2 4 6 8 1 rr'o:iy .1vc\C0BRh 6 . l C ' -ware Env wi :k I G Chan3es\EhT:34CR C O W '.EYS 6 . l ? 5 May 55.C3il

3p:iun Pkg N m a : Srozar lo EITd?l6R Std F c t r s F1:e : C: ' . : 9 S W I i C O i 6.1L$S;c4321:5.s?F

%+at Cnanye!$K) 2 ~ 5 6 2~737 - . . . . . . . . . . - - - - 5csca;n char.^% t 3.2 f.ecap Chmge --.

;t 0

80s Change 5:o~s:r.g C:~RT.SO

.. ?. - - T O T X CtiAVGES CL,,

'aug7::n AF8 TX ve- r: kqge $ Y '

Sxsta-n Cnange Recac ~ h m g e X S inange 17rS-'J C'h'9e

TOTAL CGZGES

cf2W.A S'~sTAI~!~:r;~fiECi..PP'YOS~liPJUSI!~Y: CHXFiCt: GFGRT IC9B.U vli . '. ,: l Page 1 >?a As C;! 5 . 5 . 2 2 : : :.2.??::5 AP!, Rcpor: Created i,C:27C5 :,':28:37 M

e%par?mr.r : 1nar:o ?I !e ; S: ;CnlPT'~3dSl3,-iA?Ed~:-at l a rl.*.d Tra.nlr.g' PL:;jtr ':ra:r,i ng S?rLyro.m:Scar.ar:o 2hC C C P E R I rez: ly +a\'1179P.A 6 . 3 3 ':;.%:e E r r wit:? :G Cb.&-8ses\?bT:4eE.8 CGEIPA 'iZRS t . 1 3 5 Kay C5.LW

St.ep;arc XFY. TX :VY?.'F : S e t Char.ge i Sfi i .. ,. z 6 ............. S~szair C h e ~ j e hecai: CLmge RUS :har.qe 5xs:ng rltmtge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XX:. L?XXES

DCN:11685

DCN:11685

DCN:11685

DCN:11685

COBRA INPUT DATA REPORT (COBRA ~6.10) Page 15 Deta As Of 5/5/2035 10:07:15 AM, Report Created 5/5/2005 10:28:33 RY

aepartmenr enario Frle : S:\CYPF\DASN-IA\Education and Tralnlng\Fl~qht Trainrng Subgroup\Scenario E&T O046R I really ge\COBRA 6.10 Update Env with KG Changes\E&T0046R COBRA VERS 6.10 5 May 05.CBR

,~tron Pkg Name: Scenarro E&TC046R Std Fctrs Frle : C:\COBRA\COBRA 6.10\BRAC2005.SFF

base for Contracted Logistic Support (CLS)

Env Non-MILCON Required: AFfILE: $318K in 2006 for NEPA Costs, $200K in 2007 tor Waste Program ($loOK) & A l r Permlt Revlsron

($100K).

L,auyhlin AFB:

One-time unique costs: AF/ILE: - $320K: CASS island equipment purchasa $320K: MFH privatlzatlon

One-Tlme IT costs ($K): AF/ILC: $176 IT infrastructure cost to connect 2 new facilrties to exlstlny IT backbone

-. $334 IT item (phones, S E s , PCs, wireless & LMRs) costs for a 180 person gain

Misc. Recurring Savings ($K) : $1038 Savings as a result of the ellmination of flight txaininq PCS and TDY costs.

Env Non-MILCON Required: - AF/ILE: S318K in 2006 for NEPA Costs, S20OK In 2007 for Waste Program (SlORRI & A l r Permlt Hevlsion ($lGOK) .

Randolph AFD

One-time unlque costs (SKI: ,, $7,600 - AF/ILE: Procurement of 2 T 38 WSTs

a-Tlme Movlng Costs (SKI $1929 - AF/ILG: NAV/EWO simulator data trans cost

Env Non-MXLCON Required: - AF/ILE: S180K in 2006 for NEPA Costs, $?12R I n 2007 tor Waste Program (S56K) & Alr Permlt Revlslon ($56K).

Sheppard AFB

Env Non-MILCON Required: - AF/ILE: $280K in 2006 NEPA Costs.

Mlsc. Recurring Savings (SK): - $1038 Savlngs as a result of the ellmination of tliqht traninq PCS and TDY c o s t s .

Misc. Recurring Costs (SK) : $898.19 Contract Maintenance Increase due to mission move from an in house base to a contracted

base for CLS.

Vance AFB

One-rime unique costs ( S K I : - $7,736 AFIIL: $7,600 Procurement of 2 T 38 WSrI', $136 MFH ptlvat.lzatlon - $46 - AF/ILE: System Furniture costs from the HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION COST HANDBOOK FEB 2004-SUPPORTING FACS. (Used $46 because this was the A l r Force entry although comments cltes $58)

DCN:11685

Draft Deliberative Document--For Discussion Purposes Only--Do Not Release Under FOIA

Environmental Resource

Air Quality c Generai Environmental Impacts

Cultural/ Archeological/ Tribal Resources

Sensitive Resource Areas

Marine Mammalsf Marine Resources/ Marine

F-7 Sanctuaries Noise

Threatened& Endangered Species/ Critical Habitat

Waste Management

/ Water Resources

Wetlands i

Laughlin

Laughlin is in area that is jn attainment for all criteria pollutants. A significant air permit revision may be required.

Laughlin contains archeological sites and areas with a high potential for archeological sites that constrain operations and that have the potential to impact future development

No impact.

Military Munitions Response Program sites exist on the installation and may represent a safety hazard for future development.

No impact

Noise contours will need to be re-evaluated as a result of the change in mission. The AlCUZ reflects the current mission, local land use, current noise levels. 7403 acres off-base within the noise contours are zoncd by the local community. 49 of these acres are residentially zoned.

No T&E species or critical habitats exist. No impact to T&E species is expected.

Modification of the hazardous waste program may be necessary.

The state requires a permit for withdrawal of groundwater.

Wetlands restrict 4% of the base. Wetlands already restrict operations. Additional operations may impact wetlands, which may restrict operations

Draft Deliberative Docurnet-rt--Fur Discussion Purposes Only--Do Not Release Under FOIA Page 4 of 9

DCN:11685

Draft Deliberative Document-For Discussion Purposes Only--Do Not Release Under FOIA

Imnacts of Costs

Laughlin t- Environmental DERA money spent through FY03 ($K): 12576

Restoration Estimated CTC ($K): 99 12

1 / DO NOT ENIER IN COBRA I

Waste Management FY07 Modify Waste Program Scenario $1 00K 1 Cumulative $ J O C K

Environmental FY06 NEPA cost: Scenario $3 18K / Cumulative $3 18K Compliance FY07 Significant Air Permit Revision Scenario $100K / Cumulative

$100K

Draft Deliberative Document--For Discussion Purposes Only--Do Not Release Under FOIA Page 5 of 9

DCN:11685

Documents

Laughlin AFB, TX