The Pentagon has released more information on why it proposes to close or downsize a number of military bases, including Pope Air Force Base in Fayetteville. The document also hints at where the Navy and Marine Corps might base their fighter aircraft in the future.

In May, the Department of Defense released a list of bases to be closed or realigned. An independent commission is reviewing the recommendations and must submit a final list of proposed closures and realignments to the president by September. Under the current BRAC law, the panel must give the Pentagon an opportunity to comment before it adds or changes facilities to the base closure list. On July 1, the commission forwarded 11 specific questions to the department of Defense. The Department of Defense responded July 14.

One of the queries was about Ft. Bragg in Fayetteville, home of the XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Division, and adjacent Pope Air Force Base. Two squadrons each of C-130 cargo planes and A-10 ground attack aircraft are based at Pope.

Under the Pentagon’s recommendation, two headquarters units plus additional combat troops would move to Fayetteville. The Army would essentially take over Pope. The existing flying units based at Pope would move to Little Rock, Ark. (C-130s) and Moody AFB, Ga. (A-10s) while an Air Force Reserve C-130 unit would shift to Pope from Pennsylvania.

The commission asked whether the benefits from basing ground and air forces so close together as at Ft. Bragg and Pope AFB would be replicated under the Pentagon’s proposed move.

The Pentagon responded by noting that existing operational synergies would be maintained by moving the Air Force Reserve unit to Pope. The shift, it stated, would also create the potential for additional benefits.

“Operational and training synergies will occur with new relationships between the A-10 unit at Moody and Army units at Ft. Benning, GA, the recommended location of the Army’s Maneuver Training Center (consolidation of Infantry and Armor schools). Locating Air Force A-10s near this consolidated Army training will lead to new opportunities of realistic close air support training for the Army and the Air Force and potential joint training between the Battlefield Airmen at Moody, the Maneuver Center of Excellence and east coast CSAR [combat search and rescue] training capability with CSAR helicopters and A-10s.”

The BRAC process also has provided additional insights into the Navy’s long-term fighter jets basing plans on the East Coast. Currently, Navy and Marine Corp fighter aircraft are based at Oceana, Va.; Beaufort, S.C., and Cherry Point, N.C. Oceana is the highest rated on the bases but development is encroaching upon the base and may limit its future usability. To ensure adequate capacity, the Navy decided not to close an additional air station in this round of BRAC.

The commission asked whether the Navy had considered shifting its operations from Oceana to Moody AFB. The Navy responded that it had — and had rejected the idea, preferring to build an entirely new air base at some point in the future instead.

“We concluded the best long-term basing alternative for East Coast Navy tactical aviation would be to build a new 21st century naval air station able to accommodate legacy and planned high performance aircraft, but such action would optimally occur outside the BRAC window.

“Selecting a location and building from the ground up is by far the preferred choice as it gives us the most flexibility to ensure we accommodate future capabilities, while allowing for sufficient ‘buffers’ to preclude potential encroachment issues. This approach, if pursued, would allow for a truly modern air station, with commensurate energy, environmental and community consideration designed into the facility from the very beginning. By contrast, relocating to Moody (built in 1940) or another existing installation within the timeframe of this BRAC would require extensive infrastructure upgrades, take significant time and resources, and still would not attain the operational or quality of life standards expected of this century.”

The impact that a new airfield, if built, would have on existing air stations beside Oceana was not stated.

Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.