Would more Joint Bases make the military more efficient and reduce operational cost?

SPC David S. — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:57:45 -0400

I know in the past BRAC has played a big part in the creation of the dozen or so Joint Bases that we now have. With that being done has the DoD studied the financial benefits in doing so. Just curious as to why this is not the norm. Air Borne always needs a lift just like the Marines are always catching a ride from the Navy. It seems to me that this has worked for the Marines. To me it seems like a no brainer to have Army and Air Force installations in close proximity to one one anther if not the same. Instead of having 2 of everything you now have one and additionally it would reduce the cost of joint training. Less places do mean fewer targets to attack but the also means fewer places to defend with more gathered resources. What does everyone think?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 12:10 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:10:07 -0400

How many more joint bases would you recommend. We already have one in every regional command (I may be wrong on this and am too lazy to fact check). My point is that I am not sure that we can consolidate much more unless we try to incorporate the seafaring side of the house into things.

I am surprised that there is not Carson-Peterson in Colorado Yet.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 12:37 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:37:03 -0400

I suppose it makes sense if there are two military bases from separate complementary branches that will close and if it makes sense to consolidate. Combining Ft. Lewis and McChord were a no brainer. You have one of the Air Forces Largest Air mobility wings on the west coast with the exception of Travis. Certain east coast bases that have a large Af and Navy contingent have combined. In theory, but not always in practice your mobility footprint shoiuld be reletively small at Lewis McChord because the C-17's are right there to load up all the Army chocks and take them where they need to go.

Some bases have very specific missions that are not complementary like Barksdale or Minot that have have a simple Nuclear Global Strike mission and it is too far inland to really make a difference to combine with another service.

Bases that would make sense to combine would be Nellis and NAS Fallon. Both are in Nevada and both support their services fighter weapons school. It might make sense as Nellis is shutting down an aggressor squadron to move the Navy aggressors to Nellis and shut down Fallon.

I am surprised Kirtland is not considered a joint base, maybe not by DOD standards. Kirtland hosts one of the largest DOE research labs the Sandia National Labs, as well as a DOE nuclear warfare center.

To combine a base that may not have the real estate may cost more in the long run. I am guessing the whole joint base thing allows services to share the operating costs which might make it more beneficial in the long run. But who knows, it could end up just costing more in the long run.

On a strategic security note I have always believed it makes sense not to have all our eggs in one basket. If Lewis-McChord were hypothetically taken out then that would be a huge chunk of our ground combat and Air Mobility force gone.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2015 8:24 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:24:11 -0500

In my opinion combined the services under the umbrella of the DOD, as many other nations have would save the most. Mainly in recruiting and logistics, as well as some branches could transition to more openings bases - such as Engineers would not be limited to an Army, Marine, Air Force or Navy posting. It saves on procurement and common operating systems, while still saves the traditions of each service in that they still operate as the Navy, Army, etc.

Joint bases wouldn't matter, and BRAC would hurt less. I understand small bases need closure, but the large one's...Ft Drum in northern NY is too small for all the units that need to train there, as it's the only base for several states and not only the 10th Mountain but every NG and Reserve unit needs to train and all are limited to summer months due to the volume of snow fall. And BRAC outright closed Griffiss Air Force Base just south of Drum in Rome NY as the AF didn't need it...but the Army could have and should have gladly jumped on it as a training area, as it had land.

Response by MSG Thomas Currie made Sep 22 at 2021 6:23 PM

MSG Thomas Currie — Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:23:03 -0400

The so-called "Joint" bases are often a complete fiction that costs rather than saves. In several cases where a "Joint" base has been created by BRAC, it is just a situation were two services had separate bases in or near the same town (often miles apart) and some bean counter decided there would be a saving by renaming both bases with a hyphenated name like Victorian-era elite families or married feminists in the US.

The fake notion of savings is tied to pretending that by making them one "joint" base they will only need one set of base operations/support staff such as the 'engineers' who maintain buildings and roads etc. Of course this doesn't consider that the new "joint" base will still consist of two physically separate installations and will have all the same buildings, roads, etc. as the combined total did all along and will still need all the same support people to maintain them. Joining the installation staffs might save one slot or bump one 'director' level position down to 'deputy director' -- but there is also an even chance that the larger combined organization will result in upgrading the boss due to the greater responsibilities.

For the army, this fiction ties to the earlier decision that the Army should follow the model of other services where each base needed a command structure for the base operations that would be separate from the "tenant" unit(s).