Outsourcing, Mission Changes to Shape Installation of the Future

Outsourcing, Mission Changes to Shape Installation of the Future

The Army’s real property footprint can be expected to evolve incrementally as past decisions about the role of the service’s installations continue to exert a critical influence on its infrastructure, according to an appendix in the Army’s new strategic framework for supporting its installation requirements.

But several changes already are shaping the installation of the future, starting with a trend toward greater outsourcing for both installation and mission support activities. The extent to which an installation can rely on the surrounding community for support services — including housing, childcare, recreation and retail — will depend on local conditions. While quality-of-life for soldiers and their families needs to be considered, “managers should ensure that facilities on post are supporting needed missions, rather than needlessly duplicating existing off-post capabilities,” states Army Installations 2025.

In cases when the Army decides to provide facilities for a particular service, officials should consider locations that will accommodate future outsourcing or public use, it adds. The same considerations should apply to decisions about the location of mission support facilities operated by contractors. Mission infrastructure that is not unique to the Army — such as offices and R&D facilities — likely will continue to be built and owned by the government. “Nevertheless, consideration should be given to future reuse scenarios, as well as the potential provision of facilities or services by the private sector,” according to the vision document.

Planners also will need to account for the increased interest by communities in sharing municipal services and other resources.

Access and security are other critical factors in installation planning. “Some facilities can be considered for placement outside the secure perimeter, or can be planned for future divestment by moving the perimeter,” the document states.

While urban development increasingly comes into conflict with the mission at many installations, changes in weapons systems and other mission requirements can be expected to strain Army ranges and training areas. With opportunities to expand installations uncertain in the short term, the Army will need to focus on retaining existing capabilities and resolving potential land use conflicts with their host communities, the document concludes.

1 comment
Dan Cohen
Dan Cohen
AUTHOR

Posts Carousel

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

1 Comment

  • Roland MP Tucker
    November 7, 2016, 3:33 am

    I am a firm believer that although the military has changed in very fundamental ways since the end of our Cold War. However, the fact that, yes I’ll admit, some facilities should be closed for economic reasons, and most need environmental clean up, nit we should not simply say good bye to them and leave them to rot and rust away,. Adak, Alaska is a great example of this.. bug out and leave the land to rot away.

    My idea is that we can expand GA and commercial operations, all the time keeping the military aspect of the aerodrome/airport in shape such that the military mission can be returned to on short notice. In the meantime though, why not get more schools, adolescents and adults to fight to keep these places operating AND keep the capacity for military necessity usage. That doesn’t mean leave the facilities to wait for possible future usage. Not al all. For the cost of simple maintenance and house keeping, we could offer the field for use from a wide range of tenants. Including GA, Commercial Aviation (PAX,COMB and pure Cargo) with an underlying agreement that should we need them, the facilities are READY to move into the military posture.

    Of course that means any current tenant would have to evacuate in short order, having a contingency plan for such needs would be in the best interest of everyone concerned.

    Now, about the noise generated at a military airbase or Naval Air Station, it’s simple… if you don’t like the noise of an airport or aircraft flying over your house, don’t move there! People are complacent when it comes to aviation, and with the possibilities of the current military/terrorist threats we may have to face, I seriously doubt that surrounding communities would complain about the noise of defense of our very country and way of life!

    In the meantime, keep he airfields in decent repair and have plans to re-activate them. We just don’t know what is going to happen from day to day. So rather than play catch-up with serious taxation and rapid escalation of the necessity of having to re-activate an Air Force Base, Army bae or Naval/Marine Corps/Coast Guard, keep them in fair condition on a regular basis so they facilities may be used for private and commercial needs. That way, if the time does come, the facilities are in near perfect working order, and minimal re-activation costs would be minimized.

    And, I must say this again, if you don’t like the noise of ANY type of aircraft flying near your house, just don’t move near a base that could be used for a variety of tenants. The noise people complain of is the noise of peace-keeping and defense of our country. I’ll go nose to nose with ANYONE who would argue against that. It would be akin to having your rent and renters insurance deductible in the bank, and try to justify spending some of that saved emergency funds by claiming "when was the last time we need to use it"? Poppycock! No one likes to pay insurance, but when the issue arises from nearly anywhere or anything, we a very relieved to have saved that money to apply towards our immediate and most urgent needs. Its common sense! I could go on and on about this, but suffice it to say that this dangerous thinking is what people get into trouble with. "Well, nothing has happened in so long, I guess I don’t need this coverage"… The day they drop their insurance coverage is the day they get into an accident. AND, this is SOOOO important, and most people don’t realize this point: if a person is driving around wa-hat’s referred to as "full coverage with state minimum insurance involved (usually these are the ones we have to watch out for.. they pay for a month and then don’t pay for any more premiums on their policy, BUT they have their insurance card that say’s they are covered when they really aren’t…)

    Say you have a Mercedes Benz and a driver who only has state minimum coverage (if it is still in effect) rear ends you and does $40000.00 damage to your shiny new Mercedes, yes their policy would pay you the typical $10000.00 of property damage towards fixing your car, but what about that other $30000.00?? Who is going to pay for that?? The only remedy is to sue the person who did the damage to your car. Good luck on that one!

    My point is that we should not, under ANY circumstances question the need to keep our military airfields in a basic state of readiness, so if it ever comes to pass that, God forbid, something goes wrong with our wonderful, career politicians deciding an escalation of politics results in the need for military action, and a long protracted military action as may well be setting up now as we speak..
    Von Clausewitz says "War is a continuation of politics by other means".. wouldn’t we all sleep better at night if we know that the old military air base that has been so quiet and peaceful for so long that we forget their true purpose, be maintained at a basic level for readiness?

    "He who sacrifices safety for liberty is a fool" by our very own Benjamin Franklin, embodies in that passage that we MUST be ready to fight. Otherwise, our America, MY AMERICA ceases to exist and then we are at the whim of an overly powerful machine that always "knows better" than we do.. after all, we elected them to represent us, right? Oops, I guess the career polticians in D.C. have forgotten why they are there and more concerned about staying there and believe that they know better than the people who elected them, because, after all, they debated and threw insults at each other just to win a political campaign… sound familiar???

    Keep some level of re-activation possibility and maintenance on-going and we may have a chance to defend out country and way of life.

    But then again, we live in a society whose main goal is to exercise their RIGHTS and conveniently forget about the attendant RESPONSIBILITIES that come from exercising those rights!

    I call it he precursor to mass chaos, and daily we see it on the news.. so what do we do? Nothing! Or so it would seem. We DO have the POWER to be ready for anything that may threaten our country from within our borders and from outside our borders. But doesn’t it make sense to have the resources necessary to quell and subdue chaos before it happens?

    We have less than 48 hours to fix that, and starting with revitalizing our military strength and might in order to PREVENT chaos or even a catastrophe lies in our hands. Lets spend a little but of money now so we don’t have to spend a lot of money later, playing catch-up like we did on December 7, 1941.

    If we fail to heed history, we are doomed to repeat it. Keep our bases open and if you live na=ear an airport and hate the noise? why the hell did you move there? Could it be that you feel you have the right to have quiet in your neighborhood? Well, you knew the airport was there before you moved in, so I have no sympathy for you. Our military WILL protect us, but how bad does it have to get before we admit that? Pride is dangerous, MIGHT is defense. Along with it’s loud noises, bustling family members living there who believe in this country, we must accept some sort of reassurance (that’s what the noise is for.. to prevent us from ever having to actually use it in anger.

    The "little planes" as some call them, are exactly where our country’s defenders began their flying career. So, please, give them a break, and accept that noise now prevents destruction later.

    REPLY

CLOSE