What do you think about Joint-Basing?

2013-12-18T08:48:28-05:00

Many of us are stationed at Joint-Bases, spread throughout the world. Regardless of the normal rivalries, what's your opinion of this program? Does it work or not work based on your experience?

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Dec 18 at 2013 8:50 AM

2013-12-18T08:50:05-05:00

I was stationed at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall...didn't notice a difference in missions.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2013 9:01 AM

2013-12-18T09:01:24-05:00

I certainly think it can work; but depending on the missions being performed there is a great variance in the benifits. The services, in many cases, haven't taken advantage of or considered all of the advantages that could be created. If I have a CAS platform and Joint-Base it with the right ground units there is a lot of cross talk and learning that can be accomplished on both sides. It helps provide some of lessons you can usually only pick up at Joint Exercises or in actual Ops. At any rate I do not see a down side other than the creation of critical nodes that could result in fewer targets for our adversaries to focus on.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2013 9:05 AM

2013-12-18T09:05:20-05:00

I've only ever been at the tactical level of things, I was at Fort Lewis when it became JBLM and didn't notice anything to be honest. But I think it's a great idea, and could possibly lead to some awesome and realistic training if we could get some things like that coordinated.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Dec 18 at 2013 10:10 AM

2013-12-18T10:10:30-05:00

As far as I understand, the movement to make many of these joint bases resulted from BRAC.  So the 'success' would have been measured in economic terms -- cost savings through synergies, stopped spending on wasted training areas, etc.  I don't know what the outcomes were, but it makes sense to me that combining and shutting down many bases would have made a lot of sense.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Dec 18 at 2013 10:56 AM

2013-12-18T10:56:36-05:00

I worked onboard Joint Base Charleston for several years, and found that the transition to the joint base concept was challenging but once implemented, it worked well. It eliminated much of the duplication of services and infrastructure; consolidated many of the emergency preparedness responses, and streamlined common functions. It was a pain getting everybody on the same sheet of music, but once there it was a pretty solid way to do business which improved inter-service cooperation and saved money.

Response by Capt Andre Toman made Dec 18 at 2013 8:28 PM

2013-12-18T20:28:40-05:00

In Operation Iraqi Freedom, we were flying soldiers (Army and coalition forces), Marines, SEALs, and everyone else around theater. Train like you fight. If we are going to embrace it, do it the right way. We shouldn't be partitioning off the land on the joint base, but really make it joint in terms of shared services, operations, and training. Personally, I've never served on a "joint base," but I've done part of my flight training on an Air Force base (Columbus AFB) with trainees in sister services and foreign services, as well as doing flight training on a Navy base (Corpus Christi NAS). Aside from the "language" barrier between Air Force and Navy, e.g., geedunk, scuttlebutt, bulkhead, secure, etc., it's a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas and understanding. While we should retain our service identities, it would serve us all well to be able to have a true mutual respect for each other. We can probably get more of that in the joint base environment versus a more siloed approach where we are all have our own bases and only see each other in theater.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2013 9:14 PM

2013-12-22T21:14:25-05:00

I recently spent some time up at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Call it a joint base, but it was pretty clear where the Air Force side stopped and the Army side began and vice versa. My friends stationed at joint bases say it can be a logistical headache trying to figure things out sometimes. Sure, it's a joint base, but Army still speaks Army, Air Force still speaks Air Force, and so on.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2013 10:31 PM

2013-12-22T22:31:58-05:00

I don't know if it saved any money but it made all the base names long and confusing.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 22 at 2014 7:01 AM

2014-09-22T07:01:36-04:00

Thanks for the posted info. I've been wondering about this whole joint basing concept as it happened after I left and didn't really follow it as it emerged. I knew about Maquire-Dix then suddenly all these joint names started showing up.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 26 at 2014 8:43 PM

2014-10-26T20:43:18-04:00

I am here at JB MDL and can't help but to wonder how why Fort Dix was still here. There is pretty much nothing on this post and it is extremely small. From what I know the 1st Army will be leaving soon as it will no longer be a MOB station. I am sure most of those stationed will go away with the First Army. To me it seems like a good idea. It would seem fit for the AF to just take over Dix.

On a side note the Joint Base also has a federal prison. I run by the fence and always feel like I am going to witness a escape attempt at any time.

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Dec 4 at 2014 11:10 PM

2014-12-04T23:10:14-05:00

NAS Keflavik- Navy and AF nearly split all the duties down the middle. AF provided base and flight line security, Navy did base LE patrol. Civilians ran the galley and we had a NEX, not BX. Each had their respective support staff offices, like finance, personnel records, and command offices. But we built a love/hate relationship. Ultimately, we were all "One team, One fight" and played well together! Learned things I never would have on an AF only base.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2016 5:59 PM

2016-03-19T17:59:21-04:00

I think a Joint-Base like Lewis-McChord can have some advantages. At least they are collocated. JB Langley-Ft Eustis is a different story. I'm currently stationed at Naval Station Rota and we (the Air Force) have to depend on the Navy for a lot of personal and professional services. When it comes to getting the aviation mission done we really have to work together at the E-5 level and the O-3 level to make it happen. But this isn't considered a joint assignment...

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Mar 19 at 2016 6:50 PM

2016-03-19T18:50:27-04:00

MSgt Ryan Tanner At least congress approved 'joint bases' as a cost saving measure even though they will not allow another round of BRAC!

Response by SFC Don Ward made Dec 9 at 2016 6:55 PM

2016-12-09T18:55:41-05:00

Don't know much about the Joint Base idea, but how about the Army Center of Excellence (CoE) program?? How can every base be a Center of Excellence, and how much did it cost in stationary charges alone to change the names over?? And what constitutes a "Center of Excellence" anyway?

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Dec 9 at 2016 6:57 PM

2016-12-09T18:57:43-05:00

The Joint thing was a ruse. Anything Joint fairs better in budgeting. There is Joint Installation entity between IMCOM and the sister services. In practice, there seems to be an Air Force Part, Navy Part, and Army slum along with a defacto component commander to protect turf (Army's case: ranges and motor pools).

Response by 1LT Benjamin Flasher made Dec 9 at 2016 11:43 PM

2016-12-09T23:43:52-05:00

Currently at Joint Base San Antonio and it can be quite difficult to tell where Army ends and Air Force begins, at least while on Fort Sam Houston.. Lackland AFB and Randolph AFB are an entirely different matter.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Dec 9 at 2016 11:56 PM

2016-12-09T23:56:49-05:00

It came about at a time when Congress was looking to downsize in an attempt to save money. I don't see much saving. I can agree with the concept as it does try to eliminate duplication in upper echelon management (i.e. Base Commanders) but there still needs to be a specific service branch officer of flag rank to deal with matters specific to a branch. I'm sure my brothers and sisters in the Navy would not want a USAF commander determining ship movements.

This situation has its good and bad points and I personally see it as an attempt to eliminate separate branches and create ONE service.

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Dec 12 at 2016 2:31 PM

2016-12-12T14:31:26-05:00

Any measures which save money are good!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2017 5:07 PM

2017-01-02T17:07:27-05:00

Like corporate mergers, joint bases appear to develop a dominant culture. This can be determined by institutional structure (e.g. the base CO must be a naval aviator) or the dominant landowner (e.g. the primary or historical tenant is on particular service branch). Sometimes this dominance is a function of the primary theatre command (EUCOM is dominated by the Army, PACOM by the Navy, etc. or by the COCOM's primary mission.

Response by CPL Bernard Coxhead made Sep 26 at 2018 10:27 PM

2018-09-26T22:27:09-04:00

Nope: A vet from Ft Dix the Bergdahl Building (Formerly the Pentagon) idiots are slowly destroying the armed forces with stupid stunts like this: there are reasons for each branch of service reasons for each mission, and the reason why-why they are different trying to make them, all the same, is insane. the new uniforms are embarrassing: the First thing that should go is the girly berets. Next Fire the contractors and rebuild the Military branches with active duty personnel:

Response by PO2 Loren Gilmore made Sep 27 at 2018 5:16 PM

2018-09-27T17:16:34-04:00

When I went to Hospital Corpsman A school, the Navy had two, one in San Diego where I went and the other at Great Lakes. If you were selected for FMF you took the bus to Camp Pendleton or went to Camp LaJuene (sp) for that training. Now I understand that the initial training is now conducted in Texas with the Army and Air Force I believe. This makes sense as each group is in the medical profession and you learn the basics before you specialize in either your NEC or MOS classification. I am sure that this could work in other fields, like it or not. Correct me please if I am wrong. I do know that at one time we did send our Lab Techs down to Texas to learn the trade, so to speak. Doc Gilly.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2018 5:32 PM

2018-09-27T17:32:02-04:00

It's a nightmare. Doing anything requires permits, MFR, MOU, etc from all branches affected.

Response by SMSgt Donald Wilson made Sep 27 at 2018 5:53 PM

2018-09-27T17:53:14-04:00

I believe the intent was to save the expense of providing duplicate (or triplicate) functions when they were all providing the same service, but to different branches. Why have multiple base exchanges, or commissaries, or medical facilities, or personnel shops, etc., etc.? , just because those people "next door" wear a different uniform?
I did a tour on Taiwan 40+ years ago as an Air Force member, and all the base exchanges all over the island were Navy Exchanges. I understood the point even back then. No one was asking why we didn't have our own "Air Force" exchange. (would have been AAFES)
As to the uniform issue, I'll just say this; I wish I would have bought stock in whatever garment manufacturer has these uniform contracts, especially the frequently changing camouflage patterns.
Every time they change their minds and decide they need a new camouflage pattern for whatever reason or season, there go more millions of taxpayer dollars to outfit the troops in the new uniform.
I retired from the USAF ten years ago and I'm already two utility uniforms behind! I'm glad I wore flight suits most of the time!

Response by MAJ Lyle F. Padilla made Sep 27 at 2018 6:16 PM

2018-09-27T18:16:33-04:00

It didn't start until after I retired. I'm retired Army (mostly NJ Army Guard) but started out in the Air Force, through AFROTC at Rutgers University, and McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst is the installation I am by far the most familiar with. It was always the Fort Dix Military Reservation since World War I, and encompassed the original Fort Dix, Fort Dix Airfield (until it became McGuire AFB), and Lakehurst NAS (still most famous as the site of the 1937 Hindenburg Disaster). Before 9/11, Fort Dix and Lakehurst NAS were open bases while entry into McGuire AFB required ID check-in at the gate. After 9/11, entry ID and check-in was required for most of the military reservation. After that, it was easier, as you only had to do an ID check-in once) for me to cross back and forth between the original Fort Dix and McGuire (where the joint Dix-McGuire BX/PX was always located). At that point, as a veteran of both the Air Force and the Army, if I needed to get a new uniform and assemble a new ribbon rack, I had to go to both the Dix Clothing Sales and the McGuire Clothing Sales to get all my ribbons and badges. The only thing that I've noticed as different since the change in designation as a Joint Base is that now that it IS a Joint Base, there's only one Clothing Sales Store, which is convenient for people in my situation. Other than that, I haven't noticed any real difference.

Response by SPC William Smith made Sep 27 at 2018 9:06 PM

2018-09-27T21:06:57-04:00

My post had A and B Batteries. When we would need to go to the post C,D,Service, and HQ Batteries. Most likely you would be written up for being out of uniform. How is anybody going to know their hand from their foot on joint bases. What I mean is, if one Battalion is located on two post and can't agree on were the pins and such are supposed to be located on the same uniform, I mean WHAT...?

Response by Lt Col Mark Harrison made Sep 27 at 2018 9:54 PM

2018-09-27T21:54:09-04:00

The problem is the host-base culture is different between the different services. The Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps all run their bases differently, with different priorities. A large Army base has a lot of young, single soldiers, and needs to keep them entertained without getting into trouble. A large Navy base has thousands of the military members deployed for extended periods, and must support families without their sponsors present. The Air Force is known for long career retention so is more likely to have families on base.

Response by SSG Frank J. made Sep 28 at 2018 8:18 AM

2018-09-28T08:18:31-04:00

Don't know how practical the system is since I have NO information on how the base is run. (joint committee?) I'm pretty sure Dix was just a training base nowadays so this may be a way to combine resources for training purposes (which could be a good thing is done properly). I think it's a wait a see how things work out type of situation.

Response by Andrew Zajackowski made Sep 29 at 2018 1:13 PM

2018-09-29T13:13:09-04:00

The only thing it does is make the public works type of functions more cost effective both personnel and equipment wise.

Response by SSG Paul Carrier made Sep 29 at 2018 8:00 PM

2018-09-29T20:00:10-04:00

I think the naming is dumb.
Combining logistic functions of nearby bases is good sense but god just leave the names alone please

Response by MSG Michael McEleney made Sep 30 at 2018 5:18 PM

2018-09-30T17:18:18-04:00

One office to handle 2 or more bases landlord duties. Also don't forget that higher grades require a "Joint Assignment" this policy may actually meet the definition of Joint Duty.