The Korean media has recently reported that the United States military plans on redeploying a sizeable proportion of the Air Force’s F-16’s stationed in Korea:
The U.S. has notified the South Korean government it will withdraw one squadron of some 20 F-16 fighters by the end of this year. The fighter squadron is a key component of the U.S. Air Force Korea, whose withdrawal was not included in the original reduction plan to be completed by year’s end.
At present, three squadrons of 60 F-16 fighters are deployed here. The squadron expected to be pulled out accounts for one-third of all F-16s stationed in Korea. This is the first time since the mid-1990s that the U.S. is withdrawing air force fighter jets rather than ground troops. [Chosun Ilbo]
As with any report in the Korean media concerning USFK, I have been waiting to see what the USFK response to this would be and here it is:
U.S. military officials said Tuesday that there has been no “formal” talk of withdrawing an F-16 fighter squadron from South Korea but declined to discuss whether the matter has been mentioned informally between the two countries. (…)
“We’re not going to talk about any informal discussions anybody might have had,” U.S. Forces Korea spokesman Col. Franklin Childress told Stars and Stripes in a telephone interview Tuesday. “It’s not appropriate for anyone — whether they be Korean or American — to discuss consultations that were done behind closed doors.” [Stars & Stripes]
So in other words "informal" talks about withdrawing the US Air Force squadron have been discussed which is quite significant in itself and may be something being used to show that the US is serious about force reductions in Korea despite the attempts of Korean President Lee Myung-bak’s attempts to delay the withdrawals during his summit with US President George Bush.
Popularity: 3%
My StumbleUpon Page
2:15 pm on April 18th, 2008 1
I recall an earlier “threat” by USFK leadership that if they did not get an appropriate range to replace Kooney
they may have to withdraw AC. I wonder about the status of the new range.
I personally hate to see a FS be taken out of Korea. If this happens maybe they will be replaced with E-3s (AWACS) or B1s. China would “S’ a brick.
5:27 am on April 19th, 2008 2
As to Chikdo, in Sep 2007, there was notification that the WISS system was in place on Chikdo, but the issues of a 7 ROKAF:3 USAF split of range time and the Kunsan City government threat that it would shut it down if government aid promises were not met. In addition, the environmentalists still had to review the Chikdo area before there was a final ok. In addition, 7th AF said at the time that Chikdo and Pilsung, “each with unique limitations,” were NOT enough to cover all of training requirements. Since then there has been silence.
However, Chikdo is providing good training for the Army live-firing of Hellfire missiles as the Rodriquez Range is too short — but that is a separate issue from the USAF problem.
8:20 am on April 19th, 2008 3
Pete,
You are referring to General Trexler’s ultimatum that led to the Korean government allowing USFK to use the Chikdo range. You can read about it here:
http://rokdrop.com/2006/09/25/progress-on-us-bombing-range-issue/
As Kalani has pointed out there are limitations with the Chikido range but I am willing to bet the bombing range issue to being used as a bargaining chip in regards to US-ROK alliance funding and future of the alliance negotiations.
12:21 am on April 20th, 2008 4
I can’t tell what level of importance to give this news, even if it happens, but it would seem to me — since the talk for the last few years on USFK reformation has been about lowering the US “footprint” to an “air and sea hub” by taking out ground forces —– the removal of such a large chunk of the USAF in Korea —- would seem very significant.
11:12 am on April 20th, 2008 5
I was a little surprised to when it was announced that Air Force cuts were being made. That is why I think this may be being used as a bargaining chip in the US-ROK alliance funding talks. Something could be transpiring such as, “fine you don’t want to pay 50% of USKF upkeep costs we will send a 1/3 of our Air Force back home to make up for the lack of funding.”
Sending soldiers home is no big deal for the Korean government because they have plenty of soldiers to make up for this loss however airplanes is a different story that really effects the security of the nation and withdrawn airplanes are expensive to replace unlike soldiers. This may be a good move by USFK if this is what they are intending.
Maybe Kalani can validate this opinion or not since he seems to know much more then I do about the Air Force in Korea.
10:06 pm on April 20th, 2008 6
The more I think about this, a FS leaving by the end of the year, the less I believe it will happen.
The only logical explaination for this to happen would be to replace them with some other type of weapon system, or a permanent rotation of different units.
On the other hand, one way to increase the percent of command sponsored tours, like BBB has indicated he would like to see, is to reduce the number of personnel assigned.
Of course a RIF of miltary personel could cause a RIF in KGS positions.
???? When the runway was recently repaired was it extended?