Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145
This is extremely interesting RFPCME. When will there be a definitive announcement on whether Utah is chosen or not, and how many jobs again did you say this would generate? Was it in the 5000 range? I was also curious as to the supply of engineers. Wouldn't it be easy enough for Hill AFB to glean engineers from nearby areas such as California? I was thinking that the Airforce would prefer to operate in Utah, over say a place like New England or California, and it seems it would be easy enough to attract engineers from around the country. Hill has never had a problem attracting personnel before, and I think the local universities have also proven an ability to expand quickly their programs.
This seems like a really big economic development for the region. Sorry for all the questions, but now you really have me interested in the prospects that this could generate.
|
Delts: Your questions are good ones. First, the number of contractor jobs associated with Cyber Command.
When DoD estimates the economic impact of starting up (or closing) a facility, the rule-of-thumb is that for every direct Government employee (uniform or civilian), there is at least 5 contractor jobs. This ratio is growing because it is so much more cost effective to use private contractors than direct government employees. Even in a war zone, like Iraq, there are several thousand more contractors than uniform personnel, performing every task imaginable to support combat personnel and, rarely, even the combat.
What is especially intriguing about Cyber Command is the ratio is 10 to 1, because of the nature of the mission (information warfare). The beginning estimate for Cyber Command, which could happen before the end of this year, is for a minimum of 500 direct Government employees. So the contractor tail will be at least 5,000. The number of direct Government employees will grow, especially if the Air Force takes the lead in information warfare, which the experts believe will happen.
Second the contractor jobs associated with Cyber Command...these jobs will be very different from most of the traditional jobs at Hill--people involved in the supply, maintenance, repair, and sustainment of aircraft and missiles. Much of the work of the new Cyber Command will be the management of research and development, most of which will take place outside of Utah. So the jobs associated with this Command are very high-end, sophisticated positions, which is not to degrade the jobs currently at Hill. It is just to say the contractor influx will bring different types of employees, most very highly educated and technically oriented.
Where will the people for Cyber Command come from? The answer to this question, more than anything else, will determine whether Cyber Command comes to Utah. Having an adequate supply of local engineering/scientific talent is the most critical issue to be solved. Hill, like most other DoD facilities, never has enough highly skilled technical talent. Only areas like the Bay Area, Boston, and the DC/Northern VA areas have enough university systems close by to support the technical demand. Now that I think about it, there is always a critical shortage of technical talent in the DC/Northern VA area as well.
In addition, with all the base closings taking place over the last 20 years, there are good data available that show when one based is closed and the mission of the base is moved somewhere else, usually less than 20% of the critical workforce makes the move. A classic example of this in now underway with the transfer of the Nation's Missile Defense Agency from the DC-area to Huntsville AL. Current estimates are that as few as 10% of the critical workforce will actually move. And Huntsville, the Princeton NJ of the South, is a VERY desirable place to live for a variety of reasons.
So I am beginning to become more convinced every day that the establishment of Cyber Command at Hill is pretty much a done deal if there is a reasonable answer for attracting and keeping the level of talent necessary to support the Command. But the ability to do that is still a very large question, which spawned my post a few days ago of creating a new University in Utah called the Utah Technological Institute, which would provide part of the solution. I assume many readers saw that idea and logically assumed I was mentally impaired, which might well be true.
Sorry for the long post.
Prev
. I'm not sure I ever see SLC going much over 50-55 floors, which could put us anywhere from 800 - 900 depending on the top they put on it. I would be satisfied with a spattering of 500' - 750' towers, maybe 5-8 of them, that would drastically change the skyline, even a few more mixed in there around the 400-500' mark would ad some nice density to our ever improving skyline, and maybe a tallest of around 900'. While I would like a 1000' tower I don't think SLC skyline necesarily needs something that tall to be a dramatic skyline, we have one thing that sets our skyline apart from any other city in the country and world, our amazing Wasatch Mountains. 
Linear Mode
