http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=104897&ran=172016&tref=po

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

In article >,
Yofuri > wrote:

> http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=104897&ran=172016&tref=po

??? The story you point to is about NAS Oceana in Virginia Beach
being on the closure list. There is nothing in the story about
Alabama. Did you quote the wrong article?

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article >,
> Yofuri > wrote:
>
>
>>http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=104897&ran=172016&tref=po
>
>
> ??? The story you point to is about NAS Oceana in Virginia Beach
> being on the closure list. There is nothing in the story about
> Alabama. Did you quote the wrong article?
>
> -john-
>
Sorry for the confusion. It was intended as tongue-in-cheek speculation
as to Oceana's BRAC-directed relocation.

Ric

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Interesting. The BRAC directed closure unless Va Beach performed a number
of actions to relieve encroachment around Oceana. Cecil was offered as an
alternative location if Va Beach could/would not comply. Evidently the
back-room boys who dreamed up this scenario didn't asked the Jacksonville
local population ... apparently they don't WANT a master jet base any more
and are quite happy with the current field usage.

Sooo ... given there's no real alternative for Oceana's assets to be
relocated, what does the Navy do? (I know, one of the commissioners
suggested Kingsville ... must be on the Texas payroll, he also vigorously
and unsuccessfully defended Ingleside ... but that dog won't hunt.) I
suspect Oceana will be with us, and heavily encroached, for a long time.

R / John

John Carrier wrote:
> ... I
> suspect Oceana will be with us, and heavily encroached, for a long time.

And over on the other coast, there's the ever-continuing issue of
making Miramar joint-use and/or simply turning it into the new SDiego
airport.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20060523-9999-1n23airport.html

One thing which didn't take place w/ Miramar over the years was
"complete" encroachment. The military got lucky on that point.

MW

"John Carrier" > wrote...
> Interesting. The BRAC directed closure unless Va Beach performed a number
> of actions to relieve encroachment around Oceana. Cecil was offered as an
> alternative location if Va Beach could/would not comply. Evidently the
> back-room boys who dreamed up this scenario didn't asked the Jacksonville
> local population ... apparently they don't WANT a master jet base any more
> and are quite happy with the current field usage.

Yet another example of how this BRAC thing was out of control from the start!
Though nominally "independent," the BRAC Commission was still subject to massive
campaigning and lobbying from special-interest groups from all camps.

When Cecil was closed, it had nowhere NEAR the encroachment that Oceana had! I
haven't been there in years, but I suspect the growth even to the east is STILL
nowhere near the 1980s development around Oceana! I still wonder how it came to
be that Cecil was closed instead...


> Sooo ... given there's no real alternative for Oceana's assets to be
> relocated, what does the Navy do? (I know, one of the commissioners
> suggested Kingsville ... must be on the Texas payroll, he also vigorously
> and unsuccessfully defended Ingleside ... but that dog won't hunt.) I
> suspect Oceana will be with us, and heavily encroached, for a long time.

There's still Cheerless Pit, but I suspect the Marines STILL don't want the Navy
invading and corrupting "their" turf...

Meridian? Consolidate all the training at Kingsville, and give Meridian to the
fleet!

Maybe there's a stray Air Force base or 2 that is up for closing, but would
really rather have the Navy than nothing...

John,

>given there's no real alternative for Oceana's assets to be relocated, what does the Navy do?

Reactivate NAS New Iberia, LA? <BG>

--
Mike Kanze

"The real accomplishment of 'The Da Vinci Code' is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits."

- Daniel Henninger, WALL STREET JOURNAL - 5/19/06

"John Carrier" > wrote in message ...
Interesting. The BRAC directed closure unless Va Beach performed a number
of actions to relieve encroachment around Oceana. Cecil was offered as an
alternative location if Va Beach could/would not comply. Evidently the
back-room boys who dreamed up this scenario didn't asked the Jacksonville
local population ... apparently they don't WANT a master jet base any more
and are quite happy with the current field usage.

Sooo ... given there's no real alternative for Oceana's assets to be
relocated, what does the Navy do? (I know, one of the commissioners
suggested Kingsville ... must be on the Texas payroll, he also vigorously
and unsuccessfully defended Ingleside ... but that dog won't hunt.) I
suspect Oceana will be with us, and heavily encroached, for a long time.

R / John

Mike W.

>One thing which didn't take place w/ Miramar over the years was "complete" encroachment. The military got lucky on that point.


Um...with the quantum leap in helo ops at Miramar (that's where the MCAS Santa Ana folks went), I've heard that the locals are complaining like never before, from areas that these low-flying, JP5-to-noise converters traverse on their way to Camp Pendleton.

"Encroachment" in reverse.

--
Mike Kanze

"The real accomplishment of 'The Da Vinci Code' is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits."

- Daniel Henninger, WALL STREET JOURNAL - 5/19/06

"Mike Weeks" > wrote in message oups.com...

John Carrier wrote:
> ... I
> suspect Oceana will be with us, and heavily encroached, for a long time.

And over on the other coast, there's the ever-continuing issue of
making Miramar joint-use and/or simply turning it into the new SDiego
airport.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20060523-9999-1n23airport.html

One thing which didn't take place w/ Miramar over the years was
"complete" encroachment. The military got lucky on that point.

MW

"Mike Kanze" > wrote...

>given there's no real alternative for Oceana's assets to be relocated, what
>does the Navy do?

Reactivate NAS New Iberia, LA? <BG>

The Flying Tabascos!

SNIP
> There's still Cheerless Pit, but I suspect the Marines STILL don't want
> the Navy invading and corrupting "their" turf...
>

Probably the most viable, but there are wildlife sanctuary issues IIRC.

> Meridian? Consolidate all the training at Kingsville, and give Meridian
> to the fleet!

Great training base, good for a reserve squadron or two. Location sucks for
fleet for numerous reasons.
Kingsville is similar, although it has access to a warning area.

> Maybe there's a stray Air Force base or 2 that is up for closing, but
> would really rather have the Navy than nothing...

They looked at that. Nuthin'!

R / John

"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet> wrote in
message ...
>
> Maybe there's a stray Air Force base or 2 that is up for closing, but
> would really rather have the Navy than nothing...
>
>
Should improve the level of Navy golf courses, too!

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Mike W.
>
> >One thing which didn't take place w/ Miramar over the years was "complete" encroachment. The military got lucky on that point.
>
>
> Um...with the quantum leap in helo ops at Miramar (that's where the MCAS Santa Ana folks went), I've heard that the locals are complaining like never before, from areas that these low-flying, JP5-to-noise converters traverse on their way to Camp Pendleton.
>
> "Encroachment" in reverse.

Indeed; adding the helos is a new twist to the situation.

As an aside, last Sat. was the last opportunity for visiting and saying
"good bye" to former MCAS El Toro before it's completely dismantled.
The efforts of some to turn that completely encroached location into a
new regional airport never really had a chance.

MW

On Thu, 25 May 2006 06:57:43 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:

>Great training base, good for a reserve squadron or two. Location sucks for
>fleet for numerous reasons.
>Kingsville is similar, although it has access to a warning area.

What should have happened 15 years ago was to close Meridian and
retain Chase. I spent a total of 11 years at Chase as a student then
IP and later as a contract SIM instructor.

Chase was the smallest of the three jet training bases, so had the
lowest facility maintenance costs. Throughout the 70's it had the best
PTR (Pilot Training Rate) - just about 1/2 the time Meridian took to
train a pilot. 10 months average verses 18 months. Kingsville was
averaging 12-13 months then. Even in the 80's the ratios didn't change
much. So why did they close the most efficient base?

One word: Stennis.

BRAC never has been even remotely independent.

John

"John" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 06:57:43 -0500, "John Carrier" >
> wrote:
>
>>Great training base, good for a reserve squadron or two. Location sucks
>>for
>>fleet for numerous reasons.
>>Kingsville is similar, although it has access to a warning area.
>
> What should have happened 15 years ago was to close Meridian and
> retain Chase. I spent a total of 11 years at Chase as a student then
> IP and later as a contract SIM instructor.

Opinions vary.

> Chase was the smallest of the three jet training bases, so had the
> lowest facility maintenance costs. Throughout the 70's it had the best
> PTR (Pilot Training Rate) - just about 1/2 the time Meridian took to
> train a pilot. 10 months average verses 18 months. Kingsville was
> averaging 12-13 months then. Even in the 80's the ratios didn't change
> much. So why did they close the most efficient base?
>
> One word: Stennis.
>
> BRAC never has been even remotely independent.

Stennis was not a factor. His influence had waned by 1991. Chases
facilities were also in the poorest state of material condition (as related
by T-45 site survey) and would have cost more to upgrade for the new
training system.

I think your time-to-train numbers are suspect. Each trawing coould cherry
pick data (or just plain manipulate it) to demonsltrate "it's best." A
number of factors contribute to production capability. Neither Chase, NASK
nor NASM facilities had/have any particular inherent goodness that would
make them superior.

R / John

Jim wrote:
> If they have to close Oceana - which they shouldn't - would the Pensecola
> area be worth investigating? specifically the area around Whiting. Only
> encrochment there would be from livestock. Good weather, multiple fields
> .........?

Uhh, you should take a closer look at Whiting. There are housing
developments RIGHT OUTSIDE the front gate. As for other encroachment,
the town of Pace is talking about ending the lease on some land that is
one of the OLFs. I'm not sure about the "good weather" either, from
about May through October you have thunderstorms nearly every afternoon,
not to mention the hurricanes :)

Basically a whole new base far away from the current population centers
would have to be made, and that still wouldn't address the weather.

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jim wrote:
>> If they have to close Oceana - which they shouldn't - would the Pensecola
>> area be worth investigating? specifically the area around Whiting. Only
>> encrochment there would be from livestock. Good weather, multiple fields
>> .........?
>
> Uhh, you should take a closer look at Whiting. There are housing
> developments RIGHT OUTSIDE the front gate. As for other encroachment, the
> town of Pace is talking about ending the lease on some land that is one of
> the OLFs. I'm not sure about the "good weather" either, from about May
> through October you have thunderstorms nearly every afternoon, not to
> mention the hurricanes :)
>
> Basically a whole new base far away from the current population centers
> would have to be made, and that still wouldn't address the weather.

I was thinking of a bit north of Whiting or maybe northwest. I was just
there and was very surprised how undeveloped it is. I haven't been in the
area for over 25 years and the lack of progress surprised me. There was
base housing just outside the main gate near the end of the runway back in
the '60s and some trailer parks out the back gate. Don't know about the
other bases in the area - Elyson is now and industrial park, Sofley is a
training base and mainside is as bad as Oceana. Seems like anyplace they
try will suffer from NIMBY and the area around Whiting looks like it could
use some help. Don't know if being that far from the fleet would be good
AISTR it was a big pain for the Cecil based A7 personnel to hike up to
N'folk for deployment.

"Jim Carriere" > wrote...
>
> Basically a whole new base far away from the current population centers would
> have to be made, and that still wouldn't address the weather.

Neither would it address the population!

When they were built, Oceana, Cecil, Miramar, Chase, Kingsville, Whiting, etc.
ad nauseum WERE "far away from the current population centers"! Don't you
realize that the mere existence of a military air base ATTRACTS population?!?
Not only do the military and their families arrive, but the civilian "support"
and the merchants that make their money from selling to all the above! Then the
developers arrive and turn former wasteland and current "buffer zones" into
"luxury condominiums"!

Hell, it isn't even restricted to MILITARY airports! Look just outside MIA,
where some fly-by-night outfit is trying to sell pre-construction condos
literally 300 feet under a major final approach course!

Where is "eminent domain" when you really need it?!?

John Weiss wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote...
>> Basically a whole new base far away from the current population centers would
>> have to be made, and that still wouldn't address the weather.
>
> Neither would it address the population!
>
> When they were built, Oceana, Cecil, Miramar, Chase, Kingsville, Whiting, etc.
> ad nauseum WERE "far away from the current population centers"! Don't you
> realize that the mere existence of a military air base ATTRACTS population?!?
> Not only do the military and their families arrive, but the civilian "support"
> and the merchants that make their money from selling to all the above! Then the
> developers arrive and turn former wasteland and current "buffer zones" into
> "luxury condominiums"!
>
> Hell, it isn't even restricted to MILITARY airports! Look just outside MIA,
> where some fly-by-night outfit is trying to sell pre-construction condos
> literally 300 feet under a major final approach course!
>
> Where is "eminent domain" when you really need it?!?

Last year one of the sales kids at a boat shop in Destin, FL was making
conversation with me and one of my friends. He (the kid) commented how
much unused land was around Eglin AFB and how valuable it would be if
the government would sell it off to be developed. My friend and I
silently shook our figurative heads on that one.

We always joke that morons, sorry, people who bought the houses right
near base must have bought on a weekend ("you'll barely notice the
airplane noise, it's quiet like this all the time"). On the lighter
side, the developers selling housing next to busy civilian airports must
be _really_ clever. Maybe they get a lot of business on the days the
winds favor a different runway.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:03:47 -0500, "John Carrier" >
wrote:


>Stennis was not a factor. His influence had waned by 1991.

As I know a number of people who were directly involved (Beevile,
Meridian and CNATRA) with this event, I would have to disagree.
Stennis's influence has been cited to me by everyone I know to have
been a major factor in the decision. His star may have been on the
decline, but it was good enough.

>Chases
>facilities were also in the poorest state of material condition (as related
>by T-45 site survey) and would have cost more to upgrade for the new
>training system.

Possibly - VT-24, VT-25 and TW3 hangars were nothing to write home
about, but the rest of the base, when I left in 88 was in exceptional
shape. It's only real limitation was that there was no room for any
growth.

>
>I think your time-to-train numbers are suspect. Each trawing coould cherry
>pick data (or just plain manipulate it) to demonsltrate "it's best."

Hardly. Student arrives on X date, gets wings on Y date. Pretty easy
math. From 74-76 I was in Training and Ops with VT-24 and saw the
numbers monthly. In the mid 80's while a reservist I was in a CNATRA
unit and the numbers were pretty much the same, though Meridian had
improved some due to their permanent DET. Meridian weather sucked most
of the year. I flew with VT-24 from 74 to 79 and we got Meridian
transfers every single year just so they could finish training in a
reasonable time. It got so bad that Meridian developed a permanent
detachement in AZ in the early 80's just so they could do Weapons,
Low-level NAV and ACM training. In the late 70's CNATRA even
considered re-activating south field at Kingsville and moving all the
Meridian training there. The permanent DET was considered to be a much
cheaper option. Kingsville is closer to the coast than Chase and was
affected by coastal weather more often, but overall, did not have a
significantly increased time-to-train.

John