BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick [Archive]

Andrew C. Toppan

May 15th 05, 04:32 PM

I'm trying to figure out the BRAC logic in the realignment of NAS
Brunswick, Maine. The plan is to relocate all the planes to NAS
Jacksonville but keep Brunswick open as a Naval Air Facility.

I can understand the rationale for moving to Jacksonville -
consolidating the P-3/P-8 fleets to a single location makes sense. One
could argue the relative merits of Brunswick vs. Jacksonville (i.e.
Brunswick probably has better airspace and has just spent millions
upgrading all the base infrastructure), but reality is Florida has
more electoral votes and a guy named Bush is governor. So we won't
argue this part for now....

But why keep Brunswick as a NAF then? The stated reason is "homeland
defense", which doesn't make much sense (nor do the base supporters'
arguments about homeland defense makes sense), since BNAS has no
homeland defense mission. An airfield without airplanes - or even an
airfield with P-3s and C-130s - can't do much defending.

This might make sense if, for example, they moved all the ME ANG
aircraft to Brunswick from commercial airfields, and closed Otis ANGB
(MA) and moved the F-15s further up the coast to be closer to an
incoming threat....but that's not happening. ME ANG's existing
location at Bangor will be getting more aircraft and the F-15s from
Otis will be going further south and west. Those F-15s are really the
only "homeland defense" aircraft in these parts.....so any active
"homeland defense" role for the future NAF Brunswick is fiction.

This really seems to be creating exactly the sort of base we're trying
to eliminate....an infrastructure that costs money but doesn't support
any deployable forces. It seems like the Navy will quite reasonably
want to close the base in the next BRAC, since it will be costing
money but doing nothing useful. The communities might reasonably join
in that request, since they would rather have a redevelopment property
than a locked-up, skeleton-crewed airfield.

Can anyone figure out what's going on here?

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Thomas Schoene

May 15th 05, 05:31 PM

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out the BRAC logic in the realignment of NAS
> Brunswick, Maine. The plan is to relocate all the planes to NAS
> Jacksonville but keep Brunswick open as a Naval Air Facility.
[snip]
>
> Can anyone figure out what's going on here?

I suspect that the idea will be to use NAF Brunswick like many of the
overseas forward operating bases; deploy detatchments of P-3s for maritime
surveillance in the North Atlantic as needed.

Keeping it open as a NAF also keeps some of the anciliary activities going
(Winter SERE training is done there, for example).

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Mark Test

May 15th 05, 06:21 PM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I'm trying to figure out the BRAC logic in the realignment of NAS
> Brunswick, Maine. The plan is to relocate all the planes to NAS
> Jacksonville but keep Brunswick open as a Naval Air Facility.

Andrew, currently there are 19 P-3 squadrons (12 act 7 res) 227 aircraft
soon to be down to 150. And I'd wager that we are buying less than 150
of the 777's (P-8's?) to replace the P-3's that are finally retired.

With fewer ships and aircraft, and a changing threat environment
(ie., a non-european threat to an SE Asia-Asian threat), has got to
be the driving the decisions.

Also, Jacksonville allows much easier integration for the P-3's to
conduct coord training with CV stike groups....easier and cheaper
since less fuel required to get to the JAX area.

Personally, the list makes complete sense to me (19 years active duty),
unfortunately politicians like Trent Lott will fight to keep uselesss bases
open like Pascagoula.

BTW, when NAS Adak was converted to a NAF, it was then
de-commed all together. Perhaps this is a way to "soften"
the blow to the local community?

Mark

Andrew C. Toppan

May 15th 05, 07:50 PM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:21:16 GMT, "Mark Test" >
wrote:

>Andrew, currently there are 19 P-3 squadrons (12 act 7 res) 227 aircraft
>soon to be down to 150. And I'd wager that we are buying less than 150
[snip]

Did you READ what I wrote?

I stated very plainly that I know the reasons for going to a single
east coast P-3/P-8 base. That is NOT what I'm wondering about, but
you've explained it to me anyway.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Kevin Brooks

May 15th 05, 08:08 PM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I'm trying to figure out the BRAC logic in the realignment of NAS
> Brunswick, Maine. The plan is to relocate all the planes to NAS
> Jacksonville but keep Brunswick open as a Naval Air Facility.
>
> I can understand the rationale for moving to Jacksonville -
> consolidating the P-3/P-8 fleets to a single location makes sense. One
> could argue the relative merits of Brunswick vs. Jacksonville (i.e.
> Brunswick probably has better airspace and has just spent millions
> upgrading all the base infrastructure), but reality is Florida has
> more electoral votes and a guy named Bush is governor. So we won't
> argue this part for now....
>
> But why keep Brunswick as a NAF then? The stated reason is "homeland
> defense", which doesn't make much sense (nor do the base supporters'
> arguments about homeland defense makes sense), since BNAS has no
> homeland defense mission.

That is a bit like saying that NTC/Irwin, or FT A.P. Hill, or FT McCoy,
serve no real purpose because they don't have much in the form of
permanently assigned/deployable forces on those bases...but gee whiz, they
each provide pretty valuable support to the force, eh?

An airfield without airplanes - or even an
> airfield with P-3s and C-130s - can't do much defending.

You probably find it inconceivable that the military could indeed find a
base of use without it having to have a large permanent party
assigned...wouldn't surprise me. That you find the concept of performing sea
or border surveillance with aircraft like P-3's or C-130's not to be much of
import to the concept of "homeland defense" just further points to your
complete and utter lack of a grasp of the concepts of military operations.

>
> This might make sense if, for example, they moved all the ME ANG
> aircraft to Brunswick from commercial airfields, and closed Otis ANGB
> (MA) and moved the F-15s further up the coast to be closer to an
> incoming threat....but that's not happening. ME ANG's existing
> location at Bangor will be getting more aircraft and the F-15s from
> Otis will be going further south and west. Those F-15s are really the
> only "homeland defense" aircraft in these parts.....so any active
> "homeland defense" role for the future NAF Brunswick is fiction.

Your definition of "active homeland defense" is obviously very deficient.

Brooks

<snip>

Jim Carriere

May 15th 05, 09:14 PM

Thomas Schoene wrote:
> Keeping it open as a NAF also keeps some of the anciliary activities going
> (Winter SERE training is done there, for example).

Another thing is it may be a good choice as a weather divert for
military flights in the area (good choice in terms of flight line
security, cost of overnight lodging).

Andrew C. Toppan

May 15th 05, 09:14 PM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:08:13 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>That is a bit like saying that NTC/Irwin, or FT A.P. Hill, or FT McCoy,
>serve no real purpose because they don't have much in the form of
>permanently assigned/deployable forces on those bases...but gee whiz, they
>each provide pretty valuable support to the force, eh?

Over-generalizations always sound silly; yours is no exception. They
each have a mission. The question here is, what's the mission of the
future NAF Brunswick? Nobody has defined that mission or the people
that will do it. The base maintenance, administrative, and security
forces don't do any good without some sort of operating forces
present.

>assigned...wouldn't surprise me. That you find the concept of performing sea
>or border surveillance with aircraft like P-3's or C-130's not to be much of
>import to the concept of "homeland defense" just further points to your
>complete and utter lack of a grasp of the concepts of military operations.

Since neither of those aircraft has that mission, I think you are the
one without much grasp of reality. The P-3s and C-130s from Brunswick
don't spent their lives patrolling the Gulf of Maine looking for
terrorists or invading Canadians (that's the Coast Guard's job), nor
do they protect us against hijacked terrorist aircraft (that's for
fighters, not freighters).

Just what "surveillance" do you think C-130s do?????

>Your definition of "active homeland defense" is obviously very deficient.

It means doing something, not just sitting there. Lately it's
fashionable to say ever military facility is "defending the homeland"
just by existing. This is a silly notion.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Tony

May 16th 05, 02:42 AM

All the info behind the decision will be
presented in the upcoming BRAC hearings.

I think Rumsfeld is testifying before Congress on Monday.

The BRAC commission will be making their rounds at
the major bases that are slated for change.

[email protected]

May 16th 05, 04:58 AM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:14:46 -0400, Andrew C. Toppan
> wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

>Over-generalizations always sound silly; yours is no exception. They
>each have a mission. The question here is, what's the mission of the
>future NAF Brunswick?

Most likely a deployment site for JAX squadrons doing North Atlantic
surveylance.

Nobody has defined that mission or the people
>that will do it. The base maintenance, administrative, and security
>forces don't do any good without some sort of operating forces
>present.

You save admin money downgrading from an NAS to an NAF. You might
have to keep only one or two hangers up, along with a reduced
maintenance capability. You might have only one or two squadrons
present at only one time. You don't need a major simulator base.
There is some operational sense, here.

>>assigned...wouldn't surprise me. That you find the concept of performing sea
>>or border surveillance with aircraft like P-3's or C-130's not to be much of
>>import to the concept of "homeland defense" just further points to your
>>complete and utter lack of a grasp of the concepts of military operations.
>
>Since neither of those aircraft has that mission, I think you are the
>one without much grasp of reality. The P-3s and C-130s from Brunswick
>don't spent their lives patrolling the Gulf of Maine looking for
>terrorists or invading Canadians (that's the Coast Guard's job), nor
>do they protect us against hijacked terrorist aircraft (that's for
>fighters, not freighters).

What constitutes "Homeland Defense", rather like what constitutes
"beauty," seems to exist mostly in the eyes of its beholders. There
may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did
not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
an NAF around for that reason?

>>Your definition of "active homeland defense" is obviously very deficient.
>
>It means doing something, not just sitting there. Lately it's
>fashionable to say ever military facility is "defending the homeland"
>just by existing. This is a silly notion.

Oh, come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of
technology,but standing Condition Five came pretty close to "sitting
around." I would think that living in a Mole Hole for long periods
would also come close.

Action is not always progress; inaction is not always wasteful.

Bill Kambic

Arved Sandstrom

May 16th 05, 07:23 AM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm trying to figure out the BRAC logic in the realignment of NAS
> Brunswick, Maine. The plan is to relocate all the planes to NAS
> Jacksonville but keep Brunswick open as a Naval Air Facility.

[ SNIP ]

I must admit that I am curious about this too. AFAIK, NAS Brunswick is not
only the last full service DoN flight installation in New England, it's the
last full service active duty DoD flight installation in New England.
Considering its location, one would think that you'd want to keep the
capability there - not because the Canadians are going to attack, but
because it's near major traffic routes for shipping and air, and sort of at
the pointy end, considering things like 9/11. Also, it's well-located in the
sense that it does not particularly encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a
problem at NAS Jacksonville.

As you stated, Jeb has a bit more pull than John Baldacci. It's politically
better to **** off Maine than to **** off Florida.

In the course of doing some Googling to reply to this, it was interesting to
find out that Loring AFB was the second largest AFB in the US, until it
closed. Interesting SAC site:
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/bases/Loring_AFB.htm Exactly similar
comments as per NAS Brunswick - closest location to Europe and the Middle
East, unencumbered airspace, ideally situated for tanker support etc etc.

One can only assume that Cuba is next on the attack list.

AHS

Kevin Brooks

May 16th 05, 01:58 PM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 15:08:13 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>That is a bit like saying that NTC/Irwin, or FT A.P. Hill, or FT McCoy,
>>serve no real purpose because they don't have much in the form of
>>permanently assigned/deployable forces on those bases...but gee whiz, they
>>each provide pretty valuable support to the force, eh?
>
> Over-generalizations always sound silly; yours is no exception. They
> each have a mission. The question here is, what's the mission of the
> future NAF Brunswick?

For a possible one, see the cite below...

Nobody has defined that mission or the people
> that will do it.

Just because you have not read such information does not mean that nobody
has set forth a vision that could be supported by such a "barebones" basing
option. Again, see the cite below.

The base maintenance, administrative, and security
> forces don't do any good without some sort of operating forces
> present.
>
>>assigned...wouldn't surprise me. That you find the concept of performing
>>sea
>>or border surveillance with aircraft like P-3's or C-130's not to be much
>>of
>>import to the concept of "homeland defense" just further points to your
>>complete and utter lack of a grasp of the concepts of military operations.
>
> Since neither of those aircraft has that mission, I think you are the
> one without much grasp of reality. The P-3s and C-130s from Brunswick
> don't spent their lives patrolling the Gulf of Maine looking for
> terrorists or invading Canadians (that's the Coast Guard's job), nor
> do they protect us against hijacked terrorist aircraft (that's for
> fighters, not freighters).

"The Navy is beginning development of a concept of operations for the
persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) of wide
swaths of the world's oceans by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)...The
mission will be accomplished with new hardware. The Navy is developing
high-flying UAVs that can stay aloft for many hours and perform missions
such as scanning the maritime approaches to the nation's coasts and tracking
all ships approaching U.S. points of entry...The objective will be to
provide maritime intelligence to joint forces to pass to homeland security
and homeland defense units and other federal agencies... "We will look to
Global Hawk to be a vital ISR tool that will assist strike group commanders
in achieving maritime domain awareness in support of the joint force and to
support homeland security and homeland defense efforts in the maritime
realm"...The concept of using a persistent UAV for maritime surveillance is
quite simple. It would scan a large area of ocean - making five orbits in a
35-hour period, in one scenario - looking for ships of interest, such as one
suspected of having weapons of mass destruction on board that is possibly
heading for a U.S. port. When such a vessel is located, a Navy ship could be
tasked to intercept it, or a maritime patrol aircraft such as a P-3
dispatched to further investigate the contact with radar, send images to
command authorities and examine the ship up close."
www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_05_12.php

It appears maybe you are the guy who can't see past his nose in regards to
the USN and the homeland defense mission....

>
> Just what "surveillance" do you think C-130s do?????

You really never knew that C-130's have been employed in the surveillance
role? Everything from COMINT to ELINT and surface surveillance?

>
>>Your definition of "active homeland defense" is obviously very deficient.
>
> It means doing something, not just sitting there. Lately it's
> fashionable to say ever military facility is "defending the homeland"
> just by existing. This is a silly notion.

LOL! Another case of Andrew assumeing that because he has no personal
knowledge of such possibilities, they are by definition "silly".

Brooks

>
> --
> Andrew Toppan

Kevin Brooks

May 16th 05, 02:10 PM

Jack Linthicum

May 16th 05, 02:19 PM

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out the BRAC logic in the realignment of NAS
> > Brunswick, Maine. The plan is to relocate all the planes to NAS
> > Jacksonville but keep Brunswick open as a Naval Air Facility.
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> I must admit that I am curious about this too. AFAIK, NAS Brunswick
is not
> only the last full service DoN flight installation in New England,
it's the
> last full service active duty DoD flight installation in New England.
> Considering its location, one would think that you'd want to keep the
> capability there - not because the Canadians are going to attack, but
> because it's near major traffic routes for shipping and air, and sort
of at
> the pointy end, considering things like 9/11. Also, it's well-located
in the
> sense that it does not particularly encroach upon urban areas...which
*is* a
> problem at NAS Jacksonville.
>
> As you stated, Jeb has a bit more pull than John Baldacci. It's
politically
> better to **** off Maine than to **** off Florida.
>
> In the course of doing some Googling to reply to this, it was
interesting to
> find out that Loring AFB was the second largest AFB in the US, until
it
> closed. Interesting SAC site:
> http://www.strategic-air-command.com/bases/Loring_AFB.htm Exactly
similar
> comments as per NAS Brunswick - closest location to Europe and the
Middle
> East, unencumbered airspace, ideally situated for tanker support etc
etc.
>
> One can only assume that Cuba is next on the attack list.
>
> AHS

As a sort to token ****ing off of Jeb the Naval Ordnance Test Unit is
scheduled to move to Kings Bay, Ga.,after 2008. It supports missile
testing on Trident submarines and also has launched ballistic missiles
from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Although the Pentagon's closure list shows no more than 195 jobs
leaving Brevard with the unit, the move also could affect
private-sector engineers who do contract work for it, said Capt.
Jeffrey Gernand, the commanding officer.

Most of those engineers, 400 of them, work for Lockheed Martin. The
future of those jobs would be up to their employer.

Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Julie Andrews [ and you thought she had
left show business] said the company's workers
will continue on as planned, including those on the Navy's Trident D-5
nuclear missile program, the so-called "Center for Excellence"
announced in February.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050514/BASES...

nafod40

May 16th 05, 04:11 PM

Jack Linthicum wrote:
> As a sort to token ****ing off of Jeb...

Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly in
the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main site
of basing far less important. So good reasons to realign to the south,
not just because Jeb lives there. Same thing for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

As for keeping it as a NAF, Andrew's question is a good one. Possible
reasons, in no order or no particular logical structure...

We can just have dets show up at Brunswick on an as-needed basis. SERE
school support. Ease in the final decomm of the base. Support for boats
coming out of Bath Iron Works (over 20% of base dedicated to that.)
Toxic waste in ground (easier to keep open than to clean). Maybe some
tenants that have to be there. Big-time Navy Reserve support to the
northeast, even more so as NAS Willow Grove goes away. Maybe shift Coast
Guard SAR assets from Otis ANG (getting closed) to Brunswick.

Jack Linthicum

May 16th 05, 04:26 PM

nafod40 wrote:
> Jack Linthicum wrote:
> > As a sort to token ****ing off of Jeb...
>
> Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly
in
> the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main
site
> of basing far less important. So good reasons to realign to the
south,
> not just because Jeb lives there. Same thing for Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard.
>
> As for keeping it as a NAF, Andrew's question is a good one. Possible

> reasons, in no order or no particular logical structure...
>
> We can just have dets show up at Brunswick on an as-needed basis.
SERE
> school support. Ease in the final decomm of the base. Support for
boats
> coming out of Bath Iron Works (over 20% of base dedicated to that.)
> Toxic waste in ground (easier to keep open than to clean). Maybe some

> tenants that have to be there. Big-time Navy Reserve support to the
> northeast, even more so as NAS Willow Grove goes away. Maybe shift
Coast
> Guard SAR assets from Otis ANG (getting closed) to Brunswick.

The Navy provides a KC-130 tanker for helicopter air refueling, E-2C
aircraft for enhanced air traffic control and [4] P-3 aircraft for
search and rescue operations in the mid-Atlantic region all operating
from Patrick AFB just below Cape Canaveral..

Don McIntyre

May 16th 05, 04:28 PM

I tend to agree that it's a political thing. Kind of like NASA's
putting Mission Control in Houston (instead of FL) to make LBJ happy.
I also believe that keeping NASB open as opposed to NAS Jax makes
more sense. The urban encroachment issue has already been addressed.
Closer-to-Europe and the North Atlantic OpAreas and Millions spent on
new infrastructure has also been addressed.
I don't believe that NAS Jax will put the P-3/P-8s any closer to
exercise areas, either. When I was stationed at NASB we did a lot of
our exercises off the coast of NJ and VA/NC areas.
Of course NAS Jax is closer to the training ranges in the Bahamas and
Caribbean.
And then of course there's the fact that I just happen to like ME
better than FL.
I don't get it, but then, the guys making these decisions are of a
much higher paygrade than I ever achieved. 8-)

Don McIntyre
Clarksville, TN

Derek Lyons

May 16th 05, 06:05 PM

"Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:

[RE: NAS/NAF Brunswick]
>Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly
>encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS Jacksonville.

Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban
areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and Mayport
were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then and
now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth, especially
down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote
weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching
suburb status.

It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It used
to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is
two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his
front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St
John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now it's
solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Andrew C. Toppan

May 16th 05, 10:15 PM

On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote:

>may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
>"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did

There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is
closing, too.

>not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
>will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
>an NAF around for that reason?

There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG
is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is
virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick.

>Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
>was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of

So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any
other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style?
Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something
against the person being deterred.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew C. Toppan

May 16th 05, 10:15 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:11:59 -0400, nafod40 >
wrote:

>Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly in
>the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main site

777? Who's planning to give the Navy 777s?

Land is cheaper? Who's planning to buy land? NAS Brunswick was
bought in the 1940's.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew C. Toppan

May 16th 05, 10:15 PM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:58:44 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>For a possible one, see the cite below...

OK, you've provided one possibility....that's what I asked about.

In my opinion it's a farfetched one, but anyway....

And still, nobody has identifed this as a potential new mission for
Brunswick. All you've done is identified a concept that exists.

>You really never knew that C-130's have been employed in the surveillance
>role? Everything from COMINT to ELINT and surface surveillance?

Sure, EC-130s and MC-130s and such. That's not what we're talking
about here.

Again - what surveillance mission do the C-130s at NAS Brunswick have?
The answer is none.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Mike Kanze

May 16th 05, 10:50 PM

Derek,

>Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban areas
>encroached upon the base.

Point well-taken, but it matters little if Mohammed goes to the mountain or
the reverse - the result is the same. Unfortunately, encroachers vote in
greater numbers than trees and critters, although not necessarily any more
intelligently.

--
Mike Kanze

"Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."

- Sighted on a T-shirt

"Derek Lyons" > wrote in message
...
> "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:
>
> [RE: NAS/NAF Brunswick]
>>Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly
>>encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS Jacksonville.
>
> Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban
> areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and Mayport
> were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then and
> now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth, especially
> down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote
> weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching
> suburb status.
>
> It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It used
> to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is
> two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his
> front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St
> John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now it's
> solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way.
>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Jack Linthicum

May 16th 05, 11:28 PM

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Derek,
>
> >Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the
urban areas
> >encroached upon the base.
>
> Point well-taken, but it matters little if Mohammed goes to the
mountain or
> the reverse - the result is the same. Unfortunately, encroachers vote
in
> greater numbers than trees and critters, although not necessarily any
more
> intelligently.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze
>
> "Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass."
>
> - Sighted on a T-shirt
>
>
> "Derek Lyons" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Arved Sandstrom" > wrote:
> >
> > [RE: NAS/NAF Brunswick]
> >>Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly
> >>encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS
Jacksonville.
> >
> > Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the
urban
> > areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and
Mayport
> > were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then
and
> > now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth,
especially
> > down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote
> > weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching
> > suburb status.
> >
> > It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It
used
> > to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is
> > two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his
> > front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St
> > John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now
it's
> > solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way.
> >
> > D.
> > --
> > Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
> >
> > -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> > Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

aften spelled "oeno"

BF Lake

May 17th 05, 01:24 AM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...

>
> Again - what surveillance mission do the C-130s at NAS Brunswick have?
> The answer is none.

Not read the whole thread so apologies if already discussed--

In the 60s, the Brunswick, Maine, place (not to be confused with Brunswick,
Georgia, which was Glynco--or even the province of New Brunswick just next
to Maine), held the nuclear weapons (air to air plus ?) that were supposed
to be forwarded to Newfoundland for the US forces stationed there, when
things got hot and Canada agreed to that move of the nukes. (When the
chips were down, in Oct 1962, the then anti-US biased Canadian government
initially refused permission to move the nukes and even for US aircraft to
overfly Canadian airspace! This was " leaked" to the general public and
that government fell on the resulting next election, such was the public's
embarrassment. (Hard to say if that public sentiment still exists back east,
sad to say, but it sure still does in the West <G>) Later, ~1968/9 the new
government agreed to store the warheads in Canada under guard. ) So
Brunswick, Maine was a big deal for the nuclear side of things--presumably
also for anti-sub weapons for the P3s.

So has that nuclear bomb storage business already closed or is it going to
go elsewhere too? Does that matter?

Regards,
Barry

Dave in San Diego

May 17th 05, 02:24 AM

"BF Lake" > wrote in
news:SQaie.67147$tg1.22596@edtnps84:

>
> "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Again - what surveillance mission do the C-130s at NAS Brunswick
>> have? The answer is none.
>
> Not read the whole thread so apologies if already discussed--
>
> In the 60s, the Brunswick, Maine, place (not to be confused with
> Brunswick, Georgia, which was Glynco--or even the province of New
> Brunswick just next to Maine), held the nuclear weapons (air to air
> plus ?) that were supposed to be forwarded to Newfoundland for the US
> forces stationed there, when things got hot and Canada agreed to that
> move of the nukes. (When the chips were down, in Oct 1962, the then
> anti-US biased Canadian government initially refused permission to
> move the nukes and even for US aircraft to overfly Canadian airspace!
> This was " leaked" to the general public and that government fell on
> the resulting next election, such was the public's embarrassment.
> (Hard to say if that public sentiment still exists back east, sad to
> say, but it sure still does in the West <G>) Later, ~1968/9 the new
> government agreed to store the warheads in Canada under guard. ) So
> Brunswick, Maine was a big deal for the nuclear side of
> things--presumably also for anti-sub weapons for the P3s.
>
> So has that nuclear bomb storage business already closed or is it
> going to go elsewhere too? Does that matter?

Very early in my Naval career, I was taught this mantra: It is the policy
of the US government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence
of [nuclear | special] weapons at any specific location.

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's business
where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

Dave in San Diego

BF Lake

May 17th 05, 04:13 AM

"Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
snip.... So
> > Brunswick, Maine was a big deal for the nuclear side of
> > things--presumably also for anti-sub weapons for the P3s.
> >
> > So has that nuclear bomb storage business already closed or is it
> > going to go elsewhere too? Does that matter?
>
> Very early in my Naval career, I was taught this mantra: It is the policy
> of the US government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence
> of [nuclear | special] weapons at any specific location.
>
> Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's business
> where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill me :(

Regards,
Barry

Kevin Brooks

May 17th 05, 04:43 AM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote:
>
>>may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
>>"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did
>
> There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is
> closing, too.

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use
on an as-needed basis.

>
>>not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites
>>will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep
>>an NAF around for that reason?
>
> There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG
> is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is
> virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick.
>
>>Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
>>was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of
>
> So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any
> other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style?
> Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something
> against the person being deterred.

Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3
you dismissed so quickly--you know, the ones that Clark acknowledged almost
three YEARS ago were already performing homeland defense operations?). You
need to attend a basic antiterrorism course before you make such ridiculous
claims.

Brooks

>
> --
> Andrew Toppan

Kevin Brooks

May 17th 05, 04:48 AM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:58:44 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>For a possible one, see the cite below...
>
> OK, you've provided one possibility....that's what I asked about.
>
> In my opinion it's a farfetched one, but anyway....
>
> And still, nobody has identifed this as a potential new mission for
> Brunswick. All you've done is identified a concept that exists.

And I identified past use of the the P-3 in the homeland defense role,
something you claimed was just not possible...

>
>>You really never knew that C-130's have been employed in the surveillance
>>role? Everything from COMINT to ELINT and surface surveillance?
>
> Sure, EC-130s and MC-130s and such. That's not what we're talking
> about here.

Really? There are other options--for example, the USAF has a "strap on"
intel package that turns a vanilla C-130H into an ELINT/SIGINT platform. The
USCG uses C-130's in the surface surveillance role quite regularly
(sometimes visual recon is still required, didn't you know?).

>
> Again - what surveillance mission do the C-130s at NAS Brunswick have?
> The answer is none.

And I guess you figure that (a) that will always be the case, (b) joint
operations don't exist (where USAF or USCG aircraft could operate from the
naval airfield), and (c) the P-3's have magically disappeared from your
litany since proof was provided that they have indeed been involved in
homeland defense operations?

Brooks

>
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan

Ian MacLure

May 17th 05, 06:10 AM

"BF Lake" > wrote in
news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:

> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
> snip.... So

[snip]

>> Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
>> business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.
>
> You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
> me :(

Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
dead giveaway.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Thomas A. Hoffer

May 17th 05, 07:16 AM

Actually one can be reasonably sure that "special weapons" were at NASB
through the 1980's, maybe very early 1990's. I forget what exact year Bush
Sr. ordered tactical special weapons removed from fleet units and shore
installations.

The removal of these weapons allowed for the closing of the marine barracks
at this and other installations.

nafod40

May 17th 05, 03:40 PM

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:11:59 -0400, nafod40 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly in
>>the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main site
>
>
> 777? Who's planning to give the Navy 777s?

Typo. 737s.

> Land is cheaper? Who's planning to buy land? NAS Brunswick was
> bought in the 1940's.

Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
(closing) up to Brunswick.

Tex Houston

May 17th 05, 09:39 PM

"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
> Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
> else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
> living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
> (closing) up to Brunswick.
>
>
Since the devil is in the details why not go to the BRAC source?

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/Vol_I_Part_2_DOD_BRAC.pdf

Tex Houston

[email protected]

May 17th 05, 11:00 PM

On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:39:40 -0600, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"nafod40" > wrote in message
...
>> Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
>> else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
>> living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
>> (closing) up to Brunswick.
>>
>>
>Since the devil is in the details why not go to the BRAC source?

Gotta watch them details, though.

An element of the soon to be decommissioned NAS Atlanta was scheduled
to be moved to the soon to be decommissioned Ft. Gilem (ooops). :-)

In any event, the list is the first step; next come the hearings; then
the final decisions. So the "fat lady" has some time to practice,
yet. ;-)

Bill Kambic

Derek Lyons

May 18th 05, 12:37 AM

Ian MacLure > wrote:

>"BF Lake" > wrote in
>news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:
>
>> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
>> snip.... So
>>
>>> Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
>>> business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.
>>
>> You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
>> me :(
>
>Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
>on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
>dead giveaway.

It's a giveaway that the field is *capable* of handling special
weapons - something the DoD rarely denies is present. It says nothing
about whether or not something is actually there, and *that* is what
is neither confirmed or denied.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

DeepSea

May 18th 05, 12:43 AM

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:428a7fd1.4104857
@supernews.seanet.com:

> Ian MacLure > wrote:
>
>>"BF Lake" > wrote in
>>news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:
>>
>>> "Dave in San Diego" > wrote in message
>>> snip.... So
>>>
>>>> Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
>>>> business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.
>>>
>>> You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
>>> me :(
>>
>>Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
>>on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
>>dead giveaway.
>
> It's a giveaway that the field is *capable* of handling special
> weapons - something the DoD rarely denies is present. It says nothing
> about whether or not something is actually there, and *that* is what
> is neither confirmed or denied.
>
> D.

It is a somewhat amusing situation. In the months prior to 9/11, the
submarine force had been making great strides in coming out of its shell.
We were giving regular tours of the boomers at Kings Bay to what seemed
like anybody that wanted them - the Boy Scouts, the Rotary, school science
classes, you name it. It was kind of funny to watch the looks we'd get
giving the neither confirm or deny speech to guests on a ballistic missile
submarine that was obviously getting ready to go to sea ....

--
DS

Jack Linthicum

May 18th 05, 11:32 AM

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out the BRAC logic in the realignment of NAS
> Brunswick, Maine. The plan is to relocate all the planes to NAS
> Jacksonville but keep Brunswick open as a Naval Air Facility.
>
> I can understand the rationale for moving to Jacksonville -
> consolidating the P-3/P-8 fleets to a single location makes sense.
One
> could argue the relative merits of Brunswick vs. Jacksonville (i.e.
> Brunswick probably has better airspace and has just spent millions
> upgrading all the base infrastructure), but reality is Florida has
> more electoral votes and a guy named Bush is governor. So we won't
> argue this part for now....
>
> But why keep Brunswick as a NAF then? The stated reason is "homeland
> defense", which doesn't make much sense (nor do the base supporters'
> arguments about homeland defense makes sense), since BNAS has no
> homeland defense mission. An airfield without airplanes - or even an
> airfield with P-3s and C-130s - can't do much defending.
>
> This might make sense if, for example, they moved all the ME ANG
> aircraft to Brunswick from commercial airfields, and closed Otis ANGB
> (MA) and moved the F-15s further up the coast to be closer to an
> incoming threat....but that's not happening. ME ANG's existing
> location at Bangor will be getting more aircraft and the F-15s from
> Otis will be going further south and west. Those F-15s are really the
> only "homeland defense" aircraft in these parts.....so any active
> "homeland defense" role for the future NAF Brunswick is fiction.
>
> This really seems to be creating exactly the sort of base we're
trying
> to eliminate....an infrastructure that costs money but doesn't
support
> any deployable forces. It seems like the Navy will quite reasonably
> want to close the base in the next BRAC, since it will be costing
> money but doing nothing useful. The communities might reasonably join
> in that request, since they would rather have a redevelopment
property
> than a locked-up, skeleton-crewed airfield.
>
> Can anyone figure out what's going on here?
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

The impact of BRAC on Pensacola is very strange: 1878 jobs are to go to
Millington, TN from the Navy Education and Training Professional
Development and Technology Center at Saufley, 888 to Eglin and the
joint forces training center (vice an earlier proposal for Luke AFB in
AZ), and Naval Officer Candidate School yo-tos its way back to Newport,
RI with 675 jobs.

nafod40

May 18th 05, 02:06 PM

Tex Houston wrote:
> "nafod40" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
>>else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
>>living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.
>>
>>I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
>>(closing) up to Brunswick.
>>
>>
>
> Since the devil is in the details why not go to the BRAC source?
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/Vol_I_Part_2_DOD_BRAC.pdf
>
> Tex Houston

Don't confuse me with the facts, Tex. I'm on a roll.

Good link.

nafod40

May 18th 05, 02:13 PM

Jack Linthicum wrote:
>
> The impact of BRAC on Pensacola is very strange: 1878 jobs are to go to
> Millington, TN from the Navy Education and Training Professional
> Development and Technology Center at Saufley, 888 to Eglin and the
> joint forces training center (vice an earlier proposal for Luke AFB in
> AZ), and Naval Officer Candidate School yo-tos its way back to Newport,
> RI with 675 jobs.

Some other P-cola tidbits...

Realign Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, by relocating the Naval
Aeromedical Research Laboratory to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Relocate Naval Undersea Medical Institute Groton, CT to Naval Air
Station Pensacola, FL,

Realign Randolph Air Force Base, TX, by relocating Undergraduate
Navigator Training to Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL.

Andrew C. Toppan

May 19th 05, 04:46 AM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use
>on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

>Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
>being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3

Yep, that sure worked well on 9/11....

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew C. Toppan

May 19th 05, 04:46 AM

On Tue, 17 May 2005 01:24:30 GMT, Dave in San Diego
> wrote:

>Very early in my Naval career, I was taught this mantra: It is the policy
>of the US government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence
>of [nuclear | special] weapons at any specific location.

But in this case it's pretty darn easy. In 1992 then-President Bush
(the other one!) ordered withdrawl of all tactical nuclear weapons.
The Navy's tactical nuclear weapons were retired or placed in depot
storage.

Considering that policy has not been reversed (as far as we know,
anyway), it's a safe bet that Brunswick has none.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew C. Toppan

May 19th 05, 04:46 AM

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:48:24 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>Really? There are other options--for example, the USAF has a "strap on"
>intel package that turns a vanilla C-130H into an ELINT/SIGINT platform. The
>USCG uses C-130's in the surface surveillance role quite regularly
>(sometimes visual recon is still required, didn't you know?).

Again, that's not USN C-130s at Brunswick.

>And I guess you figure that (a) that will always be the case, (b) joint
>operations don't exist (where USAF or USCG aircraft could operate from the
>naval airfield), and (c) the P-3's have magically disappeared from your
>litany since proof was provided that they have indeed been involved in
>homeland defense operations?

OK, so we buy all your arguments and say the C-130s and P-3s at
Brunswick are vitally important to homeland security, and not just
doing it for lack of any other mission and for the sake of being
involved in the current focus.

So how does removing them to a base over 1000 miles away help matters
any?

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Kevin Brooks

May 19th 05, 04:57 AM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:48:24 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Really? There are other options--for example, the USAF has a "strap on"
>>intel package that turns a vanilla C-130H into an ELINT/SIGINT platform.
>>The
>>USCG uses C-130's in the surface surveillance role quite regularly
>>(sometimes visual recon is still required, didn't you know?).
>
> Again, that's not USN C-130s at Brunswick.

There is this newfangled term you may have run across, called "joint
operations"...

>
>>And I guess you figure that (a) that will always be the case, (b) joint
>>operations don't exist (where USAF or USCG aircraft could operate from the
>>naval airfield), and (c) the P-3's have magically disappeared from your
>>litany since proof was provided that they have indeed been involved in
>>homeland defense operations?
>
> OK, so we buy all your arguments and say the C-130s and P-3s at
> Brunswick are vitally important to homeland security,

Did I say that? I said the P-3 has indeed been used in the homeland defense
role (something you claimed was just not realistic...before you were
provided with evidence to the contrary, which you of course ignored...). I
said that C-130's can conduct surveillance operations (like the USCG
flavor). I pointed out that ISR and situational awareness are indeed
important factors in terms of homeland defense, and that despite your
laughable protestations otherwise, in the antiterrorism venue they can
indeed constitute " deterrence" without involving any offensive capability
of their own. Which is not of course what you just said I argued.

and not just
> doing it for lack of any other mission and for the sake of being
> involved in the current focus.
>
> So how does removing them to a base over 1000 miles away help matters
> any?

How does it hurt, if the base is only needed for contingency or periodic
requirements?

Brooks

>
> --
> Andrew Toppan

Kevin Brooks

May 19th 05, 05:02 AM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
>>use
>>on an as-needed basis.
>
> New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Oh, touche! Yeah, I brainfarted and used the "New" instead of NAS. Mea
freakin' culpa. Now when are you gonna 'fess up to incorrectly stating that
P-3's have never had/don't have any homeland defense mission?

>
>
>>Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
>>being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3
>
> Yep, that sure worked well on 9/11....

Uhmmm...if you had not noticed, our *lack* of adequate situational awareness
contributed to that outcome, not the other way around. Now, come on and give
us some more gems of your vast anti/counter-terrorism experience and/or
knowledge, Andrew... You are beginning to sound a bit like Henry J.
again....

Brooks

>
> --
> Andrew Toppan

Arved Sandstrom

May 19th 05, 05:32 AM

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
use
> >on an as-needed basis.
>
> New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Is it safe to assume that neither of you will be bowling, throwing darts, or
playing badminton any time soon? That is to say, as gleeful chums?

AHS

Derek Lyons

May 19th 05, 05:59 PM

DeepSea > wrote:
>It is a somewhat amusing situation. In the months prior to 9/11, the
>submarine force had been making great strides in coming out of its shell.
>We were giving regular tours of the boomers at Kings Bay to what seemed
>like anybody that wanted them - the Boy Scouts, the Rotary, school science
>classes, you name it.

I wonder what changed across the mid-90's, as we were doing that here
at Bangor ca 1987-1990. For that matter, in the mid-80's we fairly
routinely gave tours at King's Bay. (4 refits on a '41 - and I can't
recall one of them without a tour of some sort.)

>It was kind of funny to watch the looks we'd get
>giving the neither confirm or deny speech to guests on a ballistic missile
>submarine that was obviously getting ready to go to sea ....

<nods> Yes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL