photos of Moffet Field (NUQ)

[miso]

http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
may be of interest to the group.

[user]

Awesome photos! Brings back a lot of memories. They never should have
kicked the Navy out of Moffett, I did 8 years there. You can thank
dellums and feinstein for that! Why should the F-18 be of interest?
Nothing at all peculiar about it. The trails you see outta the
wingtips are nothing more than vapor trails (not to be confused with
contrails), or "vapes". Might seem weird to the FNG, just like the
first time you see an aircraft dumping fuel, but perfectly normal.
These "vapes" normally happen in areas with high humidity. The passage
of an aircraft surface condenses the air parcels into tiny water
droplets. (laymans terms, I'm not a scientist, or engineer)

On 2 Dec 2003 01:27:03 -0800, (miso) wrote:

>http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
>I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
>may be of interest to the group.

[user]

What is really of interest is how starnge the place looks with no
P-3's. Used to be more than 100 P-3's on that base. 6 operational
active squadrons (9, 19, 40, 46, 48, 50) with 9 airplanes each, one
reserve squadron with 9 a/c, (VP-91), VP-MAU with 9-11 P-3's, and of
course VP-31 the Rag with anywhere between 15-30 aircraft.

o) wrote:

>http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
>I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
>may be of interest to the group.

[Regnirps]

My old stomping grounds. Your C-141 looks like the old Kuiper infrared
observatory. A school chum of mine spent thousands of hours on that thing
chasing eclipses and such all over the word.

Does the NASA U-2 still take off every morning? It must be a lot quiter at the
golf course without the Orions coming in overhead.

-- Charlie Springer

[Jim Knoyle]

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> My old stomping grounds. Your C-141 looks like the old Kuiper infrared
> observatory. A school chum of mine spent thousands of hours on that thing
> chasing eclipses and such all over the word.
>
> Does the NASA U-2 still take off every morning? It must be a lot quiter at
the
> golf course without the Orions coming in overhead.
>
> -- Charlie Springer

I recall the day I was out running on the Palo Alto baylands and stopped
to watch the U-2 take off from Moffet about three miles away. The tiny
spec disappeared from my view directly overhead. Clear sky.
Several years earlier I lived under the landing pattern of those Orions
and they could be very quiet when they wanted them to be, but they
sure screwed up the TV picture. Then there were the night sounds.
I've heard several people comment about the different sounding
aircraft at night that they never heard or saw in daylight. Again, when
out running the baylands but just across the creek from Moffet, I heard
one of those night sounds, but in broad daylight. I stopped to watch.
Coming toward me was a twin propeller aircraft, but those blades
seemed unusually large. After it passed overhead and was over Moffet
it made it's change and landed. First time I had ever seen an Osprey.

Just by chance, before bringing up newsnet, I tuned in WCT201,
1700 on your AM radio dial. A canned announcement listing all of
the AMES Center gates and the hours they are open under the
present Homeland Security Threat Level Yellow.

JK

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Regnirps) wrote:

> My old stomping grounds. Your C-141 looks like the old Kuiper infrared
> observatory. A school chum of mine spent thousands of hours on that thing
> chasing eclipses and such all over the word.
>
> Does the NASA U-2 still take off every morning?

Only rarely, if something interesting is going on, like a major forest
fire.

> It must be a lot quiter at the
> golf course without the Orions coming in overhead.

I catch myself half-way expecting them to show up, having been off for
some vacation time.

Have to make up, a bit, by seeing the big Antonov in to haul some big
package.

[Merlin Dorfman]

user ) wrote:
: Awesome photos! Brings back a lot of memories. They never should have
: kicked the Navy out of Moffett, I did 8 years there. You can thank
: dellums and feinstein for that!

I'm amazed nobody has jumped on this. It's remotely possible
that you can thank Dellums and Feinstein for making the Navy want to
leave the Bay Area (Hunters Point, Mare Island, Alameda, etc.), but
the fact is that by the time he retired Dellums and the military
actually got along very well--some change on the military's part but
mostly Dellums understanding that the military is not a bunch of baby
killers. Feinstein actually has gotten along well with the military,
starting when she was mayor of San Francisco and continuing during
her time in the Senate. She tried hard to get the Missouri home-
ported in San Francisco when it was still in service.
Ultimately, though, it's the cost of living in the Bay Area
that makes it unwise to to ask military personnel to try to live
there on their pay. The Navy was happy to accept closing of all Bay
Area facilities as part of BRAC.

[miso]

Few remember that it was Diane Feinstine that started San Francisco's
Fleet Week and took huge criticism for it. The GOP picked the bases to
close since they were in charge. Geez, even Boxer tried to stop the
base closures.

Some consider buying expensive hardware independent of functionality
or need a requirement of being pro-military. [Like building a missile
defense system that doesn't quite work, when a delay of a year or two
would shake out the bugs.] Dellums fought for veterans rights and
military pay, which I would consider pro-military as well. It's a
matter of whose side you are on. That is, the military contractors or
the foot soldiers.


Merlin Dorfman > wrote in message >...
> user ) wrote:
> : Awesome photos! Brings back a lot of memories. They never should have
> : kicked the Navy out of Moffett, I did 8 years there. You can thank
> : dellums and feinstein for that!
>
> I'm amazed nobody has jumped on this. It's remotely possible
> that you can thank Dellums and Feinstein for making the Navy want to
> leave the Bay Area (Hunters Point, Mare Island, Alameda, etc.), but
> the fact is that by the time he retired Dellums and the military
> actually got along very well--some change on the military's part but
> mostly Dellums understanding that the military is not a bunch of baby
> killers. Feinstein actually has gotten along well with the military,
> starting when she was mayor of San Francisco and continuing during
> her time in the Senate. She tried hard to get the Missouri home-
> ported in San Francisco when it was still in service.
> Ultimately, though, it's the cost of living in the Bay Area
> that makes it unwise to to ask military personnel to try to live
> there on their pay. The Navy was happy to accept closing of all Bay
> Area facilities as part of BRAC.

[miso]

It's a bit of work, but you can check
http://www.flytecomm.com/cgi-bin/trackflight
for planes heading to NUQ. The AN124s show up.
This trick works for any civilian flight to a military base if you
know the three letter abbreviation, i.e. NUQ for Moffet, SUU for
Travis, etc.

Steve Hix > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Regnirps) wrote:
>
> > My old stomping grounds. Your C-141 looks like the old Kuiper infrared
> > observatory. A school chum of mine spent thousands of hours on that thing
> > chasing eclipses and such all over the word.
> >
> > Does the NASA U-2 still take off every morning?
>
> Only rarely, if something interesting is going on, like a major forest
> fire.
>
> > It must be a lot quiter at the
> > golf course without the Orions coming in overhead.
>
> I catch myself half-way expecting them to show up, having been off for
> some vacation time.
>
> Have to make up, a bit, by seeing the big Antonov in to haul some big
> package.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(miso) wrote:

> Few remember that it was Diane Feinstine that started San Francisco's
> Fleet Week and took huge criticism for it. The GOP picked the bases to
> close since they were in charge. Geez, even Boxer tried to stop the
> base closures.

Follow the money.

[Merlin Dorfman]

Steve Hix ) wrote:
: In article >,
: (miso) wrote:

: > Few remember that it was Diane Feinstine that started San Francisco's
: > Fleet Week and took huge criticism for it. The GOP picked the bases to
: > close since they were in charge. Geez, even Boxer tried to stop the
: > base closures.

: Follow the money.

You can't win...if you are in favor of military bases and Fleet
Week you are a greedy money-grubber, if you are against them you are
a doctrinaire left-winger.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

> Steve Hix ) wrote:
> : In article >,
> : (miso) wrote:
>
> : > Few remember that it was Diane Feinstine that started San Francisco's
> : > Fleet Week and took huge criticism for it. The GOP picked the bases to
> : > close since they were in charge. Geez, even Boxer tried to stop the
> : > base closures.
>
> : Follow the money.
>
> You can't win...if you are in favor of military bases and Fleet
> Week you are a greedy money-grubber,

Says who?

> if you are against them you are a doctrinaire left-winger.

Maybe real life is more complex than either-or, too.

[fudog50]

You missed the point at what was happening at the time melvin, thats
why you are amazed. It's not that Dellums and Feinstein wanted the
military out of the Bay Area, they wanted them there, but at what
political cost? The point was that; Dellums and Feinstein did nothing
but **** off their counterparts on the hill for years, about ALL
issues!!! Therefore, when it came time for BRAC, the commission said,
"**** on you", here's what you get!!! I believe you are totally wrong
about the cost of living as the reason for getting the boot in the Bay
Area, maybe you don't understand military pay. I lived there for 8
years, right in Mounain View, and had hundreds of friends around the
whole Bay,(Moffett, Alameda, T.I., Concord, etc.). Housing was the
only thing that was more expensive for the member, than other areas,
but then we had VHA at the time to compensate, you ended up paying
anywhere from 0- 15% out of pocket expenses, depending on what
neighborhood or size of house you rented. Now, buying a house was
kinda out of the question, unless you were an 'O' or senior enlisted,
(which is the way it should be anyway). It is the same thing now,
anywhere you live, the only cost of living thing that affects you is
housing, and if you live on base, or live within your means it doesn't
even affect you. If we use your reasoning, then we would have to close
all the bases in high cost areas, (D.C., Hawaii, overseas, etc.)
Besides that, the Navy personnel that got booted out of Moffett, (
they didn't close the base, just operate it out of a different pot of
federal money, wheres the real savings? more like smoke and mirrors),
those people including myself all got moved to Whidbey or Barbers
Point, where you ended up paying on average 20-30% out of pocket
because of inadequate BAQ/VHA rates, it took about 6 years to catch
up.


On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
> wrote:

>user ) wrote:
>: Awesome photos! Brings back a lot of memories. They never should have
>: kicked the Navy out of Moffett, I did 8 years there. You can thank
>: dellums and feinstein for that!
>
> I'm amazed nobody has jumped on this. It's remotely possible
>that you can thank Dellums and Feinstein for making the Navy want to
>leave the Bay Area (Hunters Point, Mare Island, Alameda, etc.), but
>the fact is that by the time he retired Dellums and the military
>actually got along very well--some change on the military's part but
>mostly Dellums understanding that the military is not a bunch of baby
>killers. Feinstein actually has gotten along well with the military,
>starting when she was mayor of San Francisco and continuing during
>her time in the Senate. She tried hard to get the Missouri home-
>ported in San Francisco when it was still in service.
> Ultimately, though, it's the cost of living in the Bay Area
>that makes it unwise to to ask military personnel to try to live
>there on their pay. The Navy was happy to accept closing of all Bay
>Area facilities as part of BRAC.

[Merlin Dorfman]

fudog50 ) wrote:
: You missed the point at what was happening at the time melvin, thats
: why you are amazed. It's not that Dellums and Feinstein wanted the
: military out of the Bay Area, they wanted them there, but at what
: political cost?

I don't know, enlighten me--what political cost?
There are/were plenty of people in the Bay Area who want the
military out, and they are very noisy. That noise is often confused
with the local congresscritters wanting the military out, or being
anti-military, which often leads to statements like yours, i.e., it
was Dellums and Feinstein who are responsible for the base closings,
both of which are untrue. So if you reached your conclusions through
a different chain of reasoning, I apologize.

: The point was that; Dellums and Feinstein did nothing
: but **** off their counterparts on the hill for years, about ALL
: issues!!! Therefore, when it came time for BRAC, the commission said,
: "**** on you", here's what you get!!!

BRAC was deliberately quite independent of Congress. It was
the military, and in particular the Navy, which had the most bases
here, that wanted them closed, in favor of bases in less crowded and
cheaper areas--cheaper for the Navy as well as the individual service
members. It began around 1960 when the combat aircraft were moved
from Moffett to Lemoore; it was just getting too crowded in the South
Bay area to safely fly high-performance fighters.

: I believe you are totally wrong
: about the cost of living as the reason for getting the boot in the Bay
: Area, maybe you don't understand military pay.

I know that senior noncoms in the Bay Area are eligible for food
stamps based on their pay vs. the cost of living...and that grocery
clerks with seven years of experience make more than those senior
noncoms.

: I lived there for 8
: years, right in Mounain View, and had hundreds of friends around the
: whole Bay,(Moffett, Alameda, T.I., Concord, etc.). Housing was the
: only thing that was more expensive for the member, than other areas,
: but then we had VHA at the time to compensate, you ended up paying
: anywhere from 0- 15% out of pocket expenses, depending on what
: neighborhood or size of house you rented. Now, buying a house was
: kinda out of the question, unless you were an 'O' or senior enlisted,
: (which is the way it should be anyway). It is the same thing now,
: anywhere you live, the only cost of living thing that affects you is
: housing, and if you live on base, or live within your means it doesn't
: even affect you. If we use your reasoning, then we would have to close
: all the bases in high cost areas, (D.C., Hawaii, overseas, etc.)

DC is really considerably cheaper, and more to the point there are
commutes from reasonable distances where you can live much cheaper...
not to mention the practical consideration that you really can't leave
the national capital. Bases have been closed in Hawaii, and I believe
on-base housing is much more available in Hawaii...there was almost
none on (or near) Moffett.
Besides, there is a cost to the Government to provide the housing
subsidy, even if it doesn't come out of the individual's pocket, and
that cost goes away in areas of cheaper housing.

: Besides that, the Navy personnel that got booted out of Moffett, (
: they didn't close the base, just operate it out of a different pot of
: federal money, wheres the real savings? more like smoke and mirrors),

The Navy owned the land, bought it for $1 in 1938 after locals
bought up the land so the Navy would build a dirigible base there.
The cost is in operating, not paying rent, and that has gone to 0
as far as the Navy is concerned, what operating costs remain are being
paid by NASA and...whoever operates "Moffett Federal Airfield," I don't
even know who it is.

: those people including myself all got moved to Whidbey or Barbers
: Point, where you ended up paying on average 20-30% out of pocket
: because of inadequate BAQ/VHA rates, it took about 6 years to catch
: up.

I thought Barbers Point was being closed.

[fudog50]

Melvin,
Thanks for responding, you might be right about the politics
behind the base closings, I think my points were more based on the
feelings and the sentiments of us active duty Navy people at the time,
which was about 10-12 years ago. The sentiment is still there, about
Feinstein and Dellums, sorry if you disagree....In response to your
statements, some of them are way out to lunch, don't take it
personally, I'm not saying you are out to lunch, but some of your
statements are certainly not true.,,,,I see you have a bit of history
about Moffett, were you stationed there?
First off, Barbers and Whidbey aren't low cost, out in the
sticks areas like Lemoore was back in 1960. Sure they were cheaper,
back in 1994 than the south bay was, but only by about 15-20%, I know
from personal experience, I moved to Whidbey with VP-40 when they made
their homeport change from Moffett to Whidbey in 1993-1994. There was
NO savings to the servicemember (remember we have BAH which pays
between 85-100% of the average housing costs per area) and maybe only
a slight savings in housing costs to the Navy overall, did this
justify or make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on
moving the equipment, the people and the whole P-3 infrastructure and
support facilities, (which has never fully recovered)??? Not even
close, where is the savings? Just one example,,,,,It cost 12 million
dollars to move the NAMTRA from Moffett to Whidbey,,,thats a LOT of
housing payments for YEARS for Thousands of servicemembers,,,and that
is just ONE unit that moved out of the dozens. I would estimate the
entire move to Whidbey and Barbers as being in the 100's of millions
of dollars....not even close to the difference in cost of living
expenses,,,wheres the savings???
I do agree with the overcrowding of air in the South Bay, One
sight I'll always remember is that anytime you come up over the Santa
Cruz mountains from the west (or inbound from any direction) you would
see 6 beacons, only one was green/white (Moffett) we would man both
observer windows and watch for traffic, especially form the 5 GA
airports close by. Departures/Approaches were pretty hairy at times!
Your statement about senior Noncoms getting foodstamps is
ridiculous!!! Where in the heck did you get that??? To me a senior NCO
(not a navy term, we call them petty officers and Chief petty
officers), is like a 2-3 tour E-5 at the least, up to E-9. A married
E5 with 6 years service makes over 50,000 dollars in the Bay area!!!
(base pay = 25,000, BAH=25,000 and BAS= 3,000)
How in the heck does that qualify you for foodstamps??? An E9 makes
close to $90,000 with all 3 allowances...Maybe you are talking about
media stories that don't tell the whole truth? Like maybe an E4 or
below with 9 kids??? They'd be on foodstamps wherever they worked at
with no college educaton at 20-24 years old. (just like the recent
media stories about injured Iraq War vets having money "taken away"
for being in the hospital, I'll explain that BS and show you how spun
up that one is if you have time someday and are buying the beer).
I'm happy you keep thinking a grocery clerk makes more than a
senior NCO, it certainly is false but, it can only help their cause to
get paid what they are worth and what they deserve, (I was an
underpaid NCO for 18 years). Go to this link and you might be
surprised at what an enlisted guy/gal really makes.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/pay/blpay.htm

Don't forget to add in the nontaxable housing allowance (BAH) and
subsistance allowance (BAS), and any other special pays (flight pay,
medical pay, dive pay, sea pay, hazardous duty pay, etc), oh yeah and
bonuses, (ACIP, SRB's, etc).
I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???
Yeah Barbers is long gone, all the P-3's moved up the Island
to MCAS Kanehoe a couple years ago, but they originally did move from
Moffett to Barbers in 1993-1994.
Again, thanks for responding, I'll look into the political
stuff about Dellums and Feinstein again, but I don't think it will
change my mind about them,,,have a Happy Holiday!






On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:17:58 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
> wrote:

>fudog50 ) wrote:
>: You missed the point at what was happening at the time melvin, thats
>: why you are amazed. It's not that Dellums and Feinstein wanted the
>: military out of the Bay Area, they wanted them there, but at what
>: political cost?
>
> I don't know, enlighten me--what political cost?
> There are/were plenty of people in the Bay Area who want the
>military out, and they are very noisy. That noise is often confused
>with the local congresscritters wanting the military out, or being
>anti-military, which often leads to statements like yours, i.e., it
>was Dellums and Feinstein who are responsible for the base closings,
>both of which are untrue. So if you reached your conclusions through
>a different chain of reasoning, I apologize.
>
>: The point was that; Dellums and Feinstein did nothing
>: but **** off their counterparts on the hill for years, about ALL
>: issues!!! Therefore, when it came time for BRAC, the commission said,
>: "**** on you", here's what you get!!!
>
> BRAC was deliberately quite independent of Congress. It was
>the military, and in particular the Navy, which had the most bases
>here, that wanted them closed, in favor of bases in less crowded and
>cheaper areas--cheaper for the Navy as well as the individual service
>members. It began around 1960 when the combat aircraft were moved
>from Moffett to Lemoore; it was just getting too crowded in the South
>Bay area to safely fly high-performance fighters.
>
>: I believe you are totally wrong
>: about the cost of living as the reason for getting the boot in the Bay
>: Area, maybe you don't understand military pay.
>
> I know that senior noncoms in the Bay Area are eligible for food
>stamps based on their pay vs. the cost of living...and that grocery
>clerks with seven years of experience make more than those senior
>noncoms.
>
>: I lived there for 8
>: years, right in Mounain View, and had hundreds of friends around the
>: whole Bay,(Moffett, Alameda, T.I., Concord, etc.). Housing was the
>: only thing that was more expensive for the member, than other areas,
>: but then we had VHA at the time to compensate, you ended up paying
>: anywhere from 0- 15% out of pocket expenses, depending on what
>: neighborhood or size of house you rented. Now, buying a house was
>: kinda out of the question, unless you were an 'O' or senior enlisted,
>: (which is the way it should be anyway). It is the same thing now,
>: anywhere you live, the only cost of living thing that affects you is
>: housing, and if you live on base, or live within your means it doesn't
>: even affect you. If we use your reasoning, then we would have to close
>: all the bases in high cost areas, (D.C., Hawaii, overseas, etc.)
>
> DC is really considerably cheaper, and more to the point there are
>commutes from reasonable distances where you can live much cheaper...
>not to mention the practical consideration that you really can't leave
>the national capital. Bases have been closed in Hawaii, and I believe
>on-base housing is much more available in Hawaii...there was almost
>none on (or near) Moffett.
> Besides, there is a cost to the Government to provide the housing
>subsidy, even if it doesn't come out of the individual's pocket, and
>that cost goes away in areas of cheaper housing.
>
>: Besides that, the Navy personnel that got booted out of Moffett, (
>: they didn't close the base, just operate it out of a different pot of
>: federal money, wheres the real savings? more like smoke and mirrors),
>
> The Navy owned the land, bought it for $1 in 1938 after locals
>bought up the land so the Navy would build a dirigible base there.
>The cost is in operating, not paying rent, and that has gone to 0
>as far as the Navy is concerned, what operating costs remain are being
>paid by NASA and...whoever operates "Moffett Federal Airfield," I don't
>even know who it is.
>
>: those people including myself all got moved to Whidbey or Barbers
>: Point, where you ended up paying on average 20-30% out of pocket
>: because of inadequate BAQ/VHA rates, it took about 6 years to catch
>: up.
>
> I thought Barbers Point was being closed.

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:


> I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
> are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
> wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
> Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
> agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???

From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.

The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
infrastructure costs.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:
>
>
> > I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
> > are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
> > wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
> > Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
> > agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???
>
> From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
> on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
> of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.
>
> The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
> and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
> housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
> commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
> receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
> things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
> overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
> base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
> infrastructure costs.
>
> Mary

Mary,
Did the Navy have to do the toxic waste clean-up or is it on-going or
is it something that can be extended since the base is still under
federal control?
Not accusing the Navy of anything nefarious, if you've inhabited a base
that long there's inevitable spills and such and we weren't as
concerned about cleaning it up 50 yrs ago.
Pugs

[fudog50]

uhhhhh Mary,,,all those NEX things are still open at Moffett, the Navy
is still paying for them, including what you call the BX, and the
PX,,(us in the Navy call them the Exchange and the Commissary) you are
totally wrong ,,sorry....oh yeah and BTW , back in about 1990, the
Navy mandated all MWR facilities be totally self-supportive or they
would get shut down,,,this is true,,,so there is no cost to anybody
with MWR facilities. Again, you're totally wrong about the
administrative (non ops) and nonadministrative (i'm assuming you mean
ops) costs of supporting an entire P-3 wing and it's support
infrastructure going away and miracuously just disapearing and being
absorbed by an existing base. They just get shifted and added from one
base to another base, they don't just go away as you suggest...Again,
it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to transfer the Supply (ASD),
IMA (AIMD), FASO, NAMTRA, NATEC, **** there are so many functions that
had to be transferred. I don't get what you are trying to say in your
last post,,,please clarify? And no **** it costs less at Moffett to
let NASA play,,,but it costs more at Whidbey and Kanehoe to keep the
operational P-3's flying,,I still don't see the savings overall.

7:41 -0800, Mary Shafer > wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:
>
>
>> I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
>> are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
>> wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
>> Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
>> agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???
>
>From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
>on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
>of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.
>
>The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
>and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
>housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
>commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
>receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
>things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
>overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
>base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
>infrastructure costs.
>
>Mary

[fudog50]

Moffett has been under the "superfund " list for decades, since it's
inception. Most of the Navy's contribution was from an underground
100,000 gallon fuel tank that leaked continuosly from the 70's until
they finally removed the ******* in the 80's, and has been cleaned up.
The biggest offender of toxic waste in that particular area is an
underground plume of flourocarbons that migrates from Mt View and
Sunnyvale areas right under the ground table and Moffett Field, then
empties into the south bay, and it comes from the civilian chip and
semiconductor manufacturing industry from the 80's and 90's. . Easy
to blame the Navy for the truly uninformed.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:57:02 -0500, Allen Epps
> wrote:

>In article >, Mary Shafer
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
>> > are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
>> > wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
>> > Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
>> > agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???
>>
>> From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
>> on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
>> of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.
>>
>> The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
>> and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
>> housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
>> commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
>> receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
>> things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
>> overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
>> base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
>> infrastructure costs.
>>
>> Mary
>
>Mary,
>Did the Navy have to do the toxic waste clean-up or is it on-going or
>is it something that can be extended since the base is still under
>federal control?
>Not accusing the Navy of anything nefarious, if you've inhabited a base
>that long there's inevitable spills and such and we weren't as
>concerned about cleaning it up 50 yrs ago.
>Pugs

[David Lesher]

What happened to the proposal to turn it into a freight-only
airport, to relieve SFO/Oakland?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Merlin Dorfman]

David Lesher ) wrote:


: What happened to the proposal to turn it into a freight-only
: airport, to relieve SFO/Oakland?

I know there were a lot of community objections, but I don't know
if that killed it or not. There was also a proposal to put housing on
some of the base land, and that also seemed to go nowhere.
The original cargo field proposal was defeated in about 1997 but
doesn't seem to be completely dead:
<http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/12/09/story4.html?t=printable>
Here's a summary history:
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/moffett.htm>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

> David Lesher ) wrote:
>
>
> : What happened to the proposal to turn it into a freight-only
> : airport, to relieve SFO/Oakland?
>
> I know there were a lot of community objections, but I don't know
> if that killed it or not. There was also a proposal to put housing on
> some of the base land, and that also seemed to go nowhere.
> The original cargo field proposal was defeated in about 1997 but
> doesn't seem to be completely dead:
> <http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2002/12/09/story4.html?t=print
> able>
> Here's a summary history:
> <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/moffett.htm>
>

The real estate sharks run the local government -- especiallt Sunnyvale.
I was a token pilot on the Community Advisory Committee. Sunnyvale
eliminated every aviation person who applied for a spot on the
committee. Mountain View appointed three pilots but made sure that the
radicals got more representaion.

The entire structure of the committee was foregone that the
recommendation for a Moffett GA airport would be scuttled.

[Merlin Dorfman]

fudog50 ) wrote:
: Melvin,
: Thanks for responding, you might be right about the politics
: behind the base closings, I think my points were more based on the
: feelings and the sentiments of us active duty Navy people at the time,
: which was about 10-12 years ago. The sentiment is still there, about
: Feinstein and Dellums, sorry if you disagree....In response to your
: statements, some of them are way out to lunch, don't take it
: personally, I'm not saying you are out to lunch, but some of your
: statements are certainly not true.,,,,I see you have a bit of history
: about Moffett, were you stationed there?

I wasn't in the military but I worked next door at Lockheed for
almost 30 years, and I was on-base at Ames many times. (Still go
there occasionally.) My data on food stamps, relative pay of senior
NCOs vs. grocery clerks, etc., is old--I'm glad to learn that we
don't underpay them that badly any more.
(Do the Marines use the term "NCO?")
I'm interested to know where the hostility to Dellums and
Feinstein originated, especially given their (especially Dellums')
efforts on behalf of enlisted pay. Was it in the base newspapers,
communications from base command, or truly bottom-up?


: First off, Barbers and Whidbey aren't low cost, out in the
: sticks areas like Lemoore was back in 1960. Sure they were cheaper,
: back in 1994 than the south bay was, but only by about 15-20%, I know
: from personal experience, I moved to Whidbey with VP-40 when they made
: their homeport change from Moffett to Whidbey in 1993-1994. There was
: NO savings to the servicemember (remember we have BAH which pays
: between 85-100% of the average housing costs per area) and maybe only
: a slight savings in housing costs to the Navy overall, did this
: justify or make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on
: moving the equipment, the people and the whole P-3 infrastructure and
: support facilities, (which has never fully recovered)??? Not even
: close, where is the savings? Just one example,,,,,It cost 12 million
: dollars to move the NAMTRA from Moffett to Whidbey,,,thats a LOT of
: housing payments for YEARS for Thousands of servicemembers,,,and that
: is just ONE unit that moved out of the dozens. I would estimate the
: entire move to Whidbey and Barbers as being in the 100's of millions
: of dollars....not even close to the difference in cost of living
: expenses,,,wheres the savings???

Then why the move? Whose idea was it? The cost of a new base
would be huge, but the cost of consolidating two existing bases into
one should not be that bad, especially since the whole was "less than
the sum of its parts," i.e., the total number of people and number of
flights per day was less than at the peak of operations of the two
separate bases. There must have been some savings somewhere or why
have BRAC at all?
I think the savings in housing costs as paid by the Navy must
be quite significant. Whidbey has got to have a much lower rent per
square foot than Silicon Valley/S.F. Peninsula, especially before the
bubble burst in 2000.

: I do agree with the overcrowding of air in the South Bay, One
: sight I'll always remember is that anytime you come up over the Santa
: Cruz mountains from the west (or inbound from any direction) you would
: see 6 beacons, only one was green/white (Moffett) we would man both
: observer windows and watch for traffic, especially form the 5 GA
: airports close by. Departures/Approaches were pretty hairy at times!

Were you around in 1975 or thereabouts when a P-3 collided with
NASA's Convair 880 research plane?

: Your statement about senior Noncoms getting foodstamps is
: ridiculous!!! Where in the heck did you get that??? To me a senior NCO
: (not a navy term, we call them petty officers and Chief petty
: officers), is like a 2-3 tour E-5 at the least, up to E-9. A married
: E5 with 6 years service makes over 50,000 dollars in the Bay area!!!
: (base pay = 25,000, BAH=25,000 and BAS= 3,000)
: How in the heck does that qualify you for foodstamps??? An E9 makes
: close to $90,000 with all 3 allowances...

Isn't housing allowance non-taxable? (So it winds up costing
the govt. more because of reduced tax collections; and maybe it doesn't
count in eligibility for food stamps. As I say, the info is old and I
hope we pay you guys more than that now, but I believe it was good info
at the time.

: Maybe you are talking about
: media stories that don't tell the whole truth? Like maybe an E4 or
: below with 9 kids??? They'd be on foodstamps wherever they worked at
: with no college educaton at 20-24 years old. (just like the recent
: media stories about injured Iraq War vets having money "taken away"
: for being in the hospital, I'll explain that BS and show you how spun
: up that one is if you have time someday and are buying the beer).

Are you still in the Bay Area? My e-mail address is valid, I'd
be more than happy to buy the beers and hear the story. But be aware
that grocery clerks among others have a good union and get well paid
regardless of ecucation...and maybe regardless of ability and
performance, but I digress.

: I'm happy you keep thinking a grocery clerk makes more than a
: senior NCO, it certainly is false but, it can only help their cause to
: get paid what they are worth and what they deserve, (I was an
: underpaid NCO for 18 years). Go to this link and you might be
: surprised at what an enlisted guy/gal really makes.

: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/pay/blpay.htm

Yeah, looks pretty good, but it also seems to validate that
it costs the Navy a lot to have people in the Bay Area and it does
make sense to close bases here and station people in lower-cost
areas.

: Don't forget to add in the nontaxable housing allowance (BAH) and
: subsistance allowance (BAS), and any other special pays (flight pay,
: medical pay, dive pay, sea pay, hazardous duty pay, etc), oh yeah and
: bonuses, (ACIP, SRB's, etc).

Housing allowance varies by more than a factor of two even
within California. Look at all the money the Navy would save by
having all military bases in Arkansas or Mississippi!
(BTW thanks for the URL.)

: I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
: are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
: wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
: Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
: agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???

It has GOT to cost less to run Moffett than when squadrons of
P-3s were based there. I mean, is the whole BRAC thing a farce?

: Yeah Barbers is long gone, all the P-3's moved up the Island
: to MCAS Kanehoe a couple years ago, but they originally did move from
: Moffett to Barbers in 1993-1994.
: Again, thanks for responding, I'll look into the political
: stuff about Dellums and Feinstein again, but I don't think it will
: change my mind about them,,,have a Happy Holiday!

Happy holidays to you too. I sort of understand why the Brass
hates Feinstein and Dellums, they kept them from geting all the
fancy expensive toys at taxpayer expense, but I'm baffled as to why
enlisted personnel feel that way too.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:17:08 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

>
>
> Happy holidays to you too. I sort of understand why the Brass
>hates Feinstein and Dellums, they kept them from geting all the
>fancy expensive toys at taxpayer expense, but I'm baffled as to why
>enlisted personnel feel that way too.


Mainly because those "fancy, expensive, toys" are the tools that they
use to keep from getting killed or wounded. Feinstein never, rpt never,
supported US troops, she only supported the jobs that the troops brought
to town.

Al Minyard

[Mary Shafer]

On 2 Dec 2003 01:27:03 -0800, (miso) wrote:

> http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
> I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
> may be of interest to the group.

The C-141 that you couldn't find much on the Web about is all over the
place. Look for "Kuiper Airborne Observatory". There's a 36"
reflecting telescope just in front of the wing, as you can see.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[miso]

You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.

Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:17:08 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Happy holidays to you too. I sort of understand why the Brass
> >hates Feinstein and Dellums, they kept them from geting all the
> >fancy expensive toys at taxpayer expense, but I'm baffled as to why
> >enlisted personnel feel that way too.
>
>
> Mainly because those "fancy, expensive, toys" are the tools that they
> use to keep from getting killed or wounded. Feinstein never, rpt never,
> supported US troops, she only supported the jobs that the troops brought
> to town.
>
> Al Minyard

[Merlin Dorfman]

miso ) wrote:
: You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
: military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
: projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.

: Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.

I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...
------------------------------------------------------
: Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
: > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:17:08 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >
: > > Happy holidays to you too. I sort of understand why the Brass
: > >hates Feinstein and Dellums, they kept them from geting all the
: > >fancy expensive toys at taxpayer expense, but I'm baffled as to why
: > >enlisted personnel feel that way too.
: >
: >
: > Mainly because those "fancy, expensive, toys" are the tools that they
: > use to keep from getting killed or wounded. Feinstein never, rpt never,
: > supported US troops, she only supported the jobs that the troops brought
: > to town.
: >
: > Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

>miso ) wrote:
>: You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
>: military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
>: projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.
>
>: Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.
>
> I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
>was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
>justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
>ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
>the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
>faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
>could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
> I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
>the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
>had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
>and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
>first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
> SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...

Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.

Al Minyard

[IBM]

(miso) wrote in
om:

> You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
> military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
> projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.

Which you would have us believe all came from defense spending.
Nice try but no cigar.
Just the increase in domestic programs during the Reagan years
about equals the entire defense budget.

> Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.

So what excuse does his hand picked successor have.

IBM

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

[Merlin Dorfman]

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

: >miso ) wrote:
: >: You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
: >: military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
: >: projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.
: >
: >: Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.
: >
: > I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
: >was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
: >justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
: >ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
: >the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
: >faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
: >could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
: > I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
: >the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
: >had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
: >and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
: >first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
: > SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...

: Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
: the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.

Much is forced on the US military by Congress, which the military
doesn't want or need. Congress knows better than the military what it
wants and needs of course. Starting with many useless/needless bases
that the military would love to close, but Congress won't give up the
pork barrel. And much is funded by Congress based on industry lobbying
that the services don't want or need.
As for my "special knowledge," I believe I have enough knowledge
to know when money is being wasted. Whether the military wanted or
needed what was asked for, they were _not_ getting it, for reasons as
described above.
In other words, any relationship between what industry was asked
to build (much less what actually got built) and what the US military
believes its needs are, was highly coincidental.
And if you don't know that, your knowledge of US military needs
is far from special.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

>Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>: On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>
>: >miso ) wrote:
>: >: You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
>: >: military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
>: >: projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.
>: >
>: >: Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.
>: >
>: > I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
>: >was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
>: >justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
>: >ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
>: >the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
>: >faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
>: >could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
>: > I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
>: >the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
>: >had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
>: >and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
>: >first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
>: > SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...
>
>: Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
>: the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.
>
> Much is forced on the US military by Congress, which the military
>doesn't want or need. Congress knows better than the military what it
>wants and needs of course. Starting with many useless/needless bases
>that the military would love to close, but Congress won't give up the
>pork barrel. And much is funded by Congress based on industry lobbying
>that the services don't want or need.
> As for my "special knowledge," I believe I have enough knowledge
>to know when money is being wasted. Whether the military wanted or
>needed what was asked for, they were _not_ getting it, for reasons as
>described above.
> In other words, any relationship between what industry was asked
>to build (much less what actually got built) and what the US military
>believes its needs are, was highly coincidental.
> And if you don't know that, your knowledge of US military needs
>is far from special.

I spent a lot of time operating some of those systems. If the US Military
was not getting what it needed, the why did the FSU go broke trying
to keep up?

No, you do not enough knowledge to know when money is being
"wasted". Defense procurement is an extremely complex
beast, and "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" generally have
no clue.

Al Minyard

[Merlin Dorfman]

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

....
: >: > I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
: >: >was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
: >: >justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
: >: >ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
: >: >the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
: >: >faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
: >: >could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
: >: > I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
: >: >the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
: >: >had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
: >: >and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
: >: >first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
: >: > SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...
: >
: >: Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
: >: the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.
: >
: > Much is forced on the US military by Congress, which the military
: >doesn't want or need. Congress knows better than the military what it
: >wants and needs of course. Starting with many useless/needless bases
: >that the military would love to close, but Congress won't give up the
: >pork barrel. And much is funded by Congress based on industry lobbying
: >that the services don't want or need.
: > As for my "special knowledge," I believe I have enough knowledge
: >to know when money is being wasted. Whether the military wanted or
: >needed what was asked for, they were _not_ getting it, for reasons as
: >described above.
: > In other words, any relationship between what industry was asked
: >to build (much less what actually got built) and what the US military
: >believes its needs are, was highly coincidental.
: > And if you don't know that, your knowledge of US military needs
: >is far from special.

: I spent a lot of time operating some of those systems. If the US Military
: was not getting what it needed, the why did the FSU go broke trying
: to keep up?

Don't change the subject.
As I said, part of the strategy was to force the USSR to spend
money to try to keep up, knowing they couldn't. But that policy (1)
had an indeterminate effect on the collapse of the USSR, i.e., we
can't allocate the collapse among Gorbachev, Chernobyl, the arms
race, the influence of the Pope in Eastern Europe, and many other
factors; and (2) had negative effects of the country such as the
widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and the
massive increase in the national debt.

: No, you do not enough knowledge to know when money is being
: "wasted". Defense procurement is an extremely complex
: beast, and "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" generally have
: no clue.

If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

>Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>

>
> If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
>justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
>made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
>wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.

And your extensive military service was in which branch????

Al Minyard

[miso]

Absolutely. Reagan spent money on everything. The guy was out of
control. It really screwed things up for GHW Bush, forcing him to
raise taxes and break his pledge.


IBM > wrote in message >...
> (miso) wrote in
> om:
>
> > You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
> > military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
> > projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.
>
> Which you would have us believe all came from defense spending.
> Nice try but no cigar.
> Just the increase in domestic programs during the Reagan years
> about equals the entire defense budget.
>
> > Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.
>
> So what excuse does his hand picked successor have.
>
> IBM
>
> __________________________________________________ _____________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[miso]

Engineers don't like to work on projects that never get built. This
massive defense built frustrated the engineers as much as is PO'd the
taxpayer.

Given the amount of Soviet spy infiltration that has been exposed in
the post-Reagan era, I really doubt the Soviets feared our weapons
programs. Hell, they had plenty to fear with just the conventional US
arsenal.

Reagan did finish the B1B, though the jury is still out if that was a
good thing or not.


Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard ) wrote:
> >: On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:25:22 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>
> >: >miso ) wrote:
> >: >: You can't make a blanket statement that every toy requested by the
> >: >: military saved the lives of troops. Look at how few of the Reagan era
> >: >: projects ever worked, though we added trillions to the national debt.
>
> >: >: Dellums did much to investigate Agent Orange.
> >: >
> >: > I worked at Lockheed at the time and just about every crazy idea
> >: >was being funded. Even in an emergency that kind of thing is not
> >: >justified because the good ideas get insufficient funding. (The bad
> >: >ideas were being funded way beyond the point where it was obvious that
> >: >the money could be better used elsewhere.) The money was coming in way
> >: >faster than we could effectively spend it--we were hiring people who
> >: >could only charitably be described as "marginally qualified."
> >: > I understand that this was part of a conscious strategy to force
> >: >the USSR to try to match us which they clearly could not do. But it
> >: >had many negative consequences for the US, for the defense industry,
> >: >and of course for the individual employees who were inevitably the
> >: >first and worst hurt when the time of reckoning came.
> >: > SDI ("Star Wars") is of course one of the best examples...
>
> >: Of course you, through your "special knowledge", know better than
> >: the US Military what its needs are. Yeah, right.
> >
> > Much is forced on the US military by Congress, which the military
> >doesn't want or need. Congress knows better than the military what it
> >wants and needs of course. Starting with many useless/needless bases
> >that the military would love to close, but Congress won't give up the
> >pork barrel. And much is funded by Congress based on industry lobbying
> >that the services don't want or need.
> > As for my "special knowledge," I believe I have enough knowledge
> >to know when money is being wasted. Whether the military wanted or
> >needed what was asked for, they were _not_ getting it, for reasons as
> >described above.
> > In other words, any relationship between what industry was asked
> >to build (much less what actually got built) and what the US military
> >believes its needs are, was highly coincidental.
> > And if you don't know that, your knowledge of US military needs
> >is far from special.
>
> I spent a lot of time operating some of those systems. If the US Military
> was not getting what it needed, the why did the FSU go broke trying
> to keep up?
>
> No, you do not enough knowledge to know when money is being
> "wasted". Defense procurement is an extremely complex
> beast, and "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" generally have
> no clue.
>
> Al Minyard

[Merlin Dorfman]

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

: >Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: >: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
: >

: >
: > If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
: >justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
: >made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
: >wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.

: And your extensive military service was in which branch????

Huh?? If I spent 20 years driving a tank or digging ditches I
would be qualified to know when money given to a defense contractor
is being wasted, but spending 35 years with that contractor
disqualifies me??
We have civilian control of the military in the US. But you'd
do real well in someplace like Burma or Pakistan where the military
runs things. You could really put me down for saying that the
military is wasting money.

[IBM]

(miso) wrote in
om:

> Absolutely. Reagan spent money on everything. The guy was out of
> control. It really screwed things up for GHW Bush, forcing him to
> raise taxes and break his pledge.

Its a little more complicated than that.
In order to get the defence budgets ( principally the 600
ship navy ) he wanted, Reagan agreed to a Democrapic demand
that 2/3 of the federal budget ( domestic spending mostly ) be
put on what amounts to autopilot with guaranteed yearly increases.
AIUI this provision is largely intact today.
It was a major mistake.

IBM

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

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

>Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>
>: >Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>: >: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>: >
>
>: >
>: > If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
>: >justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
>: >made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
>: >wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.
>
>: And your extensive military service was in which branch????
>
> Huh?? If I spent 20 years driving a tank or digging ditches I
>would be qualified to know when money given to a defense contractor
>is being wasted, but spending 35 years with that contractor
>disqualifies me??
> We have civilian control of the military in the US. But you'd
>do real well in someplace like Burma or Pakistan where the military
>runs things. You could really put me down for saying that the
>military is wasting money.

Well, lets see, the military has no power, there fore it cannot spend
any money, but according to you it is wasting money? That is
utterly illogical. And 35 years of sweeping out the men's room
at some sub-contractor hardly makes you an expert.

Al Minyard

[George]

\
>
> >http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
> >I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
> >may be of interest to the group.

there is a very interesting fact about Moffet Field. Those big rounded
blimp hangers are big enough that they have their own weather systems
inside them.

[Merlin Dorfman]

George ) wrote:
: \
: >
: > >http://www.lazygranch.com/nuq.htm
: > >I took a few aerial photos of this federal airfield. The FA18 photo
: > >may be of interest to the group.

: there is a very interesting fact about Moffet Field. Those big rounded
: blimp hangers are big enough that they have their own weather systems
: inside them.

I know that's true of Hangar 1--the big (single) hangar on the
west side of the field--but have not heard that about the two
smaller hangars, which are/were used for airplanes.

[Merlin Dorfman]

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

: >Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: >: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
: >
: >: >Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: >: >: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
: >: >
: >
: >: >
: >: > If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
: >: >justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
: >: >made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
: >: >wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.
: >
: >: And your extensive military service was in which branch????
: >
: > Huh?? If I spent 20 years driving a tank or digging ditches I
: >would be qualified to know when money given to a defense contractor
: >is being wasted, but spending 35 years with that contractor
: >disqualifies me??
: > We have civilian control of the military in the US. But you'd
: >do real well in someplace like Burma or Pakistan where the military
: >runs things. You could really put me down for saying that the
: >military is wasting money.

: Well, lets see, the military has no power, there fore it cannot spend
: any money,

Al, what the hell are you smoking? The military has invaded and
conquered two countries in the past couple of years, and you say it
has no power? It has a budget on the order of $400 billion for FY
2004, and you say it cannot spend any money? So all those guys in blue
suits who came around to negotiate contracts with us were impostors?

: but according to you it is wasting money? That is
: utterly illogical.

Whereas your statement that it can't spend any money is
perfectly logical.

: And 35 years of sweeping out the men's room
: at some sub-contractor hardly makes you an expert.

I will agree that anybody who spent 35 years doing that is not
an expert. Since that does not describe me, I will resate my
ability to know when money is being wasted on defense contracts.
However your assumption that it does describe me speaks volumes
about you, and your (in)ability and (un)willingness to discuss a
question rationally.

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:46:47 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

>Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>: On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>
>: >Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>: >: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:49:37 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>: >
>: >: >Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>: >: >: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:27:05 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>: >: >
>: >
>: >: >
>: >: > If I first made the statement in 2003 you might have some
>: >: >justification for calling me a Monday morning quarterback. But I
>: >: >made it long before now. Because I do know when money is being
>: >: >wasted. Sounds like you don't, though.
>: >
>: >: And your extensive military service was in which branch????
>: >
>: > Huh?? If I spent 20 years driving a tank or digging ditches I
>: >would be qualified to know when money given to a defense contractor
>: >is being wasted, but spending 35 years with that contractor
>: >disqualifies me??
>: > We have civilian control of the military in the US. But you'd
>: >do real well in someplace like Burma or Pakistan where the military
>: >runs things. You could really put me down for saying that the
>: >military is wasting money.
>
>: Well, lets see, the military has no power, there fore it cannot spend
>: any money,
>
> Al, what the hell are you smoking? The military has invaded and
>conquered two countries in the past couple of years, and you say it
>has no power? It has a budget on the order of $400 billion for FY
>2004, and you say it cannot spend any money? So all those guys in blue
>suits who came around to negotiate contracts with us were impostors?
>
Evidently you have never heard of "sarcasm"

>: but according to you it is wasting money? That is
>: utterly illogical.
>
> Whereas your statement that it can't spend any money is
>perfectly logical.
>
>: And 35 years of sweeping out the men's room
>: at some sub-contractor hardly makes you an expert.
>
> I will agree that anybody who spent 35 years doing that is not
>an expert. Since that does not describe me, I will resate my
>ability to know when money is being wasted on defense contracts.

What "ability"? You have not stated any fact that in any way lends
credibility to your post.


>However your assumption that it does describe me speaks volumes
>about you, and your (in)ability and (un)willingness to discuss a
>question rationally.

You make accusations against the US Military, with no examples, and
you think that I am irrational?? I am quite willing to discuss any issue
rationally, but unfounded accusations against the US Military are
not "rational".

Al Minyard

[Merlin Dorfman]

Alan Minyard ) wrote:
: On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:46:47 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman > wrote:

....

: >: >: And your extensive military service was in which branch????
: >: >
: >: > Huh?? If I spent 20 years driving a tank or digging ditches I
: >: >would be qualified to know when money given to a defense contractor
: >: >is being wasted, but spending 35 years with that contractor
: >: >disqualifies me??
: >: > We have civilian control of the military in the US. But you'd
: >: >do real well in someplace like Burma or Pakistan where the military
: >: >runs things. You could really put me down for saying that the
: >: >military is wasting money.
: >
: >: Well, lets see, the military has no power, there fore it cannot spend
: >: any money,
: >
: > Al, what the hell are you smoking? The military has invaded and
: >conquered two countries in the past couple of years, and you say it
: >has no power? It has a budget on the order of $400 billion for FY
: >2004, and you say it cannot spend any money? So all those guys in blue
: >suits who came around to negotiate contracts with us were impostors?
: >
: Evidently you have never heard of "sarcasm"

Good, I'll atrribute your original comments to sacrasm as well.

: >: but according to you it is wasting money? That is
: >: utterly illogical.

More sarcasm, I guess.

: > Whereas your statement that it can't spend any money is
: >perfectly logical.
: >
: >: And 35 years of sweeping out the men's room
: >: at some sub-contractor hardly makes you an expert.
: >
: > I will agree that anybody who spent 35 years doing that is not
: >an expert. Since that does not describe me, I will resate my
: >ability to know when money is being wasted on defense contracts.

: What "ability"? You have not stated any fact that in any way lends
: credibility to your post.

I stated the fact that much of the US defense budget in the
1980s was wasted because it could not be usefully spent.

: >However your assumption that it does describe me speaks volumes
: >about you, and your (in)ability and (un)willingness to discuss a
: >question rationally.

: You make accusations against the US Military, with no examples, and
: you think that I am irrational?? I am quite willing to discuss any issue
: rationally, but unfounded accusations against the US Military are
: not "rational".

To start with, I didn't make any accusations against the
military. I said that much of the defense budget was wasted.
If you want an example of that, start with Reagan's original
Star Wars. It came to nothing. Add the many other programs that
may or may not have eventually produced something useful, but had
huge cost and schedule overruns. But, again, it could not have
been otherwise--there was simply no way to spend the money that was
appropriated in any kind of effective or efficient manner.