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