"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