BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

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/

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

"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

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/

"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

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).

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/

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.

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

"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...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