![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BRAC 2005 List | Joe Delphi | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 23rd 05 06:11 PM |
A BRAC list, NOT! | John Carrier | Naval Aviation | 1 | December 18th 04 10:45 PM |
logic of IO-360 100hr injector inspection 93-02-05 | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 2 | November 30th 04 04:13 PM |
"Why Raptor? The Logic of Buying the World's Best Fighter" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | August 11th 04 03:20 PM |
Logic behind day VFR | Dillon Pyron | Home Built | 8 | April 1st 04 04:00 AM |