BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

"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

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Oh, touche! Yeah, I brainfarted and used the "New" instead of NAS. Mea
freakin' culpa. Now when are you gonna 'fess up to incorrectly stating that
P-3's have never had/don't have any homeland defense mission?



Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3

Yep, that sure worked well on 9/11....

Uhmmm...if you had not noticed, our *lack* of adequate situational awareness
contributed to that outcome, not the other way around. Now, come on and give
us some more gems of your vast anti/counter-terrorism experience and/or
knowledge, Andrew... You are beginning to sound a bit like Henry J.
again....

Brooks


--
Andrew Toppan

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Is it safe to assume that neither of you will be bowling, throwing darts, or
playing badminton any time soon? That is to say, as gleeful chums?

AHS

DeepSea wrote:
It is a somewhat amusing situation. In the months prior to 9/11, the
submarine force had been making great strides in coming out of its shell.
We were giving regular tours of the boomers at Kings Bay to what seemed
like anybody that wanted them - the Boy Scouts, the Rotary, school science
classes, you name it.

I wonder what changed across the mid-90's, as we were doing that here
at Bangor ca 1987-1990. For that matter, in the mid-80's we fairly
routinely gave tours at King's Bay. (4 refits on a '41 - and I can't
recall one of them without a tour of some sort.)

It was kind of funny to watch the looks we'd get
giving the neither confirm or deny speech to guests on a ballistic missile
submarine that was obviously getting ready to go to sea ....

nods Yes.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:mFUie.2571$tt5.2509@edtnps90...
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for
use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.

Is it safe to assume that neither of you will be bowling, throwing darts,
or
playing badminton any time soon? That is to say, as gleeful chums?

It probably would not be a lot of fun. I doubt Andrew even knows which end
of a bowling ball he is supposed to point at the badminton net while trying
to avoid those pesky darts...

Brooks


AHS

Andrew C. Toppan wrote in
:
There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles

Westover AFB is within a few hundreds of miles. The new plan is if another
aircraft threatens the northeast US, Westover will put up all the C-5As and
when they converge on the target their combined distortion of the local
gravitational field (g=m1*m2/r**2) will knock the threat aircraft right out
of the sky...