![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message ... 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? For a possible one, see the cite below... Nobody has defined that mission or the people that will do it. Just because you have not read such information does not mean that nobody has set forth a vision that could be supported by such a "barebones" basing option. Again, see the cite below. 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). "The Navy is beginning development of a concept of operations for the persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) of wide swaths of the world's oceans by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)...The mission will be accomplished with new hardware. The Navy is developing high-flying UAVs that can stay aloft for many hours and perform missions such as scanning the maritime approaches to the nation's coasts and tracking all ships approaching U.S. points of entry...The objective will be to provide maritime intelligence to joint forces to pass to homeland security and homeland defense units and other federal agencies... "We will look to Global Hawk to be a vital ISR tool that will assist strike group commanders in achieving maritime domain awareness in support of the joint force and to support homeland security and homeland defense efforts in the maritime realm"...The concept of using a persistent UAV for maritime surveillance is quite simple. It would scan a large area of ocean - making five orbits in a 35-hour period, in one scenario - looking for ships of interest, such as one suspected of having weapons of mass destruction on board that is possibly heading for a U.S. port. When such a vessel is located, a Navy ship could be tasked to intercept it, or a maritime patrol aircraft such as a P-3 dispatched to further investigate the contact with radar, send images to command authorities and examine the ship up close." www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_05_12.php It appears maybe you are the guy who can't see past his nose in regards to the USN and the homeland defense mission.... Just what "surveillance" do you think C-130s do????? You really never knew that C-130's have been employed in the surveillance role? Everything from COMINT to ELINT and surface surveillance? 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. LOL! Another case of Andrew assumeing that because he has no personal knowledge of such possibilities, they are by definition "silly". Brooks -- Andrew Toppan |
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 |