BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

"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

"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? 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.

Per ADM Clark, the P-3 community was doing this kind of homeland defense
work as early as Nov 2002:

"It's already been said we're flying P-3 missions in support of the Coast
Guard at the regional level."

www.news.navy.mil/search/ displaybbs.asp?bbs_id=344&cat=2


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).

See above--ADM Clark disagrees with your assessment of what the P-3 has done
and can do in terms of homeland defense, not to mention that he stated quite
clearly that they have been working WITH the USCG, despite your whining
protestations otherwise...

Brooks


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/

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
"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


As a sort to token ****ing off of Jeb the Naval Ordnance Test Unit is
scheduled to move to Kings Bay, Ga.,after 2008. It supports missile
testing on Trident submarines and also has launched ballistic missiles
from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

Although the Pentagon's closure list shows no more than 195 jobs
leaving Brevard with the unit, the move also could affect
private-sector engineers who do contract work for it, said Capt.
Jeffrey Gernand, the commanding officer.

Most of those engineers, 400 of them, work for Lockheed Martin. The
future of those jobs would be up to their employer.

Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Julie Andrews [ and you thought she had
left show business] said the company's workers
will continue on as planned, including those on the Navy's Trident D-5
nuclear missile program, the so-called "Center for Excellence"
announced in February.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...20050514/BASES...

Jack Linthicum wrote:
As a sort to token ****ing off of Jeb...

Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly in
the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main site
of basing far less important. So good reasons to realign to the south,
not just because Jeb lives there. Same thing for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

As for keeping it as a NAF, Andrew's question is a good one. Possible
reasons, in no order or no particular logical structure...

We can just have dets show up at Brunswick on an as-needed basis. SERE
school support. Ease in the final decomm of the base. Support for boats
coming out of Bath Iron Works (over 20% of base dedicated to that.)
Toxic waste in ground (easier to keep open than to clean). Maybe some
tenants that have to be there. Big-time Navy Reserve support to the
northeast, even more so as NAS Willow Grove goes away. Maybe shift Coast
Guard SAR assets from Otis ANG (getting closed) to Brunswick.

nafod40 wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
As a sort to token ****ing off of Jeb...

Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly
in
the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main
site
of basing far less important. So good reasons to realign to the
south,
not just because Jeb lives there. Same thing for Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard.

As for keeping it as a NAF, Andrew's question is a good one. Possible

reasons, in no order or no particular logical structure...

We can just have dets show up at Brunswick on an as-needed basis.
SERE
school support. Ease in the final decomm of the base. Support for
boats
coming out of Bath Iron Works (over 20% of base dedicated to that.)
Toxic waste in ground (easier to keep open than to clean). Maybe some

tenants that have to be there. Big-time Navy Reserve support to the
northeast, even more so as NAS Willow Grove goes away. Maybe shift
Coast
Guard SAR assets from Otis ANG (getting closed) to Brunswick.


The Navy provides a KC-130 tanker for helicopter air refueling, E-2C
aircraft for enhanced air traffic control and [4] P-3 aircraft for
search and rescue operations in the mid-Atlantic region all operating
from Patrick AFB just below Cape Canaveral..

I tend to agree that it's a political thing. Kind of like NASA's
putting Mission Control in Houston (instead of FL) to make LBJ happy.
I also believe that keeping NASB open as opposed to NAS Jax makes
more sense. The urban encroachment issue has already been addressed.
Closer-to-Europe and the North Atlantic OpAreas and Millions spent on
new infrastructure has also been addressed.
I don't believe that NAS Jax will put the P-3/P-8s any closer to
exercise areas, either. When I was stationed at NASB we did a lot of
our exercises off the coast of NJ and VA/NC areas.
Of course NAS Jax is closer to the training ranges in the Bahamas and
Caribbean.
And then of course there's the fact that I just happen to like ME
better than FL.
I don't get it, but then, the guys making these decisions are of a
much higher paygrade than I ever achieved. 8-)

Don McIntyre
Clarksville, TN

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

[ NAS/NAF Brunswick]
Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly
encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS Jacksonville.

Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban
areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and Mayport
were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then and
now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth, especially
down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote
weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching
suburb status.

It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It used
to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is
two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his
front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St
John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now it's
solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way.

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

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

On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote:

may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing
"back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did

There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is
closing, too.

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?

There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG
is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is
virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick.

Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It
was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of

So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any
other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style?
Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something
against the person being deterred.

--
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/

On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:11:59 -0400, nafod40
wrote:

Land is cheaper in the south. Weather is better. The threat is mostly in
the Pacific. The 777 will have the speed and legs to make the main site

777? Who's planning to give the Navy 777s?

Land is cheaper? Who's planning to buy land? NAS Brunswick was
bought in the 1940's.

--
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/

On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:58:44 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

For a possible one, see the cite below...

OK, you've provided one possibility....that's what I asked about.

In my opinion it's a farfetched one, but anyway....

And still, nobody has identifed this as a potential new mission for
Brunswick. All you've done is identified a concept that exists.

You really never knew that C-130's have been employed in the surveillance
role? Everything from COMINT to ELINT and surface surveillance?

Sure, EC-130s and MC-130s and such. That's not what we're talking
about here.

Again - what surveillance mission do the C-130s at NAS Brunswick have?
The answer is none.


--
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/