View Single Post
  #12  
Old May 16th 05, 02:10 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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/