BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

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...

"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

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/

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...


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

Not read the whole thread so apologies if already discussed--

In the 60s, the Brunswick, Maine, place (not to be confused with Brunswick,
Georgia, which was Glynco--or even the province of New Brunswick just next
to Maine), held the nuclear weapons (air to air plus ?) that were supposed
to be forwarded to Newfoundland for the US forces stationed there, when
things got hot and Canada agreed to that move of the nukes. (When the
chips were down, in Oct 1962, the then anti-US biased Canadian government
initially refused permission to move the nukes and even for US aircraft to
overfly Canadian airspace! This was " leaked" to the general public and
that government fell on the resulting next election, such was the public's
embarrassment. (Hard to say if that public sentiment still exists back east,
sad to say, but it sure still does in the West G) Later, ~1968/9 the new
government agreed to store the warheads in Canada under guard. ) So
Brunswick, Maine was a big deal for the nuclear side of things--presumably
also for anti-sub weapons for the P3s.

So has that nuclear bomb storage business already closed or is it going to
go elsewhere too? Does that matter?

Regards,
Barry

"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message
...
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.

And I identified past use of the the P-3 in the homeland defense role,
something you claimed was just not possible...


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.

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

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?

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/

All the info behind the decision will be
presented in the upcoming BRAC hearings.

I think Rumsfeld is testifying before Congress on Monday.

The BRAC commission will be making their rounds at
the major bases that are slated for change.

"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

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.