BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

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

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/

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
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?

Typo. 737s.

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

Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
(closing) up to Brunswick.

"nafod40" wrote in message
...
Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
(closing) up to Brunswick.


Since the devil is in the details why not go to the BRAC source?

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/...2_DOD_BRAC.pdf

Tex Houston

On Tue, 17 May 2005 14:39:40 -0600, "Tex Houston"
wrote:


"nafod40" wrote in message
...
Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
(closing) up to Brunswick.


Since the devil is in the details why not go to the BRAC source?

Gotta watch them details, though.

An element of the soon to be decommissioned NAS Atlanta was scheduled
to be moved to the soon to be decommissioned Ft. Gilem (ooops). :-)

In any event, the list is the first step; next come the hearings; then
the final decisions. So the "fat lady" has some time to practice,
yet. ;-)

Bill Kambic

Tex Houston wrote:
"nafod40" wrote in message
...

Brunswick not realigning means Brunswick probably enlarging as something
else realigns. Not neccesarily the base. But in general, cost
living/operating is more expensive in the Northeast.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coast Guard SAR move from Otis ANGB
(closing) up to Brunswick.



Since the devil is in the details why not go to the BRAC source?

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/...2_DOD_BRAC.pdf

Tex Houston

Don't confuse me with the facts, Tex. I'm on a roll.

Good link.