BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick

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.