A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old May 15th 05, 04:32 PM
Andrew C. Toppan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BRAC Logic....NAS Brunswick



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.

I can understand the rationale for moving to Jacksonville -
consolidating the P-3/P-8 fleets to a single location makes sense. One
could argue the relative merits of Brunswick vs. Jacksonville (i.e.
Brunswick probably has better airspace and has just spent millions
upgrading all the base infrastructure), but reality is Florida has
more electoral votes and a guy named Bush is governor. So we won't
argue this part for now....

But why keep Brunswick as a NAF then? The stated reason is "homeland
defense", which doesn't make much sense (nor do the base supporters'
arguments about homeland defense makes sense), since BNAS has no
homeland defense mission. An airfield without airplanes - or even an
airfield with P-3s and C-130s - can't do much defending.

This might make sense if, for example, they moved all the ME ANG
aircraft to Brunswick from commercial airfields, and closed Otis ANGB
(MA) and moved the F-15s further up the coast to be closer to an
incoming threat....but that's not happening. ME ANG's existing
location at Bangor will be getting more aircraft and the F-15s from
Otis will be going further south and west. Those F-15s are really the
only "homeland defense" aircraft in these parts.....so any active
"homeland defense" role for the future NAF Brunswick is fiction.

This really seems to be creating exactly the sort of base we're trying
to eliminate....an infrastructure that costs money but doesn't support
any deployable forces. It seems like the Navy will quite reasonably
want to close the base in the next BRAC, since it will be costing
money but doing nothing useful. The communities might reasonably join
in that request, since they would rather have a redevelopment property
than a locked-up, skeleton-crewed airfield.

Can anyone figure out what's going on here?

--
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/





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BRAC 2005 List Joe Delphi Naval Aviation 4 February 23rd 05 06:11 PM
A BRAC list, NOT! John Carrier Naval Aviation 1 December 18th 04 10:45 PM
logic of IO-360 100hr injector inspection 93-02-05 Robert M. Gary Piloting 2 November 30th 04 04:13 PM
"Why Raptor? The Logic of Buying the World's Best Fighter" Mike Military Aviation 0 August 11th 04 03:20 PM
Logic behind day VFR Dillon Pyron Home Built 8 April 1st 04 04:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.