BRAC Logic....NAS 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

Ian MacLure wrote:

"BF Lake" wrote in
news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
snip.... So

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
me

Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
dead giveaway.

It's a giveaway that the field is *capable* of handling special
weapons - something the DoD rarely denies is present. It says nothing
about whether or not something is actually there, and *that* is what
is neither confirmed or denied.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:428a7fd1.4104857
@supernews.seanet.com:

Ian MacLure wrote:

"BF Lake" wrote in
news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84:

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
snip.... So

Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's
business where that stuff is currently or has been stored.

You're right, --good thing you didn't tell, then you'd have to kill
me

Of course, the triple wire and "special weapons magazines" labels
on maps of facilities like, oh say, NAS Moffett Field were a
dead giveaway.

It's a giveaway that the field is *capable* of handling special
weapons - something the DoD rarely denies is present. It says nothing
about whether or not something is actually there, and *that* is what
is neither confirmed or denied.

D.

It is a somewhat amusing situation. In the months prior to 9/11, the
submarine force had been making great strides in coming out of its shell.
We were giving regular tours of the boomers at Kings Bay to what seemed
like anybody that wanted them - the Boy Scouts, the Rotary, school science
classes, you name it. It was kind of funny to watch the looks we'd get
giving the neither confirm or deny speech to guests on a ballistic missile
submarine that was obviously getting ready to go to sea ....

--
DS

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
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/


The impact of BRAC on Pensacola is very strange: 1878 jobs are to go to
Millington, TN from the Navy Education and Training Professional
Development and Technology Center at Saufley, 888 to Eglin and the
joint forces training center (vice an earlier proposal for Luke AFB in
AZ), and Naval Officer Candidate School yo-tos its way back to Newport,
RI with 675 jobs.

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.

Jack Linthicum wrote:

The impact of BRAC on Pensacola is very strange: 1878 jobs are to go to
Millington, TN from the Navy Education and Training Professional
Development and Technology Center at Saufley, 888 to Eglin and the
joint forces training center (vice an earlier proposal for Luke AFB in
AZ), and Naval Officer Candidate School yo-tos its way back to Newport,
RI with 675 jobs.

Some other P-cola tidbits...

Realign Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL, by relocating the Naval
Aeromedical Research Laboratory to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.

Relocate Naval Undersea Medical Institute Groton, CT to Naval Air
Station Pensacola, FL,

Realign Randolph Air Force Base, TX, by relocating Undergraduate
Navigator Training to Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL.

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:43:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use
on an as-needed basis.

New Brunswick? That's in Canada. Get a grip.


Bullhocky. In the antiterrorist arena you can deter an attack by merely
being aware of your surroundings (i.e., use of ISR platforms like the P-3

Yep, that sure worked well on 9/11....

--
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/

On Tue, 17 May 2005 01:24:30 GMT, Dave in San Diego
wrote:

Very early in my Naval career, I was taught this mantra: It is the policy
of the US government to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence
of [nuclear | special] weapons at any specific location.

But in this case it's pretty darn easy. In 1992 then-President Bush
(the other one!) ordered withdrawl of all tactical nuclear weapons.
The Navy's tactical nuclear weapons were retired or placed in depot
storage.

Considering that policy has not been reversed (as far as we know,
anyway), it's a safe bet that Brunswick has 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/

On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:48:24 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


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, that's not USN C-130s at Brunswick.

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?

OK, so we buy all your arguments and say the C-130s and P-3s at
Brunswick are vitally important to homeland security, and not just
doing it for lack of any other mission and for the sake of being
involved in the current focus.

So how does removing them to a base over 1000 miles away help matters
any?

--
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/