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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Derek,
Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban areas encroached upon the base. Point well-taken, but it matters little if Mohammed goes to the mountain or the reverse - the result is the same. Unfortunately, encroachers vote in greater numbers than trees and critters, although not necessarily any more intelligently. -- Mike Kanze "Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass." - Sighted on a T-shirt "Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: [ NAS/NAF Brunswick] Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS Jacksonville. Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and Mayport were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then and now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth, especially down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching suburb status. It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It used to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now it's solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Kanze wrote: Derek, Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban areas encroached upon the base. Point well-taken, but it matters little if Mohammed goes to the mountain or the reverse - the result is the same. Unfortunately, encroachers vote in greater numbers than trees and critters, although not necessarily any more intelligently. -- Mike Kanze "Wineau - A person who drinks wine from a glass." - Sighted on a T-shirt "Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Arved Sandstrom" wrote: [ NAS/NAF Brunswick] Also, it's well-located in the sense that it does not particularly encroach upon urban areas...which *is* a problem at NAS Jacksonville. Nit: The base [NAS Jax] didn't encroach upon urban areas - the urban areas encroached upon the base. Thirty years ago NAS Jax and Mayport were out the hell and gone in the middle of nowhere. Between then and now the City of Jacksonville has undergone massive growth, especially down the West side of the St. Johns. Area's once considered remote weekend housing (like say, Keystone Heights) are now approaching suburb status. It was quite the shock to visit my uncles lakeside cabin... It used to be five miles down an unpaved single lane road. Now the road is two lanes, paved, and development is solid from the highway to his front gate. On the east side of Jax, the city simply stopped at St John's Blvd, and it was *empty* from there to the beaches... Now it's solid strip malls and apartment complexes the whole way. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL aften spelled "oeno" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"BF Lake" wrote in
news:SQaie.67147$tg1.22596@edtnps84: "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? 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. Is that policy no less important today? It is none of anybody's business where that stuff is currently or has been stored. Dave in San Diego |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message snip.... 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? 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. 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 Regards, Barry |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:58:57 -0400, wrote: may be reasons that neither you nor I have thought about. Providing "back up" for Coast Guard is not an unreasonable possibility. I did There is no Coast Guard air capability north of Cape Cod....which is closing, too. Which would be another decent reason for keeping New Brunswick open for use on an as-needed basis. not "run" the Air Force list but what other military air facilites will exist in that part of the country? Would it make sense to keep an NAF around for that reason? There are no other military airfields within hundreds of miles. ME ANG is at Bangor International, they're the closest other thing. There is virtually no transient military traffic through Brunswick. Remember "deterrence?" Lots of that was just "sitting around." It was done with a purpose, mind you, and with a whole bunch of So how do P-3s in Brunswick (or submarines in New London, or pick any other base) "deter" terrorists from doing someting 9-11 style? Deterrence requires a weapon that has the potential to do something against the person being deterred. 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 you dismissed so quickly--you know, the ones that Clark acknowledged almost three YEARS ago were already performing homeland defense operations?). You need to attend a basic antiterrorism course before you make such ridiculous claims. Brooks -- Andrew Toppan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"BF Lake" wrote in
news:Bjdie.67192$tg1.12042@edtnps84: "Dave in San Diego" wrote in message snip.... So [snip] 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. IBM __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Actually one can be reasonably sure that "special weapons" were at NASB
through the 1980's, maybe very early 1990's. I forget what exact year Bush Sr. ordered tactical special weapons removed from fleet units and shore installations. The removal of these weapons allowed for the closing of the marine barracks at this and other installations. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |