Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Riverine Forces training center with $50 million annual impact or the "pride" of having a hobbyist airport?
Read the story in a hardcopy of today's T&G. If we land the Navy's Riverine Forces training command that several other bases are vying for (including Mayport) we would get 700 personnel and a $50,000,000 annual financial boost to the community. But then, on the other hand, why should we give up our wonderfully quaint little airport with virtually no positive financial impact just to remain "Navy friendly" during the competition for this and the many other units that base has plenty of room to accommodate in the future? After all, you can't put a price on old tribal civic pride now, can you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Jay,
If I may be so bold as to ask, what in hell does our airport have to do with the riverine forces?
Jax, per se, and Mayport (tyhe city) pride themselves on going out of their way to be Navy friendly, as do other cities which are competing for this unit and no doubt will compete for other units in the future. However, we in St. Marys - or some of us, anyway - value our "civic pride" in having a rinky dink airport of no economic value (in fact, it is the economic "dog-in-the-manger" preventing development of nearly 300 acres inthe very heart of town)more than accommodating the Navy by moving the airport -or closing it down.
Perhaps they will choose in favor of the more Navy friendly competitiors. Unless, of course, you don't beielive there are any politics in base and unit location choices.
Time and again the Navy has been requested to state if they wanted the airport closed and they have not put that in writing. The base commander was asked to come before the airport authority and declined. That has nothig to do with the riverine forces. That is just an unfounded opinon. The airport authority said they would vote tomorrow to close the airport if the Navy said it affected national security.
So, you think that having an airport in such close proximity that a terroist with an explosives laden palne could land here, avoiding the prohibited airspace, then take off agian and immediately dive into the sub docks with little or no reaction time for the security forces makes the base MORE attractive to the Navy for placing more of its assets here within striking range? Is that it?
If a terrorist with an explosives laden plane was en route to wreak dastardly destruction on the sub docks on base, why, pray tell, would they land just 2-3 miles short of their target? Do they need to run across the street to The Mill for a quick fish burger before they blow themselves up? Do they need to refuel to get the last 2 miles? Do they want to call home to reassure their mothers that they will be thinking of her when they impact? Do they just need one last potty break? Or do they hope that they get caught before they have to put it into the last dive?
The problem with this whole airport disagreement is the preponderance of off-the-wall what-ifs like yours. The Navy and SUBASE have publically recognized that this airport poses no greater threat to security than does any other airport within flying distance.
Nice polemics, but you are really not thinking clearly. If you are flying in on a route which appears to be heading for the base, first, ground controll radar of the FAA will pick you up and worn you off.
I would be surprised if they do not pass on word of an approaching plane to the base security people who probably activate a local radar on base and alert missileers.
Now, compare that to a quick takeoff and climb to just sufficient altitude to visually acquire the target, then dive into it at tree top level. I'll guarandamn tee you trhat if it ever hapens - successfully - that is how it will be done.
P.S.,
Jihadi's are way to picky about their food to go to the Mill.
Hundreds of planes fly a route that appears to be heading for the base every day. No big deal. You can fly over the base at 3001 ft altitude. No big deal. You can take off from Fernandina Beach and be legally over the beach on Cumberland Island and within easy sight of the sub docks within 15 minutes. No big deal. In fact, you can take off from any of several airports and fly under the radar at tree top level all the way to the base. This is a big deal if you get caught, but I doubt if terrorists will care.
Think about this. Our present airport is bounded by the Fire Dept. on one side and the Police Dept. and the Coast Guard on another. It is in the city and the whole airport is visible from roads on every side. It is not a very tempting base for terrorists.
Compare this with the proposed airport, located only 12 air miles from the base. An easy route to fly from the proposed airport to
the base aver mainly undeveloped countryside. The airport itself will be located by itself in the middle of an uninhabited swamp. It is unlikely that anyone will be there from dusk to dawn. Now this sounds like an ideal place from which to launch a terrorist attack.
Obviously, you are laboring under the misconception that the terrorists would have their explosives shipped to the St. marys Airport in a large wooden crate on a flatbed in broad daylight, then load the explosives onto the plane. The explosives would no doubt be loaded at some place they had bought out in the boonies with a secluded, private airstrip.
I say again, there is currently no airport on Earth which would provide the base a shorter warning time than the St. Marys Airport.
Now you have the picture. The explosives might be loaded in some secluded place out in the boonies. Someplace like the proposed airport out in the swamp in Woodbine.
I think that we have the same goal; do everything we can to enhance the security of the base. We just disagree on how.
Au contrair - your goal is to keep the airport where it is no matter what. Are you Greg Bird or a hobby pilot with a plane there or jsut an obstinate local tribal hell bent on thwarting all progress until you assume room temperature?
Post a Comment