Bombing Range expansion Help now - The Hull Truth

ncfishead · 07-22-2008, 07:24 AM

There is an effort underway by the Navy to increase the size of their bombing range. Your help is needed. Please send a Fax to this lady.

Coastal Conservation Association

4809 Hargrove Road, Suite 123, Raleigh NC 27616

Email: stephen@ccanc.org Website: www.ccanc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 11, 2008 CONTACT: Stephen Ammons, 919-781-3474

OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF BOMBING RANGES IN THE PAMLICO SOUND

(BT-9 and BT11)

Raleigh, N.C. - The Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina (CCA NC) strongly opposes the expansion of the existing bombing ranges found in the Pamlico Sound. Furthermore, the use of an Environmental Assessment is totally inadequate to assess the potential damages to the area and a full Environmental Impact Study should be done.

BT-9

Encompassing approximately 6 nautical miles, this area incorporates some of the most pristine marine environments in North Carolina. Not only is it a great producer of shrimp, crabs, oysters and finfish for commercial fishermen, it is also one of the most sought after inshore, recreational fishing sites in the state. The proposed expansion will extend the eastern demarcation line to a point that will eliminate all access to this area.

In addition to restricting fishing access for both recreational and commercial fishermen, this expansion will effectively prevent all transit of boats from crossing Brant Island Shoal through the Brant Island Slue. As a result, boats will be forced into unprotected and dangerous (for small craft) waters that may result in death or injury.

BT-11

With an approximate diameter of 4 miles, the current restricted area near Piney Island (also referred to as Piney Marsh and/or Point of Marsh) excludes all forms of access by both recreational and commercial traffic. The proposed expansion takes the demarcation line out to an additional 3/4 mile all the way around the prohibited circle increasing the closed area to 5 1/2 miles across. This would prohibit the public from accessing a very large amount of shoreline and prime fishing areas.

CCA NC finds these expansions to be both unacceptable and unnecessary. The pinpoint accuracy of modern weaponry would indicate that the current ranges are more than adequate. In addition, these ranges are not presently subject to public monitoring and the environmental insults are largely unknown. Under no circumstances should expansion be considered until a fully independent and transparent evaluation of the current effects to the marine environment on the present range is completed.

North Carolina continues to struggle with issue of access, with fishermen and the public increasingly being shut out from our own state waters. Expansion of these areas will only exacerbate this problem and create an even larger negative economic impact than is currently being felt in the area.

Concerned anglers are urged to mail/fax a written correspondence voicing their opposition. Any correspondence should be sent to:

Ms. Susan Admire
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
6506 Hampton Boulevard
Norfolk, VA 23508
FAX: (757) 322-4894
The stated purpose of the Coastal Conservation Association North Carolina is to advise and educate the public on conservation of marine resources. The objective of CCA is to conserve, promote and enhance the present and future availability of these coastal resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public.

offshore3144 · 07-22-2008, 10:56 AM

Thanks for the information....Mark

baileydale · 07-22-2008, 01:33 PM

OK I know I am about to be unpopular but....."CCA NC finds these expansions to be both unacceptable and unnecessary. The pinpoint accuracy of modern weaponry would indicate that the current ranges are more than adequate"............who are the experts that decided this? If there is even a small chance that the increased area would help to better train and therefore better protect our men and women in uniform then I am all for it.

Carolina Custom · 07-22-2008, 01:50 PM

Bailydale, yep, an unpopular opinion indeed. However, I have to wonder where anyone can do anything anymore. No nukes, no drilling, no mining, no military training. The "not in my backyard syndrome" has run amuck in this nation.

Is this a good place to bomb and what are the consequences? I have no idea, nor do most other folks. But most everyone will jump on the opposition band wagon for just about anything these days.

Shag · 07-22-2008, 01:57 PM

Yep, that's why I had posted this earlier. Does anybody know the actual details of the area(s) affected?

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...208232&posts=1

ncfishead · 07-23-2008, 07:22 AM

I would think with the accuracy of new technology they would be downsizing the ranges rather than upgrading. This is an area used by both commercial and Recs alike. I for one will not sit on my hands and let the goverment roll over on me. If you look at all the pictures from the recent wars they show bombs dropping on bay doors. So if they can hit that why do they need an expansion of the range that includes sensitive areas?

bluewaterpirate · 07-23-2008, 07:57 AM

The CCA is blowing smoke up your backside when it uses the phrase " I would think with the accuracy of new technology they would be downsizing the ranges rather than upgrading." They use that as intended to suit their own needs.

Here's the truth what's actually being used on these small ranges. These inert practice bombs are what isbeing droppedon these range ..... notice these are small dumb bombs. When the pilot releases them from the wing they go where they were pointed. They also can get hung ... don't leave the wing as planned an may fall outside the range boundaries.

Now here is some of the reasoning behind the request to expand.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - The Navy said a small, inert training bomb fell Tuesday from an F/A-18C Hornet fighter jet that was heading to Oceana Naval Air Station. No one was hurt.

The Navy said in a statement that the bomb hit a wall adjacent to a warehouse in the resort city of Virginia Beach. Minimal damage was reported.

The aircraft was returning to Oceana following a training mission at the Navy's bombing range in Dare County, N.C., when it dropped the bomb. The jet landed safely at Oceana.

Here's another SH possibility .....

After rolling in hot to drop his practice ordance the practice bomb hangs up on the pylon(it fails to release). At this pointpiolet will try to shake the inert bomb off the a/c. If that fails he will return to base with the ordanceon the wing avoiding populated areas as much as possible.

I have no problem with just causes but I sure wish the CCA would print the whole story ... in other words print all the facts not just the ones they think will sensationlize their cause. Let's say for the sake of discussion the boundaries are not expanded and some boater gets hit by one these inert weapons. I can only imagine the out cry. At the point the CCA can stand up and take some of the reponsibilty to.

And yes, I spent 30 years in the Navy so I'm sensative to the issues on both sides. I also fish the area in question so I'm aware of the fisheries.

Tom Bare · 07-23-2008, 08:07 AM

I would tyhink the ccas eforts would be more effectively focused on all the disgarded nets, submerged septic tanks for duck hunting, etc than this. Just my opinion but that place has become quite the a trash pit.

sarbog · 07-23-2008, 08:26 AM

I'll join the unpoular group. Whether or not expansion is warranted on this particular range may be legitimately challenged. But challenging it based upon the so-called "inpoint accuracy" of modern weaponry is not legitimate and exposes those making such claims as not knowing what they are talking about. Expanion may be required due to the fact that we are at war, and will be for some time. Laser-guided and other "smart munitions" are extraordinarily expensive. They aren't used wily-nily. They are largely used on hard targets that are identifiable, of high value, relatively stationary, as well as to avoid collateral damage that is unacceptable militarily or due to political or PR concerns. The Marine or soldier hotly engaged isn't likely to get weapons of "pinpoint accuracy." What he is most likely to get is old-fashioned "dumb" bombs whose placement on the target is dependant upon the skill of the aviator flying that close air support mission. Those Marines and soldiers taking incoming are not likely to be too concerned about those safely at home grousing about losing a favorite fishing spot. They will be concerned about the skill of the pilot putting bombs on target. That skill that is attained by practice. So . . . if expansion of the ranges is not necessary at least base the opposition upon legitimate arguments and not hyperbole. Semper Fi.

ncfishead · 07-23-2008, 08:49 AM

First off let me say that the opinions I veiwed on the accuracy and expansion are only my own and not representive of the CCA. I grew up in the Norfolk, Va Beach area and my Father was a 20 yr navy Chief and I too belive in protectiing our troops. What really makes me wonder, is they have been using this range for years and this is not the first time the ordiance has gotten hung on a wing. I would like to see a real justification for the expansion.

bluewaterpirate · 07-23-2008, 01:49 PM

I would imagine with all the Hornets moving to Oceana and Havelock there is a need for a more robust concurrent range schedule ... by the way the AF uses the range.

I wrote a piece a couple of years ago that I'd like to post that gives a brief history of how we got to this point.

There is some key information that has been omitted from this discussion that forced the Navy into this dilemma in the first place. Please indulge me while I bring them to light.

The Navy had chosen Cecil Field in Florida which is located about 15 miles North of Jacksonville, as the new home for the Hornets in the late 1980s. Cecil, a Master Jet Base, had been the home to the light attack mafia for over 50 years. The flying weather year round was great, there was an existing OLF close by, the TACs and Bombing Ranges are located nearby, but the most important factor of all was the infrastructure was already in place to absorb the aircraft and personnel. To boot the Marine F18's were right up the road in Beaufort, SC. Now here’s the rest of the story.

Then along came the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). They made their recommendations based on fair equity figures that Cecil Field be closed and the President and Congress bought off on it. The Navy immediately went to the Congress and President to fight the closure. Their argument was that it made no sense (but when does sense matter when dealing with elected officials) to close Cecil because of all the reasons I wrote about in the first paragraph. They argued and pleaded for six months to no avail.

The OLF in the Tidewater Area is not in Virginia Beach but is located in Eastern Chesapeake in what used to be in the middle of nowhere. The OLF sits right next to Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge that is home to thousands of migratory birds.

As the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake grew so did the encroachment of development into the high noise and crash zones adjacent to the airfields. As development increased so did the Navy’s fight to keep the adjacent crash zones free from development. They went to the Zoning Commissions, presented to the City Counsels, and even went to court to try to stop the stupidity. The final straw was when Virginia Beach granted a permit to a developer to build a large shopping maul ½ mile northeast of two of the four primary runways at Oceana. This broke the dam. The Navy did all they could to point out the dangers associated with this development, they tried their very best to good neighbors but a each turn they were bent over a table by the cities.

When the Feds decided to close Cecil the Navy had but one choice for the Hornets and that was Oceana. The City of Virginia Beach actually solicited the Navy to base them there because there had been speculation that Oceans would close (because at that juncture there was talk of phasing out the F14 in favor of the Super Hornets). But a funny thing happened on the way to the First Gulf War; the F14’s were upgraded with new state of the art avionics that gave them very similar capabilities to the F15 Strike Eagle. So that meant in addition to the Hornets the Tomcats would become part of the basing equation.

The real problem with all this close in development was that if an aircrew lost an aircraft while landing or taking off there is no place for them safely to put an airplane. It’s been scientifically proven when an aircraft crashes it becomes a lawn dart (in other words controlled flight ceases and the ballistic effect takes over). The Navy showed projected numbers of mass ground casualties that could happen in the event of an aircraft crash but as usual they were told thanks for the info but please go away. When the cities decided that was way too many jets in one location in stepped North Carolina with the idea that some of those Hornets could be moved to MACS Cherry Point. The Navy did what I think was prudent at that juncture and began a feasibility study.

Now for the record I will tell you I was in the Navy for 30 years and was part of the original food fight to keep Cecil Field in Jacksonville open. I know one thing for sure and that is that all the players which include the residents of these counties and the Navy were put into this position by our own government.

Thanks for indulging me.

Shag · 07-23-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

bluewaterpirate - 7/23/2008 12:49 PM

Thanks for indulging me.

No. Thanks for letting us indulge. Very informative.

JGarman · 07-23-2008, 05:35 PM

Why, after 50 years do they need to expand these ranges now? I get tired of the 'We're the US Navy so in the name of national security we are gonna take what we want, and if we find that we need more we'll take that too' Think OLF. I'm with the CCA on this one

ncfishead · 07-24-2008, 06:23 AM

Bluewaterpirate, Thank you for the information, you are right when it comes to politics it often makes no sens what so ever. I still need a better justafication for expansion in an area used by the public. I agree with what you wrote about Back Bay. When I was a kid it was out in the middle of nowhere now when I go home I am amazed at the development that has taken place.