Marham shelters

[bazzacat]

since last viewing Marham on google earth, its had an update- and there are some shelters now extant on the ASP. Are these temporary for an exercise or a new addition? havent been on site for about 5 years, anyone in the know?

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6748/marhamsheltersur7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[whowhenwhy]

I'm guessing as I've not been to RAF Downham Market for years (wahoo!:ok:) but I'd say that they're a permanent fixture after the Bruggen squadrons went in there. Unless it's that squadron of auroras that got moved in a few months ago to replace the PR9s....:E

[Regie Mental]

I believe they've now been removed (?).

[GPMG]

You know, I really think that those pilots should have waited until the yellow hanger paint was dry before rolling their aeroplanes through it and taxying to the runway.

[threeputt]

Whilst on the subject of Marham, who is the new Station Commander now that Osby is moving onwards and upwards?

3P:ok:

[Jobza Guddun]

Some chap called Sir I believe...

The Rubbs were put up for a trial by one of the sqns, to see how much better the GR4 serviceability is if it's kept out of the rain. They have now mostly been removed seeing as the 4 sqns at Marham are ridiculously cramped into the 2 HAS sites.

[mary_hinge]

Is that the old 55 / 100 Sqn Line ?

[forget]

............ to see how much better the GR4 serviceability is if it's kept out of the rain.

Now how would that work? Can't they fly in the rain? :confused::confused:

[Jobza Guddun]

Didn't you know there's a difference between sitting in the rain on the line, and whizzing around through clouds and other watery met phenomenon? It's a different KIND of rain doncha know???

GR's don't like moisture, that's why they're so much more reliable in sandier places...

[Eckster]

Believe they have been removed.

There was a wet/dry trial to do with serviceability. 9 Sqn had the Rubbs and 31 Sqn got wet (and on some occasions very wet). It was decided to fill the rest of the line with Rubbs as serviceability went up a lot and it kept people like me dry whilst servicing the Tonkas. 31 Sqn had the 6 shelters on the left hand side of the line and the singleton out the back on the same side, and we worked out of the purpose built line building. 9 Sqn had the 5 from the right and the 2 at the rear.

[forget]

as serviceability went up a lot

Interesting. I'd have thought that parked aircraft affected by gravity fed rain wouldn't stand much of a chance with a few knots on the nose in a rainstorm. And nothing changed here, apart from keeping them dryish when parked. :confused:

[Out Of Trim]

I expect the benefit was most felt by the human component; rather than keeping the aircraft dry!

If you ever tried to work on a car outside in cold, windy and wet conditions, or more comfortably within a nice warm garage - It would seem obviously easier to complete a servicing task out of the wind and rain whilst remaining cosy and dry!

It would guess the same goes for electric jets! :}

[glad rag]

Ground cooling fans suck shedloads of moisture in, surface water gets in by capilliri action esp the front marry up points.

[SRENNAPS]

seeing as the 4 sqns at Marham are ridiculously cramped into the 2 HAS sites.

Four Sqns in two HAS sites !!!!. Is that how they are now operating.:mad:

That has to be a nightmare and a disaster waiting to happen.:ugh:

[Wrathmonk]

Srennaps

Of course you're assuming they have two squadrons worth of aircraft on each HAS site ....

Not that that would be a problem. Two aircraft in HAS ops work fine .... provided you ensure the canopy on the aircraft at the back of the HAS is down and locked before you start the negines on the one in the front! :p

[SRENNAPS]

Yes mate, I agree. I knew a lad that blew a rear canopy off, many years ago now.

I also agree two aircraft in HAS ops works fine and we use to do it all the time during cold war exercises. But that was under one Sqn and one control. Having said that, I doubt the two Sqns mix their aircraft in a HAS.

However; two lots of Sqn Ops, two lots of SLOC ops, two lots of Rects Control, two lots of Line Control, all in one PBF and one HPS. Two lots of aircrew and two lots of groundcrew, all with their own agenda to meet the daily flying programme.

I may be looking at this too deeply but how is tool and POL control implemented. Imagine four fuel bowsers trying to refuel one Sqn's aircraft for a quick turnround when the others Sqn's aircraft are just launching or returning from a sortie.

Maybe things have changed since I left the Tonka Sqn environment. Maybe the two Sqns are now just number plates and the pool of manpower just fly or work any of the aircraft. How sad that would be if it has gone that way. Anybody know?

[SRENNAPS]

Just for interest could anybody tell me which Sqns share HAS sites. I can’t believe that Goldstars and Bats share the same site.

[insty66]

They don't!

In effect you've got 16.5 Sqn at one end and 11 at the other! and two busy has sites!

[SRENNAPS]

Thanks for the reply.

Obviously things have changed a great deal since the Sqns returned from Bruggen and I am well out of touch.

I thought 11 were ADV – have they moved to Marham? And as for 16.5, sorry but that went straight over my head.

So where do 9 and 31 hang out these days. Also 2 and 13 for that matter.

[Tim McLelland]

We managed to squeeze a pair of Hawks into one of the shelters last year and then the stupid door got jammed part open. Had a delightful time getting the jets out again when we tried to leave the next morning!

[insty66]

Thanks for the reply.

Obviously things have changed a great deal since the Sqns returned from Bruggen and I am well out of touch.

I thought 11 were ADV – have they moved to Marham? And as for 16.5, sorry but that went straight over my head.

So where do 9 and 31 hang out these days. Also 2 and 13 for that matter.

If you do a bit of maths you'll get there, start by doubling those two numbers!

[Jobza Guddun]

Srennaps,

2 and 31 share the NE HAS Site, 9 and 13 the other. 6 HAS each, for 12 jets each, including any Heavy Rects. No secrets there. One lot of Ops, squippers, int etc, 2 lots of self contained Engineering - it better stay separate too, non of that Chinook/Merlin centralised crap.

It's not ideal and it's not efficient. In effect you have BAES Marham on one side of the field, RAF Marham the other, and one of them is the poor relation.

You can't launch a jet from the front slot mate, local rules. (AESO's).

HTH

[insty66]

It's not ideal and it's not efficient. In effect you have BAES Marham on one side of the field, RAF Marham the other, and one of them is the poor relation.

The poor relations live much further North!

[Synthetic]

This got me thinking and I had a quick look at Flash Earth. In the late eighties/early nineties, I knocked up the replacement GR1 sim on the back of my fag packet, after the original was sent out to the sandpit.

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=52.653356&lon=0.550301&z=19.2&r=0&src=ggl

It's apparently still there:confused::confused::confused:

Is this a very old picture, or did they put the replacement in the same containers, or is it still there?

[SRENNAPS]

Jobza Guddun and insty66

Thanks for the info. I got the maths in the end.

I was on 27 many years ago, 6 foot were the other side and 55 on the water front. (Anybody remember Tojo). They were good days. Even better at Bruggen of course with the four corners.

BAES consisted of a single rep and along with a RR rep we spent a lot of time down the pubs (The Bell and Fox &Hounds I think).

From what you have said it sounds like we had the better times.

Regards

[bazzacat]

Mystery solved!

Incedentally, I was looking at the Marham entry on Wikipedia which states the HAS sites were constructed in 1977- surely this is wrong? I would have said 1980 round about..