PDA

View Full Version : Lyneham Closure, Westminster Hall Debate 6 Jan 2010


nigegilb
7th Jan 2010, 09:48
This is James Gray's opener, I'll find a link for the full debate;

I will begin by saying how pleased...: 6 Jan 2010: Westminster Hall debates (TheyWorkForYou.com) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2010-01-06a.69.2)


I will begin by saying how pleased I am to have the opportunity to debate a matter of key concern to my constituency, as RAF Lyneham is based in North Wiltshire. I should say at the outset, however, that the debate is not about RAF Lyneham or North Wiltshire, although I hope that a side effect of what I will say might be a rethinking of the plan to close the base. The debate is about the strategic defence of the realm, the way in which the air transport fleet as a whole has been developed over recent years and current plans for its future change.

It would be wrong to start the debate without paying due tribute to the airmen and airwomen of RAF Lyneham who play such a central role in armed conflicts around the world. "First in, last out" is their great claim, to supply, to save, and to provide everything that the Army, Air Force and Royal Navy need on the ground. That all comes from RAF Lyneham in the magnificent Hercules C-130Ks and C-130Js. They have done a superb job for the nation and I pay tribute to all that they do.

They also play a central role in the repatriation of military bodies through RAF Lyneham. I know that the Minister will be as concerned as I am by the ridiculous notion expressed by Mr. Choudary that he might lead some kind of counter-protest through the streets of Wootton Bassett. I know that the Government, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and others are totally opposed to any such nonsense. I mention, in passing, that I was surprised by Sir Hugh Orde's remarks on the front page of The Daily Telegraph this morning, as he believes that Mr. Choudary's procession down Wootton Bassett high street should go ahead. That seems an odd remark for Sir Hugh to have made, as he has no possible connection with policing in Wiltshire. I am glad that the Government are determined, as am I, to prevent any such protest.

The debate is not about RAF Lyneham, but about the air transport fleet more widely and a series of decisions made in recent years which seem to be wrong-headed, incorrect and internally inconsistent and which seem to have got the whole question of how we spend our defence budgets on air transport wrong. That relates in part to how the procurements have been run, most notably for the A400M, which I will return to in a moment. The debate is partly about the Basing study, which concluded that all our air transport should be brought together in RAF Brize Norton. It seems to me that that started on the wrong premise, was written with the wrong arguments and included some questionable accounting. In general, it is well worthy of revisiting...............It continues

The full debate can be followed here;

[Mr. George Howarth in the Chair]...: 6 Jan 2010: Westminster Hall debates (TheyWorkForYou.com) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2010-01-06a.69.0)

Gnd
7th Jan 2010, 14:22
Right, as long as I don't have to pay (taxes) to keep open a base that isn't needed. Lets fight to keep CHF, a very good organisation, in Yeovilton as well - at least there is no talk of closing VL.

anotherthing
7th Jan 2010, 14:32
Why do we need Lyneham when Brize is there?

Grimweasel
7th Jan 2010, 14:48
I side with James Gray. Why then, have 2 RAF bases operating Chinooks? RAF Odiham is too small to accommodate another 22 of the CH47s and there is the need for a significant infrastructure development inject. Due to BELVEDERE there has been little works money afforded to the place and the estate is old and tired.

If we get rid of Merlin to the Navy and most of the Puma's sod off to Kenya (RAF MOMBASA would be good) then why not close Odiham and relocate all CH47 assets to Benson (where the sims are too)

I just don't see the merit of operating one ac type over 2 bases??

Grimweasel
7th Jan 2010, 14:52
Anotherthing. Clearly you did not read James Gray's submission??

vecvechookattack
7th Jan 2010, 15:12
Clearly you did not read James Gray's submission??

I did. And the question remains. Why do we need Lyneham when Brize Norton is next door?

Grabbers
7th Jan 2010, 15:30
I quote: "Bung everything into one place at Brize Norton-what an invitation to an enemy, a terrorist or adverse weather conditions. Brize Norton is subject to flooding and fog, and if the runway is closed incessantly because of weather or-I shudder to say it-a dirty bomb on the one runway, we would remove our entire air transport capabilities for days or weeks."

could that be any clearer?

Melchett01
7th Jan 2010, 15:35
If we get rid of Merlin to the Navy and most of the Puma's sod off to Kenya (RAF MOMBASA would be good) then why not close Odiham and relocate all CH47 assets to Benson (where the sims are too)


Grimweasel, whilst you have a valid point about collocation with the sims, have you been to Benson recently? It might be a front-line unit, but it is actually quite small. When the Danish Merlins came in, it caused all manner of upheavel, with hangars being cleared etc. The new 22 cabs will take the total size of the CH-47 fleet to about 70 aircraft.

Even assuming a sizeable number of those 70 will be on ops, at Boscombe, on exercise etc and away from Benson, I seriously doubt whether the infrastructure - ops, eng (supporting 2 variants) and admin - would be able to support that many aircraft at Benson. As it stands, the new Ch-47Fs will be one fleet operating out of Benson, with the legacy fleet operating as a completely different fleet out of Odiham.

orgASMic
7th Jan 2010, 16:01
Anotherthing/Vecvechookattack

Having served 2 1/2 years at Brize and 4 at Lyneham, the utility of 2 tpt hubs was obvious. When one was weathered out, the other was often open due to their differing elevations. It also meant that there were 3 runways available to Albert, so something could always get shifted.

Brize was more useful to Lyneham than vice versa, but eggs and baskets spring to mind.

f4aviation
7th Jan 2010, 16:17
Why then, have 2 RAF bases operating Chinooks?

Quite - bring 'em all to Cottesmore! Handy for north (Spadeadam), east (Stanta) and south (Salisbury) (okay the last is maybe a stretch).

Grimweasel
7th Jan 2010, 16:20
Melchett,

Perhaps we would have been better co-locating all our Rotary assets in one base after all? Why run 2 small RAF Stns when you could achieve longer term economies of scale with one Rotary super-base?

One base = 1 MT section, 1 HR section, 1 Supply etc.

There must be efficiencies in a rotary hub much in the same way the AT hub is being forced upon the RAF.

Bzn only has one runway and if that is black what then?

At least Lyneham has 2 usable runways so if one is out of action you still have a reserve? Plus Lyneham is much closer to main transport hubs (M4 for one) unlike BZN which is buried in the dark lanes of Oxon?

I think the next BLUE Government will change things for the better!

vecvechookattack
7th Jan 2010, 16:30
Perfect.............Lets close Brize then.

Lockstock
7th Jan 2010, 16:48
Perfect.............Lets close Brize then.

Yes lets.

And re-open Abingdon. :zzz:

vecvechookattack
7th Jan 2010, 16:59
Bournemouth Airport bosses have dismissed reports it could become an alternative base for military planes should potential plans to close RAF Lyneham come to fruition.

A throwaway comment by North Wiltshire MP James Gray during a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall on Wednesday sparked the rebuttal from the airport, who said there were no plans to use the airport as a back-up base.

A strategic review of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St Mawgan has led to the decision to collate all the air transport operations to Brize Norton.

But in questioning where planes could land should Brize Norton be unable to accommodate incoming aircraft, the airport at Bournemouth was mentioned as a possible – if unlikely option.

Mr Gray said: “I was a bit naughty in mentioning Bournemouth as I was also given two or three other names, but just wanted to show how absurd these options were. Bournemouth Airport would be totally inappropriate as a place to land a military aircraft.”


I think Mr Gray should go to Bournemouth and see how many military aircraft safely and efficiently operate from there

Blue Bottle
7th Jan 2010, 17:45
I understand that Brize Norton runway was black today, but Lynehams was open...em so much for one runway...vice 3

nigegilb
7th Jan 2010, 17:54
Forget Bournemouth, the reality is that RAF crews will be hanging out in Manchester in the years ahead. Not the worst place to be, but the decision to go down to one fog bound runway can only be described as barking. About right for what passes as leadership in the RAF these days.

BTW the stuff about A400M being cancelled for a time by Hutton is a very strong rumour. Pity he resigned, could have had lots more Js and C17s, might even have gotten a UK Sim for the C17 drivers!!

grey_not_green
7th Jan 2010, 17:55
Quoted from a reply by Bill Rammell (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence; Harlow, Labour)

"It is highly unlikely that any attack could compromise the ability to operate the fleets based at Brize Norton. For example, the length of the runway at Brize Norton is such that it is unlikely that it would be damaged to such an extent that it would be impossible to use."

So shall we just ask the would be terrorists to just damage the ends of the runway?

This smacks of about as much common sense as the 'informed' participant of a Future Brize meeting who suggested that we got around the problem of moving traffic across the runway by building a bridge over it....


Please, somebody make it stop. :ugh:

vecvechookattack
7th Jan 2010, 18:04
It is highly unlikely that any attack could compromise the ability to operate the fleets based at Brize Norton. For example, the length of the runway at Brize Norton is such that it is unlikely that it would be damaged to such an extent that it would be impossible to use.

He is basing that on the results of the bombing of Port Stanley runway in 1982. However, I am sure that if you are going to bomb a runway then the best option would be to fly down the centreline of the runway whilst unleashing your load and not to fly across the runway as per 1982.

However, he is correct. It is highly unlikely that an attack could compromise the use of the runway.

Widger
7th Jan 2010, 18:08
I refer the honorable gentlemen to the thread on DII!:*:*:*

kfwalm
7th Jan 2010, 18:11
Be interesting what we do when bournemoth is closed as it is not 24 Hrs . Were do we go then Heathrow!! And who is going to pay for the extra landing cost at these civi airports or do they think the airport managers are going to let us operate for free!! They are sadly mistaken . The money they will save from closing Lyneham will not be seen for along time !!!

dallas
7th Jan 2010, 18:49
"It is highly unlikely that any attack could compromise the ability to operate the fleets based at Brize Norton. For example, the length of the runway at Brize Norton is such that it is unlikely that it would be damaged to such an extent that it would be impossible to use."
Bill needs to try some 'blue sky thinking'; starting off with an adaptation of this:
Four arrested at Australian army base for role in suicide attack plot (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/four-arrested-at-australian-army-base-for-role-in-suicide-attack-plot_100227260.html)
I don't want to give the bad guys any help, but could think of lots of ways of making an attack on BZZ simple and highly effective. Adding the contents of LYE to the pot just adds to the profile, vulnerability and attractiveness of the target.

Two-Tone-Blue
7th Jan 2010, 18:50
Resilience costs money.

Defence money doesn't buy votes.

And the RAF is reaping the harvest of decades of having too much 'wouldn't it be nice'.

Sadly, things have gone too far, and combining LYN/BZN is one of them.

nigegilb
7th Jan 2010, 20:03
Equiv, one step ahead of the Tory line on that one :ok: (not difficult with Cameron in charge). BTW Me and James are not best chums..but the cause is worthy.

I know you are tuned in to the story as well, but the considered view is that decision to purchase significantly more C17s and Js was taken by Hutton on the eve of his resignation, on recommendation by the RAF. A unilateral decision by the UK, which made the loss of Hutton even greater.

It was Hutton's resignation that put the spanner in the works.

Not sure where we are now on procurement windows, (it was certainly possible back then). As you say, all might well be lost, but we'll have some fun trying to change a few attitudes..

VinRouge
7th Jan 2010, 20:08
If C-17 was so unjustafiable, why did they just buy no 7? It will be easily able to transport fres + ancils. Or Chinook. Or a host of other bulk loads required at short notice.

And if c-130J is so tiny, how is it regularly dropping 16 tonnes of CDS where it counts?

Cancel A400M. With the entire current budget cost, we could afford loads of C17 and C130Js.

The drive is about capability vs price actually. Something that a 3rd IPT, eng set up and logs chain doesnt exactly give us does it? Civvie accreditation for the engineers will just drive retention through the floor. I think we can afford losing a couple of runs on an austre strip according to CBR. A400M cant even transport FRES. So Whats the point? (apart from governments saving face?)

As I said earlier, commercial contract = give us our money back please or we will see you in court. Airbus have tried to get the terms of the contract re-written. They failed. (I Believe).

vernon99
7th Jan 2010, 22:04
[QUOTE]As I said earlier, commercial contract = give us our money back please or we will see you in court. Airbus have tried to get the terms of the contract re-written. They failed. (I Believe)./QUOTE]

We paid up front, for xyz on a commercial contract, Airbus made a big deal out of it, no delays and changing spec halfway through ala wastaspace. You ordered xyz you will get xyz.

We could cancel at certain points, we have reached a point at which we could cancel BUT I believe the problem is one of Airbus not having the money to pay back! If we pull out so probably would the others, leaving Airbus bankrupt. That I think is the real sticking point, as there are a lot of people employed by Airbus/ in jobs linked to Airbus, and an election is looming.

Widger
7th Jan 2010, 22:26
Was this thread not about the closure of Lyneham. There is a dedicated thread about A400M.

Cancelling A400M will not provide any money for other capabilities, it will just go towards reducing the current deficit.

Eggs in one basket???...The cold war ended in the 1990s, there is one airbase that is under constant threat and that place has more aircraft on one site including ins and outs than the whole of the UK RAF inventory. When Al Qaida get hold of JP233 and a Tornado, then maybe we should get worried about denial of our runways.

Grabbers
7th Jan 2010, 22:39
Widget, how very far-sighted of you. You're not a 2* or above are you? Sir.

Farfrompuken
8th Jan 2010, 02:33
Okay,

Ignoring the fact that the move to BZN will see a significant reduction in capability and efficiency lets look at some facts that mean more to HMG than anything else; money.


LYE costs £7M per year in infrastructure costs. Manpower savings for the closure have already been made.

£180M to move ac and Sqns across; no significant increase in accommodation. To do that we need to spend £250M+. However we can't afford to pay people disturbance (and thats AFTER we've built the houses we can't afford to build). Bussing people will cost too; financially and manpower-wise (I and countless others will opt out of the service if that comes to fruition). We can't afford home to duty.

So, we spend £180M to save £7M per year. Lose capability too.

What a genius idea!

It takes a total moron to actually think we're doing the right thing by squandering that money for an ultimate loss. (Mind you, these were the same people who thought 232 Typhoon would solve all our FJ, SH and AT woes!;))

JulieAndrews
8th Jan 2010, 07:38
.......by locating 100% of assets at BZN.
It will be a matter of days before AT fleet is 'diverted' to numerous airfields around the UK with crews spending their time at Bredbury Hall or in a bus somewhere in between.
I think Manchester might have something to say about impact upon their ops also?
AT AOC bod needs shooting for 'allowing' this to happen.

Unlike choppers, large aircraft cannot be easily dispersed around the country without the essentially long logistics trail/tail where empires and jobsworths flourish

VinRouge
8th Jan 2010, 08:26
what is the entire budget for A400M? Maybe you can tell me how many C17s and Hercs this would buy? Would save me a lot of work....Going of 2008 FY budget costs for the USAF, we could afford an aditional 10 C-17 and around 15 Js.

Fres is simply too heavy for A400M in its heavier forms.

Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) ? Medium-Weight Armoured Vehicles - Army Technology (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fres/)

The FRES utility vehicle was originally specified to be transportable by the C-130J Hercules which carries loads up to about 18t. The FRES vehicle specification has been revised to be transportable by A400M, which can carry a vehicle up to 37t. The A400M will enter service with UK forces in 2011. For vehicle weights of over 37t the vehicle's armour and systems would be transported separately.

Father Jack Hackett
8th Jan 2010, 09:44
JulieAndrews

Sadly, Bredbury Hall is now a supermarket, as opposed to the meat market it was in its glory days. I did shed a little tear on hearing the awful news!

Grimweasel
8th Jan 2010, 10:09
Blimey - no more Bredbury Hall - sod diverting to Manchester then, will have to find a new Airfield. Now, Teeside International, is that not near Yarm, Newcastle, Richmond etc etc :)

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Jan 2010, 11:01
Was there in 2008 and 2009 and sincerely hope to be there early this year :ok:

bunta130
8th Jan 2010, 11:37
Was there in Sep last year.......no change noted!!:ok:

I suppose, it could be described as a super meat market :E

BEagle
8th Jan 2010, 11:49
On the few occasions I diverted into Lyneham due to VC10 wet crosswind limits at the Oxonian 'superbase', the availability of the into-wind cross-runway was much appreciated. The trip back to Brize in a white van, less so...

The only other real alternative in such conditions is Birmingham.

When Brizzle Channel grot puts Brize out of Cat1 limits, the higher elevation of Lyneham is also a real boon. Cardiff probably wouldn't be much use under such conditions, so Castle Donington or somewhere else north of Watford Gap would probably be the best diversion. Why not a military aerodrome? Well, basically the problems associated with ground support, fire and rescue cover, passenger handling etc etc.......

A minor point - in my day for the VC10K our min div fuel was often 7 tonnes, assuming Lyneham. If a more distant base has to be nominated as a planned alternate, the available off-load will be less (in a tanker) and the available ZFW less (for AT) - particularly if you load fuel for a second stab before having to divert to an expensive civil aerodrome. Additional fuel burn might also be a factor, so over the years the fuel bill will be greater.

Closing Lyneham would be utter folly. Which is why it is sadly inevitable....

Poltergeist
8th Jan 2010, 11:53
Ok,Interesting points on here. I am not military but do risk assessments for civil aviation. I would be interested to know what risk management model was used in deciding to place the entire transport fleet onto a single runway base. What contingencies do the MOD have in the event of rwy closure in keeping supply chains moving? Civil carriers are busy reducing capacity due to the economic downturn.
I have heard the argument before that it will cost more to close the base than keep it open and attempts elswhere to dispose of airfields has not always been successful. I am intrigued as to why a base such as LYE - ehy not Northolt? restrictions due its location and that of LHR could sell it for a fortune and could use farnborough if needed. I may be wrong but to me this smacks of 'a good idea to get promted on'

VinRouge
8th Jan 2010, 13:01
Polt, I think the risk assessment model went along the lines of this:

"If I dont find 'cost savings' that dont exist, I wont get promoted".

BEagle
8th Jan 2010, 13:06
I would be interested to know what risk management model was used in deciding to place the entire transport fleet onto a single runway base.

You're kidding, surely?

It will have been something like "We're going to close Lyneham. Now, you, boy, write a staff paper justifying my decision and prove that it won't affect our operational capabilities.....I mean, that it will save much money, whilst I send my uniform off to the tailor for another ring".

Back in the latter days of the Cold War, someone came up with A Great Idea. We would practice off-base operations. So The Plan was to fly from Fairford, not Brize......until They worked out how much it would cost to trundle everyone back and forth in the school bus every day....:hmm:, there being no accommodation available at Fairford. So then They had another idea - "Let's operate from a different part of Brize and just pretend we've deployed". Not such a daft idea, but ultimately thwarted by the gingerbeering squirearchy who refused to accept 'deployment' servicing rules etc - so all that happened was that everyone was screwed about for no real gain.

Quite how the Oxonian Superbase will be expected to cope with all the Herk folk will be interesting to find out. Even something as basic as car parking is currently nigh-on impossible. If the economy has bounced back by then, I doubt whether the closure of Lyneham would be much of a retention incentive.

ian16th
8th Jan 2010, 13:45
I think Mr Gray should go to Bournemouth and see how many military aircraft safely and efficiently operate from thereWhen it was called 'Hurn' didn't a company called Vickers build a fair number of military A/C there?

I remember Valiants going back to Vickers for mod's and they landed and took off OK.

ian16th
8th Jan 2010, 13:59
Blimey - no more Bredbury Hall - sod diverting to Manchester then, will have to find a new Airfield. Now, Teeside International, is that not near Yarm, Newcastle, Richmond etc etc http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gifThe former RAF Middleton St. George is currently called something like 'Durham and Tees Valley Airport' and it seems that it is going down the tubes. The company that took over from the consortium of local councils really seem to have screwed it all up.

Airlines are fighting each other to get away from the place.

JamesA
8th Jan 2010, 14:02
This might kill all the speculation or start a fresh line. See the Non-Airline Transport thread - Airbus threatens to cancel A400M if the governments don't cough up more cash.
Excuse thread wander.

MarkD
8th Jan 2010, 16:02
If C-17 was so unjustafiable, why did they just buy no 7?Just guessing, but given that Long Beach is running on fumes order book wise it may be that the wait for C-130s was too long?

VinRouge
8th Jan 2010, 16:13
What, despite the 3 year waiting list, behind the USA, UAE and now India?

7 was on the books for a looong time. We were given the option years ago. It was only recently though that the actual contract was signed.

Blue Bottle
8th Jan 2010, 16:39
Back on thread..

BBC News - MP wants Lyneham decision delayed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8448436.stm)

He's keeping the subject in the news, guess we will have to wait till after the SDR but in the mean time keep letting Lyneham decay,,

Vasco Sodcat
8th Jan 2010, 16:49
Anyone else wondering whether the extra Wokkas justify "Belvedere Revisited?"
:}

Father Jack Hackett
8th Jan 2010, 17:50
(My) Rumours of Bredbury Hall's demise would appear to be exaggerated and it seams that this august institution is still in rude health! My mate down the pub is obviously getting his int from the CIA.....

Still, I'm very relieved, just a shame I'm not on multis anymore.

I apologise for any distress caused by my misinformation!

Grimweasel
8th Jan 2010, 18:28
Phew!!
Never did like the North East LOL :}

Grimweasel
8th Jan 2010, 18:31
Well, lets just say that I have a friend of a friend who works for a big company in the UK that is currently conducting a study into helicopter re-basing. When I mentioned Belvedere he said, 'Yeah we were on that and this is the next Op - we are looking at a new location for the MoD'. I didn't press him anymore for obvious reasons but suffice to say, Belvedere II is very much on the cards it would seem! :)

dallas
8th Jan 2010, 18:43
Back in the latter days of the Cold War, someone came up with A Great Idea. We would practice off-base operations. So The Plan was to fly from Fairford, not Brize......until They worked out how much it would cost to trundle everyone back and forth in the school bus every day....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif, there being no accommodation available at Fairford. So then They had another idea - "Let's operate from a different part of Brize and just pretend we've deployed". Not such a daft idea, but ultimately thwarted by the gingerbeering squirearchy who refused to accept 'deployment' servicing rules etc - so all that happened was that everyone was screwed about for no real gain.Ah yes, I remember my MOB deploying to Neggurb (which must have taken hours to think up). The sqns deployed by means of a 10-minute journey in a 52-seater coach, replete with full pax processing at the air terminal on the outward journey. Once at their 'new' destination they had to deal with an incredibly thick host nation who would only give out things they were specifically asked for, and all except the career-thrusters rolled their eyes with despairing pointlessness as IntOs churned out meaningless scenarios involving Orangeland, Brownland and Yellowland - the use of traditional red and blue being considered contrary to the wave of Glasnost sweeping the world. How those exercises flew by...

Albert Another
8th Jan 2010, 19:09
How about: sell off the south side to the civil sector? AKA the Mediterranean airfield model.

dallas
8th Jan 2010, 20:30
How about: sell off the south side to the civil sector? AKA the Mediterranean airfield model
Not an original idea:
http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/LOX/pdf/LOX23_BZN_colocation.pdf

Poltergeist
8th Jan 2010, 21:25
interesting Plan Dallas - not sure of the commercial take up though and that looks like a hell ox a lot of stands when you consider that the only time Gatwick fills its stands is when it snows and the planes cant leave.
Back to the closure, I have read no real argument that appears to have been properly thought out and make sense. I accept I am no strategic expert but I do know that no good will ever come of decisions made on financial grounds alone and many of the observations here suggests sadly, that this is the case.

minigundiplomat
8th Jan 2010, 22:01
but suffice to say, Belvedere II is very much on the cards it would seem!



Belvedere II would actually be Belvedere V or VI. Its been called other things, Jeracia etc etc. Always ends the same way, the only result is delayed investment.

I wouldnt bet the farm on Odiham closing anytime in the near-medium term.

Blighter Pilot
10th Jan 2010, 18:26
Biggest cost to the MOD will be having to return Lyneham to it's 'original' state if no other MOD user wants the site.

Especially as the water table was polluted not so long ago and there are massive BFIs and fuel pipe installations.

Not only that but there are still not enough MQs to go around with DE having to buy new build houses in an around Carterton (25 at the cost of £6M):eek:

Not enough car parking, no hangarage for C130s planned at present and the issue of a massive increase in movements.

Brize will have to accommodate 7 C17s, 25 C130Js, 9 C130Ks, 25 A400Ms, Tristars, VC10s and handle all the charter movements.

One runway and one terminal - what a great plan:mad:

haltonapp
10th Jan 2010, 19:45
When we taxied onto the DHL ramp at EMA on Thursday morning there was a very frosty looking RAF Tristar parked. We then went to Aldergrove and we spotted through the mist, as we taxied past, a VC10 on the commercial ramp, what's that said our German FO! The ten had gone when we came in that night but when we went back to EMA the Tristar was still there, parked next to a BA 777, and on the pax ramp was another RAF Tristar! I hope the crews had a good day/night in Nottingham and didn't have to suffer the Thistle hotel at EMA. Are they still there?

Lyneham was obviously no good as a div that day!

CONSTELLATION1
19th Jan 2010, 21:44
1. No other MOD user can afford to move into Lyneham. No pennies in the bank.
2. Building new houses around Carterton has been in the pipeline a long time. This is the right timeto do it.
3. Blighter Pilot obviously hasn't been to Brize recently as the new carparking system has considerably improved the situation.
4. Brize will also have to accomodate the A-330's, you missed those out.
5. Can't personally see a problem using Bournemouth. Runway is long enough for C-17, A-330, A-400 and C-130. Better had be, otherwise the work being carried out there for MRTT is in big trouble.
6. Take a look at the figures, and Brize is a much better option for weather than Lyneham.

RumPunch
19th Jan 2010, 23:56
Here we are yet again , this is like the Man Utd and Man Citry debate.

The Goverment decided to close Lyneham for a reason, the government is always correct.

Thats also why we went to war for WMD and how we gave the banks lots of money to help them, now they refuse help to the people.

The Goverment make the decisions and they are the right ones everytime :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Gordon Brown can kiss my hairy swingers , yet again ill informed information from our seniors who are too scared to tell facts to the people who make the decisions. Spineless and scared, all the good traits of people who lead

Seldomfitforpurpose
20th Jan 2010, 00:17
1. No other MOD user can afford to move into Lyneham. No pennies in the bank.
2. Building new houses around Carterton has been in the pipeline a long time. This is the right timeto do it.
3. Blighter Pilot obviously hasn't been to Brize recently as the new carparking system has considerably improved the situation.
4. Brize will also have to accomodate the A-330's, you missed those out.
5. Can't personally see a problem using Bournemouth. Runway is long enough for C-17, A-330, A-400 and C-130. Better had be, otherwise the work being carried out there for MRTT is in big trouble.
6. Take a look at the figures, and Brize is a much better option for weather than Lyneham.

Blimey Conney,

Bloody good effort but I never for one moment considered that the Future Brize Team would feel a need to join the ranks of Prune to try to sell the pup :eek:

Albert Another
20th Jan 2010, 08:22
Just some thoughts:

1. Is Bournemouth changing it’s opening times to act as a 24/7 diversion? From the BINA:(a) ‡0630-2130 dly. ATZ ff
(p) Refuelling hours 0700-2130 or §
2. How about 24/7 circuit training around the Brize area given possible noise issues?

Nearly all the people I have spoken to think that, in hindsight, closing Lyneham was a bad idea; when will someone just say ‘LET US PAUSE & THINK’. There may be long term financial gains but with long term strategic losses that could never be regained. It would be nice to slow things for 6 months or so until after a Strategic Defence Review. Our current financial predicament won’t last forever, our need for a flexible, efficient strategic transport fleet will.

CONSTELLATION1
20th Jan 2010, 08:28
Nothing to do with Future Brize, just stating the facts.:ugh:

AR1
20th Jan 2010, 08:54
The natives are restless

Lyneham's top officer says closure makes sense (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald) (http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/4858078.Lyneham_s_top_officer_says_closure_makes_sense/?ref=rss)

nigegilb
20th Jan 2010, 10:16
The point about including the closure of Lyneham in the forthcoming SDR is crucial.. There is a possibility that the Army will need accommodation for soldiers currently housed in Germany. However they will not know for sure until the future of those serving in Germany has been assured. Until then, understandably the Army will not be willing to takeover the running costs of the domestic site. There is still a real chance that Lyneham has a military future. There could well be a need for line servicing to take place after the closure date.

As the future size of British Army is tied up in SDR, so too should the final decision on the closure of RAF Lyneham.

Whatever happens, I cannot foresee a situation where Lyneham remains a fully functioning airbase open 24 hours a day.

The cost saving are 25mil per year. I am in the process of finding out how many years it will take before savings are realised by the closure.

I suspect the cost of the move greatly exceeds the 200mil generally quoted.

Albert Another
26th Jan 2010, 20:47
I agree that the window for a PAUSE TO EVALUATE is closing. Once things like simulators start to move; that’s it. At the moment a lot of the hard work being done at Brize was needed or planned anyway; so it would not all have been in vain.

Instead of the MoD bearing the entire cost of running an airfield, why didn’t the MoD consider a civil, military partnership. Lyneham would make an ideal business jet airfield. Some areas could be entirely handed over as civil-side, with savings made from selling off parts of the site & saving made by not having to maintain those former areas anymore.

Lyneham would be an ideal landing ground for the 2012 Olympics. Centrally located between the Cardiff, Weymouth, London & Birmingham sites with excellent transport links close by.

Of note the Facebook ‘Save RAF Lyneham’ group has over 8000 members (almost a 1/5 the size of the air force)

Ken Scott
27th Jan 2010, 22:57
I disagree that the MOD can't afford to keep Lyneham open - it can't afford to close it. The savings are all long term with a break even point in 2025 by which time things may have changed again & those savings never realised. How can a bankrupt RAF afford the £180 million cost of closure & moving to Brize? And as for the £10 million to return the site 'to the people' - when the RAF 'gave' Abingdon to the army in the 90s it cost £80 million to prepare the site for them.

The closure should be put on hold, & for no other reason than it's unaffordable at the moment.

Farfrompuken
28th Jan 2010, 05:50
Ken,

you're spot on there. But that £180M doesn't include the cost of new housing. So The break even point is way further to the right.

Lose money to lose capability: Genius!!

As far of PNR with regards to expenditure; such little has occurred at BZN other than more pan space, you'd be forgiven for thinking nothing was going to happen. Doesn't look like the building of an AT hub to me!!

nigegilb
28th Jan 2010, 07:05
The figure I am working with is closer to 400 mil!

Lord knows when the break even year will arrive..

Doctor Cruces
28th Jan 2010, 11:33
I have regularly read about the lack of AT assets currently available. I was, however, shocked to see the figures posted earlier. 34 Hercs left? Thats ALL?

I was one of the Training Co-Ords at LYE from 89-93 and when I left we had 60 and I'd regularly have 13 or more on my training program!!

Message to government: -

Either stop acting as if we are a real world power or fund us to be one again.
As for closing LYE...........

Shocking, truly shocking.

Doc C

:sad::*

Ken Scott
28th Jan 2010, 17:08
Farfrompuken,

Agreed, if they purchase the new housing estate in Faringdon which is one plan to make up the shortfall in housing then that will add £200 million to the bill. It doesn't seem to add up to good value!

Grabbers
28th Jan 2010, 17:35
Stn Cdr RAF Lyneham about to star on local BBC tv news. Apparently we are not leaving a vacuum behind.

Farfrompuken
28th Jan 2010, 18:06
Ken,

That plan (Faringdon) was kyboshed by the restrictions on purchase of the estate.

I heard £250k per house was the last quote for new-builds at BZN! Someone was planning to take them to the cleaners!!

As yet no-one knows what the accommodation plot will be. Anyone have kids to school etc etc??!! A good reason to get out of this mess before all dignity is lost.

It is, quite simply, utterly barking mad and an obscene waste of taxpayers money. I'm surprised the NAO haven't torn this to shreds!

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
28th Jan 2010, 18:19
Apparently we are not leaving a vacuum behindThat'll be a veiled reference to Mr Dyson :}

Ken Scott
28th Jan 2010, 18:41
That has been suggested, Mr Dyson purchasing Lyneham to use as his personal airport (where he keeps his ac already), & I'm sure he'd take it for nothing so that we don't have to pay the clean-up costs. He might even let us conduct training in the circuit (which we won't be able to do at Brize because of the noise issue), at a price of course!

Watched the Staish on the local news, a rather unconvincing performance I thought, & no suggestion of what is going to fill the vacuum. Only last week the Staish was in the local paper - Gazette & Herald - doing a similar PR job in support of the closure. It's plain that he's been given a mission, sell the closure or don't get Air Commodore.

Father Jack Hackett
28th Jan 2010, 19:32
If Gladys has managed to convince himself that this whole goat-f***ing exercise is such a great idea, then that's between him and his conscience. However the mendacity of declaring that most Lyneham personnel also think that it is such a good thing is simply staggering.

Good Mickey
28th Jan 2010, 20:05
Just read Stn Cdrs article...

quote..."but the personnel who work and live on the base say it’s the only way forward."unquote.

agree with FJH, not sure that Lyneham personnel would buy into that. As for me? I would reverse the closure in a heartbeat!!

GM

Seldomfitforpurpose
28th Jan 2010, 21:12
Apart from a few of those who live in the top corridor I have yet to meet anyone at Lyneham who thinks this is a good thing :(

But like BOCS we are simply going to have to suck it up and get on with it :(

Albert Another
31st Jan 2010, 08:23
Closing a base & relocating the assets to another base, with a similar aircraft type, is ‘relatively’ simple & quickly achieves the desired cost savings; this is not the case with Lyneham & Brize.

As this thread developed I was expecting to see lots of emotional & strategic reasons for keeping Lyneham open. What is now happening is that more & more financial reasons are being posted. What evidence these claims are underpinned by I don’t know, but surely someone at an appropriate level in this process should now be calling for the estimate to be reassessed. This country can ill afford another defence budget faux pas.

dallas
31st Jan 2010, 18:40
If Gladys has managed to convince himself that this whole goat-f***ing exercise is such a great idea, then that's between him and his conscience. However the mendacity of declaring that most Lyneham personnel also think that it is such a good thing is simply staggeringSeems to me he's displaying rather good air rank qualities - barking plan that he 'fully supports', while claiming to speak for the masses who just happen to support it too! Hurrah!

Father Jack Hackett
31st Jan 2010, 21:45
Suited for air-rank indeed:

"..... but the personnel who live and work on the base see that it is the only way forward........"

In a way that's perfectly true, as they're all smart enough to see that the move will be forced through regardless that it appears to lack any operational or apparent financial benefit.

Malcolm Tucker himself would be most proud if this tour-de-force in spin.

AR1
2nd Feb 2010, 12:42
Just heard him on BBC Wiltshire this morning, on for about an hour. I know nothing about the finances, but I do know a good choice in music when i hear it. - The Jams 'Down in a Tubestation at midnight' and Green days 'Good Riddance (Time of your life).

nigegilb
2nd Feb 2010, 14:02
Does anyone have any piccies of the "new" building allocated to the three Lyneham squadrons when they relocate next year? Would appreciate any cooperation I am trying to organize a counterpoint to the establishment view of the move. I understand the shoe horning of the three squadrons into a dilapidated and totally unsuitable building must be at "no cost".

Pictures speak louder than words..

pr00ne
2nd Feb 2010, 16:17
nigegilb,

"Does anyone have any piccies of the "new" building allocated to the three Lyneham squadrons when they relocate next year? "

Three? What happened to the fourth one then?

nigegilb
2nd Feb 2010, 16:31
I understand only three squadrons will be having to commute not the four in existence at the moment.

pr00ne
2nd Feb 2010, 16:40
nigegb,

Thanks.

Three squadrons to fly 25 A400M and 24 C130J and act as OCU? Isn't that a bit silly, compared to the THREE Nimrod squadrons planned for 9 a/c?

nigegilb
2nd Feb 2010, 16:47
Proone this is the move that is happening July next year, can't speak for the A400M, Lyneham's "new" squadron(s) building (singular) might be allowed a lick of paint [no cost move] by the time the A400M comes on stream.

Ken Scott
2nd Feb 2010, 22:36
There will be a coffee bar for XXIV & 30 Sqns on the groundfloor, in the old station mortuary. 47 Sqn will be upstairs. The buiding, currently home to Tanker Training Flight used to be the Medical Centre. LXX Sqn, as the A400M sqn, will get a new buiding as their HQ - out of the A400M budget so it won't be a cost on the bill to close Lyneham.

DummyRun
3rd Feb 2010, 01:04
Oh for Gawd's sake, dry your eyes wet pants.

Can't you see the scale of the savings here?

What is the scale Darling....

Er 1 to 1 General, oh, look, there's a little worm.........

Load Moving.........

skaterboi
3rd Feb 2010, 06:37
LXX Sqn, as the A400M sqn, will get a new buiding as their HQ - out of the A400M budget so it won't be a cost on the bill to close Lyneham.
Yesterday 17:47

I thought LXX were going into 101 Sqn's building?

m2mob
3rd Feb 2010, 06:47
Sorry Ken,

Its 47 that will be on the ground floor - the powers that be have worked out that a room that they need is so heavy (and the building structure is not strong enough) that wherever they put it - it will end up on the ground floor! Still an arrse plan to close 2 of the 3 useable runways.
SFFP - I dont think you will find anybody at all at lyneham who privately thinks its a good plan - but they may spout party line crap in public..............!
m2mob

nigegilb
3rd Feb 2010, 06:54
I understand there is a budget for replacing light bulbs..

Low Ball
3rd Feb 2010, 07:37
Surely you take all the Lynham light bulbs with you. Lots of other trivia also have value like road signs, building signs, swingy up barriers for the snowdrops, street lights, door knobs -why remove the knobs take the doors as well, the list is endless. Aren't these called residuals or offsets. Could be some medals or promotions in this

LB

M2dude
3rd Feb 2010, 07:43
Chaps, could I possibly post here, as ex-Lyneham Ground Crew?
I first came 'here' in early 1968, there were only 2 Herc' squadrons then 24 & 36!! The rest were at Fairford (30 & 47), Thorney Island (OCU), Akrotiri (70 SQN) & Changi. (48 SQDN). The brand new Hecs initially only 'lived' at C Site, which we shared with 216 SQDN.
I remember in circa 1969 they built a new NAFFI, and the adage then was that once a new NAAFI is built, then the station will soon close. Lyneham has held out for over fourty years from then, I hope and pray that LYN will still be there in another 40, not just the sake of nostalgia on my part, but sheer common sense. (That would be a hell of a lot of eggs in one Brize basket).
Good luck guys, I'll be keeping all my fingers and toes crossed for you.
(Oh, and 217 was always my favourite A/C)

nigegilb
3rd Feb 2010, 08:00
Good idea about transferring those light bulbs low ball, pity the purpose built squadron buildings on the south side of the airfield can't be transferred along with the light bulbs.

I have got some paint in the garage, maybe we should start up some kind of paint pool for the no cost move?

It's good stuff, Farrow and Ball I think...

DADDY-OH!
3rd Feb 2010, 11:31
Hi!

I'm a Civvie Airline Captain with no Military Aviation experience whatsoever, however, that doesn't preclude me from spotting flaws & weaknesses in the current state of the Armed Forces.

I have big,big issues with centralizing the whole of a particular type of aircraft on one site & I'll cite an example & a couple of scenarios.

February 2009, I was based at Brize, working for FlyGlobespan operating the UK-ASI-Mount Pleasant AirBridge & UK-Gulf flights via Hannover, Paderborn, Teeside & Akro'. For a period of about a week we had atrocious weather conditions of ice, snow, freezing rain & the daytime temperature was seldom above -2c, very similar to the 'Cold Snaps' we had recently. The apron, taxyways & runway at Brize could not be cleared of snow & ice due to the lack of staff to operate the equipment who couldn't get into the base & when it did operate, it frequently broke down. RAF Brize Norton was SNOCLO for quite a while.
Inbound transport flights were diverted to Manchester, Brum, East Mids' et al. Now that's fine, if inconvenient, to stick service personnel on coaches & freight or equipment can be moved on trucks to the Air Head or wherever it needs to go. Unfortunately, one particular night the Russians were a roamin'.

Aircraft scrambled from a base in Scotland & a tanker on QRA tried to launch but couldn't due to the condition of the runway at Brize. We were sat on the flight deck of our B767 listening to the conversations between the hapless team in the Control Tower & the frustrated crew who wanted to get airborne. This went on for over an hour, apparently more aircraft were launched from Scotland & some in Eastern England were put on alert as the original interceptors ran low on fuel. We got our pax, closed the doors, taxied &, prior to take off, were asked for a runway condition report. As we turned onto runway 26, I could feel the aircraft slipping slightly, & noted the 'shiny surface' of the runway & the OAT hovering around 0'c. We launched & gave the Tower a report along the lines of "...runway surface WET, runway entry point SLIPPERY... estimated braking action MEDIUM" as there was no visible contamination. When I got back to Brize a few days later I found out the QRA mission had been scrubbed, which to a tax payer in times when the Russians were having a few probes, was not very reassuring. On the way to the hotel, I really felt for the teams hundreds of miles North of Scotland & their thoughts on that dark wintery night, upon being told that their tanker wasn't coming. It's just not good enough.
If the RAF has an obligation to to defend our airspace with teams on QRA then why don't they put the assets needed together? Put a couple of tankers at a frontline QRA station IF the weather looks as though it could hamper ops, or the Russians start upping their activity? During the Bosnian War, Bruggen was full of damn tankers on a 'forward det'. Why not have a QRA det? If this isn't possible, why not put a couple of Tornados with Buddy-Buddy fits as a back-up or emergency measure?

Here's a scenario. So the RAF puts all it's Chinooks in one 'Superbase'. Well what a target that would be for bunch of terrorists, to seriously damage the bulk of the Heavy HeloLift capability that could be used in a current theatre. What would it take? 4? 6? 8? nutters in a couple of trucks? A couple of pairs of bolt cutters to take 30 secs to cut a big hole in a fence. They can drive on through & be on the flightline wreaking havoc with petrol bombs, lump hammers, sledge hammers, crow bars within a couple of minutes doing untold damage with no weapon or mass-fertilizer purchases to flag up with the Security Services, no death to innocent civilians to harm their cause but a blow to the already hard pressed UK Armed Forces & a massive propaganda coup. On a Pacific Island in December 1941, a base commander decided to park all the aircraft on his base slap in the middle of the airfield for fear of saboteurs sneaking through the perimeter fence. His pilots protested, offering that it left them vulnerable to an air raid. Come lunchtime on December 7th over 60 USAAC aircraft were left ablaze after an attack by 8 Japanese dive bombers. I'm merely saying 'Eggs in a basket'.

How about:

Making SAR tri-service.

Operating the Nimrods jointly with the Navy (same as the Joint Harrier Force & Helicopter/Fast Jet training system)

Letting the Army have the RAF's helicopters.

Putting QRA assets (inc. tanker & Awacs) having 'detached flights' e.g. to Leuchars & Conningsby. 22 (SAR) Sqn used to be based at RAF Finningley where all the maintenance, training & admin' was carried out, but operated a network of 'det flts'. Why not operate Awacs, MPA, Tactical Airlift & Tanker assets on a similar set-up?

Co-Locating SF air assets together with the land based units they carry into battle.

Close Scampton & put the Reds into Valley.

Close LOO & Cranfield's runways & put the Dom's & Tuc's into somewhere like Mona & Woodvale where they are relatively close to each other & where they train i.e. the LFA's in North Wales & Lake District & the uncluttered airspace of the west coast. It would save flying time transiting from airfields in the East of the country to their training areas in the West & back again.

Base UAS & EFT units at sections of more provincial civilian operated airports.

Have a select list of established UK owned, based & crewed airlines to operate to places such as Ascension, Nairobi, Mount Pleasant, Calgary, Hannover, Belize, Dulles/Andrews AFB, Patrick AFB, Akrotiri & wherever the UK's Gulf AirHead is. Frequent rotation of tenders among UK airlines will ensure competitive quotes while ensuring British jobs & post-service job prospects for ex-service personnel. At the minute we have the UK-FI AirBridge operated by Seychellians who've just replaced Polynesians who replaced British workers made redundant!!!!

Just the ideas of someone on the outside looking in.

INCOMING!!!!!!:ok:
:ok:

Albert Another
4th Feb 2010, 08:03
Note to moderators; Any chance you could make this a sticky :ok:

nigegilb
4th Feb 2010, 08:24
I am in possession of a lengthy reply to James Gray's debate, it is signed off by Bill Rammell, as soon as James agrees to release it to the press I'll post a link up on here. Interesting now that funding for the armed forces has suddenly become a hot political potato, might be a bit of mileage left in this cause. I am yet to meet anyone at Lyneham who thinks it is a good move, aside from one person, who sees it as inevitable. If we can't afford 25mil per year to run an air station then we are in a very sad state of affairs. Compared to the 25 Bil squandered at Abbey Wood. FRES? Where is it?

Be nice to have this as a sticky for a little while, Mods?

Ken Scott
4th Feb 2010, 09:05
Budget for Lyneham is more like £7M pa purely for the site, not including wages, flying etc. The way the station is being run down, infrastructure wise, it's hard to see where all the £7M gets spent! Ever since the decision to close in 2003 it's been one of the arguments in favour, that's it's too costly to restore the buildings because they've been allowed to deteriorate - perhaps they should've spent a little cash to keep them in the order in the first place although a cynic might say that was always the paln, to run the station down to justify its closure.

nigegilb
4th Feb 2010, 11:41
It is mere speculation, but the potential solution, subject to SDR, would involve the army picking up the running costs for the domestic site and some kind of 2nd line engineering facility continuing, requiring the airfield to be opened from time to time.

The numbers being banded around for Lyneham"s infrastructure need are in the order or 115-125 mil. Considering that, according to my maths, the true spend involved at Brize is in the region of 400mil, Lyneham's bill doesn't seem too bad at all.

I have asked James if he would submit a PQ to ascertain the break even year for cost savings. Trouble is Rammell does not appear to want to include the housing costs in the move. Your estimate of 7mil is the lowest I have heard. The common figure I am hearing, once the station is closed, is a saving of 25mil per year, with an initial planned break even point in year 6. This seems like bolleaux to me, but if anyone else has the figures please pile into the debate.

Ken Scott
4th Feb 2010, 16:31
We have been told break even year is 2025.

Whenurhappy
17th Feb 2010, 14:50
In all this debate, I have not seen any figures gien for the realisable value of the Lyneham estate. Some has been sold/released over the years, but as the land was effectively siezed just before WWII, its net realiable value could be very low indeed.

I have it on very good authority that the majority of land that comprised wartime Lyneham was requisitioned under the Emergency Powers (Defence Regulations) Act. The three sites (FTS, ASU/MU and Transport Command Airfield) were requisitioned from a couple of landowners for c £25,000 in old money; the provisions of the Act required the land to be returned to the original owners at the unimproved value. Given the extensive contamination (fuel, asbestos, heavy metals, possible ordnance, possible radioactive - radium paint, asbestos etc) means that the MOD would ahve to pay the new owners to take on the environmental liability - as was doen with teh Rosyth Fuels Depot a decade ago. The details of the owners, the parcels of land and the purchase prices are given in the Air ministry Terrier, last seen at the Defence Lands Office (now DE) at Durrington Walls, Wilts.

WP

f4aviation
17th Feb 2010, 15:10
Usual Crichel Down scenario.

Circular 06/04: Compulsory Purchase and The Crichel Down Rules - Planning, building and the environment - Communities and Local Government (http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularcompulsorypurchase2)

JFZ90
17th Feb 2010, 18:13
I am in possession of a lengthy reply to James Gray's debate

Is this in the public domain yet Nige? Is James happy to publish it?

Ken Scott
17th Feb 2010, 22:05
I heard they were looking to move South Cerney & Hullavington in. The MOD can't sell the land because it's not their's, as with most of the airfields acquired in the pre-war expansion period they have to be returned to the former owners, so an alternative MOD user will be required.

Army Mover
18th Feb 2010, 09:56
Grunts from Gutersloh is the latest rumour...

I'd be surprised; the reason explained to us at the time as to why the Army moved into Gut originally was the site was NATO funded and not a direct cost to MOD; whereas the barracks being occupied by the units at that time were a direct cost; maybe it's changed?

JFZ90
18th Feb 2010, 17:31
I am in possession of a lengthy reply to James Gray's debate, it is signed off by Bill Rammell, as soon as James agrees to release it to the press I'll post a link up on here.

It is taking a while, doesn't James want to publish it?

vecvechookattack
3rd Jul 2010, 13:05
I fear that people have become resigned to the fact that the end is nigh for the base.


I think that you are correct and that most people are now more concerned with either keeping their current bases or indeed keeping their jobs. There are going to be a lot of servicemen joining the mass ranks of the unemployed.

Guzlin Adnams
3rd Jul 2010, 13:16
:mad: There should be a load of politicians, treasury mandarins and bankers joining those massed ranks, not service personel.

On_The_Top_Bunk
3rd Jul 2010, 23:31
Too far down the line to revert the plans unfortunately.

This will turn into a face saving exercise when it goes to $hit.

Bismark
4th Jul 2010, 10:26
The likely further consolidation of RAF bases following SDR will make the decision to close LYE seem very wise. The question is will the RAF have any runway S of the M4 - is even BDN safe?

vernon99
4th Jul 2010, 12:15
Considering all things, maybe we should consolidate to one or two superbases, certainly nothing in Scotland, they can fund their own. AD could use civilian airports. Think of the savings in manpower alone. Only need a couple of station commanders and no need for so many senior officers! That has got to be a good thing.
Likewise with the army, consolidate it to one regiment, and base them all somewhere like Tidworth or Catterick in one super garrision.
As for the navy I don't think they go to sea these days, so again consolidate all the ships to one base(there probably still won't be enough to fill it) take your pick of Portsmouth or Plymouth?

Pontius Navigator
4th Jul 2010, 13:07
Only need a couple of station commanders and no need for so many senior officers!

We used to have one super-base in Cyprus..air cmdr instead of gp capt and wings commanded by gp capt!

If you have stars in your eyes there are ways and means.:\

vernon99
4th Jul 2010, 14:36
PN Unfortunately until the government appoint an independant review, ie one not influenced by Senior officers, there will never be any proper change in the way things are run. But surely someone in governement can see that you cannot rely on senior officers to cull their own numbers.

There is a similar debate at the moment about he police. Notice how ACPO are saying it will lead to loss of front line jobs etc. Well how about reducing the number of police forces to say 13-15 in the UK, creating regional forces. A couple for Scotland, split say East-West, Wales a couple split North-South etc. We can then sack/demote 30 chief constables and their command chains as surplus to requirements.

Of course it will never happen, although you never know.......

Albert Another
7th Jul 2010, 13:55
The future of Lyneham was raised at Prime minister's questions today (02:00 mins from start of clip):

BBC - Democracy Live - Prime minister's questions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8781000/8781067.stm)

:D:D:D:D:D

We live in hope of a change in the plan. Just to reinvigorate the debate: Brize needed the work that has been already been done, doing to it anyway. The cost of cancelling could save money in the short - middle term which is what this country sorely needs to do at the moment.

BEagle
7th Jul 2010, 14:16
"....if this goes ahead"

An interesting statement from David!

Dutch Holland
7th Jul 2010, 18:58
The BZZ/LYE discussion will continue, but imagine a simple but realistic scenario as follows..... An 'aircraft' departs BZZ (LYE now closed) with such freight as to be 'EXTREMELY MILITARY'. We are servicing a war zone so you know exactly what sort of freight we are talking about !! Soon as airborne there are many failures to a/c systems that could necessitate a RTB situation. BZZ closed because of weather ! I now wonder where this a/c will be accepted by a civilian authority, who will be there to meet it and above all, what security will be available at short notice. This is only one straight forward event that is realistic and could happen quite easily. Don't , by the way, forget the other a/c with 40 x theatre ready troops and 3 x pallets of mail that end up in Newcastle or Prestwick at short notice . I'm sure the MOD have exhausted themselves in laying out Contigency Plans for such obvious events.
Only two outbounds.........a quiet day. Just now think about the hyperthetical six inbounds to BZZ(closed due same problem) arriving from all our various theatres we have stuck our unwanted fingers into and lets decide at short notice where they are going to land. The crews and pax at 3 a.m. will be beside themselves with delight to find they have hours of frustration and upset before anything can be organised. Not due to lack of organisation, but because again in its short sightednes, the MOD have slashed manning levels of trained staff to deal with these scenarios.
Summary: Simple but feasable story leaves us with 8 assorted a/c around U.K. out of position, unable to fill their next schedule, crews out of place, and costs etc.etc. all in one day. How long to put these cracked/broken eggs back into their one basket at BZZ ?

Coupling gaerbox
7th Jul 2010, 20:20
I recall when the Strategic Defence Review was made in 2003 that a 'Save Lyneham' study which was spearheaded by James Gray, supported the reasons for the future of Wiltshires airbase, with a 11,600 signature petition to keep the base open. The base offers over £75M per annum to the local community. Despite all the supported and valid rationale to keep Lyneham, The then Defence secretary ignored the study papers as his mind was already in concrete to keep Brize. ( A letter on the public domain assured the Governers of the Falkland Islands that Brize was to remain open as the link for the South Atlantic Island) We saw BLAIR lie to the people of Lyneham saying that Lyneham was to remain open (April 2003) then announce July 2003 it was to close. There has been an air of neglect displayed by the government, if they knew the true facts then they would think logically. Put all you eggs in one basket at your peril

Farfrompuken
7th Jul 2010, 20:32
The likely further consolidation of RAF bases following SDR will make the decision to close LYE seem very wise. The question is will the RAF have any runway S of the M4 - is even BDN safe?

The cost saving which will be £7.45m per year will take 46 yrs and 8 months to pay off, based on a £350m min move cost.

Hardly a wise decision!!!

All other arguments about operational effectiveness etc pale into insignificance against that kind of moronic financial planning....

vecvechookattack
7th Jul 2010, 20:40
ily. Don't , by the way, forget the other a/c with 40 x theatre ready troops and 3 x pallets of mail that end up in Newcastle or Prestwick at short notice . I'm sure the MOD have exhausted themselves in laying out Contigency Plans for such obvious events.

Of course they would be readily accepted at the Royal Naval Air Station Prestwick... We'd love to see them....more than welcome

Albert Another
8th Jul 2010, 16:42
BEagle, I agree, the Prime Minister's use of words was interesting:

"....if this goes ahead"

Maybe I will put some money on the Lotto this weekend!

Dutch Holland
8th Jul 2010, 17:41
I know you would welcome the fictcious A/C as in reality I have experienced RNAS Prestwick's hospitality as a C130 crew member in the past !! Hospitality in 'extremis'. Having dealt with your first a/c look behind you at the Antonov, 2 x Chartered DC-8s, Air Italy Charter (224 pax ) and the lonely 2 x C130s awaiting your tender administrations 'cause your airfield is the only viable option. How long does the coach ride from Prestwick to Aldershot / Plymouth take ? I bet its fun. :D
Knowing the Senior Service I have no doubt of your ability but to the wider organisations involved, are there contingency plans in place should this sort of scenario develop ?

Ken Scott
8th Jul 2010, 19:34
We are bankrupt as a nation at the moment, so paying upfront to consolidate all AT at Brize Norton with the expectation of savings in the future is ludicrous. James Gray has indeed gone very quiet post election, I can only assume that he is fighting hard behind the scenes for sense to prevail.

I particularly enjoyed the article in the Bzn Gateway magazine talking about the training week in May and how, 'all the C130 crews are fully onboard with the move to Brize' as a result of the successful training there - and no mention of XV304.

BEagle
8th Jul 2010, 19:36
I particularly enjoyed the article in the Bzn Gateway magazine....

Presumably because as it was soft, strong and very long it served at least one purpose.....:hmm:

StopStart
9th Jul 2010, 00:40
I particularly enjoyed the article in the Bzn Gateway magazine talking about the training week in May and how, 'all the C130 crews are fully onboard with the move to Brize' as a result of the successful training there

I too saw this and assumed that, whilst I was asleep, North Korea had trundled over the 38th Parallel, toppled the west and then installed their chief propagandist as a writer for The Gateway. I mean, seriously, did the bloke that wrote that article actually speak to the C130 crews?? The only thing they were onboard with was their aircraft back to Lyneham. Brize bent over backwards to provide nothing and made no effort to practice merging the station's operating procedures. God forbid you want to get a 2 ship airborne and there's a Tristar or VC10 within 400 miles of Brize. Oh night flying? No, it annoys the locals - I suggest you go to Lyneham for that.......

Genius. :*

flipster
9th Jul 2010, 09:19
Brize Norton? That well known bastion of the Royal Ground Force's training school for all arms of the Flight Prevention Branch?

Well, I guess that if all the AT eggs do eventually go in the one basket, we will save squillions on fuel and accomodation!

"Brize Tower, Ascot *** (can't remember the PTS c/s), ready for departure"
"Negative Ascot ***, hold position, Tristar just approaching Compton"
"FFS!!" (quietly)

or

"Brize Radar, Ascot 4321, 2500ft, QNH 1013, heading 030 degs, with info 'A', request poor radar performance"
"Ascot 4321 report to SATCO on landing!"

or

Snotty DAMO (F/L) to Grumpy Capt (S/L) outside crew door

"You should be wearing your yellow jacket mate"

GC to SD

"When they f**king paint my f**king herc yellow, then I will wear my f**king jacket......and its Sir to you.....mate! Now where the hell are our pax - we've been waiting for 2 and half hours already??"

(Sadly, I returned in a bright yellow Firefly a year or so later and had to eat my words - and wear my jacket!)

vernon99
9th Jul 2010, 18:01
GC to SD

"When they f**king paint my f**king herc yellow, then I will wear my f**king jacket......and its Sir to you.....mate! Now where the hell are our pax - we've been waiting for 2 and half hours already??"

Perhaps painting the aircraft yellow isn't such a bad idea, it might stop the movers from ramming into it with forklift/condeck etc:D

grandfer
9th Jul 2010, 18:28
Now there's the answer to the SAR problem when half the Flts.go to daylight hours operations , they can cover SAR jobs at night .:ok::ok:

WE992
9th Jul 2010, 22:14
Vernon 99

I see you have managed to lower the tone of this thread into lets slag movers off. Of course movers hit aircraft with vehicles, its bound to happen when they have to drive worn out vehicles within inches of aircraft ramps and holds every time an aircraft needs on or offloading. Often at night in poor lighting.

However a mover has never completely destoyed a transport aircraft yet unlike our engineering and aircrew ccounterparts.

VC 10 on its tail and subsequently written off. C-130 landing with the gear up, both equaly as stupid as driving into an aircraft - I rest my case.

Now perhaps we can get back to what this thread is about!!!!!!!!!!!

Albert Another
10th Jul 2010, 07:21
WE992 I agree :ok:

Lets keep to the agenda on this one.

flipster
10th Jul 2010, 07:44
Quite right, the Movers at LYE were only marinally better than those at Brize.....only joking guys as movers are among my best friends (except for the berk who drove into me at 60mph!!)!

JTO
Good to hear from you! Will PM soon
flipster

nigegilb
10th Jul 2010, 14:57
Sorry Chaps, I have been away from the thread for a while, if anyone still wants Bill Ramms letter to Gray I have it as a scanned copy on PDF, don't think I can simply post it up on here. James included a cost breakdown, see below.

Keeping Lyneham open would involve a significant upgrade to the runway. It is wearing out and is already past its sell by date. I don't have the figures at hand, but it is basically timed out with the planned closure of the airfield. I still think the army will take over the base, but it is subject to SDR so we should find out a bit later in the year.

When the Herc landed belly up a few weeks ago, aircraft were scattered at Lyneham (2 VC10s) Tristars to MAN, cancelled tanker sorties out of Brize etc etc. Still think this closure is bananas, but I did hear of a possible Biz Jet operation out of LYE. James has gone quiet I can give him a nudge see what is going on.

Just PM me with an email address if you want the letter...

COSTS INCLUDED IN PROGRAMME FUTURE BRIZE

High Voltage Ring Main. In order to ensure sufficient electrical power is provided to Brize Norton, work to install an additional high voltage ring main was completed in 2009 at a cost of £5.7M. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

C-130J Training Mission Rehearsal Facility. The relocation of the C-130J fleet from Lyneham to Brize Norton also necessitates the relocation of the 2 C-130J Dynamic Mission Simulators from Lyneham to Brize Norton, where they will be housed in a new purpose-built building. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs, but the exact figure is being withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Passenger Handling Facility (PHF). The current Terminal at Brize Norton was designed to handle relatively small, narrow-body aircraft. The Terminal struggles to cope with the passenger loads typically carried on TriStar and charter aircraft such as the B767. In order to maximize the efficient use of our future A330-200 FSTA fleet, it is anticipated that a new PHF, or significant redevelopment of the current Terminal will be required. Although this cost is included within the overall PFB costs, it should be noted that the PHF development is required irrespective of the amalgamation of Lyneham and Brize Norton. The number of passengers carried on our C-130 aircraft would not place an appreciable additional strain on the current Brize Norton Terminal. The exact figure is being withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Freight Handling Facility (FHF). Much of the current FHF at Brize Norton is housed in temporary facilities. Although the amalgamation of Lyneham and Brize Norton clearly increases the amount of freight being handled at Brize Norton, some work on the FHF would be required irrespective of the amalgamation of Lyneham and Brize Norton. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs, but the exact figure is being withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

47 Air Despatch Squadron (Royal Logistics Corp). Following an in-depth Assessment Study, a new build has been identified as the best option for the 47 AD Squadron (RLC) facility at Brize Norton. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs, but the exact figure is being withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Tactical Medical Wg (TMW) and 4626 RAuxAF Sqn Accommodation. Refurbishment of currently unused technical accommodation for TMW and 4626 RAuxAF Sqn. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs, but the exact figure is being withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Relocation of Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar (MSSR). In order to create space for the new Junior Ranks’ SLAM, the MSSR has to be relocated at a cost of around £1.6M. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

C-130 Hangar/Support Facility. In order to maximize the availability of C-130 aircraft following the relocation of the force from Lyneham to Brize Norton, it is planned that a C-130 Hangar/support facility will be constructed at Brize Norton. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs, but the exact figure is being withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Additional Telecom-Related Costs. A number of relatively minor, but essential telecom-related costs arise from the closure of Lyneham and increased activity at Brize Norton. These include costs associated with recovering cables and switch gear from Brize Norton and the provision of new telecom lines and switch gear at Brize Norton. The total cost of such works is estimated at around £4M. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

Additional Infrastructure Costs. The majority of the development of technical accommodation at Brize Norton to house units moving from Lyneham or within Brize Norton involves the refurbishment, improvement or expansion of existing buildings. Such costs include the development of buildings necessary to accommodate; C-130 aircraft forward stores, C-130 flying squadrons, 4 Force Protection Wing, a combined AT/AAR Force HQ, Survival Equipment Section, 1 Air Mobility Wing, a centralized Mission Planning Facility and the development of an Air Transport/Air-to-Air Refuelling Operations Hub. The total cost of such works is estimated at £11.4M. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

Additional Organisational Costs. The redeployment of personnel from Lyneham to Brize Norton will require funding to pay entitled personnel allowances such as removal expenses, and is forecast to increase the total expenditure on some other allowances such as home-to-duty mileage entitlement. The total cost of such changes is estimated at around £10.6M. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

Additional Communication and Information (CIS) Costs. The cost of CIS provision is included within the PFB estimates of the total cost of individual new builds/refurbishments. However, there are additional CIS costs linked to the provision of additional hardware and the maintenance of legacy systems at Brize Norton. The total cost of such requirements is estimated at £0.9M. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

Relocation Costs. The movement of units from Lyneham to Brize Norton or within Brize Norton will incur costs associated with the provision of transport. This cost is estimated at £0.07M and is included within the overall PFB costs.

Additional Miscellaneous Costs. Other minor costs associated with PFB include the transfer of fuels from Lyneham to Brize Norton, the relocation of specialist refrigerated ISO containers and the potential cost associated with relocating the Chapel of Rest from Lyneham to Brize Norton. The total cost of such requirements is currently estimated at £1.3M and is included within the overall PFB costs.

Land Quality Assessment (LQA). In addition to the cost of cleaning up the Lyneham site, it is necessary to carry out a LQA. The cost of this activity is estimated at £0.4M. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

Cost of Cleaning the RAF Lyneham Site. The allocated figure of £10M as the projected cost of cleaning the Lyneham site before it is disposed of is an estimate for planning purposes. A final figure cannot be allocated until the LQA is complete. This cost is included within the overall PFB costs.

COSTS PARTIALLY INCLUDED IN PROGRAMME FUTURE BRIZE

Service Families Accommodation. As previously noted, the overall development of Brize Norton’s SFA by DE Ops (Housing) is forecast to cost £200M. However, as also noted, given the current standard of SFA at Brize Norton, much of this work is required irrespective of the relocation of personnel from Lyneham. However, recognizing that the amalgamation of Lyneham and Brize Norton increases the demand for SFA at Brize Norton, £19M of the overall cost of the SFA project is included within the overall PFB costs.

COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN PROGRAMME FUTURE BRIZE

Aircraft Servicing Platform (ASP) In order to provide suitable aircraft parking areas for the A330-200, A400M, TriStar and large charter aircraft with on-stand hydrant refuelling, de-fuelling and power, a large area of ASP has been developed at BZN. With the exception of some minor remedial works, this project was completed in December 2009 at a cost of £53M. This cost is out with the overall PFB costs. This is justified on the grounds that the ASP is required for a range of aircraft types planned to be based at Brize Norton, and not simply for the C-130 fleets

Single Living Accommodation (SLAM). The development of SLAM at Brize Norton is required irrespective of the amalgamation of Lyneham and Brize Norton, and is currently forecast to cost around £48M.

COST SUMMARY

Total Current Forecast Core Costs for PFB. As detailed above, the current forecast core costs for Programme Future Brize through to FY19/20 are;
a. High Voltage Ring Main - £5.7M.

b. HQ AIR contribution to SFA - £19.227M.

c. C-130J TMRF - Commercial in Confidence

d. PHF - Commercial in Confidence

e. FHF - Commercial in Confidence

f. 47 AD Sqn (RLC) - Commercial in Confidence

g. TMW and 4626 RAuxAF Sqn - Commercial in Confidence

h. MSSR - £1.608M.

i. C-130 Hangar/Support Facility - Commercial in Confidence

j. Additional Telecom Costs - £4.075M.

k. Additional Infrastructure Costs - £11.47M.

l. Additional Organizational Costs - £10.641M.

m. Additional CIS Costs - £0.9M.

n. Relocation Costs - £0.07M.

o. Additional Miscellaneous Costs - £1.301M.

p. LQA - £0.41M.

q. Cleanup of LYN Site - £10M.

TOTAL CORE PFB COSTS - £202.656M.

FINANCIAL BENEFITS

The key financial benefits associated with the amalgamation of Lyneham and Brize Norton under PFB are detailed below. The (RDEL) manpower savings and other benefits are split between Financial Input Savings (civilian manpower savings) and Financial Savings (Outputs) (RAF Manpower savings).

Financial Savings (Inputs). The forecast input savings, principally associated with an overall reduction of 125 Civil Service posts and other civilian posts at Lyneham for the period to end FY2019/2020, are currently £279.15M.

Financial Savings (Outputs). The forecast RDEL savings associated with an overall reduction of 251 RAF posts (together with CIS savings associated with the requirement to only maintain one site with a reduced total number of personnel), are currently £157.6M.

BENEFIT SUMMARY

As detailed above, the current forecast financial benefits arising from PFB through to FY 2019/20 are;

Financial Input Savings - £279.147M.

Financial Savings (Outputs) - £157.597

TOTAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS - £436.744M.

BEagle
10th Jul 2010, 15:19
And how many new car parks have been planned for the additional manpower at Brize? Or for the passengers using the 'new' PHF?

I still think that this whole folly will end in tears.

Blighter Pilot
10th Jul 2010, 15:39
And how many new car parks have been planned for the additional manpower at Brize? Or for the passengers using the 'new' PHF?



We won't need car parks - anyone living within 3 miles will not be allowed to drive to work. Cycle routes and a off-site 'park and ride' are already planned. Pax will only be allowed to be dropped off and picked up outside the terminal with a 30min maximum waiting period.

:mad:

BEagle
10th Jul 2010, 16:14
We won't need car parks - anyone living within 3 miles will not be allowed to drive to work. Cycle routes and a off-site 'park and ride' are already planned. Pax will only be allowed to be dropped off and picked up outside the terminal with a 30min maximum waiting period.

You are surely joking? What deranged idiot thought up that daft idea?

How will planning permission be secured for an off-site 'park and ride'....?

yellowbeard
10th Jul 2010, 19:34
The 3 mile radius is true!, also heard a crackpot idea that the armoury is to go to call out during night hours and weekends, so for anyone landing back from ooa will have to wait a long time for the duty armourer to come out as it is serco run so people do not live on camp!. I would have thought that considering this is or will be the main airhead for HM forces it should remain 24hr manned.

StopStart
11th Jul 2010, 00:42
I read Nige's post twice but I couldn't see where they'd accounted for the industrial quantities of this that will be required:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb218/snakeKP/laughcard-turdpolish.jpg

Are they seriously still pushing ahead with the mission rehearsal system?!?!?! We've clearly got more money and less sense than I thought :rolleyes:

Trumpet_trousers
11th Jul 2010, 15:04
off-site 'park and ride' are already planned

It's really quite simple - there will be loads of ready made parking space near some village called Bradenstoke over the border in Wilts... QED:ok:

Ken Scott
11th Jul 2010, 20:05
Do 125 civilian posts at Lyneham really cost £28 million per year? They must be awfully well paid, even more than PAS Flt Lts!

Albert Another
12th Jul 2010, 08:16
Keeping Lyneham open would involve a significant upgrade to the runway. It is wearing out and is already past its sell by date.

- The Liverpool John Lennon Airport runway, with a length of 2,367m, was strengthened, resurfaced and refurbished at a cost of £9m; in June 2007.
- The main runway at Edinburgh International Airport was resurfaced in November 2008 at a cost of £16m, renewing the life of the runway for 15 years.
- In 2009 Newcastle International Airport had its runway resurfaced for £6m.
- Detroit International Airport reconstructed its main runway, with a length of 8,700 feet, in 2009 at a cost of $34.6m, approximately £21m. Associated runway markings, electrical and edge marking systems were replaced as part of the reconstruction project, providing a lifespan of at least 20 years.

I speculate that you would pay more than the cost of repairing the runway for the environmental clean-up of RAF Lyneham after the Land Quality Assessment is completed.

Farfrompuken
12th Jul 2010, 16:36
AA,

Spot on. I think there are some very suspect costing assumptions. Certainly one of which is the amount they'd save in civvie costs and RAF posts.

But we can have the opportunity to spend and waste £Millions, get fleeced, lose capability but PR-wise it's 2 bases to 1. At least it looks like we're cost-cutting!:rolleyes:

nigegilb
13th Jul 2010, 19:20
AA, I'll chase up the official costings, hopefully via Parliamentary Question. Let's try and sort the wheat from the chaff..

Right, I have fired off an email to JG and rattled his cage.

JFZ90
13th Jul 2010, 19:54
...if anyone still wants Bill Ramms letter to Gray I have it as a scanned copy on PDF, don't think I can simply post it up on here. James included a cost breakdown, see below.

Is this because James won't let you publish it in full? Is there a reason for this? Is it because some of it doesn't fit his 'facts' or argument.....?

nigegilb
13th Jul 2010, 20:22
No, not at all, he has cleared it, but it is a scanned copy of the letter, didn't think I could electronically post it up.

JFZ90
13th Jul 2010, 22:22
Oh, I see. You could host it on a free pdf hosting site (google pdf hosting) and post a link.

Kengineer-130
13th Jul 2010, 23:47
The long and short of it is, that EVERYONE bar one or two people know it is an outrageously short sighted and dare I say it, idiotic decision, but as usual, it will be forced through against any and every sensible argument to "save face" and "prove" it was the "correct" thing to do.... :ugh:

EODFelix
14th Jul 2010, 10:40
Ken,

The Civ Personnel costs for LYE are no where near £28M - civ pers costs are approx £3.1M IIRC

Felix

Ken Scott
15th Jul 2010, 00:17
I just took the figure for money reportedly saved by closing Lyneham - £279 million over ten years for the 125 civil service posts no longer required, as posted by NigeGilb, & divided by 10 (small rounding) to £28 million.

nigegilb
22nd Jul 2010, 09:38
I have had a reply from James Gray. He didn't want to ask a parliamentary question because he thought the answer from MoD would just say the whole issue is under consideration as part of SDR. He also said that he thought the whole thing is a lost cause.



I pointed out that I very much doubt the re-surfacing of Lyneham's runway is forming part of SDR as the airfield is due to be closed. I also asked him what has changed since the Westminster Hall debate.

Edited to add I have just had a follow up email, JG explained more carefully his comments. He is still very active, but a lot of money has been spent on Brize already so he thinks it unlikely that Lyneham will say open as an airfield.

Neil Porter
6th Aug 2010, 19:55
Unless i have misread somewhere which i apologise now, but once the Lyneham a/c has shifted over to Brize, what happens if Brizes runway closes due to an incident and there are aircraft that have to depart Brize?? At least with Lyneham you have a second runway to use potentially if the other is out of use..

andrewn
6th Aug 2010, 20:14
Neil - in answer to your question there's two points of view on this one:


We're doomed - where will all the a/c land?
There really aren't that many a/c anyway and there's plenty of other options (civ or mil)To be honest I think I'm with the latter, though appreciate there may be some 'gotchas' hidden within the Future Brize masterplan!

:)

RumPunch
6th Aug 2010, 21:29
Unless i have misread somewhere which i apologise now, but once the Lyneham a/c has shifted over to Brize, what happens if Brizes runway closes due to an incident and there are aircraft that have to depart Brize?? At least with Lyneham you have a second runway to use potentially if the other is out of use..

Ok im not an aviator but I know that Lyneham and Brize are in a huge airfield rich envioroment (London, Birmingham) There is countless diversion emergency airfields all within in Div fuel. The one runway thing means jack all I think and does not add much to the debate about bases these days. Especially heavy jets as they fly less but longer. Maybe im wrong , you guys know it better that us mere engineers , but at Lossie and Kinloss you have less options but I believe the crew took div fuel to make Prestwick and other far places. It happens on such rare occasions that its a cost they can live with im sure.

Albert Another
8th Aug 2010, 08:27
I noted that rumours in the The Daily Telegraph about the forthcoming SDR stated:
The entire fleet of 36 Hercules transport aircraft, the workhorse in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be phased out and replaced by an order of 22 new A400M planes. If this regrettable outcome does happen, when then pay for Hercules simulators, maintenance facilities & personnel to move to another location if it is only short term? Could it not be cheaper to maintain the current facilities until the A400M comes in at Brize. Or at least delay key Lyneham decisions until the outcome of the SDR?

vernon99
8th Aug 2010, 12:59
No don't be silly that would require joined up thinking.

Obviously if they are to replace the C130 in the NEAR future then it would make sense to keep Lyneham open until the C130 has been retired.

But as we all know these NEAR future events have a habit of slipping, so you can be fairly sure the replacement for the C130 will be some years away from entering service. So it may still make sense to move now, although I doubt they will recoup ANY savings.

Mind you the pan at Lyneham resembles tumbleweed city these days, hardly any aircraft. Interestingly the accommodation at Brize is not due for completion for some years(possibly 2014) so what are people to do in the meantime if Lyneham closes. Where are they going to live, and how are they going to get to work? Especially if there is no home-duty or equivalent on offer?

Blighter Pilot
8th Aug 2010, 15:15
C130 rumours are, in fact, 100% correct.

C130K may last to OSD of 2012
C130J is being replaced by A400M towards 2020 in all roles

Future 2-type Tac AT/Strat AT fleet is C17 and A400M

FSTA will do AR and PCF Strat AT

Simples:ok:

StopStart
8th Aug 2010, 17:40
Yup, if A400 goes ahead then OSD of J will be brought forward by about 8-10 years to ameliorate. This will be dependent on maturity of A400 and it's capability to take on all the roles. Makes sense - the Js have been caned to death over the last 10 years filling gaps left by the mythical K fleet.

As an aside, if the K does survive the SDSR through 2012 then I would have to a) pass on my congratulations to those who have achieved the biggest wool pulling exercise ever conducted and b) record my displeasure at those foolish enough to fall for it.

Not childish J/K banter but a simple concern that we are just throwing what little good money we have after bad. Plus ca change I guess...

skaterboi
8th Aug 2010, 18:35
SS, personally I feel that the K's chances of flying post SDR are nil.

More importantly though, I thought we were going to operate the A400 in a 'Strat plus' role rather than a full Tac role?

Or are we gonna go 180 out from what we do now and start doing tac in the C17? :E

StopStart
8th Aug 2010, 20:44
The idea of a "strat plus" A400 was predicated on having a dedicated TAC AT platform in the form of the J. The A400 will need a lot of work to get it up to speed: Airbus have no military experience and as such the A400 FMS Tac software is, apparently, un petite peu rudimentare.... We'll see.

Be a shame to see the Herc go as it does and will continue to fill niche roles that the A400 won't. The standard argument of being to carry a couple of MRAPs is a massive red herring. Indeed, were it any bigger I would be tempted to rename myself Jonah and then climb in said large herring.

BEagle
8th Aug 2010, 20:59
Be a shame to see the Herc go as it does and will continue to fill niche roles that the A400 won't.

Perhaps such niches could be fulfilled by the C-27J? Maybe also Chinook / Merlin AAR with a developed 'KC-27J'?

The problem with the A400M will be the same as for A330-FSTA - not enough airframes in the right place when they're suddenly needed at short (usual MoD faff and panic) notice...:\

StopStart
8th Aug 2010, 21:32
Or just carry on using the Herc? KC herc with receiver capable CH47 would be a handy little "enabling package". All just Internet hot air though :)

Completely off topic and massively random but BEags I was watching the ever amusing 80s Fighter Pilot series the other day and I'm fairly confident your mugshot is pinned to the wall behind some Flt Cdr chappy at Brawdy. Was it you and if so what had to done to achieve such status?? :)

BEagle
8th Aug 2010, 22:31
Guilty as charged, Stoppers!

It was the 'course photograph' for No 66 post-Vulcan / pre-TWU* Hawk refresher course at RAF Valley - which numbered one student. Me. And the 'Flt Cdr chappy' with the Seth Efrikan accent was actually an astonishingly young looking Wg Cdr Tim Webb, the CFI.

Epic course that was - with some really top staff chaps imparting their wisdom!

Just realised that it was 30 years ago... Bugger. And then on 1 Sep 1980 I waved 2 fingers to the 'Croeso i Cymru' sign in the rear view mirror as I set off to join No 1 TWU course at the recently re-opened RAF Chivenor....:ok:

A400M will be capable of helicopter AAR only at certain weights / levels. But for refuelling CSAR helicopters or supporting long-range SF insertion, a KC-27J would probably be just the ticket - if only the UK defence budget hadn't been bankrupted by nuLabor liars and their unfunded military adventurism...




*which, as it turned out, became No 66 Hawk / Phantom / Jetstream pre-VC10K lead-in course...:uhoh:

TorqueOfTheDevil
9th Aug 2010, 09:46
There is [sic] countless diversion emergency airfields all within in Div fuel


Fine for inbound aircraft - but as Neil Porter actually asked, how about the ones on the ground at Brize trying to launch? If someone nefarious could put Brize's runway out of action for a significant period (ie not just a brief aircraft mishap which can be cleared fairly quickly), any AT/AAR assets which happened to be at their home base would be stuck there. This could prove quite a spanner in the works...

VinRouge
9th Aug 2010, 09:54
The weather would have to be pretty darned punk for you not to get airbourne; a lot worse than for a cat 1 ILS and you could argue (and I bet the met office has the stats to prove it) that the conditions wouldnt be persistent anyways.

Q-RTF-X
9th Aug 2010, 10:24
Be a shame to see the Herc go as it does and will continue to fill niche roles that the A400 won't.

I seem to remember a zillion or so years ago something similar being said about retaining the Beverly (perhaps one squadron) to support tasks the C130 would have difficulty in handling. :eek:

TorqueOfTheDevil
9th Aug 2010, 19:34
The weather would have to be pretty darned punk for you not to get airbourne [sic]


True - but I'm not talking about weather and nor, I think, was Neil!

Oceanic815
10th Aug 2010, 07:00
Don't forget the impressive 'snow clearance debarcle' in Jan this year when the powers that be only cleared half the runway (and I mean the northen half!) meaning that nothing moved for 3 days, and then it was T/O only. How much did that cost to preposition everything into East Mids???????????

Farfrompuken
10th Aug 2010, 07:09
CP:

if this whole project saves us money then its probably a good thing in the present climate.

At £7M/year saving plus 145 civvy jobs, it'll take more than my lifetime to pay for Future Brize.

Money saving, my @r$e!! I think someone passed this through on the result of a thesis for their MBA on how combining multiple sites can save money (works in retail but not in this case).

What a joke!

Grimweasel
10th Aug 2010, 08:36
Farfrom - Economies of Scope(EoS) or Scale?- of course if an organisation gets too big then dis-economies of scale start to creep in. Combining operations is fine as long as you are conducting similar operations from the same site and you can achieve those EoS that you are after. Sometimes these things just don't work out - look at the botched merger of Chrysler and Merc-Benz back in the 1990s - they tried to achieve EoS and Scope but failed as they were trying to mesh 2 totally different business models. One could argue the same could be happening at BZN - but what is it that we DON'T know about? Could the intentions always have been to retire the C130 fleet early and only operate FSTA, A400M and C17 from BZN??

Farfrompuken
10th Aug 2010, 09:25
Grimweasel,

I'm aware of the economies of scale argument..... See my previous post!

It's just that the economics don't add up:

£7M/Year saving vesrus £340M move. And that's before you factor in closure costs at LYE.

I'm not remotely sentimental about strips of concrete, but if we're trying to cut costs then I suggest we bin the move.

Grimweasel
10th Aug 2010, 09:45
FarFrom,

It wasn't your MBA thesis was it?? :E:E :ok:

TorqueOfTheDevil
10th Aug 2010, 11:09
what a baddie might be able to do to keep the runway out of action for any significant period of time


Dirty bomb in Carterton? Unlikely, I know, but never say never...

I really hope that I'm wrong to be concerned about combining the two bases, but I'm not alone!

vfr into cloud
10th Aug 2010, 11:26
guys this is a pointless thread :ugh:

stop the press.

LYNEHAM IS CLOSING.:D

SDR will see off more than just one little base in wiltshire and more than one old well past its time aircraft, so just sit back and wait and see,
you know it's coming, so start thinking of what you would like to do with your lives after SDR.

nigegilb
10th Aug 2010, 11:48
Depends what you mean by "Lyneham is closing".

I still reckon the most likely scenario is the closure of RAF Lyneham followed a few months later by the base being re-opened to house returning units from Germany.

I also reckon there is a requirement for extra aircraft servicing capacity that Lyneham could offer, (requiring investment in the runway), but that was before I started reading about the reported premature demise of the Hercules aircraft, (which will further reduce capability).

Whatever happens, this thread fulfills a purpose by showing that the closure of Lyneham and transfer of personnel and aircraft is monumentally unpopular with the people affected and does not indicate that any cost saving will be achieved for many years. A very different point of view to that being offered by official RAF and MoD comment.

BEagle
10th Aug 2010, 12:18
If the C-130J really is to be retired as A400M comes on stream, it makes no sense whatsoever to move any C-130 aircraft, simulators, personnel or anything else right now. The only remaining reason to do so would be to avoid senior officers' loss of face.....

Good job that the nuBrize ASP has been built with sufficient PCN to cope with all RAF heavy aircraft types......:suspect:

Farfrompuken
10th Aug 2010, 13:10
FarFrom,

It wasn't your MBA thesis was it??

I feel sullied by your accusations. You are a very grim weasel indeed ;)

StopStart
10th Aug 2010, 13:44
The closure of RAF Lyneham is indeed a done deal and no amount of cybergurning will change that fact. What the collective "moaning" does do however is expose the crass reasoning and "planning" that has (or hasn't) gone into the whole project. It's nice to see that no one with any clout has seen fit to question the plan publicly and that we have some senior management who are quite happy to stand by and applaud the Emperor and his new clothes.

nigegilb
10th Aug 2010, 14:32
Couldn't agree more with the above comment.

Where will the acquiescence end, with the demise of the Royal Air Force?

One thing is certain, if you choose not to fight, hector and harry the result is a foregone conclusion. Difficult if your career could be put at risk, perhaps why so many take the line of least resistance?

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
10th Aug 2010, 14:33
I'm sure the closure is a done deal, but I have a gut feeling that a stay of execution might be sensible.

Not that I care anymore. The spirit here at Lyneham is broken, and it won't get any better. Many guys and girls (including civvies) whose knowledge and experience would be vital to the move, simply aren't bothered.

It is hard to imagine us getting even worse at producing serviceable aircraft and qualified crews, but it will surely happen, hastening our own demise.

The zealots who believe that this will go smoothly are ridiculed behind their backs. Most of them don't even believe in what they are doing anyway.

:{

Grimweasel
10th Aug 2010, 15:51
In January this year, the Labour Government rejected the latest of several attempts to reverse its decision to close RAF Lyneham. (http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/comment/Glimmer-hope-air-base-close-nation-s-heart/article-2507461-detail/article.html?)

So, fancy opening a Tatoo parlour and an Aldi in Lyneham - plus a Bratty wagon - they could be a sound investment?!

Trumpet_trousers
10th Aug 2010, 16:14
Dirty bomb in Carterton?

Could be a very cost effective method of giving the place a long overdue makeover! :)

vecvechookattack
10th Aug 2010, 16:42
A terrorist "dirty bomb" targeted at the single runway could have similarly dangerous consequences.

I'm not quite sure that Mr Gray fully understands what a Dirty bomb is...maybe he thinks that it is a weapon of Mass destruction...He is probably confusing it with a salted weapon.

Biggus
10th Aug 2010, 18:09
Not sure if this is breaking any pprune rules, if so no doubt it will be pulled by a mod, or I will be banned.......

However, this is a link to a freely available website found through using google, so anyone out there can access it, and the words on it are not mine but presumably approved by the person in question....

Air Commodore Ian Elliott, OBE BSc FRIN RAF (http://ukinusa.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/working-with-usa/defence/raf/aa)

Wander00
10th Aug 2010, 18:51
Pity they could not spell "Camp", as in "Aide de Camp!

nigegilb
10th Aug 2010, 18:53
Took me a while to find the relevant section, perhaps this helps...

".....After a brief spell on the Directing Staff on the Advanced Command and Staff Course at JSCSC Shrivenham, he (Ian Elliott), was promoted to Gp Capt and took up an appointment as Gp Capt Strategic Plans at HQSTC. During this tour he authored the Strategic Review of Brize Norton and Lyneham (which resulted in RAF Lyneham’s planned closure) and completed a major review of all Air Combat Service Support Unit basing. He also led the Defence Airfield Review Team......"

StopStart
10th Aug 2010, 18:56
Brize navigator :rolleyes: that explains it.......

BEagle
10th Aug 2010, 19:54
....who is also a thoroughly nice chap indeed, quite unlike the chiselling $hits normally encountered at such levels.

The fact that, thanks to nuLabor liars bankrupting the defence budget, the forthcoming defence review wasn't on Ian's horizon when he authored the report should, one would have thought, at least cause one or two of the RAF's grown ups to hold up the 'STOP!!' sign.

TMK1
10th Aug 2010, 23:37
BEagle,

I concur, an outstanding boss and Stn Cdr.

Pete268
11th Aug 2010, 06:03
Took me a while to find the relevant section, perhaps this helps...

".....After a brief spell on the Directing Staff on the Advanced Command and Staff Course at JSCSC Shrivenham, he (Ian Elliott), was promoted to Gp Capt and took up an appointment as Gp Capt Strategic Plans at HQSTC. During this tour he authored the Strategic Review of Brize Norton and Lyneham (which resulted in RAF Lyneham’s planned closure) and completed a major review of all Air Combat Service Support Unit basing. He also led the Defence Airfield Review Team......"

Which probably means the political masters decided to close Lyneham, then passed the job of creating a case for closing it to the author of the Strategic Review of Brize amd Lyneham.

A case of here's what we are going to do, now create a report that both supports the idea and reaches the same conclusion (it is irrelevent whether the report makes any sense or not, so long as the conclusion is the same as the political masters plan).

Peter

BEagle
11th Aug 2010, 07:14
As happened to the University Air Squadrons....:mad:

vfr into cloud
11th Aug 2010, 12:32
I refer you back to my last post

stop the press

LYNEHAM CLOSING:ugh:

and not everybody at lyn will move to bzn

so

i need a new job/post and so do most people on here, however nothing seems to be happening.......why:ugh:

'cos they (the powers at be) are waiting to see, or already know and dont want to say, whats in the SDR and you can bet it's not going to be in either lyn or bzn personnels favour.

if i was a betting man, and im not, i would put money on

the K fleet retired in early 2011 (before the said move)
(the king is dead ,long live the king)

the J fleet cut to min numbers for the move to bzn

the bzn static display team (tristar) retired 2011

the VC10 fleet retired 2011

fsta contracts rewriten or scrapped

A400m still go ahead but with reduced numbers

C17 fleet increased awaiting the A400m apperance

centralized manpower, 'cos everbody knows techies can work longer and on more types for the same pay.....:=

rant over:D

Seldomfitforpurpose
11th Aug 2010, 12:50
K fleet finished and J fleet cut to min numbers, thats a heck of a lot of gardening leave :eek:

StopStart
11th Aug 2010, 12:57
:rolleyes: J fleet cut to min numbers? Hmmm, can't see the govt buying 4 more Js to be honest.
:hmm:

Go easy on that fruit punch....

Brain Potter
11th Aug 2010, 13:30
How about this?

1. The UK is locked into FSTA and A400M for more than just military reasons.

2. Withdrawl from Afghanistan indicated to be in the near future.

3. C-17 was originally supposed to be a short-term solution before arrival of A400M.

4. Other nations actively looking to buy C-17s (India).

Ergo....

C-17 gets sold, leaving an A400M/FSTA transport fleet (at Brize).

zetec2
12th Aug 2010, 21:06
Oh joy !!!!! BBC1 News at Ten tonight saying that there is a possibility that Lyneham after closure could become a "Theme/Fun Park" similiar to Alton Towers, I know it was a fun place to be during my tour on the Hercs back in the late 70's but a theme park, can't see it could it be any more fun ??????. Paul H.

zetec2
13th Aug 2010, 09:16
BBC interviewed Eddie Shah who already has Wiltshire Hotel/Golf course interests thought would be a good idea to stimulate economy after RAF moves out, local councillers forecasting Wooton Basset would become a "ghost town" quoting Bath as an example after Colerne closed, although wouldn't exactly call Bath a ghost town would one ?, unable to find BBC link to above - will keep on trying & post later. PH

vfr into cloud
13th Aug 2010, 13:07
Lyneham more likely to end up as military training unit for the army,

or

prison, sorry, holding unit, for all them people that get in here (blighty) on the back of a truck or in a container off a ferry that should really stay where the :mad: they came from:=

rant off:ugh:

aw ditor
13th Aug 2010, 14:02
Doubt it would be a prison/holding unit. They are being closed down/amalgamated e.g. Oakington closes in November.

nigegilb
13th Aug 2010, 14:13
I doubt very much Ian Elliott cares what happens to Lyneham either, his work is done.

Can't wait to see the result of the latest review announced by Liam Fox today, a cull of Top Brass. Wonder who will get the chance to author that one......

500days2do
13th Aug 2010, 15:47
I'd double dog dare you...

Sadly, as we are all aware, those who would get the chop would retire gracefully to their fully furnished jobs with blue chip companies who have most benefitted from past contracts.

They have betrayed the service they joined, but as we have mentioned here before, a lack of selection/leadership has allowed the 'yes' men to flourish whilst those with backbone and a nerve to say no have been sidelined.

The FJ community has alot to answer to with regards to rest of the RAF.

IMHO it has been a long time coming....

5d2d

The Poison Dwarf
14th Aug 2010, 01:19
Oh deary, deary me, long range Maritime Patrol - GONE
Long range Search and Rescue - GONE
(Not like we're an island nation dependent on sea lines of communication is it?)

Now the tactical transport fleet is under sentence of death.

Top tip, let's just call it quits as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, disband the lot, offer our apologies to Lord Trenchard's family, shut up shop and retire into obscurity to watch black and white films of the Battle of Britain and reminisce, after all what need have we for an Air Force in the modern world and, well, the past is the past eh?

Hey, here's a thought, why don't we put the whole defence of the nation out to private contract, after all if we get invaded/overrun/be compelled to speak a foreign language, we can always sue for breach of contract or failure under the Provision of Goods and Services Act, can't we?

For those of you who are intellectually challenged, I'm being ironic - well maybe!

nigegilb
14th Aug 2010, 07:42
I remember being sat in AOC 2s office telling him why I was against the 2006 deployment into Afg. He was aghast.... It now looks as though our expensive involvement in Afg at the same time as trying to pay for a ridiculously inflated big ticket capital program has cost us dear. 7 million a year to run an air station is peanuts. I don't necessarily blame the army for grabbing more than their share when they have lost out in the past, but they are displaying alarming narrowness of thinking.

This present generation of senior officers, including the likes of Elliott, the author of the paper, have sold the Air Force down the line for the benefit of their own careers and an unwillingness to say no.

As you say, when all is said and done, we will be reliant on Europe for many capabilities in a few short years time. They weren't very reliable last time were they? And they haven't been reliable allies in Afg either. I am also ashamed, that a so called, Conservative led coalition is being equally blinkered. I suspect the RAF is about to be reduced beyond critical mass.

Brain Potter
14th Aug 2010, 09:23
Nige,

I don't disagree with most of your sentiment, but I have say to say that you are wrong about Ian Elliott. He was just about the best bloke to have reached air rank that I know. I suspect the brief he was given had a required outcome of recommending the closure of eitther LYE or BZZ. We all know that faced with that particular Hobson's choice, there could be only one outcome.

Anyway, with an Airbus-only transport fleet of 9 A330s and 20-ish A400s I would not be able to argue against a single-base policy.

nigegilb
14th Aug 2010, 09:37
I don't know the man, but clearly, he impressed many people during his time at Brize. Perhaps we should apply under FOI to see the paper and learn more about the circumstances surrounding it. Difficult to see how it could be recommended that either Brize or Lyneham should close before a feasibility study was carried out. And decisions about the viability of Hercules J have not been taken yet, as they are forming part of SDR. Remember the decision to close Lyneham was made BEFORE the SDR process.

I agree with your sentiment about an all Airbus fleet. But that would involve at the very least a serious capability gap and most likely a long term one and I doubt that Fox would put his name to such a decision.

I have no interest in whether Ian Elliott is a good guy or otherwise. If he is so sharp, I don't believe for a second that he didn't realise the consequences of what he was doing. Many people on here said Torpy was a good guy..

Blighter Pilot
14th Aug 2010, 09:49
Anyway, with an Airbus-only transport fleet of 9 A330s and 20-ish A400s I would not be able to argue against a single-base policy.


???????:eek:

What about the 24 C130Js and 8(9) C17s then? (Pre-SDSR figures)

And don't count on 9 A330s and any A400Ms surviving the cull that is about to come our way.

Brain Potter
14th Aug 2010, 10:06
What about the 24 C130Js and 8(9) C17s then? (Pre-SDSR figures)

And don't count on 9 A330s and any A400Ms surviving the cull that is about to come our way.

Just speculation. I suspect that the Airbus types will receive a degree of protection because government interest in the programmes extends outside of defence capabilities. The C-130J and the C-17 are amongst the few UK platforms with a realistic possiblity of being sold-on to other nations.

nigegilb
14th Aug 2010, 10:14
I wouldn't underestimate Fox's willingness to buy off the shelf from the US and shake up the UK Defence Industry. He has little confidence in MoD procurement.

One thing is for certain, one of the most inspired decisions in recent years was the timely leasing of the C17, which was deployed on Ops almost overnight. Airbus is totally unproven in the military field and Fox wants more bang for the money. Also worth noting that for a few hours last year a decision was taken (allegedly) by John Hutton to scrap A400M and buy considerably more C17 and Js. I bet the RAF now wished that decision had gone ahead, (Hutton resigned the next day), but it does underline where the sentiment lies in the RAF.

I would have had a lot more respect for Elliott if he had spent his undoubted abilities building a cogent and powerful argument to retain RAF Lyneham as an RAF Base for a significantly expanded fleet of J Hercs/A400M. We need street fighters at the highest levels now, as it is very clear that Treasury officials are knocking at the door of the ever obliging armed forces, with a very sharp butchers knife. The last thing we need is our own officers doing their dirty work for them.

Brain Potter
14th Aug 2010, 11:16
All fair points.

I also suspect that Fox's unpopularity in Downing Street and lack of allies means that he doesn't have the clout to make decisions which impact outside his department.

Brain Potter
14th Aug 2010, 12:19
Nige,

And here is a touch of irony for you...

One thing is for certain, one of the most inspired decisions in recent years was the timely leasing of the C17, which was deployed on Ops almost overnight.

Promoted to Wg Cdr in 1996, he (Elliott)took up an appointment in the Directorate of Air Plans with responsibility for all Air Transport and Air Refuelling aircraft. This tour coincided with the Strategic Defence Review during which he sat on the Strategic Lift Working Gp – a team whose recommendations were to subsequently result in the introduction to service of the C-17 aircraft.

Arty Fufkin
14th Aug 2010, 13:30
Nige,

If Lyneham were to have been the base for an expanded fleet of C130Js and A400, thereby justifying it's existence, that would have left the much larger Brize as home to just 9 A330s and 7 C17s. Having a whole airfield to house a mere 16 aircraft would have been even more barking!
There were simply not enough eggs to fill 2 baskets.
Even before the treatened cuts from SDSR closing Lyneham was proved to make financial sense. With what may lie around the corner, those who call for Lyneham to remain open are rather akin to the Flat Earth Society.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if The Herks don't even make the move to Brize at all, it may be that the fleet is binned as Lyneham shuts, thereby saving the cost of moving them down the road.

as a final cheery thought I'd say that unless you're on C 17s at the moment, start looking very carefully at redundancy packages.

collbar
14th Aug 2010, 15:03
Lyneham is just an airfeild with a short runway!
Yes is has 2 of them, but A400 c-17s and A330's would need them both end to end. Lyneham has done sterling work for years but its time has past, for AT at least. Extending the runway there is posible i suppose if you flatten half the local community or build some sort of stilted runway!!

nigegilb
14th Aug 2010, 15:10
AF, from my understanding Hutton agreed to purchase 15 C17s last year and a further 10 Js, more than enough to justify both airfields remaining open.

Interesting that the savings supposedly available by the closure of Lyneham are simply not being realised. It never did make sense to move very expensive simulators 50 miles up the road did it? So now we hear the argument for binning J Hercs mid life. A case of tail wagging the dog? And I should consider myself a flat earther? When do you think A400M will provide the same kind of capability as Hercules? Just as calls are growing in the States for a slow down in the planned withdrawal in Afghanistan.

I remember watching the very first C17s land at Bagram airfield, Afg and chatting with the wide eyed crews and laughing with them at the thought that they had barely been taught how to fly it and the were doing night landings in Afg. I can guarantee that won't happen with A400M.

skaterboi
14th Aug 2010, 15:31
I wouldn't be at all surprised if The Herks don't even make the move to Brize at all, it may be that the fleet is binned as Lyneham shuts, thereby saving the cost of moving them down the road.

as a final cheery thought I'd say that unless you're on C 17s at the moment, start looking very carefully at redundancy packages.

Okaaaay....we all know that SDSR decisions have supposedly not been made yet and this is a rumour site but where has this come from?

Everything right now hinges on Afg. We can't get out tomorrow as we'd like to and the last thing mentioned at high levels was getting out in 5 years or so. So with C130J and C17 being as heavily tasked in Afg as they are right now, with both doing hub and spoke, why would we bin the spoke ac and not the hub ac?

So, lets assume the C130 and C17 survive SDSR up until a 2015 withdrawal. This will probably coincide with the A400M arriving and means we can then sell the C130Js before they're completely knackered.

All the crews would then transfer to the A400M, and we could either maintain the C17 fleet at its current level or perhaps reduce it and recoup some costs that the A400M has sucked up. This, spookily being 5 years away would also coincide with another SDR to make sure our post Afg forces are correctly equipped to do whatever government is then in power wants us to do.

So....I would tactfully suggest that VC10 and Tristar are more likely to go in the short term than C130J. Please note that I'm not trying to be precious or start an intra AT weeing contest, this is just how i see things panning out in the event that a little common sense is applied in the SDSR :)

Arty Fufkin
14th Aug 2010, 17:02
You're right, this whole thing is unsubstantiated rumour. But....it would appear from what was leaked to the telegraph last week that pretty much every platform is being looked at in the SDSR process and there are no sacred cows. You are right of course, C17 and C130J are both doing sterling work at the moment and one would hope that would keep the wolf from the Herk's door for a few years at least.
Going back to the original topic of this thread though, early disposal of the C130 may provide a stay of execution for Lyneham, albeit only for a few years. I mean it would be pointless moving all the stuff, building all the ....stuff etc etc if you would only get a few years use out of it before the Euro truck replaces the whole thing.

My comment on redundancies was not intended to provoke a panic, but if GR4 and one or two AT fleets were to disappear in the next 2-3 years, that would mean a lot of pilots out there chasing not many cockpits. Not to mention navs and air engineers.

Anyway, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. Me, I'm off to the pub to see who else I can cheer up.

skaterboi
14th Aug 2010, 18:24
Fair enough, good points and yes we all know by now that no fleet is sacred.

Personally (and I've been at Lyneham for 10 years now) I'm almost past caring. Yes it's a rubbish decision, yes the move is going to be a total gang***k but right now I'll settle for a job and a pension. It's a lot more than most will have in the public sector this time next year.

vecvechookattack
19th Aug 2010, 16:43
Plenty of money being spent


BBC News - Revamp of £186,000 for RAF Brize Norton (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-11027279?)

Farfrompuken
22nd Oct 2010, 17:07
Now the SDSR has been released, I couldn't help note that crewroom scuttlebutt appears to have come true:

Future BZN break even date: 2025 (very optimistic too)

C130 Retires 2022:\

So in these cost concious times, we're to blow 3 years operating costs in the name of 'savings'!!

Couldn't make it up!!:rolleyes:

As far as construction works, I belive they've spent a fraction of the estimated final costs as yet; BZN needed them anyhow.

Ho Hum!

On_The_Top_Bunk
9th Feb 2011, 11:06
Cheeky little article in Private Eye this week.

From the fighter control forum:


From the Private Eye website Private Eye | Official Site (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&)


No savings, no expansion, and no extra runway: the “centre of excellence” planned for Brize Norton isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

In the current issue of Private Eye (no 1281, 4 February to 17 February 2011) there's an interesting article under the title Defence Cuts, Brize cock-up (p 29) that highlights some of the issues coming to light over the planned move of the Hercules fleet from Lyneham to Brize Norton. The gist of the article, supported by examples, is that Brize wil not be able to cope with the Hercules aircraft, let alone the infrastructure necessary to support personnel.

One example of what the article highlights: tactical training, including taking off and landing at night using night vision goggles, is necessary for Hercules aircrew and takes place on a regular basis at Lyneham. This is banned at Brize because of, presumably, complaints from local residents! Where will the Hercules go for this training?

Grabbers
9th Feb 2011, 12:12
What are the odds on the C130's "moving" to Brize and then continuing to carry out their training at a nice, quiet, low-levels of cultural lighting (relatively), C130 friendly aerodrome just down the road?

Kengineer-130
9th Feb 2011, 18:28
I think all bets are off on that one Grabbers :ugh:... Glad I'm out in 2 months and missing this debacle, I really feel for the people who will have to mop up this mess once they are all shoe-horned into Brize, and expected to operate as normal :rolleyes:

JliderPilot
10th Feb 2011, 02:18
With the brize move, redundancy and all the cut's we are truly in a state. Our leaders call them management challenges. No matter how many times they change the name of the project or present briefings on the lack of progress, I am still convinced that this was never designed to work out in the short term. In 5 years time, with less aircraft, people (and importantly) less tasking / commitments I am sure Brize will operate smoothly. It is the transition to that state and what facilities would remain that is important. People will grow to accept what remains, and it will become the new norm. Valid arguments regarding quarters, slam, parking and maint for the ac are due to the under funding given to this project. The air force (and military as a whole) will change from what we have all known, our masters need to be prepared to deal with a new force - lacking in experience - as I don't think many (of any worth) will wish to stay.

I am honestly unsure whether leaving is the answer, after serving 22 years (20 flying the Herc at Lyn) I will miss the people more than anything, new recruits will join but I can't see them staying for a career. The cuts have pushed me to complete my civilian licence just in case, I have always believed you make your own opportunities / future but I fear many will seek a change within the year or so, even if they do not get 'chosen' for redundancy.

Biggus
10th Feb 2011, 07:59
In post 222 Kreuger Flap said:

"...There is an early movers scheme that is run to allow a phased move into these quarters but the Station Commander has told people don't bother to apply as there aren't any to move into".

I would recommend that people do the exact opposite. If you are entitled to a quarter then apply for it! By applying your case is in the system, you have started a paperwork trail regarding your situation and the system will ultimately be required to provide you with accommodation (a hiring, or is it called something like SSFA these days, in somewhere like Oxford?).

By not applying all that happens is that the problem, or the size of the problem, is not highlighted adequately. This just plays into the hands of anyone who might be trying to ignore or play down the issue. Don't make life any easier for them!!






Reference the car parking issue, I thought this had been "solved" by the "..no cars on camp if you live within 3 miles.." approach? Great in the middle of winter, or if you are coming in with any amount of kit for whatever reason... :ugh:

Sempre 206
10th Feb 2011, 14:31
This rule / edict will of course include ALL Station Execs won't it? After all, the PM has said on many occasions "We are all in it together". :rolleyes:

Or am I just being naive?

S206

AARON O'DICKYDIDO
10th Feb 2011, 16:16
;)

No doubt those with there own parking space will be exempt from this rule.

Brian 48nav
10th Feb 2011, 16:39
I know a guy who used to cycle every day from Malmesbury to Brize,likewise to Upavon on his tour there!

With a good bike,the right gear and lighting and a locker at work,a ride of say 10 miles max' each way is OK.

Biggus
10th Feb 2011, 18:39
Brian,

What was this "guys" name - Lance Armstrong?

I ride about 6 miles to work whenever I can, but to suggest, as you do, that you can routinely cycle up to 10 miles to work is naive to say the least.

Issues which make it impractical at times include:

Carrying anything more than a small rucksack. This presents problems in terms of replacing clean uniform to change into, being SDO (at my base you wear No.2s but need No.1s and CS95s available), doing CCS (webbing, respirator, NBC suit, etc all required) if aircrew going away on a trip from Brize (overnight kit for several nights), taking your webber home when you get back from a states trip, along with the duty free...

Cycling on icy roads.

Cycling into a 20kt headwind, gusting to 35kts.

Cycling in a strong crosswind.

Cycling in heavy rain/sleet/snow/fog.

Mix them up - try cycling on an icy road with a strong, and gusting crosswind, while it is sleeting....


You will need decent shower facilities, as has been mentioned, and I suppose if you have sufficient locker space to store all your uniform and kit (which no station I know has), No.s 1, 2, 5, flying kit, CS95, respirator, webbing, gym kit, including shoes, boots, coats, hats etc, some of the issues may be resolved. Then it will just be about the amount of people killed/injured while cycling in adverse conditions and killed by inconsiderate car drivers (yes - you will blind cyclists at night if you don't dip your headlights - morons!).

OmegaV6
10th Feb 2011, 19:23
Biggus

His first name was Don .. and very well known on the Herc fleet. When posted to JATE he continued to live in Malmesbury and cycle to work at Brize. He was later accompanied by a senior Flt Lt ALM.

They arranged for the required clothing to be positioned at weekends. A little thought and planning allowed the other factors you mention to be easily sorted.

Not only did he cycle to work .. but his "idea" of a holiday was to scrounge a lift to San Fran in a Herc then cycle to Washington before scrounging a lift home ... rumour :) always had it that he did a role check on the co-pilot on each flight leg to "justify" the trip and save a few dollars... :):)

An amazing guy, fantastic pilot and a pleasure to work with ..:):)

Biggus
10th Feb 2011, 19:51
Omega,

I take it if you are still serving that you will be cycling into work in future then..?


By the way, my previous post was not intented to critise the individual in any way, some fairly incredible people will do some amazing things. My point was that a 10 mile bike ride on a routine daily basis is not practical for 100% of us mere mortals...!!!


Edited to add:

I'm not quite sure how "thought and planning" stops the wind blowing at 35kts, roads being icy, etc..... Perhaps if the weather was forecast to be bad your suggestion is to move into the mess beforehand and stay there until the weather improves? :)

Thought and planning has to be applied when I cycle to work, but that thought and planning in this case also includes electing to drive when the weather or roads are bad or I need to take a lot of kit...

By the way, I presume the "prepositioning at weekends" wasn't achieved using a bike?

Brian 48nav
10th Feb 2011, 20:30
I'll think you'll find his name is Ken MaC......,there was a good article in Cycling Plus April 2009 about his amazing recovery from a broken pelvis in 2006,following a collision with a dog! Not bad for a then 62 year old.

Biggus,my No1 son used to cycle 8 miles from Elgin to Lossie every day and later occasionally from Corsley,just west of Warminster to Boscombe,20+ miles. Yes there were showers at work.

Brian Wildey

Brian 48nav
10th Feb 2011, 20:32
Was that Tiny? RIP!

BEagle
10th Feb 2011, 21:25
Car parking!!!! They need 5500, they have 2300...

A few hundred people parking on the grass here might finally persuade some d*ckhead to sort out the car parking needs...

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/CP.jpg

Cut down those unnecessary trees, tarmac over the grass - easy peasy!

OmegaV6
10th Feb 2011, 21:56
Brian 48 ... yup .. my stupidity .. Ken Mac .. not "Don" ... and him and Tiny did many many miles together whilst "commuting" to BZN.


Biggus ... my cycling days ended many years before my depature from the Mob. :)

NUFC1892
11th Feb 2011, 06:02
Biggus,my No1 son used to cycle 8 miles from Elgin to Lossie every day and later occasionally from Corsley,just west of Warminster to Boscombe,20+ miles. Yes there were showers at work.


My personal hell, 49 weeks stationed at Lossie and cycling in every day from Elgin. I lost count of the number of times I fell off due to ice on the cycle path and the journey was never anything better than awful. On the last day I cycled as far as the main gate, got off the bike, lit a fag and walked the whole 8 miles home. It was about a year before I got back on the bike.

Driving in every Sunday with enough uniform to last the week and NO shower, but you tell the kids of today......................................

Biggus
11th Feb 2011, 06:31
NUFC1982,

....you try telling the youngsters of today...


YouTube - Original 4 Yorkshiremen Sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA)

...and they won't believe you! :=

Neil Porter
11th Feb 2011, 16:53
I caught a snippet on the radio reference the impending C130 move to Brize, the different units moving, personnel numbers etc etc.. Brize certainly gonna be a busy place!
I heard that old spectacle pans that haven't been used for years were being made 'ready' for C130 parking due to the lack of space or is that a load of old cobblers?

Re night NVG work, Abingdon (biased and has been used before), and Little Rissington (used already??) could be utilised alittle for this work being fairly close to their soon to be new home..

Blue Bottle
12th Feb 2011, 17:12
Local MP still trying to get a future for the place:

Could army leave South Cerney and Hullavington for Lyneham? (From Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard) (http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/8827296.Could_army_leave_South_Cerney_and_Hullavington_for_L yneham_/)

Lyneham Lad
6th Mar 2011, 18:49
...and whatever the future is for Lyneham, it will not be this!

http://www.kmercerphotography.co.uk/ForumPics/LynehamOverview.jpg

A shot from the ramp during a 1985 Eng Wing Family's Day flight.

downsizer
7th Mar 2011, 07:13
The present is nothing like that either.

Blue Bottle
29th Jun 2011, 13:55
Anyone fancy taking a guess at the news for Lyneham, expected around July 14, on the basing study of all the bases in the UK.

Announcement on future use for RAF Lyneham expected next month (From Swindon Advertiser) (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9110337.Announcement_on_future_use_for_RAF_Lyneham_expected_ next_month/)

tmobile
29th Jun 2011, 17:27
Operational flying will come to an end this Friday as the remaining Hercules fleet will do a symbolic lap of Wiltshire before they fly into to RAF Brize Norton, in Oxfordshire.

Apart from Tetbury as that is in Gloucestershire.

At 10am, a fleet of four or five Hercs will fly over the county, swooping low as they pass over towns, so people can hear their familiar roar for the last time.

A fleet? Is 5 Hercules considered to be a fleet? When does a few become a fleet? Swooping low? Who will be stupid enough to authorise swooping low over Towns? Do Hercules really roar? Lions roar but Hercules?

Who writes this stuff? Scott Darcy? Is that a real name?

Blue Bottle
15th Jul 2011, 13:46
Well July 14th has come and gone, with no news on the future of Lyneham or other units, maybe now is not the time to bury bad news ?

Blue Bottle
18th Jul 2011, 17:03
Good news, but more detail awaited..ITV west news is on now..

Blue Bottle
19th Sep 2011, 06:18
More detail on the New Lyneham. Good news on the Jobs front

Military technical centre to move in at Lyneham (From Swindon Advertiser) (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9256865.Military_technical_centre_to_move_in_at_Lyneham/)

Kreuger flap
19th Sep 2011, 22:17
Coun Sturgis said: “Once it’s all up and running and it’s fully occupied, it will bring far more into the economy of the area than the RAF did with the Hercules, because basically the training will be there the whole time, whereas the personnel based at Lyneham were often out of the country.

Really sorry about that Councillor Sturgis. You see the country has been doing a couple of wars recently and it means that the nasty Hercules and their crews had to go and spend their Op Allowance elsewhere.:ugh:

nice castle
20th Sep 2011, 00:03
I'm with Colin. Jack Herc barstewards always away not supporting the economy.:}