PDA

View Full Version : Lossie protest


david parry
7th Nov 2010, 16:53
BBC News - Thousands join march to support RAF Lossiemouth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11704860)

PanMan69
7th Nov 2010, 19:01
Apparently RAF Leuchars is in the melting pot too. From what I remember, RAF Marham is too small to take any more Tornado squadrons and house the hundreds of additional people who would need to move there unless there was significant investment in new infrastructure. And RAF Leuchars is not big enough either - to cope with the Tornado OCU (XV?), another Tornado front line squadron (12, 14 or 617?) and the Typhoon build-up. RAF Lossiemouth on the other hand could accommodate up to 3 Typhoon sqns alongside both the Tornado OCU and one Tornado front line sqn were the two Tornado squadrons to be disbanded to be taken from Lossiemouth - the space to park aircraft in hangars and HAS sites already exists. With the closure of RAF Kinloss one imagines that there would also be plenty of surplus accommodation available nearby for any additional Servicemen and their families. Lossiemouth also has two fully serviceable runways and access to the UK's best air-to-ground bombing ranges.

Easy Street
7th Nov 2010, 23:14
You are implying the closure of 'St Andrew's Airport'; this would lead to the outrageous situation of certain HRHs having to travel to golf tournaments by road! The thought of it!

glad rag
7th Nov 2010, 23:31
How many aircraft did 229 operate from the waterfront at RAF Leuchars again:hmm:

Two HAS sites and a LOT of modern infrastructure waiting new owners.

LOA.:E

Pontius Navigator
8th Nov 2010, 08:28
Implement - plan - consider

Great way of doing things.

Finningley Boy
8th Nov 2010, 08:35
I can't see the logic, outside of misguided treasury grabbing and snatching, for trying to squeeze all we can on one lump of real estate. There has to be some degree of flexibility. For the number of R.A.F. airfields which have closed in the last 20 years and those already announced as due to close, I'm gobsmacked that people still think the R.A.F. is top heavy with infrastructure. Finningley, Abingdon, Coltishall, St. Mawgan, Chivenor, Brawdy, Church Fenton, Binbrook, Wattisham, Bruggen, Laarbruch, Wildenrath and Gutersloh. All were active and busy R.A.F. airfields during the 1980s. They're all now either in civilian hands or handed over to one or other of the other services, not necessarily for flying purposes. You'd have thought that with that amount of run down, not to mention; Wittering, Cottesmore and Kinloss also now to go, there'd be a sense of respite from chopping and hacking before there is no airfield infrastructure left!:uhoh:

FB:)

tucumseh
8th Nov 2010, 09:34
You are implying the closure of 'St Andrew's Airport'; this would lead to the outrageous situation of certain HRHs having to travel to golf tournaments by road! The thought of it!

This works the other way round as well. The RAF Leuchars Golf Club is highly thought of they are very closely affiliated with the R&A. Ironically, the list of past Captains includes some familiar names from the Nimrod and Chinook threads! Will we now see those who spoil good walks attempt to run MoD? You never know, they may make a better job of it. They organise the Open pretty well, which is a better CV than most in MoD.

skippedonce
8th Nov 2010, 09:41
FB,

The 'Golden Age' you're talking about involved far more people in wedgewood blue and many more aircraft than today's RAF. With the additional personnel and airframes losses on the way due to SDSR, there is going to be even more real estate surplus to requirement. It's just a pity that the income generated by turning disused stations into light industrial estates goes to consolidated revenue rather than being reinvested in Defence to help balance the books.:(

Wrathmonk
8th Nov 2010, 10:27
If between 750,000 and 2,000,000 (depending on which 'rag' you read) march in opposition to Gulf War 2 with no effect I'm not sure 7,000 people marching in Moray will do any different. I wonder if this is more to do with the thought of the Army moving in instead .....

Anyway, I thought the SNP wanted full devolution from Westminster ..... surely they could pay to keep Lossie open (if it closes) themselves!:E

oldgrubber
8th Nov 2010, 11:23
FB,
"or handed over to one or other of the other services"

Not us in the FAA, we don't have enough aircraft to fill our two stations. (yes two).
(Laugh)

Cheers

david parry
8th Nov 2010, 11:40
O G what a good idea, and we can call it Hms Fulmar;) http://usera.imagecave.com/scouse/Lossie_Wardroom(1).jpg

Finningley Boy
8th Nov 2010, 12:19
OG Don't you have HMS Gannet at Prestwick still?!:ok:

FB

TorqueOfTheDevil
8th Nov 2010, 13:32
before there is no airfield infrastructure left


Yet there is still some slack. Airfields like Leeming, Topcliffe and Waddington are hardly vying for the title of "most movements per day" or "most aircraft based here" awards, are they?

I'm not saying for a moment that these locations don't play an important role, nor do I want to see more airfields close, but the way things are going, the "chopping and hacking" is likely to continue...

Finningley Boy
8th Nov 2010, 14:06
Quote:
before there is no airfield infrastructure left
Yet there is still some slack. Airfields like Leeming, Topcliffe and Waddington are hardly vying for the title of "most movements per day" or "most aircraft based here" awards, are they?

I'm not saying for a moment that these locations don't play an important role, nor do I want to see more airfields close, but the way things are going, the "chopping and hacking" is likely to continue...


It's not fair what'll happen to the airshows, it's bad enough as it is!:{

FB

Pontius Navigator
8th Nov 2010, 14:16
Airshows? They will hold them somewhere exciting like Kinross or Abingdon the week after the annual Abington air show.

PanMan69
8th Nov 2010, 14:32
Has a decision been made yet on where JCA is going to be based? Lossiemouth or Marham, or somewhere else? Prestwick or Leuchars?

oldgrubber
8th Nov 2010, 14:36
FB,

Prestwick is a civvy airfield/airport with a few navy squatters, hardly a FAA air station I'm sure you'll agree.

Cheers

Pontius Navigator
8th Nov 2010, 14:43
PanMan, :Lossie obviously. It will be closest to the carriers in a Scottish constituency.:}

Finningley Boy
8th Nov 2010, 16:09
Cameron has invited the campaign group to Downing Street to discuss their concerns.:suspect:

FB

engineer(retard)
8th Nov 2010, 16:16
Best he stocks up on the jock pies then

neilmac
8th Nov 2010, 17:22
Please read, what planet does this woman live on?
We are better off without places like RAF Lossiemouth - The Inverness Courier (http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/13774/We_are_better_off_without_places_like_RAF_Lossiemouth.html)

Pontius Navigator
8th Nov 2010, 17:37
In absolute terms she is right there are some forms of employment we are all better off without.

In my view, military employment is one of them. Working in a cigarette factory would be another.

To suggest that Economic development in my own neck of the woods - Easter Ross - has been severely blighted by the daily sorties Lossiemouth-based aircraft make to Tain Bombing Range.

Is quite wrong. There is a vocal group at Tain that want to expand a caravan site on the approach path to Tain but equally there are others who owe their jobs to Tain, not just on the range buy tourists who gain pleasure from watching the activity.

Yes, it would be a better world if we had no military forces anywhere, if everyone got on with their neighbours, if there was no poverty of any sort to cause jealousy, and as Neil said, this ain't on Planet Earth.

david parry
8th Nov 2010, 17:50
Send this little beauts up to Tain Range all with 8 x 1000lbs bombs underslung should wake the caravaners up;) http://usera.ImageCave.com/scouse/Lossie_May_71_Last_Sqdn_Line_up(2).jpg

A2QFI
8th Nov 2010, 17:56
"That it's quite alright to viciously oppress innocent people living in other parts of the world." MMMM! That'll be Al Quaeeda and the Taliban then?

The military do not exist to provide a living for the inhabitants of any area of UK, least of all one with some degree of autonomy in its own affairs. If Moray want it let them keep it open.

davejb
8th Nov 2010, 18:24
Met the woman a few times years ago,
left of Trotsky - no point arguing with her frankly. I do wonder how any vaguely responsible paper would publish such complete drivel against the flow like this - there's a difference between being seen to open up the discussion and merely shouting gibberish from the sidelines.

I would claim that the Courier had gone down in my estimation, but it was never that high to begin with....

draken55
8th Nov 2010, 18:26
We are bound to be have more of such situations as our Armed Forces reduce in size.

Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, we still have much of the Army in Germany, due to the fact that is has been cheaper to base them there than in the UK. However, it now looks that surplus RAF Bases in Moray and Cottesmore/Wittering will end up as the new home for these troops by 2015.

Can't help but think that Devonport can't last for much longer either. Two Naval Bases for a couple of dozen surface ships is unjustifiable. The bulk of ships being paid off by 2015 are Devonport based so after the next Defence Review that could be it for Plymouth.

On a brighter note I was pleased to see that post SDR the Army will still have 3000 horses:ugh:

Rigga
8th Nov 2010, 20:08
Surely this is a bun-fight of the lost?

Even if a 'commitment' is found (by which I mean 'Knee-jerk') to move someone to anywhere - by the time the dust of that move settles, in 5 years time, both Marham and Lossie Stations will be up for closure fights again.

...anyway, my bet's on Marham.

vecvechookattack
8th Nov 2010, 20:19
The military do not exist to provide a living for the inhabitants of any area of UK





If only that were true..... If only

Wensleydale
8th Nov 2010, 20:30
Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, we still have much of the Army in Germany, due to the fact that is has been cheaper to base them there than in the UK. However, it now looks that surplus RAF Bases in Moray and Cottesmore/Wittering will end up as the new home for these troops by 2015.


Not sure how keen the Army would be about having another camp just up the road from Fort George. Moray is also a fair distance away from the Army's traditional training grounds. I am sure that they would prefer something closer to Catterick, Stanford, or Salisbury Plain.....

draken55
8th Nov 2010, 21:12
A Moray base would be for the Scottish squaddies some of whom are at present in Germany. There is a rumour that MOD is thinking of closing Fort George, the current Army base in the Scottish Highlands.

This whole process is a bit of a shambles. They should know what they want to do and get on with it. All they achieve by delaying any decision is to unsettle evryone that might be affected.

Finningley Boy
9th Nov 2010, 06:26
A Moray base would be for the Scottish squaddies some of whom are at present in Germany. There is a rumour that MOD is thinking of closing Fort George, the current Army base in the Scottish Highlands.

This whole process is a bit of a shambles. They should know what they want to do and get on with it. All they achieve by delaying any decision is to unsettle evryone that might be affected.


Well exactly, I think the trouble is, that a firm proposal is put together, but as much as I hate to think of it, various people with vested interests then start to get involved. The a plan, which may have originally involved say moving aircraft from one base and closing another, gets thrown into the melting pot again because perhaps the local MP is able to have his or his constituents plight looked at more closely and successfully. Then a rehash is on the cards and before we know where we are, compromise and further hitherto unseen considerations are brought to light and on it goes. On top of which is the old you grease my palm and....

FB

Canadian Break
9th Nov 2010, 16:31
Well, if that nice Mr Salmond thinks that Scotland can "go it alone" it's only right that Westminster gives him a nice, clean airport to service the north of his nation..... isn't it?

Biggus
9th Nov 2010, 16:36
....oh, you mean Aberdeen! :)

Canadian Break
9th Nov 2010, 16:46
Doh.............:ugh:

Pontius Navigator
9th Nov 2010, 17:00
FB, Schwarzkopf, in his biography, said that as an LTC ticket punching in the Pentagon, he had to decide which Army gases were to close.

He had to make his pitch to the different senators of States that were to lose a base.

After one presentation the senator said "Maa boy, that was the best god-damn dog and pony show that ah ever have received from the military, but let me tell you that as long as I draw breath you shall n e v e r close a base in maa state."

So, what is different?

A2QFI
9th Nov 2010, 17:13
Doesn't the currently in use Inverness count too?

Green Flash
9th Nov 2010, 17:27
If Lossie (or for that matter Leuchars) closes we will be left with but 1 military runway north of Leeming:eek:

Pontius Navigator
9th Nov 2010, 17:33
Which one would that be then :) ?

Green Flash
9th Nov 2010, 17:37
If Lossie closes - Leuchars; if Leuchars - Lossie








Oh FFS I don't beleive I just bit. Brain is going. Nice one PN

Pontius Navigator
9th Nov 2010, 17:47
GF, I thought we were actually talking of Lossie as closed anyway, therefore both.

Let's withdraw south of the Humber.

Doctor Cruces
9th Nov 2010, 19:55
Honestly can't see them closing Marham, after all it IS Sandringham Airport.

Doc C

QEC
9th Nov 2010, 20:06
Where do you want Trident then, Thames, or Humber?

George Zipper
9th Nov 2010, 20:46
I hate to say it but I don't think RAF Lossie being in an SNP constituency stands much chance of remaining open.
Would Cameron et al sacrifice votes south of the border when they have no seats to lose in the North of Scotland?:sad:

Duffus
10th Nov 2010, 08:23
If Lossie closes and the Tonkers move south, the Scottish Parliament should start charging the MOD to use the Low Level areas and bombing ranges in Scotland. Arguing that the locals should be compensated for having to put up with the noise etc without any of the finacial benefits of having the RAF based there.

A2QFI
10th Nov 2010, 08:52
If the locals want to be defended they have to put up with the noise! T'was ever thus

Duffus
10th Nov 2010, 10:27
Defended from who,with what? A few useless and old Tornados. The new F35 will never see these shores after the next defence review (cut). The locals should get as much money out the government as they can now, before the welfare budget and the NHS swallow up our entire GDP.

TorqueOfTheDevil
10th Nov 2010, 11:09
1 military runway north of Leeming


...north of Linton, surely, seeing as Leeming can't survive much longer. Except Linton's closing and moving to the emasculated RAF Valley, which also takes care of Topcliffe. And Dishforth used to have such nice runways before 1 FTS abandoned it to the Army.

But withdraw south of the Humber? Never! Church Fenton remains to fly the flag for the north. And don't forget Woodvale...:eek:

aw ditor
10th Nov 2010, 15:03
Please see thread on the future of Woodvale!

SIDEGAA
12th Nov 2010, 10:02
Not sure about "And RAF Leuchars is not big enough either - to cope with the Tornado OCU (XV?), another Tornado front line squadron (12, 14 or 617?) and the Typhoon build-up":=. One HAS Site partly occupied by the RAF Regt, one about to be empty and acres of top quality hard standing, plus a runway that's just been refurbished with a 25-year life = bags of capacity and ample opportunity to recycle former F3 infrastructure. It most certainly could accomodate one or even 2 GR4 sqns and still sustain the crucial build up of Typhoon. Better still, even CAS thinks Leuchars is crucial - just click the link on the video:

CAS Sep 2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-11271391)

Thinking ahead, Leuchars is also well sited to meet the threats identified in the National Security Strategy, given its proximity to 80% of Scotland's population and easy links to transport and government infrastructure, including a lot of nuclear facilities. Further, if much or most of the FJ fleet ends up in Moray, how will the RAF engage with the public and exert influence when SDSR 2015 kicks off, and the Army starts citing relevance post-HERRICK? Leuchars is perfectly placed to guard against that, and absorb the non-Marham element of GR4. Simples!

vecvechookattack
12th Nov 2010, 16:26
the Scottish Parliament should start charging the MOD to use the Low Level areas and bombing ranges in Scotland


I think that the MOD already pay for them....

david parry
12th Nov 2010, 17:48
Thought we were doing the Jocks a favour??? when jetisoning, those 1000 pounders on Garvie island :)

Wrathmonk
12th Nov 2010, 18:50
those 1000 pounders on Garvie island http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

... or any other island that looks vaguely like Garvie ..... if you're a Jag pilot :E

Canadian Break
12th Nov 2010, 18:59
Thousands, if not millions of pounds worth of improvements every week!

Red Line Entry
12th Nov 2010, 19:05
Sidegaa,

Your link simply goes to an article about traffic issues at the airshow - was CAS in the queue of cars?

PanMan69
12th Nov 2010, 19:22
SIDEGAA,

Leuchars or Lossiemouth? One may well be selected based on its overall advantage over the other.

Min AF said today: "the MOD will need to determine what makes the most sense for the structure of our armed forces, including where they are based, where they need to train and operate from and ensuring value for money for the British taxpayer". So, just saying (in effect) that a particular station is close to Edinburgh and that this might be important in 2015 is unlikely to win the debate.

In terms of space, no one denies that you can park a lot of aircraft at Leuchars, but the infrastructure is so tired and worn out in a lot of places that it would cost a fortune to get it to a standard to house properly the numbers of Tornado and Typhoon aircraft that we're talking about, i.e. Leuchars is not a great option for making the most of taxpayers' money. Not to mention that Leuchars only has one decent length runway versus Lossiemouth's two. The facts are straightforward: Lossiemouth has been operating 4 Tornado squadrons (including the double-size plus OCU) for many years now and has the infrastructure to match (not surprisingly). Leuchars has never operated that many Sqns since it took delivery of the F3 has it (?), and therefore the scale of quality infrastructure available is much less. Lossiemouth even has a new Officers Mess and a couple of hundred new Married Quarters, and a new WOs and Sergeants Mess is being built as well.

I agree that St Andrews is a lovely place to live and that it would be a shame to lose Leuchars, but people may need to accept that some fairly tough decisions might need to be made based on what is best for Defence. If we are lucky then both bases may stay open.

david parry
12th Nov 2010, 20:53
It must have been difficult for the range officer, spotting the fall,when the Jag boys, came on a bombing run then:ouch: Those old and bold Bucc boys were always on the money:D

Pontius Navigator
13th Nov 2010, 20:35
If Lossie closes and the Tonkers move south, the Scottish Parliament should start charging the MOD to use the Low Level areas and bombing ranges in Scotland.
That assumes that the English air force wants to fly that far north.

ATFQ
13th Nov 2010, 20:51
ZZZZZZZZZZ

ORAC
14th Nov 2010, 07:32
Lossiemouth even has a new Officers Mess and a couple of hundred new Married Quarters, and a new WOs and Sergeants Mess is being built as well. Makes it even better for the Army. They hate taking over the units with tatty old quarters and messes. :cool:

BBadanov
14th Nov 2010, 07:58
...Lossiemouth even has a new Officers Mess ....

WOT? Hope they are still burning pianos there. And what is the new Bothy like?? :bored:

[Please submit in two sentences, without the dog eating it.]

Biggus
14th Nov 2010, 17:29
Surely there is a difference between the two threads.

The one you started was a fairly blatant advertisement for people to join some facething campaign to save a base - hence advertising, which the mods don't approve of. Whereas this one reports on a protest march at a military base, widely reported by the BBC, that was attended by the political leaders of all the main parties in the relevant country. As such this thread seeks to inform and discuss, rather than being an advertising campaign as such....

vecvechookattack
14th Nov 2010, 17:30
Well said Biggus - Let the Rumours continue

Ronald Reagan
14th Nov 2010, 23:49
The point was made about 'facts of closure'! in reference to Marham or any other stations.
There are currently no facts of closure about Lossie either, just rumours!

david parry
15th Nov 2010, 08:28
Bah humbug Ronnie!!!http://www.minnpost.com/client_files/alternate_images/6019/mp_main_wide_ChristmasCarol2008_452.jpg

TorqueOfTheDevil
15th Nov 2010, 10:16
even CAS thinks Leuchars is crucial


Could be the kiss of death...CAS backing didn't work for Nimrod, did it?

ATFQ
15th Nov 2010, 21:51
ZZZZZZZZZZ

red.zebra
16th Nov 2010, 21:15
Menzies Campbell v Alex Salmond - no contest, bye bye SNP ( and yes I'm a Scot)

LFFC
19th Nov 2010, 23:20
MoD 'to sacrifice Leuchars in jobs trade-off' (http://news.scotsman.com/news/MoD-39to-sacrifice-Leuchars-in.6633257.jp)

Published Date: 20 November 2010

serf
20th Nov 2010, 06:34
Will the new(ish) £20M runway at Leuchars be moved elsewhere.......

Green Flash
20th Nov 2010, 10:36
Will the new(ish) £20M runway at Leuchars be moved elsewhere.......

So where else at Edinburgh (Fife) will Sleazy/Ryan/Air Berlin/etc land? On the pan? Taxiways?

Mad_Mark
20th Nov 2010, 11:44
Will the new(ish) £20M runway at Leuchars be moved elsewhere.......
Probably to the same place as the upgraded runway, taxiways, hangars, new sim building and new FHQ building at Kinloss are being moved :ugh:

MadMark!!! :mad:

ATFQ
20th Nov 2010, 17:19
ZZZZZZZZZZ

glad rag
20th Nov 2010, 17:35
Hmm,

" National Security Strategy, given its proximity to 80% of Scotland's population and easy links to transport and government infrastructure, including a lot of nuclear facilities"."

that could be important, along with rosyth. (which is why it has been there all along).

As for Lossie, god forsaken place, always windy.
Good pre OA (Falklands) deployment training area. (which is why it has been there all along).

:ugh:Anyway these threads are STUPID, we should be fighting ALL closures, not back stabbing* (LOL) bases around the country.:ugh:

* front stabbing polliticians, however, fully supported.:cool:

PanMan69
20th Nov 2010, 21:59
Oh dear, the 'it's close to Edinburgh' argument again - a fact that is more likely to lose the debate for Leuchars than win it given the shock-absorbing effect of the 'Edinburgh economy'.

Should we not just be making the best of what is left, rather than making parochial decisions? If that means we have to close a station to protect future capability then the hard choice has to be made. A lot of airfields with just a few aircraft on each would hardly represent best value for the taxpayer.

Lon More
21st Nov 2010, 05:12
That assumes that the English air force wants to fly that far north

a bit too far for a Tutor, even the ADV?

EMPulse
21st Nov 2010, 11:54
If we are thinking strategically about Defence of the UK, the impact on the local economy is a completely spurious distraction. Sure, some jobs will be lost in Moray if Lossie closes, and Leuchars/St Andrews could arguably better absorb that impact, but what does that matter when the reason for having an RAF base is NOT for civilian job creation? :ugh:

Other arguments such as the state of current infrastructure at Leuchars seem to be also completely spurious and very short-sighted - if you are buying a house, do you buy a nice property in completely the wrong location for your needs, or do you invest in property for the long-term, in the right place? Location, location, location. :rolleyes:

TorqueOfTheDevil
21st Nov 2010, 17:05
As for Lossie, god forsaken place, always windy.
Good pre OA (Falklands) deployment training area. (which is why it has been there all along).


Spot the person who's never been to Lossie...(or at least never spent any significant amount of time there)

david parry
21st Nov 2010, 17:30
Didnt like it , when i had my first draft to Hms Fulmar as a 16 yr old. But soon loved the place, always put it down as my preferance draft, when returning from the Far East:ok:

Hoots
21st Nov 2010, 17:46
Has Lossiemouth and leuchars got all the modern infrastructue installed such as new or upgraded accommodation new gym modern Sqn buildings new ops building modern supply and GEF facilities DII(F) etc etc if not I know a Scottish base which has. Albeit has no HAS facilities except for personnel shelters. Also has many lodger units such as the back up for Tazcomm and the ARCC. Nimrod may be gone but there is a modern base available or are the powers to be only looking at existing 1Gp bases which would be very blinkered

Easy Street
21st Nov 2010, 19:15
Hoots,

The presence of the geese makes Kinloss a less-than-ideal choice for permanent basing of fast jets. It's OK as a base for exercises and as a div, but if you operated there all year the question would not be 'if' an GR4/F35C would be lost to a goose-strike, but 'when'. The crosswind at Kinloss often gets a bit sporty for FJ ops as well, whereas Lossie at least has 2 runways.

The more gets written about the advantages of keeping Lossie and closing Leuchars, the more likely it sounds to me... you could even argue to keep Kinloss open as an RLG! There is no way that the RAF can play up Leuchars' position close to Edinburgh as being an operational advantage, because that would raise the question of why Southern QRA isn't closer to London :eek:

TorqueOfTheDevil
21st Nov 2010, 19:35
Easy,

Spot on - great shame to see Kinloss and its facilities go, but it was discounted early on as a potential JSF base so the chances of a reprieve are minimal.


why Southern QRA isn't closer to London


Ooh, now there's a can of worms bulging at the seams! Sea Harriers at London City, anyone?:}

knowitall
21st Nov 2010, 20:05
"Sea Harriers at London City, anyone?"

don't imagine the hush kit would cost much..........

PanMan69
21st Nov 2010, 20:56
"Other arguments such as the state of current infrastructure at Leuchars seem to be also completely spurious and very short-sighted - if you are buying a house, do you buy a nice property in completely the wrong location for your needs, or do you invest in property for the long-term, in the right place? Location, location, location."

If you already own two houses and you find yourself only able to afford to run one of them then you keep the one that will best meet your future needs at the most reasonable cost, and preferably the one where the roof doesn't leak, the heating and water work, and there are enough bedrooms.

It would be difficult for the Government to ignore the future Leuchars infrastructure bill given that SDSR was predicated on saving money. And retaining Lossiemouth would also have minimal impact on Service families given that Typhoon is only in its infancy at Leuchars - with less than one Sqn's worth of aircraft currently in place. Hardly a strategic uplift if Leuchars was to go. You can easily run Northern Quick Reaction Alert from Lossiemouth - it was done effectively during the Leuchars runway closure for 3 months earlier this year.

There are some interesting views embedded within the RAF Leuchars thread as well.

glad rag
21st Nov 2010, 20:59
Spot the person who's never been to Lossie..

Heh, heh, heh.:E

EMPulse
21st Nov 2010, 23:17
"If you already own two houses and you find yourself only able to afford to run one of them then you keep the one that will best meet your future needs at the most reasonable cost, and preferably the one where the roof doesn't leak, the heating and water work, and there are enough bedrooms."

If you are making a basing decision based entirely on cost, then you aren't being especially strategic; tactically short-sighted one might argue given the costs of addressing any shortfalls are dwarfed by operating and relocation costs that would otherwise be incurred. Not least the investment that will have been made to get this far.

RumPunch
22nd Nov 2010, 00:04
Lossie will survive , even most hardened pilots agree the sensible option is Lossie

A2QFI
22nd Nov 2010, 07:27
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks, unless they are MPs or similar! It is a politico/financial decision.

Wensleydale
22nd Nov 2010, 07:43
Surely both Leuchars and Lossie should be safe? I always understood that the plan a couple of years before SDSR was to run 6 operational airfields:

Typhoon: Leuchars/Coningsby
Dave: Marham/Lossie
ISTAR (inc MPA): Waddington
Transport: Brize

Even with MPA now gone, the airbase list holds good - I see no reason for change. The rest is just rumour for rumour's sake.:ugh:

TorqueOfTheDevil
22nd Nov 2010, 09:47
the airbase list holds good


Are you sure? Even with the reduced buy of JSF?


According to the press, some £40M has already been invested in getting Leuchars to where it is now


Even if the press are right, £40 mil is peanuts compared to how much money is being spent/wasted on other stuff. Lossie had a new runway recently (2005?) so if Lossie closes, some of the money spent there would be wasted (new WO/Sgts Mess, new Med Centre etc).


I'm sure the weather factors alone would prove limiting with such an extended logistics chain given that Typhoon has a quite different Engineering support arrangement than Tornado


I'm not sure I follow - the weather in Moray is usually good (which is why the two airfields have survived for so long - no longer:{).

And from the point of view of supply chain, both Lossie and Leuchars are sufficiently far away from Coningsby/civilisation that there's not much to pick between them!

F3sRBest
22nd Nov 2010, 12:08
And from the point of view of supply chain, both Lossie and Leuchars are sufficiently far away from Coningsby/civilisation that there's not much to pick between them!

I'd actually put both Leuchars and Lossie far closer to CIVILISATION than CONZ :O:O

Al R
22nd Nov 2010, 12:19
I can see, and agree with this logic.

BBC News - Moray RAF bases campaign 'having an impact' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11809669)

Mr Robertson told BBC Scotland: "I suspect that there's a growing view in Whitehall that the closure of two bases in Moray is economically catastrophic.

But does this seeming 'about face', makes you wonder just how robust the decision was in the first place, and if it does get reversed, do not Liam Fox's assertions that the decisions were being based on operational merits alone, ring a little hollow?

Biggus
22nd Nov 2010, 13:22
Al

There is no decision to be reversed regarding Lossiemouth! All that has been formally announced (decided?) is that Kinloss is NO LONGER REQUIRED as an RAF base, and that 2 other bases will go. Which two RAF bases is likely to be announced in the spring....


Therefore Lossiemouth, Leuchars, Marham, Wittering, etc are running campaigns to save the base on the belief that they are vulnerable to closure. I don't know what the local impact of closure is in the majority of cases, but in the case of Lossiemouth, with Kinloss already going (if an Army unit doesn't move in) the impact on the Moray economy would be devestating - apparently the impact (% wise) would be the equivalent of losing 700,000 jobs in the London area (presumably inner and outer London). I'm only passing on that statistic, and can't vouche for its accuracy!

Al R
22nd Nov 2010, 15:48
Cheers. :cool:

The way politicians seem to flip flop according to the volume of various public outcries makes you wonder if they shouldn't make it a TV shoot out and absolve themselves of responsibility completely. I'm a threatened RAF station, get me out of here.

I was at Kinloss for a couple of years and shudder at the prospect on the Region if those 2 units closed for good.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Nov 2010, 17:12
Lossie had a new runway recently (2005?) so if Lossie closes, some of the money spent there would be wasted (new WO/Sgts Mess, new Med Centre etc).

And a new officers' mess and, I think SFA. Total red herring however as money spent it money gone and defence has a history or closing bases that have just had major expenditure.

Alness had half a million (a lot in the 70s) and before the paint was dry the Marine Branch was disbanded. Finningley, after decades of using WW2 'shacks' as a Nav School finally got a new purpose built and subsidistence resistant Nav School and closed shortly afterwards.

Longer life, but look at Cottesmore's Officers' Mess and contrast with Wittering, and so it goes on.

Green Flash
22nd Nov 2010, 17:56
Apologies for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, but 'Kinloss and two other stations'; given the demise of the Harrier, one other would be Wittering. But what about Leeming and/or Linton - would/could that account for the other and EGQS/EGYM/EGQL could start breathing again? Or have they allready been accounted for elsewhere? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? (not an unknown occurance)

TorqueOfTheDevil
22nd Nov 2010, 20:07
Total red herring however as money spent it [sic] money gone


My point exactly - which is why wittering on (geddit?) about the £40m allegedly spent at Leuchars is pointless. Unsurprisingly the individual concerned has deleted his post...all that's left is what I quoted earlier on!

ATFQ
22nd Nov 2010, 21:53
ZZZZZZZZZZ

PanMan69
24th Nov 2010, 00:00
TOTD/ATFQ - agree entirely

Hopefully someone will see sense.

Finningley Boy
24th Nov 2010, 08:20
Leave my Leuchars alone you hulking great brutes!:(

FB:)

TorqueOfTheDevil
24th Nov 2010, 11:58
Leave my Leuchars alone you hulking great brutes!


Doesn't look good for Leuchars does it, when Finningley Boy starts referring to it as mine!

Finningley Boy
24th Nov 2010, 12:39
Doesn't look good for Leuchars does it, when Finningley Boy starts referring to it as mine!

There all mine!!!! Didn't you know.:E

FB:)

just another jocky
24th Nov 2010, 21:39
Therefore Lossiemouth, Leuchars, Marham, Wittering, etc are running campaigns to save the base on the belief that they are vulnerable to closure.

I don't think the stations are running any campaigns as that would be against orders, more likely it's the local politicians. Indeed, we've been told we must not take part, sign up or talk to the press.

My guess is Lossie will stay open with XV(R) + one other GR4 sqn, Kinloss runway will remain open as a mil div, Leu will close with the Typhoon moving to Lossie. Marham will remain the GR4 MOB being replaced by F35 as it comes into service. Simples! And more importantly, logical. :ok:

Finningley Boy
25th Nov 2010, 06:26
Why is the case against Leuchars so obvious and for Lossiemouth to stay open so logical? A week ago without a word said, Lossiemouth was the popular rumour mongers station to close. Then The Scotsman mentions Leuchars and speculation builds over that station closing. And why would they keep two stations open side by side. There is no military logic in closing two of the three scottish bases. Only pounds, shillings and pence ones. The only reason Kinloss is closing is because Cameron (or whoever) has decided the Nimrod is too expensive to continue with the development of. The role is recognised which is why they are seeking out poor alternatives. Nobody said Lossiemouth or Leuchars would close, its just media speculation and of course the Base personnel are not involved in anyway, but jittery locals and MPs are of course, fighting their corner. But if either closes it will be decided on factors which in the byzantine labyrinth of intrigue, purpose and motive, we just haven't thought of yet.
FB:)

just another jocky
25th Nov 2010, 13:54
FB, it all depends upon your start point, so for arguments sake...LOS stays open to house GR4 OCU plus 1 x FL Sqn as it will cost a lot to move them and the GR4 sims, plus usual eng support etc to LEU. LOS needs a mil div. LEU is so far away that the high div fuel means OCU studes can't do rollers as the a/c will be overweight. LEU weather factor is far worse than KSS (which is only GRN or worse for 5% of the year surprisingly). LEU infrastructure needs a huge amount spending on it whereas LOS has had a lot of the necessary infra already updated. KSS only needs to be a runway and ATC/Fire (which is already in place so no extra cost) leaving the rest of the base for the Army. LOS is big enough to support Typhoon and GR4 so why have them on 2 separate bases?

This whole SDSR is finance-driven and the closure of each of these stations (and others) is being considered. The "Save XXXXX" campaigns are all local politician/families/local community driven NOT by the stns themselves as they, quite rightly, are not allowed to.

The final decision, as you say, will probably be buried far away from our scrutiny but all we can hope for is that the facts are looked at and a sensible decision made.

JMHO of course! :)

NutLoose
25th Nov 2010, 14:13
Surely the sensible course of action would be to plow money into all of these Air bases or at least two of them and simply get rid of the Aircraft, such as the Navy are doing... ;)

baffman
25th Nov 2010, 14:24
I don't think the stations are running any campaigns as that would be against orders, more likely it's the local politicians. Indeed, we've been told we must not take part, sign up or talk to the press.

Agreed. The earlier poster may have meant that people in the communities affected were running or supporting these campaigns. Not the actual stations running campaigns. Plainly they are not.