Join the RAF, GO TO LOSSIEMOUTH
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be so, FB, but it's possible to over-analyse what may well be good old-fashioned political opportunism by the SNP. It's not so long since their conferences were viciously anti-English; Wee Eck wisely realised that didn't wash but underlying sentiment not changed much imho.
Re. Joint mil/civilian operations, this would seem to make a lot of sense and is absolutely normal in much of the world. Perhaps (hopefully) there's a modern-day "Mickey Finn"-style plan for dispersal to avoid the "one bomb" scenario?
Re. Joint mil/civilian operations, this would seem to make a lot of sense and is absolutely normal in much of the world. Perhaps (hopefully) there's a modern-day "Mickey Finn"-style plan for dispersal to avoid the "one bomb" scenario?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Virtually anywhere!
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC there used to be three Buccaneer units 12 & 208 plus 237OCU, 226OCU jags, plus 8 Sqn Shacklebombers, and the SAR Flt, plus 48Sqn rocks and 2622 Aux Rocks as well. I think the Bucc units were all oversized including extra hunters for twin stickers, and that was before the two HAS sites were built..... Should all fit today methinks.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may wish to believe everything wee krankie spouts in her increasing desperation but the increasing majority do not.
Another side effect will be an influx of (most likely) non-SNP voters in the area. Given all those earning into the 40% tax bracket will be paying the 'SNP supplement' (no exemption for MoD as I understand it), it might change the local politics/politicians somewhat?
Looking practically at the airfield, and making use of Google Earth, I presume that two of the current Typhoon squadrons operate from the HAS sites and the other from the hardstanding adjacent to the control tower. Now, while I imagine a fourth operational Typhoon squadron could share that hardstanding and the OCU will presumably takeover the current Tornado OCU site, there seems a lack of room for a squadron of MPAs.
Unless they plan to shoehorn them into 202 Sqdn's now-vacant site
.
Either way, Lossie will surely have to have a lot of work to accommodate all that the MoD want to put there, and with the availability of space elsewhere I do wonder if the P-8s will go somewhere else.
Incidentally, and out of curiosity, where did 8 Sqdn have their operating area at Lossie?
Unless they plan to shoehorn them into 202 Sqdn's now-vacant site
.Either way, Lossie will surely have to have a lot of work to accommodate all that the MoD want to put there, and with the availability of space elsewhere I do wonder if the P-8s will go somewhere else.
Incidentally, and out of curiosity, where did 8 Sqdn have their operating area at Lossie?
Thread Starter
Martin,
8 Squadron were in the two large hangars and the line where the Tornado OCU is now.
I still think that this is going to be far more actual aircraft than Lossie has ever had, even in the days of the Buccaneer, Jaguar and Shackleton. Not saying that it can't be done, but it is sure going to be difficult.
8 Squadron were in the two large hangars and the line where the Tornado OCU is now.
I still think that this is going to be far more actual aircraft than Lossie has ever had, even in the days of the Buccaneer, Jaguar and Shackleton. Not saying that it can't be done, but it is sure going to be difficult.
Looking practically at the airfield, and making use of Google Earth, I presume that two of the current Typhoon squadrons operate from the HAS sites and the other from the hardstanding adjacent to the control tower. Now, while I imagine a fourth operational Typhoon squadron could share that hardstanding and the OCU will presumably takeover the current Tornado OCU site, there seems a lack of room for a squadron of MPAs.
Unless they plan to shoehorn them into 202 Sqdn's now-vacant site.
Unless they plan to shoehorn them into 202 Sqdn's now-vacant site.
Finding space to park the P-8's up for the evening is the easy bit me thinks, furnishing them with the super duper hangar and brand new Squadron HQ they will no doubt require may be the hard bit.
I'm still doubtful that space could be made for the P-8s without a lot of money and concrete. Of course, with all of those aircraft stuffed into Lossie, I guess the various exercises and foreign detachments that have used it will have to go somewhere else now.
Thanks for the answers re 8 Sqdn.
Thanks for the answers re 8 Sqdn.
The Government seem to be trying to avoid opening up any of the airfields which have been closed since the 2010 SDSR!?! But if the numbers are expanding , surely they've got to find another air base somewhere, if only to avoid imposing on the quality of life of service personnel.
FB
FB
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NEAR TO ISK
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the two HAS that are now used for Q, the Lossie northern HAS site is not in use That still leaves loads of space for two Typhoon units and the P8s, Charlie & Delta Hards are also plenty big enough as is proven during JW exercises. But I do agree there isn't much room left for the Ops Support & Sqn HQs unless they flatten some of the current buildings, eg the old Engine facility building.
I reckon the other concern is where are all the new staff going to be housed, by my reckoning in the order of a conservative 1000 additional aircrew & groundies need to be found places to work on base and of course families housed.
I reckon the other concern is where are all the new staff going to be housed, by my reckoning in the order of a conservative 1000 additional aircrew & groundies need to be found places to work on base and of course families housed.
Apart from the two HAS that are now used for Q, the Lossie northern HAS site is not in use That still leaves loads of space for two Typhoon units and the P8s, Charlie & Delta Hards are also plenty big enough as is proven during JW exercises. But I do agree there isn't much room left for the Ops Support & Sqn HQs unless they flatten some of the current buildings, eg the old Engine facility building.
I reckon the other concern is where are all the new staff going to be housed, by my reckoning in the order of a conservative 1000 additional aircrew & groundies need to be found places to work on base and of course families housed.
I reckon the other concern is where are all the new staff going to be housed, by my reckoning in the order of a conservative 1000 additional aircrew & groundies need to be found places to work on base and of course families housed.
As Wander says someone will suddenly realise Elgin is not full of MQ's anymore after they decide to max out the base again. Decision by then has been made, cue resultant make do plans and hope the single accommodation can cope as people wait for MQ's.
Also seems to be a Lossie tradition to build new Sqn HQ's every time a new Sqn arrives, unless your the Jaguar OCU of course. We got to move out of the palatial new build into a couple of Hunter used portacabins the other side of the A/F to make way for the Buccaneers.
serf....And so has Kinloss
The shrunken RAF undoubtedly has fewer accommodation needs but its getting to the stage where the empty singly block next to you wsill be rented out to house the local chavs.
Last edited by Skeleton; 6th Oct 2016 at 12:47.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skeleton,
One option to solve the Sqn and Ops conundrum is to do what we did when the runway was being repaired at Kinloss. i.e you have the airframes 'boltholed' at Lossie but the Sqn and Ops setup is based at Kinloss.
The infrastructure is already in place so this would reduce the cost massively and also increase the footfall at Kinloss. Some may argue that it adds too much time to your day for the 20 minute each way shuttle from Sqn to line, but it is doable although agree that a hangar will be required somewhere at Lossie for maintenance
One option to solve the Sqn and Ops conundrum is to do what we did when the runway was being repaired at Kinloss. i.e you have the airframes 'boltholed' at Lossie but the Sqn and Ops setup is based at Kinloss.
The infrastructure is already in place so this would reduce the cost massively and also increase the footfall at Kinloss. Some may argue that it adds too much time to your day for the 20 minute each way shuttle from Sqn to line, but it is doable although agree that a hangar will be required somewhere at Lossie for maintenance
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skeleton,
One option to solve the Sqn and Ops conundrum is to do what we did when the runway was being repaired at Kinloss. i.e you have the airframes 'boltholed' at Lossie but the Sqn and Ops setup is based at Kinloss.
The infrastructure is already in place so this would reduce the cost massively and also increase the footfall at Kinloss. Some may argue that it adds too much time to your day for the 20 minute each way shuttle from Sqn to line, but it is doable although agree that a hangar will be required somewhere at Lossie for maintenance
One option to solve the Sqn and Ops conundrum is to do what we did when the runway was being repaired at Kinloss. i.e you have the airframes 'boltholed' at Lossie but the Sqn and Ops setup is based at Kinloss.
The infrastructure is already in place so this would reduce the cost massively and also increase the footfall at Kinloss. Some may argue that it adds too much time to your day for the 20 minute each way shuttle from Sqn to line, but it is doable although agree that a hangar will be required somewhere at Lossie for maintenance
