400 Million quid for Lossie
The 10 years notice has been and gone. Russia is resurgent, has indulged in 'hybrid' warfare whilst pretending not to be involved, plus the odd invasion or annexation. Oh and quite a few Russians living in the UK too, so quite a few options if they choose not to play fair.
Defensively we will be ok if they come at us in 1960s bombers in small numbers. As to why anyone would think that is a credible or likely thing that Russia would do in any potential unpleasantness escapes me.
The UK resides under the Russian SSC-8 umbrella. We have a piece of paper that says Russia should not have developed and deployed this capability, so that will help. Or something.
newt wrote:
Surely not queen Gnasher Sturgeon?
Just ask the SNP about who will be the monarch when they get the independence vote they want!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevvron
What a silly suggestion. Have you SEEN what the army does to an airfield when it moves in?
What a silly comment. The Army doesn't do anything to an airfield when it moves in.
The DIO does, according to requirements. Once it's done its thing, the Army then moves in.
Originally Posted by chevvron
What a silly suggestion. Have you SEEN what the army does to an airfield when it moves in?
What a silly comment. The Army doesn't do anything to an airfield when it moves in.
The DIO does, according to requirements. Once it's done its thing, the Army then moves in.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You could also add Driffield, Kirton-in-Lindsey, Tern Hill, Thorney Island, Hullavington, Lyneham, Cottesmore, Bramcote, Colerne, Woodbridge, Upavon and Topcliffe. And indeed Gütersloh and Brüggen.
But then again, have YOU seen what the RAF does to an airfield when they retain possession?
West Raynham and Watton. Ostensibly put on Care and Maintenance for years, but in reality just left to rot.
Syerston. Despite being an expansion period airfield with the accommodation, messing and hangarage that comes with that, it was left to rot to the point that basically it was demolished and a few small new buildings erected.
Scampton? "Care and Maintenance" my arrse. More like neglect and dereliction.
Honington. Let's build new accn blocks so close to the runway that it can never be used again as such. That's OK, it is no longer required as an airfield, so no problem.
Oddly enough, that's the same reasoning as the airfields the Army were given. No need for airfield infrastructure, so use it for something that is useful.
Don't blame the Army for the conversion of redundant RAF estate into useful assets for other parts of the MOD.
But then again, have YOU seen what the RAF does to an airfield when they retain possession?
West Raynham and Watton. Ostensibly put on Care and Maintenance for years, but in reality just left to rot.
Syerston. Despite being an expansion period airfield with the accommodation, messing and hangarage that comes with that, it was left to rot to the point that basically it was demolished and a few small new buildings erected.
Scampton? "Care and Maintenance" my arrse. More like neglect and dereliction.
Honington. Let's build new accn blocks so close to the runway that it can never be used again as such. That's OK, it is no longer required as an airfield, so no problem.
Oddly enough, that's the same reasoning as the airfields the Army were given. No need for airfield infrastructure, so use it for something that is useful.
Don't blame the Army for the conversion of redundant RAF estate into useful assets for other parts of the MOD.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Even then, what's cheaper? Bus the troops to BZZ or maintain the airfield to the point that it can be used, with fire cover etc. I think this is evidenced by how often does this actually occur. Certainly in my time, almost never.
Chevvron, still don't understand your point. Why would the Army wish to keep a former flying station in the same order and format as its previous purpose unless it was an RAF rotary airfield becoming and AAC rotary base. Even then the G1 and G4 infra requirements differ. Unless we combine all arms, as per the CAF and retain multi-capability sites. Maybe that was your underlying intent?!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Out in the desert
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people seem to thing real estate is 'owned' by the respective military arm, far from it. The DIO manage the whole estate on behalf of the MOD, the individual arms are only caretakers until the MOD change its use.
A change of use from RAF to Army, or whoever, is better than what happened to old USAFE stations; sold off straight away and turned into giant car or container parks.
Actually what evidence is there of the damage that the Army has caused at any of these locations, and I'm talk of the airfield side of the estate. All locations that have been mentioned have been adapted to suit the 'new' users requirements.
A change of use from RAF to Army, or whoever, is better than what happened to old USAFE stations; sold off straight away and turned into giant car or container parks.
Actually what evidence is there of the damage that the Army has caused at any of these locations, and I'm talk of the airfield side of the estate. All locations that have been mentioned have been adapted to suit the 'new' users requirements.
Getting back to Lossie, I wonder if the arrival of the P8s and associated infrastructure will mean an end for the spotters and the low fences that currently characterise the base
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Highlands
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not re-open RAF Kinloss (keeping the RE there) and operate it as a satellite of Lossie. One Stn Cdr, HQ, OC Ops, OC Eng, etc and each airfield would have a secure diversion close by. The concerns of armed aircraft at Inverness might diminish.
RAF Squires Gate sat empty, a fully functioning international airport. P8 should have gone in there, affordable housing , equidistant nearly from kinloss / st mawgan. and its in England and attractive to the NW workforce
Not sure the crews would be happy having got to pay £10 airport development tax every time they flew!
