Originally Posted by
vascodegama
Whether or not we are a major player is not the point. Having so few runways available is the problem so the idea of dispersal and operations from civilian airfields makes sense. Why not also take a leaf from the Swedish (and others) book and look at road bases.
I guess the reason we have 2 aircraft carriers is the hope that at least one will work.
Who are you to decide what is and isn't the point? We have loads of runways available in this country. Apart from the existing RAF frontline airfields, there are all of the 22 Group airfields and relief landing grounds, the RN and AAC airfields, and then, before you even get anywhere near civilian airfields, are the existing MoD airfields not in current active aviation use such as Dishforth, Topcliffe, Cottesmore, Chivenor, Honington, Kinloss, Colerne, Hullavington, Little Rissington, Brawdy, Linton On Ouse, Scampton, Lyneham, etc etc etc. All of these could be dispersal runways used in a genuine emergency before you even start to consider the numerous civilian airfields up and down the land. This would complicate massively any possible (and extremely unlikely) Russian cruise missile/ballistic missile barrage against existing RAF and USAF airfields in this country.
In the days of the recent Cold War, we had on average 2 squadrons/OCU's per station, (Wattisham, Binbrook, Coningsby, Leuchars, Wittering) whereas the current RAF has large numbers of squadrons on a station, take Lossiemouth and Coningsby as typical examples. This was a cost saving measure when there was no perceived threat to the Homebase whatsoever. That has all changed since 2014 and 24th February 2022, but we simply do not need oodles and oodles of newly opened RAF airfields.