Those bases will be supplied with equipment common “to any aircraft,” said Hecker.
“We're going to work with the nations and their maintenance so that we can get interoperable on different kinds of aircraft like we were able to do 30-40 years ago.”
Last, but not least, the U.S. and NATO need more robust communications, Hecker said.
"How are we going to command and control all these units, especially if they're taking off and landing at other airfields using the ACE concept? How are we going to make that happen? And especially if we get denied communications, because that will cut off from that from a cyber attack, etc."....
So....the UK is closing bases right and left....which seems contrarian to the strategic goal of NATO.
Can NATO or the USAF take possession of some of these bases being closed and run them on a Standby basis?
Is the USAF closing bases of its own?
Inter-operability allowing for the sharing of "common" parts.....now there is a mouthful.
As the CH-47 is a very "common" aircraft.....operated by probably every NATO Member (no I did not google it)....just how "common" are the parts among the many versions of the Chinook being operated? (Just one example)
If you really for dispersal....how does one communicate reliably and maintain stockage of those common parts....and who pays for them?
Who pays for those "dispersed" locations (not necessarily "Bases" but perhaps preplanned roadside lagers or similar) and keeps them prepared for use?
Now...consider high performance FJ's, large Transport aircraft, and major repair facilities not to mention industrial capability to produce urgent repair parts.
Seems a daunting task for a multi-national force to iron out the wrinkles in the effort.