Leon J
Your arguments are flawed
The Typhoons at Lossie may be better placed at Lossie to deal with Terrorist controlled airliners crossing North Atlantic Track (NAT) routings that normally drop in anywhere from Shannon to Benbecula (depending on the jetstreams).
If this argument is in support of QRA North moving to Lossie then it is flawed. QRA should be positioned to allow best all round defense of our most important/vulnerable assets - it must be assumed that an attack could come from any direction. Lossie is certainly not the best position in this regard.
The escorting of Bears and Blackjacks in our airspace is not just a "Cold War" task. They do not carry IFF that civil ATC agencies can see and cannot be detected by TCAS - how safe would it be to let them "bumble about" undetected in our main trans-atlantic routing areas. Also they are out there for a reason. Either they are collecting SIGINT or supporting their subs that are looking for our subs - how stupid would we be if we did not watch what they are doing in the airspace that we have been assigned more than 12 miles from our coastline!!!
Again a flawed argument as this task is currently carried out from Leuchars without any problems. The terrorist threat is by far the greater threat and we should guard against it.
With regards to the size of Lossie vs Leuchars. In the timeframe we are talking about we do not need a station to host 4 or 5 Sqns. Leuchars can take 3 Sqns and in a few years the GR4 will consolidate at Marham. Our Air Force is shrinking remember. F-35 will be based at Marham post GR4 retirement.
I have not heard a single convincing argument for the retention of Lossie over Leuchars yet. The decision is strategically naive. And please do not roll out the 'Moray would be devastated' argument. The risk of an unguarded 9/11 attack on the central belt far outweighs the economic effects that closing Lossie in 3 or 4 years would have.
The government have made a terrible decision.