Uk Base Closures

[Hangar_9]

Hi all,

Well the word around the campfire at Wattisham on Wednesday evening was mainly focused on the subject of more UK base closures:

1) Fairford - USAF pulling out and the RAF don't want it with Brize being so close....
2) Mildenhall & Lakenheath - F-15's to Spangdahlem
3) Marham - Everything up to Lossiemouth (the RAF are short on certain essential people....)

So with that joyess news coming to light anyone know anymore?

Regards,

[scarecrow450]

Can't see Marham closing as it's other name is RAF Sandringham, is'nt it ?????:ugh:

[Green Flash]

If that's the case then they are more likely to keep RAF Balmoral. Get Charles' new train to take everyone to Norfolk!

[HighTow]

I thought Fairford was fairly important to the USAF as a forward deployment base for operations on this side of the hemisphere. And didn't they just spend a fortune on an upgrade for the B2 hangar?

And isn't it one of the few places the Shuttle can divert to in Europe?

[S78]

That's standard procedure for politicians..... Spend large amounts of cash improving the place then shut it down:ugh:



S78

[Mr C Hinecap]

Given how few people actually run Fairford on a day to day basis, I'd say it would stay. Given where all the Tornado 2nd line is (not Lossie) Marham ha to stay. How on earth would the SARboys or Teeny Weeny Airways at Wattisham have any idea anyway? :E

[Pontius Navigator]

Besides, relocating to Lossie would see a severe drop in manpower :}

Not heard about the Lakenheath bit though. But politically would YOU want to base all your European assets in Germany and Italy?

[aw ditor]

Close Wattisham.

[spheroid]

and Coltishall as well

[BEagle]

Evict the dung-eaters and their clattering ironmongery from Wattisham and give it back to people who appreciate it!

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

And re-open Coltishall as well!

[SirToppamHat]

For those people with Google Earth, the following link should show all the RAF Stations in the UK that there have ever been.

823789-RAFStations.kmz (http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=476730&filename=823789-RAFStations.kmz)

It's not perfect, but it is a big surprise for most people just how many there used to be. Some of the sites are interesting in their own right (eg RAF Fauld), but I am a bit sad.

STH

[Guzlin Adnams]

A mate of mine helps to run the sim at Lakenheath for Boeing. He's not said anything of the sort, not even last night after several pints of Woodfords Wherry.
If USAF do procure more F22's expect the 393rd to get some to.
If there's one air force in the world that the americans know they'll be working with over the coming years it's ours so it's logical to train alongside us. Also aren't there less flight restrictions here?

[racedo]

He's not said anything of the sort, not even last night after several pints of Woodfords Wherry.

Was he even able to say that beer after several pints?

[racedo]

And isn't it one of the few places the Shuttle can divert to in Europe?

There is a shuttle support airfield in West Africa .......thinks its Ghana, as a relative doing some structural work for a client 10-12 years ago met some US types who were involved with this. Think was more for an emergency landing following a launch.

[A and C]

The shuttle support airfield in west africa is Banjul in the Gambia.

Funny place only one guy on the ramp with a hi-vis and that said "Thames Water" on the back!

[racedo]

:ok:

Thank you A and C.

New it began with a "G" and somehow Ghana didn't sound right.

[KeepItTidy]

Ive heard the rumour on the tonkas moving to lossie , nobody wants to be at Marham even the English and for them to wish to come to Scotland is a surprise. Marham is good though , so much to do and such fun at such a boring camp nobody wants to be at.

[onlywatching]

If JCA are going to be based in Lossiemouth then it makes some sense in moving things up there in advance to improve the infrastructure, but this does seem to be a long way in advance!

[Willard Whyte]

Wish they'd move lock stock & barrel at Waddo, except the airshow of course, down to Fairford.

[insty66]

Marham to close?

Only if you get british aerospace approval I would suggest.


IF you had to close a Tornado base, Lossie would make more sense, no more trogging spares up and down the country.

[ORAC]

the only time Fairford was a Shuttle diversion was for polar orientated missions, and there aren't any scheduled in the remaining flights left before the fleet is retired.

[Wrathmonk]

Mmmmm - not sure moving the Tonkas to Lossie would really work. Isn't there an up to 8 year overlap between JCA "arrival" and the Tonka retirement (2025?). If you want to close RAF Sandringham you could always move the Marham wing into Cottesmore when the Harrier Force have been disbanded...;)





.... and cue Tourist et al!:E

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Can either Lossie or Marham support an extra 4 squadrons, though?

[Pontius Navigator]

Actually Lossie makes perfect sense - close it as it has a brand new mess and of course there is the Nigger grave (the other one).

Or move more Tonkas up there and build another new mess, twice the size for all the 2-man crews, then put single seat JSF in there.

Mmmm.

[airsound]

I heard form someone who works at the Fairford BX (i e someone who really knows), that there is a very strong rumour that the USAF is going to pull out its uniform peeps from Fairford, and 'civilianise', or was that 'contractorise', the whole thing, whilst keeping the runway and facilities usable.

But he also said that Air Combat Command, who 'own' the military facilities (by kind permission of HMTQ, natch) - including that very expensive B2 hangar - are said not to have approved this plan, which emanates from the beancounters.

So, watch this space.....

airsound

[Mr C Hinecap]

no more trogging spares up and down the country.

insty - ssshhhhh. The mighty aircrew don't understand that. That 'loggy crap' just happens and we sit around all day working out the next way we can screw with the flying programme. :E

[Al R]

C/S Floorwalker was less than overwelming in his support for Lossie the other day.

Joint Combat Aircraft: 23 Feb 2009: House of Commons debates (TheyWorkForYou.com) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-02-23a.9.3&s=speaker%3A10160#g9.5)

[pr00ne]

Get real guys!

When the Tonka is replaced there will be probably no more than 2 manned FJ squadrons as part of the replacement programme, which is a joint deep strike capability replacement involving UCAV and cruise missiles. This total has been referred to in planning documents available in the public domain that mention 2 squadrons with an established strength of 9 ac each and an OCU.

There is a REASON that there are only 28 Hawk T2 on order!

So, with JSF at Lossie and a mere 9 Nimrods at Kinloss, you will most probably only need one other airfield from the current list of Marham, Wittering, Kinloss and Cottesmore, so you are going to lose at LEAST another 2, more likely 3.

[Green Flash]

no more trogging spares up and down the country.

With Marham closed you would just have to trog them up!:} I wonder what impact these closures would have on the East Coast ranges? (Given the restrictions in Europe would they see more NATO traffic?). Get your Tain/Garvie/Benbecula bookings in now boys and girls!

[Wrathmonk]

Just out of curiosity, when do the current Lossie sqns move out of the HAS sites to allow redevelopment to meet JCA requirements?

Pr00ne

You may well be right.

Wittering and Cottesmore will close. The first one will go when JFH draws down, the second when JFH folds.

Marham may well close when the Tonka folds but, if push comes to shove, I suspect RAF Sandringham will win over (and be home to the Tonka replacement in whatever shape that takes) and Kinloss will move to Waddo.

Have you included Leeming in your reductions already? Surely there can't be much of a future for Leeming as a MOB (unless the Reds go there ....!).

[Finnpog]

I remember my dear departed dad telling me how in the 70's in the Mess they played a game called "Stack" which had been invited by one of his close friends.

It was based upon a Monopoly board. Every colour group was a collection of RAF stations.

The players had to spend their hard won tax pounds to buy up the stations in a colour group and then rather than build houses and hotels they had to buy runways, refurbish HAS's redecorate the Mess - and then had to pay to close the whole 'Wing' down.

They winner was the one that had closed the most stations.

He was sure that the game had really been invented by reading through an MOD bullet-point guidebook.:ugh:

I suppose the same process is followed for airframes too.

[pr00ne]

Wrathmonk,

Whilst I suspect that Leeming will close as an operational airfield, it is the designated home for a lot of radio type folk, A6 hub I think they call it, TCW and folks like that from Brize. The same applies to Wittering but for the Logs people, so bye bye to the airfield but the station remains open.

[Biggus]

I went to a presentation by a senior RAF officer (4 star) fairly recently, where he mentioned the cost of closing a base vs time to recoup that in terms of annual savings made.

I can't remember the exact figure, but it was longer than I anticipated. I think it might have been about 10 years, but don't quote me on that.

My point is, closing bases is actually very costly, in the short to medium term, so don't go thinking a series of base closures is the easy option for saving money.

If you want to save money in the short term, the best options are:

Reduce the wage bill (i.e. decrease the workforce!)
Make savings in running costs (i.e. cut back on flying, save fuel, less exercises, dets, etc)
Buy less new kit (i.e. cut back on the procurement bill)
All of the above

[Two's in]

And isn't it one of the few places the Shuttle can divert to in Europe?

Moot point after the end of May next year. No more shuttles (how else do you get to pay for the Finance sector bail out).

If USAF do procure more F22's expect the 393rd to get some to.

Two of President-elect Barack Obama’s stated goals — cutting wasteful spending and saving or creating millions of jobs — are on a collision course in a looming decision over whether to keep building the F-22 fighter jet (how else do you get to pay for the Finance sector bail out).

[The Helpful Stacker]

Whether Scottish bases are closed is surely based on whether the party that is in power at the time requires the totally unbalanced power of the votes yielded by the effected voters in a General Election or not. Defence considerations come second to feathering ones nest in the eyes of a certain political party which relies on said votes.

[Warmtoast]

Uk Base Closures

My local paper dated 27th February has a story about Odiham.


'Chaos if RAF base is closed'

February 27, 2009
Closing RAF Odiham would cause traffic chaos in the area, councillors have warned.

There are fears that the Chinook base could be closed as the government considers setting up a Joint Helicopter Command in a review of military airfields called Project Belvedere.

The project, a complex study begun in June 2005, is investigating forming a helicopter “super-base” by bringing all the RAF fleets to one place. Odiham faces competition from RAF stations at Lyneham (Wiltshire) and Benson (Oxfordshire) for the command base.

But RAF Odiham has always been considered vulnerable because its potential as a development site makes it a profitable base for the Ministry of Defence to sell.

The fact has been recognised by Hart District Council’s overview and scrutiny committee in a special report of its airport and airfield working party.

The report points out that there are “continuing and forever reoccurring rumours” that the air base may close and the land made available for other uses. It added that if the station was closed then even the current 300 homes on the base would generate “substantial” extra traffic.

“RAF Odiham would be an obvious brownfield site and further substantial residential development on it could be anticipated,” states the report.
“Extensive road improve-ment schemes would be required. Certainly a route to the site from the A287 which avoided Odiham would be needed.”
Working group member Tim Davies admitted relocating RAF Odiham would spell disaster for the area.

“It really is a major concern to us if Odiham goes,” he said.


Project Belvedere is mentioned in Hansard
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 20 Nov 2008 (pt 0002) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081120/text/81120w0002.htm)


20 Nov 2008 : Column 669W
Military Bases: Helicopters

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to announce decisions arising from Project Belvedere; [237373]
(2) what the latest estimate is of the costs of Project Belvedere; [237374]
(3) how many officials are working on Project Belvedere; and who is in charge of their work; [237375]
(4) what progress has been made on Project Belvedere; [237376]
(5) what estimate he has made of likely helicopter noise levels in the area surrounding whichever base is decided on under Project Belvedere; [237378]
(6) how many helicopters would move to the centralised base under Project Belvedere. [237380]

Mr. Kevan Jones: The Belvedere Programme is a complex study considering a number of airfields for the future Joint Helicopter Command (JHC) Battlefield Helicopter force and results are not expected to be announced until late summer 2009 following which further work to assess costs and environmental impact for the recommended option will be completed. The recommended option will be put to Ministers for announcement to Parliament in the usual way.

I am unable to comment on cost estimates at present as the final costs of the programme will depend on the basing option selected and there are currently a range of options being considered. As a final option has not yet been selected no decision has been made on the numbers of bases required and nor, therefore, on the numbers of helicopters that are to be based on each.

An assessment of the potential changes in noise levels at existing and potential helicopter bases is being initiated by the project team. Their assessment will, in turn, closely inform the evaluation of options.

The Belvedere Team consists of a dedicated team of 12 military and civilian officials, headed by a senior civil servant under the direction of a three Star military officer as the senior responsible owner (SRO). The SRO in turn, works under the strategic direction of the Defence Operating Board.

[Ogre]

I can just about see the point of moving the remaining Tonka squadrons to Lossie, to be honest the last time I was up there the place was a ghost town to the hussle and bussle of the 80's.

Saying that, Messy Beast need Marham open to service the Tonka fleet.

Either way it'll never happen, they'll either find the money to keep them open by other means or move the jets and put the base on case and maintenance.

[GeeRam]

I heard form someone who works at the Fairford BX (i e someone who really knows), that there is a very strong rumour that the USAF is going to pull out its uniform peeps from Fairford, and 'civilianise', or was that 'contractorise', the whole thing, whilst keeping the runway and facilities usable.

But he also said that Air Combat Command, who 'own' the military facilities (by kind permission of HMTQ, natch) - including that very expensive B2 hangar - are said not to have approved this plan, which emanates from the beancounters.

Just had a conversation in the office with an retired ex-USAF guy who lives close to Fairford and basically confirmed the above.

He expects it to happen, and he also confirmed the rumour of the moving out of the F-15's from Lakenheath and a running down of Mildenhall as well, and wouldn't be surprised it that wasn't going to happen as well.

[Biggus]

THS

'....Whether Scottish bases are closed is surely based on whether the party that is in power at the time requires the totally unbalanced power of the votes yielded by the effected voters in a General Election or not. Defence considerations come second to feathering ones nest in the eyes of a certain political party which relies on said votes....'

With respect, in terms of airbases at least, I think that is total boll***ks.

Ok, let's look at the facts. There are 3 RAF airbases in Scotland, Kinloss, Lossiemouth and Leuchars. Kinloss and Lossiemouth are in the Moray constituency, whose MP is from the SNP. Leuchars is in North East Fife constituency, whose MP is a reasonable well known Liberal Democrat. Those are the FACTS...

I very much doubt that Labour or the Tories are greatly concerned about the loss of jobs in constituencies they don't hold, or are you saying it is part of some cunning long term plan to win them back in the future. Somehow I very much doubt it...

The situation with Rosyth MAY however, be something of a different matter...

[KeepItTidy]

Well considering nobody in the RAF wishes to go to Marham it would probably stay open, Lossie has got the advantage of being in an area that is ideal for low flying/bombing ranges and out of the way. If the Tornados were to go out of service then I could see the reason for not keeping it open.
On the same note when did really good ideas ever work for this government , we just do the hard work and list all the good ideas, they just do the opposite . :ugh:

On that same note is Lyneham supposed to be closing down and moving to Brize, I thought it was announced a few years back but I ve heard nothing since.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Biggus - Yes that would be how it worked if only those in the parts of Scotland affected could vote on issues that affected them but that isn't how it works.

Labour voters in other parts of Scotland read newspapers don't they?

Newspaper headlines say "Westminster to shut down Scottish bases", Scottish voters in constituencies outside of those affected vote against the party responsible, with the assistance of a little encouragement by nationalistic political parties de-crying it as "yet another blow against the Scottish by an England-centric parliament" or some such rot.

That is how these things actually work and as such whilst Labour may not have control of seats in the areas in which RAF bases are located they have seats and more importantly, marginal seats, in other parts of Scotland that would be affected.

Of course I'm sure you already knew all this but were mealy looking for a rise weren't you? Please tell me you aren't completely naive.

[Blacksheep]

strike capability replacement involving UCAV and cruise missilesAH ! Its the obvious solution. No need for manned aircraft, we'll do it all with missiles. Now where have I heard that before... :confused:

The proper use of UCAV's and cruise missiles is as a force multiplier, not a replacement. Now, how do you get to be an Air Vice Marshal without being able to explain that to a House of Commons Select Committee in simple plain English?

[BEagle]

I think you'll actually find that, given the choice between living amongst the web-fingered dualling-banjo folk or the DFMB scoffers, 9 out of 10 owners whose cats expressed a preference would probably choose......








Bruggen!

[Len Ganley]

Newspaper headlines say "Westminster to shut down Scottish bases", Scottish voters in constituencies outside of those affected vote against the party responsible, with the assistance of a little encouragement by nationalistic political parties de-crying it as "yet another blow against the Scottish by an England-centric parliament" or some such rot.


I believe that this procedure is called 'Politics'.

the web-fingered dualling-banjo folk or the DFMB scoffers
Ah BEagle. Another dig. Have you forgotten how to spell your favourite anti-Scottish insult or have you increased your repetoire and are trying for the prize of the most small-minded bigot in the country.

[Biggus]

THS

Yes, totally naive...as you say

"...Newspaper headlines say "Westminster to shut down Scottish bases", Scottish voters in constituencies outside of those affected vote against the party responsible, with the assistance of a little encouragement by nationalistic political parties de-crying it as "yet another blow against the Scottish by an England-centric parliament" or some such rot...."

So, take this as a possible scenario. For whatever reason the plan is to close Kinloss. First of all we are talking one base, not Scottish BASES!

You announce it as part of a package which includes closure of facilities in England as well, MAKING THE POINT THAT SCOTLAND ISN'T BEING SINGLED OUT/VICTIMIZED. You play up the fact that Lossiemouth will be beefed up, overall job losses minimized by a considerate government, but belt tightening is required during the credit crunch, etc. You point out that if the SNP get their way all the bases in Scotland will close and it will be defenceless. You SPIN the release information in other words, and time the announcement carefully.

If you announce it a year or two before any major elections it will be forgotten about everywhere but the local area effected within a few days...

The majority of Labour votes in Scotland are now concentrated around Glasgow, in areas where peoples father and mothers, and grandfathers and grandmothers before them, all voted Labour. The core vote, which is the majority of what is left, will be in no way effected. What happens in Scotland north of Perth is of little interest to even the majority of Scots. The maps end there with pictagrams and warnings like "here be monsters"! The Scottish press (at least what I read) is not exactly violently anti Labour either. The Westminster Labour party is probably more anti Scottish Labour than the press is.

All in all, I very much doubt the Labour party consider themselves held hostages to fortune by the RAF bases in Scotland.

But then apparently I'm naive.

Oh - I also said (in my naiveity) earlier, that, if you want to save money in the short term, closing bases is not a good option....

[insty66]

Biggus,

What you have produced is "spin" and a certain amount of the "good day to bury bad news" type of politics we have seen for the last few years.

On the main topic, if bases are to close, a surefire way is to look see where most money has been spent, they're bound to go.

Still say it would make most sense to locate the Tonkas closer together so you can get you spares and stuff easier, who knows if they're close enough you could do away with an entire swathe of stn management, OC Ops, Fwd, Dpth, BSW et al.

What ever happens I'm not convinced that it will improve our capabilities but would stake my life on it saving money.

[Biggus]

"..On the main topic, if bases are to close, a surefire way is to look see where most money has been spent, they're bound to go...."

Leeming it is then....

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Estate and Environment | Duchess of Cornwall opens new RAF accommodation (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EstateAndEnvironment/DuchessOfCornwallOpensNewRafAccommodation.htm)

[Jobza Guddun]

Insty,

Cut a swathe of management - are you mad man??? You know full well the plan is to cut engineering troops whilst boosting the numbers of Engineer Officers - FWD / Depth. I rest my case.

GR4 co-location? Marham and Honington anybody, rocks to Lossie?

Regards mate.

[Guzlin Adnams]

No chance for Honington. Slam blocks and a new mess being built on the ASP.

[AQAfive]

I think Biggus has made to most relevant comment. Before I was put out to grass, the project I was involved with investigated, indeed 'twas planned even, to base the new aircraft at a new base. All was going well until someone did the sums and found no agency had the money for the move. The costs might be recovered in 13 years or so through savings, so no-go and back to plan A.

There was an airfield study made was there not (I forget its title), the idea being to have 5 BIG airfields and sell the rest? What happened to that?

Regardless of whether it makes sense, logic or whatever, its all about money.