MoD announce closures
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOUSES FOR SALE?
The house sales planned for Scampton have apparently been put on hold due to the revised military requirement. This leaves about 40 'available' FQs, many of which will need renovating. Forty FQs is nothing like enough to support a CRC, let alone all the other units planned for Scampton, so the most likely outcome will be people living at Kirton in Lindsey - in the short term at least.
Coltishall, which is also likely to close when the Jaguar finishes, has a runway, comms, buildings, med and admin facilities, single accommodation, 3 messes and FQs which have not been sold off - yet! Presumably it could host the RAFAT if necessary?
Then again, what do I know?
Coltishall, which is also likely to close when the Jaguar finishes, has a runway, comms, buildings, med and admin facilities, single accommodation, 3 messes and FQs which have not been sold off - yet! Presumably it could host the RAFAT if necessary?
Then again, what do I know?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Topham - I do know that as soon as the Jaguar can either be relocated to another unit or scrapped completely, whichever comes first, Coltishall will close forever, never to be used for a miltary purpose again - Oh dear, what a pity, how sad. 
The fact is, that while the Jaguar has served a very important and useful function for the UK, it could have easily have been located anywhere else in the UK and been just as efficient. Coltishall is, and always has been a drain on the RAF budget, and never should have been allowed to continue after the Cold War ended.
Neatishead is also to be closed - no one will miss them as the Fighter Control function has been largely surplus to requirements since its inception, even now they haven't a clue what the real world is all about so they won't be missed.
What this will mean is that north Norfolk will return to the relative tranquillity of the USAF making lots of noise, G/A and commercial operations being able to operate in and out of Norwich airport and the other 20 or so airfields in the region unhindered by 2 RAF stations which have always been far more trouble than they are worth.
The fact is, that while the Jaguar has served a very important and useful function for the UK, it could have easily have been located anywhere else in the UK and been just as efficient. Coltishall is, and always has been a drain on the RAF budget, and never should have been allowed to continue after the Cold War ended.
Neatishead is also to be closed - no one will miss them as the Fighter Control function has been largely surplus to requirements since its inception, even now they haven't a clue what the real world is all about so they won't be missed.
What this will mean is that north Norfolk will return to the relative tranquillity of the USAF making lots of noise, G/A and commercial operations being able to operate in and out of Norwich airport and the other 20 or so airfields in the region unhindered by 2 RAF stations which have always been far more trouble than they are worth.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SirTH, allow me sir!
niknak, I almost thought you were serious, then after I looked at your profile I realized you almost had an operational role. (easy ABIW and BEagle - I'm well aware you share this view of my Branch!)
Judging by your rather jaded attitude to anybody sharing 'your personal' airspace I assume you're local?
niknak, I almost thought you were serious, then after I looked at your profile I realized you almost had an operational role. (easy ABIW and BEagle - I'm well aware you share this view of my Branch!)
Judging by your rather jaded attitude to anybody sharing 'your personal' airspace I assume you're local?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SpotterFC
Thanks old chap.
It's amazing how well we get on with the more enlightened members of NikNak's 'claimed' specialisation. I don't suppose they get on with him (or her)! One thing struck me about Niknak's rant:
Err as opposed to those stations which aren't a drain on the RAF budget? Like, now then, let me think, no, can't think of any stations that contribute to the budget. I doubt if even Northolt makes enough in landing fees to cover its own costs.
As you suggest, probably a 'John-Deere owner'!
Thanks old chap.
It's amazing how well we get on with the more enlightened members of NikNak's 'claimed' specialisation. I don't suppose they get on with him (or her)! One thing struck me about Niknak's rant:
Coltishall is, and always has been a drain on the RAF budget
As you suggest, probably a 'John-Deere owner'!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak,
One other thing that you might have missed - FCs may be moving, but we ain't going away. Ever heard of remote access to radars and radios? The only thing that will change is that we are that much further away when you want to come and whinge! Who gets the better deal?
You also show a callous disregard for the hundreds of civilian workers who either work at the bases, or who rely on them for their employment. Unlike those clothed in light blue, many of these people are not civil servants and will not be able to merely relocate. The local community will also suffer: the school, swimming pool, gym and all the other facilities available to the area which are primarily provided for the RAF community will also go with the base.
One other thing that you might have missed - FCs may be moving, but we ain't going away. Ever heard of remote access to radars and radios? The only thing that will change is that we are that much further away when you want to come and whinge! Who gets the better deal?
You also show a callous disregard for the hundreds of civilian workers who either work at the bases, or who rely on them for their employment. Unlike those clothed in light blue, many of these people are not civil servants and will not be able to merely relocate. The local community will also suffer: the school, swimming pool, gym and all the other facilities available to the area which are primarily provided for the RAF community will also go with the base.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
niknak
Well thank God that normal flying Ops can be resumed at New Buckenham and other such grand airfields when those pesky Jaguars have gone. Maybe we should move the Marham wing aswell while we're at it - that would probably ease a bit of airspace congestion. I've also heard that the East coast ranges are a bit of a pain for pleasure boats trying to enjoy their Summer cruises - do you think we should try and get those closed or moved somewhere else?
Would be interested in your thoughts.
G/A and commercial operations being able to operate in and out of Norwich airport and the other 20 or so airfields in the region unhindered by 2 RAF stations which have always been far more trouble than they are worth
Would be interested in your thoughts.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The worrying aspect of closure of bases with runways is the permanent loss of the ability to expand our air force should it ever prove necessary. Try getting that real estate back in 20 years or so and getting blood out of a stone looks easy in comparison.
Soddim, I amn completely with you on that. With the forces at a peacetime cadre level it would make more sense to maintain many more bases on C&M Plus, with one squadron per active airfield, rather than three, even if everything more than firstline servicing was centralised at one in three stations.
Maintaining an adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of 2075, or 2104, or whenever, seems like prudence to me. As you say, it will be effectively impossible to build new runways.
Maintaining an adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of 2075, or 2104, or whenever, seems like prudence to me. As you say, it will be effectively impossible to build new runways.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I drove through Scampton recently and anything that restores this most famous and illustrious RAF station to its former glory from its present sad state has my vote.
It was bad enough seeing how changed Scampton had become when I did my CFS course there in 1989 as compared with how it usd to thrive when I'd been there 10 years earlier on the Vulcan. But driving past it now is very depressing; get-rich-qucik Anus homes have flogged off a lot of the quarters and the starion looks so sad and run down.
I shudder at the thought of proud bases like Colt and Benson going the same way.
I shudder at the thought of proud bases like Colt and Benson going the same way.
For another example of letting a place go to rot, you should see Upper Heyford. That was a top camp, huge runway, excellent facilities and easy motorway access. Why on earth did we let that one go when the Americans left? A crying shame.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picked this up in Hansard
"Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of (a) RAF Coltishall and (b) RAF Wittering. [167182]
Mr. Ingram: On current plans the Royal Air Force will have no continuing requirement for RAF Coltishall once the Jaguar aircraft goes out of service."
So goodbye Jaguar and goodbye Colt?
"Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of (a) RAF Coltishall and (b) RAF Wittering. [167182]
Mr. Ingram: On current plans the Royal Air Force will have no continuing requirement for RAF Coltishall once the Jaguar aircraft goes out of service."
So goodbye Jaguar and goodbye Colt?
Jimlad,
Colt's fate was sealed when the three Typhoon bases were announced years ago. As soon as the Squadron allocation was seen to be; 3 at Leuchars, 2 at Leeming and 2 plus OCU and OEU at Coningsby then there clearly was no future for Coltishall.
With the announced intention of reducing fast jet numbers there is even less of a reason to keep the place.
The USAF and USN have found that of all the economy measures they have tried, by far the most effective was their Base Realignment and closure programme, which saved millions.
There will be more of this to come, the RAF is still spread over some 70 odd sites in the UK and a round of consolidation can confidently be predicted, even if the current FJ order of battle were to be retained, which it isn't.
Colt's fate was sealed when the three Typhoon bases were announced years ago. As soon as the Squadron allocation was seen to be; 3 at Leuchars, 2 at Leeming and 2 plus OCU and OEU at Coningsby then there clearly was no future for Coltishall.
With the announced intention of reducing fast jet numbers there is even less of a reason to keep the place.
The USAF and USN have found that of all the economy measures they have tried, by far the most effective was their Base Realignment and closure programme, which saved millions.
There will be more of this to come, the RAF is still spread over some 70 odd sites in the UK and a round of consolidation can confidently be predicted, even if the current FJ order of battle were to be retained, which it isn't.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim, I amn completely with you on that. With the forces at a peacetime cadre level it would make more sense to maintain many more bases on C&M Plus, with one squadron per active airfield, rather than three, even if everything more than firstline servicing was centralised at one in three stations.
Maintaining an adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of 2075, or 2104, or whenever, seems like prudence to me. As you say, it will be effectively impossible to build new runways.
Maintaining an adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of 2075, or 2104, or whenever, seems like prudence to me. As you say, it will be effectively impossible to build new runways.
Small spinner (never mind)
"Best we start procuring some of these aircraft now. I bet you could clear an area and build a new airbase in half the time it takes to get some new aircraft into service."
What with Planning permission, building regulations, the environmental lobby and Nimby's galore.........................I bet you couldn't!
"Best we start procuring some of these aircraft now. I bet you could clear an area and build a new airbase in half the time it takes to get some new aircraft into service."
What with Planning permission, building regulations, the environmental lobby and Nimby's galore.........................I bet you couldn't!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the best form of airbases are mobile ones which can take planes to where the action is. Hmm maybe we could put them on the sea and call them aircraft carriers? I reckon 10 or so carriers should remove the need for RAF bases full stop 
But seriously, I would have thought that culling a lot of bases and merging into one or two megabases, as the RN has done for its training and basing would pay dividends in terms of reduced manpower requirements and so on?
But seriously, I would have thought that culling a lot of bases and merging into one or two megabases, as the RN has done for its training and basing would pay dividends in terms of reduced manpower requirements and so on?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the time has come to seriously consider combined Army, Navy and Airforce basing.