Moray Based Airfield To Close
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I do not believe so, it opened in 1924, not during WW I or II, so the original acquisition will have been a purchase, and the addition of 150 acres in 1936 was also a purchase - see here. So it looks like there should be nothing to stop them selling it off if they wish.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Blair & Hoon will do to the RAF what Hitler failed to do in 1940. Seems that loyalty is only a one way thing when it comes to this Government. Suppose they need the £'s in the NHS, Education plus Law & Order to get themselves re-elected. Or am I just getting old and synical?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inverness
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
Looks like the scaremongers were WRONG yet again!! St.Mawgan rather than Kinloss to close,GR4's to remain at Lossiemouth and Leuchars got the thumbs up for Typhoon over Leeming. Where do you people get your rumours from?I would definately shoot the messenger.
Looks like the scaremongers were WRONG yet again!! St.Mawgan rather than Kinloss to close,GR4's to remain at Lossiemouth and Leuchars got the thumbs up for Typhoon over Leeming. Where do you people get your rumours from?I would definately shoot the messenger.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Inverness
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lossie nor Kinloss for that matter may be out the woods yet,however what a waste of the low flying available and the enhancements to the ranges that is currently ongoing in the area.
Just cannot see them removing the GR4's from the area for at least the foreseeable future. I certainly know where a lot of the mateys down south would rather have there operating areas and as for the comments about the local area and Lossie being a dump,have you seen first hand what the area is now like? I may be biased being an Invernessian but I know where I would rather be,Lossie or Marham,mmmmmmmmm no contest!
Just cannot see them removing the GR4's from the area for at least the foreseeable future. I certainly know where a lot of the mateys down south would rather have there operating areas and as for the comments about the local area and Lossie being a dump,have you seen first hand what the area is now like? I may be biased being an Invernessian but I know where I would rather be,Lossie or Marham,mmmmmmmmm no contest!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Nan2002, you are right, the letter to the MP simply said Newquay International was a council problem.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jockland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amwaluk, did you see this on the BBC website:
"The fleet of Nimrods based at RAF Kinloss in Moray will be reduced from 21 to 16.
In addition, the Ministry of Defence has indicated that it intends to put out to private contract the helicopter maintenance work at RAF Lossiemouth.
There will also be a study into the number of airfields "with a view to making substantial reductions"."
where do you see Kinloss and Lossie being safe on this basis?
Btw, anyone remember the tories cutting, closing and amalgamating? was just wondering where peter 'who ate all the pies' duncan got his high horse?
"The fleet of Nimrods based at RAF Kinloss in Moray will be reduced from 21 to 16.
In addition, the Ministry of Defence has indicated that it intends to put out to private contract the helicopter maintenance work at RAF Lossiemouth.
There will also be a study into the number of airfields "with a view to making substantial reductions"."
where do you see Kinloss and Lossie being safe on this basis?
Btw, anyone remember the tories cutting, closing and amalgamating? was just wondering where peter 'who ate all the pies' duncan got his high horse?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Trumpville; On the edge
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wondering where peter 'who ate all the pies' duncan got his high horse?
...do you need a horse to be Chief Boy Scout these days then?
(not to be confused with Iain Duncan Smith, methinks!!)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASTOR / Waddo
Whoever keeps talking about the ASTOR footprint being 'small' clearly doesn't understand how the concept works.
5 (AC) Sqn will be the largest in the MoD, as each air-platorm is supported by dozens of mobile ground assessts, taking up a hangar and compound in their own right. Each 'Global Express' really is the tip of the iceburg!
The ASTOR programme will be huge in RAF terms.
Rumour: Serious consideration has been given at Waddo in to the possibility of building new hangars at the other side of the airfield. Apparently, basing the entire ISTAR force (i.e. MR2/4 inc) there is a real prospect.
5 (AC) Sqn will be the largest in the MoD, as each air-platorm is supported by dozens of mobile ground assessts, taking up a hangar and compound in their own right. Each 'Global Express' really is the tip of the iceburg!
The ASTOR programme will be huge in RAF terms.
Rumour: Serious consideration has been given at Waddo in to the possibility of building new hangars at the other side of the airfield. Apparently, basing the entire ISTAR force (i.e. MR2/4 inc) there is a real prospect.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Beakster, and it would make lots of sense too. Save all those civair flights from ISK to Teddington?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Not so far away anymore
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny that it hasn't occurred to anyone that some people might actually like living at ISK - beats London any day!
Also, I didn't realise we even had 16 operational nimrods - so not really a cut after all then!
Also, I didn't realise we even had 16 operational nimrods - so not really a cut after all then!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
zk-pontius
Not sure where you are coming from mate. At present we have 21 operational Nimrod MR2's and 24 front line crews. As of the 1st April next year we will have 16 MR2's and 19 crews but will keep all the same tasking. So yes it really is a big cut , about 25% of the airframes and 20% of the crews!!!
Not sure where you are coming from mate. At present we have 21 operational Nimrod MR2's and 24 front line crews. As of the 1st April next year we will have 16 MR2's and 19 crews but will keep all the same tasking. So yes it really is a big cut , about 25% of the airframes and 20% of the crews!!!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Scotsman - RAF 'super-base' plan leaves future of Kinloss in doubt.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: An Island near France
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am only a Civvie but surely operating all your large surveillance aircraft from one base would seem like a bad idea to me!
If someone wanted to take your capability out they only have to go to one base!
If someone wanted to take your capability out they only have to go to one base!
Guern,
The argument runs that there is no direct military threat to the UK and there will not be one in the forseeable future. Thus "value for money" calls for us to operate from fewer bases, thus reducing fixed overheads.
Particularly in times of tension, our bases could still be vulnerable to terrorist threat. However, operating from fewer bases allows us to concentrate our ground defences. There is inevitably an associated risk and this has to be "managed".
IMHO I think it is a logical approach. Our numerous airfield spread over the UK originate mainly from WW2 and were necessary to provide survivability against the Cold War threat. The world today is a different place and personally I think the average terrorist is more likely to go for softer and more high profile targets in the UK.
However, the lack of different places to get posted (even if only within the UK) is a definite loss (especially as I love Morayshire!)
The argument runs that there is no direct military threat to the UK and there will not be one in the forseeable future. Thus "value for money" calls for us to operate from fewer bases, thus reducing fixed overheads.
Particularly in times of tension, our bases could still be vulnerable to terrorist threat. However, operating from fewer bases allows us to concentrate our ground defences. There is inevitably an associated risk and this has to be "managed".
IMHO I think it is a logical approach. Our numerous airfield spread over the UK originate mainly from WW2 and were necessary to provide survivability against the Cold War threat. The world today is a different place and personally I think the average terrorist is more likely to go for softer and more high profile targets in the UK.
However, the lack of different places to get posted (even if only within the UK) is a definite loss (especially as I love Morayshire!)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guern, as a civvy and tax payer, are you prepared to pay for dispersal of numerous airframes around the countryside.
I'm only doing devils advocat stuff here, as some of the powers that be do try to provide economical defence. Before anyone else jumps at me, I am not backing the plans of the masters and Generals, just stating that unfortunately, money drives most things. Economic cuts can no doubt be found throughout all aspects of defence....... Re-location of assets is often a harsh reality, even thought the hurt is personnel etc.. sometimes the hurt in one area is considered to be less of an imbuggerance.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this concept, I only hope that you can apreciate that money is unfortunately a major driving force in all aspects of defence policy.
I'm only doing devils advocat stuff here, as some of the powers that be do try to provide economical defence. Before anyone else jumps at me, I am not backing the plans of the masters and Generals, just stating that unfortunately, money drives most things. Economic cuts can no doubt be found throughout all aspects of defence....... Re-location of assets is often a harsh reality, even thought the hurt is personnel etc.. sometimes the hurt in one area is considered to be less of an imbuggerance.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this concept, I only hope that you can apreciate that money is unfortunately a major driving force in all aspects of defence policy.