RAF worried about pullout of fighters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF worried about pullout of fighters
From the Telegraph today, 17 Aug......
RAF worried about pullout of fighters
The RAF has been trying to dissuade America from withdrawing 48 F15 Eagle fighter aircraft from RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk under the planned pullout.
Military chiefs are concerned that the restructuring of US forces overseas will leave Britain's air defences vulnerable at a time when the country is axing a fifth of its own fighter force and all its Jaguar ground-attack aircraft.
The US navy's 500-strong European headquarters, close to the US embassy in central London, will move to Naples, along with 200 other staff based at West Ruislip.
However, it is the removal of 48 of the 72 F15s from Lakenheath that is regarded as a serious problem. Not only does it take away a fifth of the air power available to defend Britain, but it will also hamper combined training and could increase the risk of "friendly fire" incidents.
"It doesn't seem to make sense operationally, financially or from a coalition point of view," said Wg Cdr Andrew Brookes, an air power expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
"Tornado pilots . . . need to have F15s close to them because that's who they are going to go to war with. They need to know the crews, how they think, how they operate - day in, day out."
The fear is that accountants in both the US and British defence establishments will not approve the consequent extra costs that USAF-RAF joint exercises and personnel exchanges will require.
"[The US defence secretary, Donald] Rumsfeld and his policy people do not seem to care much about allies - just protecting their own," said one senior RAF officer.
RAF worried about pullout of fighters
The RAF has been trying to dissuade America from withdrawing 48 F15 Eagle fighter aircraft from RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk under the planned pullout.
Military chiefs are concerned that the restructuring of US forces overseas will leave Britain's air defences vulnerable at a time when the country is axing a fifth of its own fighter force and all its Jaguar ground-attack aircraft.
The US navy's 500-strong European headquarters, close to the US embassy in central London, will move to Naples, along with 200 other staff based at West Ruislip.
However, it is the removal of 48 of the 72 F15s from Lakenheath that is regarded as a serious problem. Not only does it take away a fifth of the air power available to defend Britain, but it will also hamper combined training and could increase the risk of "friendly fire" incidents.
"It doesn't seem to make sense operationally, financially or from a coalition point of view," said Wg Cdr Andrew Brookes, an air power expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
"Tornado pilots . . . need to have F15s close to them because that's who they are going to go to war with. They need to know the crews, how they think, how they operate - day in, day out."
The fear is that accountants in both the US and British defence establishments will not approve the consequent extra costs that USAF-RAF joint exercises and personnel exchanges will require.
"[The US defence secretary, Donald] Rumsfeld and his policy people do not seem to care much about allies - just protecting their own," said one senior RAF officer.
What are they complaining about? After all, not so long ago:
Mr Hoon said the "rebalancing" was designed to ensure that the Armed Forces were "equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future those tasks which they have so admirably undertaken in recent years". The forces had "enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation" which would "see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people".
So, according to Government policy Lakenheath etc are becoming more effective
Mr Hoon said the "rebalancing" was designed to ensure that the Armed Forces were "equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future those tasks which they have so admirably undertaken in recent years". The forces had "enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation" which would "see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people".
So, according to Government policy Lakenheath etc are becoming more effective
So, the chickens have come home to roost, eh Bliar? Spin your way out of this one. Such a shame that the truth is so inconvenient to your alleged 'government'......
If the RAF is too small to cope with air defence of the UK when the Spams return to somewhere across the pond - then fairly obviously the RAF has been reduced to an unacceptably small size!
I joined with the rosy concept that I was defending the UK as others had done 25 years earlier. That eventually decayed into having to support American adventurism in parts of the world we weren't welcome.......
Perhaps a few RAF-crewed Sea Harriers based at Lakenheath might be an idea?
If the RAF is too small to cope with air defence of the UK when the Spams return to somewhere across the pond - then fairly obviously the RAF has been reduced to an unacceptably small size!
I joined with the rosy concept that I was defending the UK as others had done 25 years earlier. That eventually decayed into having to support American adventurism in parts of the world we weren't welcome.......
Perhaps a few RAF-crewed Sea Harriers based at Lakenheath might be an idea?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
erhaps a few RAF-crewed Sea Harriers based at Lakenheath might be an idea?
.... Even better idea - cancel the disbandmend of the Squdron of F3's that Hoon announced - I heard that most of the Shars that have disbanded from 800 Squdron are now razor blades anyway.
Whats the logic behind crewing them with RAF people dont the RN already have people trained to Fly and maintain these A/C????
