Marham shelters
Thanks for the reply.
Obviously things have changed a great deal since the Sqns returned from Bruggen and I am well out of touch.
I thought 11 were ADV – have they moved to Marham? And as for 16.5, sorry but that went straight over my head.
So where do 9 and 31 hang out these days. Also 2 and 13 for that matter.
Obviously things have changed a great deal since the Sqns returned from Bruggen and I am well out of touch.
I thought 11 were ADV – have they moved to Marham? And as for 16.5, sorry but that went straight over my head.
So where do 9 and 31 hang out these days. Also 2 and 13 for that matter.
Srennaps,
2 and 31 share the NE HAS Site, 9 and 13 the other. 6 HAS each, for 12 jets each, including any Heavy Rects. No secrets there. One lot of Ops, squippers, int etc, 2 lots of self contained Engineering - it better stay separate too, non of that Chinook/Merlin centralised crap.
It's not ideal and it's not efficient. In effect you have BAES Marham on one side of the field, RAF Marham the other, and one of them is the poor relation.
You can't launch a jet from the front slot mate, local rules. (AESO's).
HTH
2 and 31 share the NE HAS Site, 9 and 13 the other. 6 HAS each, for 12 jets each, including any Heavy Rects. No secrets there. One lot of Ops, squippers, int etc, 2 lots of self contained Engineering - it better stay separate too, non of that Chinook/Merlin centralised crap.
It's not ideal and it's not efficient. In effect you have BAES Marham on one side of the field, RAF Marham the other, and one of them is the poor relation.
You can't launch a jet from the front slot mate, local rules. (AESO's).
HTH
It's not ideal and it's not efficient. In effect you have BAES Marham on one side of the field, RAF Marham the other, and one of them is the poor relation.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sussex
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This got me thinking and I had a quick look at Flash Earth. In the late eighties/early nineties, I knocked up the replacement GR1 sim on the back of my fag packet, after the original was sent out to the sandpit.
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=52.65....2&r=0&src=ggl
It's apparently still there
Is this a very old picture, or did they put the replacement in the same containers, or is it still there?
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=52.65....2&r=0&src=ggl
It's apparently still there
Is this a very old picture, or did they put the replacement in the same containers, or is it still there?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jobza Guddun and insty66
Thanks for the info. I got the maths in the end.
I was on 27 many years ago, 6 foot were the other side and 55 on the water front. (Anybody remember Tojo). They were good days. Even better at Bruggen of course with the four corners.
BAES consisted of a single rep and along with a RR rep we spent a lot of time down the pubs (The Bell and Fox &Hounds I think).
From what you have said it sounds like we had the better times.
Regards
Thanks for the info. I got the maths in the end.
I was on 27 many years ago, 6 foot were the other side and 55 on the water front. (Anybody remember Tojo). They were good days. Even better at Bruggen of course with the four corners.
BAES consisted of a single rep and along with a RR rep we spent a lot of time down the pubs (The Bell and Fox &Hounds I think).
From what you have said it sounds like we had the better times.
Regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Warrington
Age: 56
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mystery solved!
Incedentally, I was looking at the Marham entry on Wikipedia which states the HAS sites were constructed in 1977- surely this is wrong? I would have said 1980 round about..
Incedentally, I was looking at the Marham entry on Wikipedia which states the HAS sites were constructed in 1977- surely this is wrong? I would have said 1980 round about..
