Uk Base Closures
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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!
.... and cue Tourist et al!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no more trogging spares up and down the country.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Joint Combat Aircraft: 23 Feb 2009: House of Commons debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
no more trogging spares up and down the country.
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!
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 ....!).
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 ....!).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Base closures - nothing new.
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.
I suppose the same process is followed for airframes too.
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.
I suppose the same process is followed for airframes too.
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.
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.
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
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
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
And isn't it one of the few places the Shuttle can divert to in Europe?
If USAF do procure more F22's expect the 393rd to get some to.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,132
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
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.
Uk Base Closures
'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.
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.
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 20 Nov 2008 (pt 0002)
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
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...
'....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...
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 .
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.
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 .
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.