Lyneham Closure, Westminster Hall Debate 6 Jan 2010
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyneham Closure, Westminster Hall Debate 6 Jan 2010
This is James Gray's opener, I'll find a link for the full debate;
I will begin by saying how pleased...: 6 Jan 2010: Westminster Hall debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)
I will begin by saying how pleased I am to have the opportunity to debate a matter of key concern to my constituency, as RAF Lyneham is based in North Wiltshire. I should say at the outset, however, that the debate is not about RAF Lyneham or North Wiltshire, although I hope that a side effect of what I will say might be a rethinking of the plan to close the base. The debate is about the strategic defence of the realm, the way in which the air transport fleet as a whole has been developed over recent years and current plans for its future change.
It would be wrong to start the debate without paying due tribute to the airmen and airwomen of RAF Lyneham who play such a central role in armed conflicts around the world. "First in, last out" is their great claim, to supply, to save, and to provide everything that the Army, Air Force and Royal Navy need on the ground. That all comes from RAF Lyneham in the magnificent Hercules C-130Ks and C-130Js. They have done a superb job for the nation and I pay tribute to all that they do.
They also play a central role in the repatriation of military bodies through RAF Lyneham. I know that the Minister will be as concerned as I am by the ridiculous notion expressed by Mr. Choudary that he might lead some kind of counter-protest through the streets of Wootton Bassett. I know that the Government, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and others are totally opposed to any such nonsense. I mention, in passing, that I was surprised by Sir Hugh Orde's remarks on the front page of The Daily Telegraph this morning, as he believes that Mr. Choudary's procession down Wootton Bassett high street should go ahead. That seems an odd remark for Sir Hugh to have made, as he has no possible connection with policing in Wiltshire. I am glad that the Government are determined, as am I, to prevent any such protest.
The debate is not about RAF Lyneham, but about the air transport fleet more widely and a series of decisions made in recent years which seem to be wrong-headed, incorrect and internally inconsistent and which seem to have got the whole question of how we spend our defence budgets on air transport wrong. That relates in part to how the procurements have been run, most notably for the A400M, which I will return to in a moment. The debate is partly about the Basing study, which concluded that all our air transport should be brought together in RAF Brize Norton. It seems to me that that started on the wrong premise, was written with the wrong arguments and included some questionable accounting. In general, it is well worthy of revisiting...............It continues
The full debate can be followed here;
[Mr. George Howarth in the Chair]...: 6 Jan 2010: Westminster Hall debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)
I will begin by saying how pleased...: 6 Jan 2010: Westminster Hall debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)
I will begin by saying how pleased I am to have the opportunity to debate a matter of key concern to my constituency, as RAF Lyneham is based in North Wiltshire. I should say at the outset, however, that the debate is not about RAF Lyneham or North Wiltshire, although I hope that a side effect of what I will say might be a rethinking of the plan to close the base. The debate is about the strategic defence of the realm, the way in which the air transport fleet as a whole has been developed over recent years and current plans for its future change.
It would be wrong to start the debate without paying due tribute to the airmen and airwomen of RAF Lyneham who play such a central role in armed conflicts around the world. "First in, last out" is their great claim, to supply, to save, and to provide everything that the Army, Air Force and Royal Navy need on the ground. That all comes from RAF Lyneham in the magnificent Hercules C-130Ks and C-130Js. They have done a superb job for the nation and I pay tribute to all that they do.
They also play a central role in the repatriation of military bodies through RAF Lyneham. I know that the Minister will be as concerned as I am by the ridiculous notion expressed by Mr. Choudary that he might lead some kind of counter-protest through the streets of Wootton Bassett. I know that the Government, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and others are totally opposed to any such nonsense. I mention, in passing, that I was surprised by Sir Hugh Orde's remarks on the front page of The Daily Telegraph this morning, as he believes that Mr. Choudary's procession down Wootton Bassett high street should go ahead. That seems an odd remark for Sir Hugh to have made, as he has no possible connection with policing in Wiltshire. I am glad that the Government are determined, as am I, to prevent any such protest.
The debate is not about RAF Lyneham, but about the air transport fleet more widely and a series of decisions made in recent years which seem to be wrong-headed, incorrect and internally inconsistent and which seem to have got the whole question of how we spend our defence budgets on air transport wrong. That relates in part to how the procurements have been run, most notably for the A400M, which I will return to in a moment. The debate is partly about the Basing study, which concluded that all our air transport should be brought together in RAF Brize Norton. It seems to me that that started on the wrong premise, was written with the wrong arguments and included some questionable accounting. In general, it is well worthy of revisiting...............It continues
The full debate can be followed here;
[Mr. George Howarth in the Chair]...: 6 Jan 2010: Westminster Hall debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, as long as I don't have to pay (taxes) to keep open a base that isn't needed. Lets fight to keep CHF, a very good organisation, in Yeovilton as well - at least there is no talk of closing VL.
I side with James Gray. Why then, have 2 RAF bases operating Chinooks? RAF Odiham is too small to accommodate another 22 of the CH47s and there is the need for a significant infrastructure development inject. Due to BELVEDERE there has been little works money afforded to the place and the estate is old and tired.
If we get rid of Merlin to the Navy and most of the Puma's sod off to Kenya (RAF MOMBASA would be good) then why not close Odiham and relocate all CH47 assets to Benson (where the sims are too)
I just don't see the merit of operating one ac type over 2 bases??
If we get rid of Merlin to the Navy and most of the Puma's sod off to Kenya (RAF MOMBASA would be good) then why not close Odiham and relocate all CH47 assets to Benson (where the sims are too)
I just don't see the merit of operating one ac type over 2 bases??
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quote: "Bung everything into one place at Brize Norton-what an invitation to an enemy, a terrorist or adverse weather conditions. Brize Norton is subject to flooding and fog, and if the runway is closed incessantly because of weather or-I shudder to say it-a dirty bomb on the one runway, we would remove our entire air transport capabilities for days or weeks."
could that be any clearer?
could that be any clearer?
If we get rid of Merlin to the Navy and most of the Puma's sod off to Kenya (RAF MOMBASA would be good) then why not close Odiham and relocate all CH47 assets to Benson (where the sims are too)
Even assuming a sizeable number of those 70 will be on ops, at Boscombe, on exercise etc and away from Benson, I seriously doubt whether the infrastructure - ops, eng (supporting 2 variants) and admin - would be able to support that many aircraft at Benson. As it stands, the new Ch-47Fs will be one fleet operating out of Benson, with the legacy fleet operating as a completely different fleet out of Odiham.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherthing/Vecvechookattack
Having served 2 1/2 years at Brize and 4 at Lyneham, the utility of 2 tpt hubs was obvious. When one was weathered out, the other was often open due to their differing elevations. It also meant that there were 3 runways available to Albert, so something could always get shifted.
Brize was more useful to Lyneham than vice versa, but eggs and baskets spring to mind.
Having served 2 1/2 years at Brize and 4 at Lyneham, the utility of 2 tpt hubs was obvious. When one was weathered out, the other was often open due to their differing elevations. It also meant that there were 3 runways available to Albert, so something could always get shifted.
Brize was more useful to Lyneham than vice versa, but eggs and baskets spring to mind.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why then, have 2 RAF bases operating Chinooks?
Melchett,
Perhaps we would have been better co-locating all our Rotary assets in one base after all? Why run 2 small RAF Stns when you could achieve longer term economies of scale with one Rotary super-base?
One base = 1 MT section, 1 HR section, 1 Supply etc.
There must be efficiencies in a rotary hub much in the same way the AT hub is being forced upon the RAF.
Bzn only has one runway and if that is black what then?
At least Lyneham has 2 usable runways so if one is out of action you still have a reserve? Plus Lyneham is much closer to main transport hubs (M4 for one) unlike BZN which is buried in the dark lanes of Oxon?
I think the next BLUE Government will change things for the better!
Perhaps we would have been better co-locating all our Rotary assets in one base after all? Why run 2 small RAF Stns when you could achieve longer term economies of scale with one Rotary super-base?
One base = 1 MT section, 1 HR section, 1 Supply etc.
There must be efficiencies in a rotary hub much in the same way the AT hub is being forced upon the RAF.
Bzn only has one runway and if that is black what then?
At least Lyneham has 2 usable runways so if one is out of action you still have a reserve? Plus Lyneham is much closer to main transport hubs (M4 for one) unlike BZN which is buried in the dark lanes of Oxon?
I think the next BLUE Government will change things for the better!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bournemouth Airport bosses have dismissed reports it could become an alternative base for military planes should potential plans to close RAF Lyneham come to fruition.
A throwaway comment by North Wiltshire MP James Gray during a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall on Wednesday sparked the rebuttal from the airport, who said there were no plans to use the airport as a back-up base.
A strategic review of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St Mawgan has led to the decision to collate all the air transport operations to Brize Norton.
But in questioning where planes could land should Brize Norton be unable to accommodate incoming aircraft, the airport at Bournemouth was mentioned as a possible – if unlikely option.
Mr Gray said: “I was a bit naughty in mentioning Bournemouth as I was also given two or three other names, but just wanted to show how absurd these options were. Bournemouth Airport would be totally inappropriate as a place to land a military aircraft.”
A throwaway comment by North Wiltshire MP James Gray during a debate on the issue in Westminster Hall on Wednesday sparked the rebuttal from the airport, who said there were no plans to use the airport as a back-up base.
A strategic review of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St Mawgan has led to the decision to collate all the air transport operations to Brize Norton.
But in questioning where planes could land should Brize Norton be unable to accommodate incoming aircraft, the airport at Bournemouth was mentioned as a possible – if unlikely option.
Mr Gray said: “I was a bit naughty in mentioning Bournemouth as I was also given two or three other names, but just wanted to show how absurd these options were. Bournemouth Airport would be totally inappropriate as a place to land a military aircraft.”
I think Mr Gray should go to Bournemouth and see how many military aircraft safely and efficiently operate from there
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget Bournemouth, the reality is that RAF crews will be hanging out in Manchester in the years ahead. Not the worst place to be, but the decision to go down to one fog bound runway can only be described as barking. About right for what passes as leadership in the RAF these days.
BTW the stuff about A400M being cancelled for a time by Hutton is a very strong rumour. Pity he resigned, could have had lots more Js and C17s, might even have gotten a UK Sim for the C17 drivers!!
BTW the stuff about A400M being cancelled for a time by Hutton is a very strong rumour. Pity he resigned, could have had lots more Js and C17s, might even have gotten a UK Sim for the C17 drivers!!
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th Jan 2010 at 18:05.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoted from a reply by Bill Rammell (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence; Harlow, Labour)
"It is highly unlikely that any attack could compromise the ability to operate the fleets based at Brize Norton. For example, the length of the runway at Brize Norton is such that it is unlikely that it would be damaged to such an extent that it would be impossible to use."
So shall we just ask the would be terrorists to just damage the ends of the runway?
This smacks of about as much common sense as the 'informed' participant of a Future Brize meeting who suggested that we got around the problem of moving traffic across the runway by building a bridge over it....
Please, somebody make it stop.
"It is highly unlikely that any attack could compromise the ability to operate the fleets based at Brize Norton. For example, the length of the runway at Brize Norton is such that it is unlikely that it would be damaged to such an extent that it would be impossible to use."
So shall we just ask the would be terrorists to just damage the ends of the runway?
This smacks of about as much common sense as the 'informed' participant of a Future Brize meeting who suggested that we got around the problem of moving traffic across the runway by building a bridge over it....
Please, somebody make it stop.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is highly unlikely that any attack could compromise the ability to operate the fleets based at Brize Norton. For example, the length of the runway at Brize Norton is such that it is unlikely that it would be damaged to such an extent that it would be impossible to use.
However, he is correct. It is highly unlikely that an attack could compromise the use of the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be interesting what we do when bournemoth is closed as it is not 24 Hrs . Were do we go then Heathrow!! And who is going to pay for the extra landing cost at these civi airports or do they think the airport managers are going to let us operate for free!! They are sadly mistaken . The money they will save from closing Lyneham will not be seen for along time !!!