Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

JCA/JSF Basing - RAF Lossiemouth

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

JCA/JSF Basing - RAF Lossiemouth

Old 27th Mar 2013, 13:02
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 107
There is no ward room at Lossiemouth. That grotty old dump was knocked down 10 years ago (give or take a week or two)
passpartout is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2013, 13:04
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
doesn't mean it's a given that the UK would continue to base its assets in a foreign country
Why break the habit of a lifetime?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2013, 13:06
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 233
melmothtw, agreed, and for the good old U S of A as well.
alwayslookingup is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2013, 21:11
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,276
Anyhow, there has been a change in the basing plan. Lossie was the original site chosen, as I mentioned before. So something changed at some stage.
The decision to locate 3 Typhoon squadrons at Lossiemouth was the change. With the best will in the world, there is no way you could stuff one or 2 JSF squadrons, plus an OCU in there as well.

Marham must have access to a whole lot of quality training and LFAs that Lossie doesn't.
I don't imagine that LF is in the JSF CONOPs... and I suspect that access to LFAs is fairly low on the list of priorities. Marham has good access to the D323 series for regular training with aircraft from Coningsby and Lakenheath, and can also reach out to the Dutch and Belgian training areas to work with their F-16s (and eventually F-35s).
Easy Street is online now  
Old 27th Mar 2013, 21:16
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 233
Easy Street, good answer. Thanks, I can live with that.
alwayslookingup is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 11:45
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
Wasn't the choice of Lossie as a base also made in the days when we planned to buy 130 odd JSF, as opposed to the 50 odd we will buy now?

I also thought Lossie was chosen because of how noisy JSF is supposed to be. Lossie providing the quickest route for taking the noise out over the sea....
Biggus is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 12:12
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Both of those statements are indeed correct, Biggus.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 12:17
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,335
how noisy JSF is
Be interesting to see how the local MPs at Marham deal with the complaints from the NIMBYs seeing how hard they have lobbied recently in order to get the F35 into Marham. Think we may see some "poacher turned gamekeeper" action going on (assuming, of course, the current incumbents will still be MPs after the next election [and seeing they are all Tories this is not a given!])
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 12:20
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Wasn't the choice of Lossie as a base also made in the days when we planned to buy 130 odd JSF, as opposed to the 50 odd we will buy now?
The 48 already announced is the initial buy only. The offical line still is 138 aircraft (at least according to LM's production plan), but you can read into that what you like.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 12:37
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 264
The official MOD position is still that the number will end up in three figures (as stated recently to the Defence Cttee) but the official line seems to be that uptakes beyond the initial 48 will be considered in the context of Typhoon OSD - and in any event not as part of the current 10 year planning cycle.

Last edited by Frostchamber; 28th Mar 2013 at 12:38.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 12:37
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
Whilst I accept what you're saying, given how broke we are, and that the price per airframe is apparently going up, I think that practically, we will be lucky to get 48!!

Time will tell.
Biggus is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 00:49
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,276
The whole "it's noisy, so let's put it at Lossie" argument was flawed, IMHO. Those who have ever lived or stayed in Lossie town (actually quite a large place) will know that it is badly affected by noise from the airfield, particularly when Rwy 23 is in use. The circuit patterns are all modified to account for local avoidances, including Gordonstoun School; the Rwy 05 circuit is best described as a nav-ex. F-35B would have been even louder than a Tornado, particularly when conducting STOVL ops.

Marham, by contrast, is comparatively isolated, as befits all the 'el Adem with grass' banter from the old folk. The actual Marham village is dislocated from the airfield by a mile or so, away from the circuit direction. There are a couple of villages just outside the circuit to the SE, and there's Fincham on the 06 approach, but much further away from the threshold than Lossie town is from the runway there. I think the noise impact will be a lot less than it would be at Lossie.

What the aircraft do once up-and-away is going to be pretty irrelevant in noise terms; the notion of 'exporting the noise quickly to the sea' assumes that the aircraft will be at low altitude which, generally speaking, they won't be.

Last edited by Easy Street; 29th Mar 2013 at 00:56.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 12:44
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Flawed or not, that was what the planners went for initially. They were aware of the noise issues and had even costed the requirement to install sound-proffing, tripple glazing, etc over a wide area. Doesn't help much when you want to sit in your back garden in the summer - assuming we ever have one.

Regardless of the noise the locals always protest when there's a whisper of closing a base.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 20:59
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,276
the locals always protest when there's a whisper of closing a base.
And there you have the root of it - the answer was 'keep Lossie open' from the start. The only reason that F-35 isn't going there any more is that they found another way to keep it open, by relocating the Leuchars Typhoon wing, which removed the need to 'fudge' the factors of noise, airspace etc, and resulting in what would have been the correct F-35 basing decision the first time around.

In my experience, most RAF airfields tend to have last-landing times of midnight or so for routine night flying... not Lossie though, which is earlier to avoid annoying the locals. Given the northern latitude it makes maintenance of night currency impossible over the summer (a dispensation gets granted). It amuses me that on the one hand, the locals protest loudly about possible base closure, and on the other they are treated with kid gloves lest a bit of night flying upset them... given the alleged extent of their dependence on the base, surely we could push them a bit more and get the equivalent amount of flying time as other bases?

Last edited by Easy Street; 29th Mar 2013 at 21:05.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 18:34
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 201
With the increase in support that the Scottish independence campaign seems to have (heaven help us!) right now, what would it actually mean for the RAF in the long run if it comes off?
Would the F35 still go ahead given that there are still cuts being made?
A post-independence UK could only be worse off. It's often said here how bad things will be for Scotland but what will the overall effect be on what is left of the RAF given the cuts of recent years.


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
OutlawPete is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 23:12
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 233
OutlawPete, ref your use of the term "UK" for what's left if the vote is for Independence, I refer you to my Post #27. If Scotland votes for Independence there will be no more a United Kingdom of Great Britain.
alwayslookingup is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 05:33
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,208
A slight thread drift here, what has my curiosity burning away like an oil well fire is this; if the vote on 18th September 2014 goes against independence, just what will Big Eck do then? Will his political career and clout both wither on the vine? Will he explode from the pressure of an almighty vessel bursting raging sulk? Or will he retire to Lichtenstein?

Or, as I suspect, he won't accept the result, accuse Cameron of running a dirty tricks campaign and demand a re-vote?!?!?!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 07:18
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 201
FB. Salmonds in a win-win situation. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if deep down he'd be more than happy with a "no" vote.

alwayslookingup. Re post #27. I'm sure that with regards to the original union agreement that is correct. Can't see Wales going it alone post Scottish independence though, they wouldn't last 5 minutes.

The original post raises the issue of F35 basing which we now know will not be RAF Lossiemouth. If Scottish independence goes ahead there will be even less cash in the pot and with the present Westminster government, defence is likely to suffer even more. It makes it more likely that F35, given its cost, will be cancelled.


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
OutlawPete is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 08:29
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Wirral
Posts: 10
I don't imagine that LF is in the JSF CONOPs
Will there still be a need for LF for day 2+, or will suppression of IADS on day 1 mean its unlikely LF will be required?
Rovertime is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 17:49
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,276
Will there still be a need for LF for day 2+, or will suppression of IADS on day 1 mean its unlikely LF will be required?
Regardless of the effectiveness of IADS suppression on 'night 1', the F-35's approach to dealing with IADS renders LF effectively redundant. If you strip away LF's usefulness in avoiding IADS, it's fuel-inefficient, increases vulnerability to low-tech threats (AAA / MANPADS), constrains the effectiveness of unpowered weapons such as PW4, makes reconnaissance and [email protected] designation more difficult.... etc!

If F-35 LF is needed at all, it would be for things like shows-of-force in support of ground troops or visual aiming of weapons at low-level beneath cloud [which, in the fixed-wing CAS world at least, is already being steadily replaced by the delivery of GPS-guided bombs from medium-level against coordinates provided by the FAC; no LF required]. Shows of force and low-level weaponry are not particularly 'core' F-35 business, which is why I believe LF will be a long way down the training priorities list.

Last edited by Easy Street; 1st Apr 2013 at 17:50.
Easy Street is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.