RAF Leuchars
I don't think any of us want any base to close, just like we wouldn't want to see any type taken out of service prematurely, but this is a discussion thread airing views, that's all. No-one is arguing we must close Leu/Los/Kss.
However, in the real world, post-SDSR, with the anticipated ac cuts, can you justify maintaining the current number of bases/runways to support what we have left? I don't think so, hence it's not unreasonable to speculate on where would close and why.
I still think that Leu has the weakest case for staying open. We are going to lose 2 GR4 sqns. Marham is the logical hub due mainly to the extensive engineering setup, so you wouldn't want to end up with only 2 sqns based there. So 2 Los sqns close (maybe their numbers will move to Mar, but that's another discussion), leaving plenty of room for Typhoon. GR4 OCU is a factor you cannot ignore. They need to train (albeit reducing numbers) crews and if you use Leu as the prime div, you can't do rollers due to the fuel weight required for Leu. Kss provides a near-perfect solution as the mil div (for QRA too), leaving little (no?) justification for keeping Leu open. Leu will likely generate a higher selling price than Kss.
Of course this is all just my personal opinion...but that's what this site is about, isn't it?
However, in the real world, post-SDSR, with the anticipated ac cuts, can you justify maintaining the current number of bases/runways to support what we have left? I don't think so, hence it's not unreasonable to speculate on where would close and why.
I still think that Leu has the weakest case for staying open. We are going to lose 2 GR4 sqns. Marham is the logical hub due mainly to the extensive engineering setup, so you wouldn't want to end up with only 2 sqns based there. So 2 Los sqns close (maybe their numbers will move to Mar, but that's another discussion), leaving plenty of room for Typhoon. GR4 OCU is a factor you cannot ignore. They need to train (albeit reducing numbers) crews and if you use Leu as the prime div, you can't do rollers due to the fuel weight required for Leu. Kss provides a near-perfect solution as the mil div (for QRA too), leaving little (no?) justification for keeping Leu open. Leu will likely generate a higher selling price than Kss.
Of course this is all just my personal opinion...but that's what this site is about, isn't it?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torque
You have hit the nail firmly on the head. One of the reasons that he country is in the pickle it presently needs a way out of, is that nobody has been looking at things in this way before now.
Regardless of whether the SDSR suggested closing one of the bases in Scotland or all of them, the RAF should have been constantly assessing the need for three, or two, or four.
My point about the Typhoon not being as busy as the F3 is based on the precedent set by the drawdown of F3 and the early retirement of Nimrod. Both cases show that with a marked reduction, (stoppage in the case of Nimrod from ISK) the world still turns.
As we, (the nation) have not suffered (in the public perception sense) from the serious reduction in F3 ops over the past 15 months, where is the business case for making the Typhoon Squadrons replicate the sortie rates of old?
A blind man running for a bus can see there is an attraction (for bean counters) in making 6 Squadron a replacement for the current 111(F) not a replfor 43(F) from 2007.
I am not saying this is right, I am just saying that there will be a case made for it. The hard working crews on 111 (F) have shown that the northern QRA can be held with very few jets and a small bunch of really good people. From a bean counter perspective, why would you not just carry on with that?
The effect on the people at the sharp end is a different matter. I can understand people getting upset at the suggestion that they should simply carry on like this, but in the sage old words I was to hear many times in my RAF service, “If you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have joined”
I have no doubt that some of the most talented people in the RAF will leave as soon as the much promised civvy job market opens up. When that comes to pass, the Royal Air Force will be a poorer place for this loss, but the bean counters will not care.
You have hit the nail firmly on the head. One of the reasons that he country is in the pickle it presently needs a way out of, is that nobody has been looking at things in this way before now.
Regardless of whether the SDSR suggested closing one of the bases in Scotland or all of them, the RAF should have been constantly assessing the need for three, or two, or four.
My point about the Typhoon not being as busy as the F3 is based on the precedent set by the drawdown of F3 and the early retirement of Nimrod. Both cases show that with a marked reduction, (stoppage in the case of Nimrod from ISK) the world still turns.
As we, (the nation) have not suffered (in the public perception sense) from the serious reduction in F3 ops over the past 15 months, where is the business case for making the Typhoon Squadrons replicate the sortie rates of old?
A blind man running for a bus can see there is an attraction (for bean counters) in making 6 Squadron a replacement for the current 111(F) not a replfor 43(F) from 2007.
I am not saying this is right, I am just saying that there will be a case made for it. The hard working crews on 111 (F) have shown that the northern QRA can be held with very few jets and a small bunch of really good people. From a bean counter perspective, why would you not just carry on with that?
The effect on the people at the sharp end is a different matter. I can understand people getting upset at the suggestion that they should simply carry on like this, but in the sage old words I was to hear many times in my RAF service, “If you can’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have joined”
I have no doubt that some of the most talented people in the RAF will leave as soon as the much promised civvy job market opens up. When that comes to pass, the Royal Air Force will be a poorer place for this loss, but the bean counters will not care.
The fact that Typhoon costs have been quoted as £90,000 an hour, whereas no doubt the F-3 was probably at least half that, may also be a reason why the RAF may try to minimize Typhoon flying hours and maximize simulator time!
As usual - standing by to be corrected/informed/flamed with the official cost figures per aircraft type...
As usual - standing by to be corrected/informed/flamed with the official cost figures per aircraft type...
The trouble with your assessments airpolice, is they are based on the assumption that the Armed Forces are a commercial endeavour. They are not, they are an overhead. The problem with defence planning (there is a quote somewhere) is that whatever you plan for never happens. What you don't plan for is what becomes a problem. By limiting the Typhoons to an ineffective flight of aeroplanes to carry out purely inquisitive intercepts of Blackjacks once a month, conveniently puts aside the wider remit of a Fighter Squadron/Force and drastically limits the flexibility of the few remaining assets you have. This means very little training and ultimately pilots who aren't particularly proficient. Ground crews that are overworked and spares which will be all the more expensive and drawn from a greatly reduced budget, are where we finish up. This may well be where, as an example, we find we've got a difficult problem to encounter.
Another point is that whatever the number crunching between the cost of running a Tornado squadron and a Typhoon squadron is, we spend a smaller fraction of GDP, even before the SDSR findings, on defence than at anytime in History. On top of this our elected finest have sught to further reduce that budget at a time when an increasing demand has been placed on the Army in particular, and through bungling poor perception more than anything else, we've ended upenmeshed in aprotracted ground conflict which, perhaps, need not have been. There is a wide enough list of list of official reasons, which the last Government in particular, announced by way of explanation for the deployment in Afghanistan. Now we look forward to Mr Blair explaining to the Chilcot Enquiry in the new year, just what he meant my scribbling that he didn't understand what the Attorney General meant when he wrote that there were no legal grounds for invading Iraq.
FB
Another point is that whatever the number crunching between the cost of running a Tornado squadron and a Typhoon squadron is, we spend a smaller fraction of GDP, even before the SDSR findings, on defence than at anytime in History. On top of this our elected finest have sught to further reduce that budget at a time when an increasing demand has been placed on the Army in particular, and through bungling poor perception more than anything else, we've ended upenmeshed in aprotracted ground conflict which, perhaps, need not have been. There is a wide enough list of list of official reasons, which the last Government in particular, announced by way of explanation for the deployment in Afghanistan. Now we look forward to Mr Blair explaining to the Chilcot Enquiry in the new year, just what he meant my scribbling that he didn't understand what the Attorney General meant when he wrote that there were no legal grounds for invading Iraq.
FB
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliverance, it matters not what I want, nor I suppose what you want.
What matters is what the MOD will fund out of the money the treasury give them.
I am not in favour of cutting back, but the need to do less for less money is a fact.
Think back a year, would you have considered that the UK would just give up LRMP?
Did anyone really expec the Harriers to get binned but the carriers to stay on order? The UK Military are engaged in a conflict where the Harrier has been doing a great job, having had a shed load of cash invested in making ot flyable for years to come, and yet they are out of service anyway.
On a suck it and see basis, they stopped the MR2 and since the world kept on turning, they cancelled the MRa4.
Do you really think the same arseholes who came up with that "plan" can't see that the next round of savings involve Typhoon? They may not know much about the Military, but they know cost savings when they see them.
The huge downturn in operational flying at Leuchars has shown that the sky will not fall in if we don't have 3 squadrons of fighters keeping up to speed. When they insist on that being required, their airships will need to explain how they have managed for 18 months without them.
FB, Soviet Bomber intruders are no longer the only thing on the QRA list of things to do, they may not even be on the top of the list, but what do I know?
Biggus, I'd be interested in seeing corrected figures taking into account inflation.
Maybe express it all in 1977 quids. Typhoon at the same cost would be a higher price as fuel is more expensive nowadays, although manpower costs are half no matter when you base the conversion rate.
Typhoon pilots are more expensive to train as the RAF pay them and the QFIs more than they paid the guys in 1977, so your £90,000 an hour may not be comparable with the F3 costs. I read somewhere that the Typhoon flying suit and pers equip per pilot is ten times what a Tornado suit cost.
That I am sure was based on 2010 prices of a Typhoon suit and 1977 prices for a Tornado suit.
What matters is what the MOD will fund out of the money the treasury give them.
I am not in favour of cutting back, but the need to do less for less money is a fact.
Think back a year, would you have considered that the UK would just give up LRMP?
Did anyone really expec the Harriers to get binned but the carriers to stay on order? The UK Military are engaged in a conflict where the Harrier has been doing a great job, having had a shed load of cash invested in making ot flyable for years to come, and yet they are out of service anyway.
On a suck it and see basis, they stopped the MR2 and since the world kept on turning, they cancelled the MRa4.
Do you really think the same arseholes who came up with that "plan" can't see that the next round of savings involve Typhoon? They may not know much about the Military, but they know cost savings when they see them.
The huge downturn in operational flying at Leuchars has shown that the sky will not fall in if we don't have 3 squadrons of fighters keeping up to speed. When they insist on that being required, their airships will need to explain how they have managed for 18 months without them.
FB, Soviet Bomber intruders are no longer the only thing on the QRA list of things to do, they may not even be on the top of the list, but what do I know?
Biggus, I'd be interested in seeing corrected figures taking into account inflation.
Maybe express it all in 1977 quids. Typhoon at the same cost would be a higher price as fuel is more expensive nowadays, although manpower costs are half no matter when you base the conversion rate.
Typhoon pilots are more expensive to train as the RAF pay them and the QFIs more than they paid the guys in 1977, so your £90,000 an hour may not be comparable with the F3 costs. I read somewhere that the Typhoon flying suit and pers equip per pilot is ten times what a Tornado suit cost.
That I am sure was based on 2010 prices of a Typhoon suit and 1977 prices for a Tornado suit.
I think General Sir Mike Jackson summed it up, the mass matters!
Whatever the arguments about how much it costs to launch a Typhoon into the air, and you may well be absolutley right airpolice, but there is so little left to do away with now and so much belief in single capabilities these days. I personally didn't imagine anything would happen necessarily, with the loss of the Nimrod, the Harrier and so many sundry Tornados. Its what we'll be confronted with maybe several years from now that could find us in a hurried and desparate situation.
But like you say when the threat seems utterly unlikely, the bean counters will do what they can to do without. The price of everything and the value of nothing, Eh!
FB
Whatever the arguments about how much it costs to launch a Typhoon into the air, and you may well be absolutley right airpolice, but there is so little left to do away with now and so much belief in single capabilities these days. I personally didn't imagine anything would happen necessarily, with the loss of the Nimrod, the Harrier and so many sundry Tornados. Its what we'll be confronted with maybe several years from now that could find us in a hurried and desparate situation.
But like you say when the threat seems utterly unlikely, the bean counters will do what they can to do without. The price of everything and the value of nothing, Eh!
FB
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think the same arseholes who came up with that "plan" can't see that the next round of savings involve Typhoon? They may not know much about the Military, but they know cost savings when they see them.
The huge downturn in operational flying at Leuchars has shown that the sky will not fall in if we don't have 3 squadrons of fighters keeping up to speed. When they insist on that being required, their airships will need to explain how they have managed for 18 months without them.
The huge downturn in operational flying at Leuchars has shown that the sky will not fall in if we don't have 3 squadrons of fighters keeping up to speed. When they insist on that being required, their airships will need to explain how they have managed for 18 months without them.
If you are interested in the future of the RAFs FJ capabilities then the recent defence review holds the answer. So instead of talking nonsense have a read of SDSR and CAS's comments on SDSR. From the latter:
■The Combat Air Fleet will be streamlined. The Tornado GR4 Fleet will be reduced to a size commensurate with current and contingent operations based on a minimum of 5 operational squadrons and an OCU. The Tornado will retire progressively once the Typhoon Force has the capability and force size to take on the Offensive Support task. The Harrier GR9 Fleet will be retired by April 2011. The Typhoon Fleet will grow as quickly as practicable to become the core of our defensive and offensive combat capability.
So that is
the business case for making the Typhoon Squadrons replicate the sortie rates of old
How MOD thinking works..............
Luvvies are now influencing defence policy. Get out while you can.
pressure coming from Scottish politicians and celebrities, led the MoD to reconsider its position, defence officials told The Daily Telegraph.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
WTF?
Scotsman:
Lossiemouth is seen as a clear winner. It was judged to be the better base to keep open because of its proximity to a low-flight training area. It also has better facilities, including a superior flight simulator for training.
There's no real range difference between them to the LFAs, and Lossie hasn't got a Typhoon sim.
In addition, it is better placed for military co-operation with Scandinavian and Baltic countries, particularly Norway which is to have the same joint strike fighters (JSFs) as the UK.
They're just about equally sited for Norway, and how for the life of me Lossie is better for Denmark and the other Baltic states than Leuchars on the east coast baffles me.
Defence analyst Tim Ripley said the recommendation to close Leuchars is based on the fact that the RAF is now likely to have only up to 100 Typhoons, the type of jet based in Fife, meaning it no longer needs two Typhoon bases
QRA means there has to be a southern base, you can't cover the whole of the UK from Lossie, and there's not a whisper of Coningsby closing. if there was going to be only one base it would be Coningsby. As it is, with the reduced size of the force, a maximum of 2 Sqns will be based in Scotland, either base being adequate.
Lossiemouth is likely to get the typhoons from Leuchars and ultimately become the main base for the JSFs.
The Typhoon isn't being replaced by the JSF. if the Typhoons move to Lossie the possibility of the F-35B alsobe based their starts dropping to zero. A base in the south west near the carrier home port looks increasingly obvious.
However, it has also become clear that political considerations have been taken into account by military chiefs.
Probably the most accurate statement in the article.
An MoD source added that Gordon Brown's intervention was "like the kiss of death" because of his unpopularity with military commanders.
And with the PM and Liam Fox because of the carrier debacle.
Afterwards Sir Menzies said: ....."The strategic case for Leuchars is ovewhelming and no-one has sought to challenge it."
I would beg to differ.
Scotsman:
Lossiemouth is seen as a clear winner. It was judged to be the better base to keep open because of its proximity to a low-flight training area. It also has better facilities, including a superior flight simulator for training.
There's no real range difference between them to the LFAs, and Lossie hasn't got a Typhoon sim.
In addition, it is better placed for military co-operation with Scandinavian and Baltic countries, particularly Norway which is to have the same joint strike fighters (JSFs) as the UK.
They're just about equally sited for Norway, and how for the life of me Lossie is better for Denmark and the other Baltic states than Leuchars on the east coast baffles me.
Defence analyst Tim Ripley said the recommendation to close Leuchars is based on the fact that the RAF is now likely to have only up to 100 Typhoons, the type of jet based in Fife, meaning it no longer needs two Typhoon bases
QRA means there has to be a southern base, you can't cover the whole of the UK from Lossie, and there's not a whisper of Coningsby closing. if there was going to be only one base it would be Coningsby. As it is, with the reduced size of the force, a maximum of 2 Sqns will be based in Scotland, either base being adequate.
Lossiemouth is likely to get the typhoons from Leuchars and ultimately become the main base for the JSFs.
The Typhoon isn't being replaced by the JSF. if the Typhoons move to Lossie the possibility of the F-35B alsobe based their starts dropping to zero. A base in the south west near the carrier home port looks increasingly obvious.
However, it has also become clear that political considerations have been taken into account by military chiefs.
Probably the most accurate statement in the article.
An MoD source added that Gordon Brown's intervention was "like the kiss of death" because of his unpopularity with military commanders.
And with the PM and Liam Fox because of the carrier debacle.
Afterwards Sir Menzies said: ....."The strategic case for Leuchars is ovewhelming and no-one has sought to challenge it."
I would beg to differ.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the most important part of the press reports was the bit about the MOD saying nothing has been decided yet.
So far this all looks like newspaper folk making it up as they go along..... without any real facts, they just keep going over what might be about to happen and what that might cause.....it is almost as if they are just starting rumours................... Talk about life imitating art.
In the absence of a decision from the MOD the press are getting carried away with "the loudest shouting being the truth" idea of reporting the news.
If a bunch of us said we had been told to prepare for Machrihanish being the only RAF Airfield in Scotland, I wonder how long it would take for the newspaper and local action group people to say the MOD were considering it.
So far this all looks like newspaper folk making it up as they go along..... without any real facts, they just keep going over what might be about to happen and what that might cause.....it is almost as if they are just starting rumours................... Talk about life imitating art.
In the absence of a decision from the MOD the press are getting carried away with "the loudest shouting being the truth" idea of reporting the news.
If a bunch of us said we had been told to prepare for Machrihanish being the only RAF Airfield in Scotland, I wonder how long it would take for the newspaper and local action group people to say the MOD were considering it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far this all looks like newspaper folk making it up as they go along.
I am aghast at the current trend of base closures, those CLOWNS, who crow on here should be ashamed of themselves.
No More Base Closures.
I am aghast at the current trend of base closures, those CLOWNS, who crow on here should be ashamed of themselves.
No More Base Closures.