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

Lossie saved, Leuchars to the Army

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.

Lossie saved, Leuchars to the Army

Old 18th Jul 2011, 20:15
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: suffokk
Age: 54
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What about Barkston Heath and Syston - why are they still open? Can't be that much flying going on at Cranwell now the Dominies have been taken out of service. How many other ancillary airfields do we still own? Digby and Scampton - could that go too? While we're at it, let's bin the Reds. If we scrapped all of the above surely we could afford to keep a GR4 Sqn.
sevendwarfs is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2011, 20:22
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
liquid sunshine has touched on the most significant point - the utter lack of proper strategic thinking. Moving the Typhoon jets north to Lossie will leave the QRA ideally placed for a faster reaction to those nasty Tu95 Bears and Blackjacks that violate our airspace and are such a threat! Oh, but I forget - that was the Cold War. Silly me.

Liam Fox is shaping up to be a true "Son of Sandys" the Tory Defence Minister who wreaked havoc on our military and our defence industry. He simply does not understand Defence. When he axed the Nimrods he said (and I quote exactly) : ".. if we do need that capability we may have to get it from somewhere else." As though there's an MPA force sitting on a shelf somewhere.

But the real strategic mess in all this is, as already alluded to earlier, is in our defence against the current terrorist threat. The Typhoons at Coningsby are too far north as it is; a 9/11 type airplane bumbling across the channel at a thousand feet ot two would be buried in Big Ben long before a Typhoon scarmbled from CGY could get to it. That threat has been demonstrated for real. And let's not forget that we also need to provide total protection for the 2012 Games. Our brilliant MoD answer - move the Typhoons even further north out of harms way. You couldn't make it up. :
rhajaramjet is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2011, 22:21
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,921
Received 137 Likes on 62 Posts
Oh good grief! I can't believe that I am doing this, springing to the defence of a Tory administration, but here goes....

sevendwarfs,

Barkston Heath is home to the 2 Elementary Flying Training squadrons that supply the FAA and AAC with pilots, Syerston is home to the Air Cadets Central Gliding School and a couple of Volunteer Glider squadrons. Close them and you have to find new homes for all those units.
They are also bases with minimal or no infrastructure, they cost peanuts to run and are not valuable development land. Closing them would barely get you a Transit van let alone a GR4 Squadron!

Digby is a busy fully occupied station, if you close it you just have to spend a fortune relocating the resident units and reproviding them with infrastructure. Scampton IS closing.

Did you fail elementary economics?

As to the fantasy Island nonsense of a 9/11 attack on the RAF or Big Ben, what are you folk on??
pr00ne is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2011, 22:39
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good rebuttal pr00ne but you forgot the Reds. However, shame about your last para.
Romeo Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2011, 22:44
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Rhajaramjet

The Typhoons at Lossie may be better placed at Lossie to deal with Terrorist controlled airliners crossing North Atlantic Track (NAT) routings that normally drop in anywhere from Shannon to Benbecula (depending on the jetstreams).

The capability from somewhere else referred to Type 23 Frigates, Astute Class SSNs and Sea King/Merlin ASW helos protecting our independant nuclear deterent - that was Nimrod's primary role. Long Range SAR was always at best a tertiary role to other things.

The escorting of Bears and Blackjacks in our airspace is not just a "Cold War" task. They do not carry IFF that civil ATC agencies can see and cannot be detected by TCAS - how safe would it be to let them "bumble about" undetected in our main trans-atlantic routing areas. Also they are out there for a reason. Either they are collecting SIGINT or supporting their subs that are looking for our subs - how stupid would we be if we did not watch what they are doing in the airspace that we have been assigned more than 12 miles from our coastline!!!

Sorry to bleat at you, but your comments deserve some feedback in my humble opinion.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2011, 23:26
  #106 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Scampton is closing?
PPRuNeUser0178 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 05:33
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 270
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But the real strategic mess in all this is, as already alluded to earlier, is in our defence against the current terrorist threat. The Typhoons at Coningsby are too far north as it is; a 9/11 type airplane bumbling across the channel at a thousand feet ot two would be buried in Big Ben long before a Typhoon scarmbled from CGY could get to it. That threat has been demonstrated for real. And let's not forget that we also need to provide total protection for the 2012 Games. Our brilliant MoD answer - move the Typhoons even further north out of harms way. You couldn't make it up.
{my bold}

The Typhoons at Conningsby are staying, it is the ones at Leuchars that are moving north to Lossie (by about 15 minutes flying time from their current home - at Typhoon speeds).
MFC_Fly is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 08:07
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lincs
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Leon J

Your arguments are flawed

The Typhoons at Lossie may be better placed at Lossie to deal with Terrorist controlled airliners crossing North Atlantic Track (NAT) routings that normally drop in anywhere from Shannon to Benbecula (depending on the jetstreams).

If this argument is in support of QRA North moving to Lossie then it is flawed. QRA should be positioned to allow best all round defense of our most important/vulnerable assets - it must be assumed that an attack could come from any direction. Lossie is certainly not the best position in this regard.

The escorting of Bears and Blackjacks in our airspace is not just a "Cold War" task. They do not carry IFF that civil ATC agencies can see and cannot be detected by TCAS - how safe would it be to let them "bumble about" undetected in our main trans-atlantic routing areas. Also they are out there for a reason. Either they are collecting SIGINT or supporting their subs that are looking for our subs - how stupid would we be if we did not watch what they are doing in the airspace that we have been assigned more than 12 miles from our coastline!!!

Again a flawed argument as this task is currently carried out from Leuchars without any problems. The terrorist threat is by far the greater threat and we should guard against it.

With regards to the size of Lossie vs Leuchars. In the timeframe we are talking about we do not need a station to host 4 or 5 Sqns. Leuchars can take 3 Sqns and in a few years the GR4 will consolidate at Marham. Our Air Force is shrinking remember. F-35 will be based at Marham post GR4 retirement.

I have not heard a single convincing argument for the retention of Lossie over Leuchars yet. The decision is strategically naive. And please do not roll out the 'Moray would be devastated' argument. The risk of an unguarded 9/11 attack on the central belt far outweighs the economic effects that closing Lossie in 3 or 4 years would have.

The government have made a terrible decision.
parkitup is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 08:18
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,121
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel
No doubt the Army will be bringing a lot of heavy stuff to Leuchars. Have any of them bothered to look at the roads in and out of the place?
Railway runs right past the camp, just have to reopen the spur that used to run inside the wire. We've moved plenty of heavy stuff on rails before. Simples.
diginagain is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 08:52
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks, parkitup has the gist of where I'm coming from. Leon J - I suggest that a 9/11 type threat is far less likely to come in via the trans-Atlantic routes (if it did we'd have more than enough warning about it) The problem is far more acute for our capital city, seat of government, head of state, etc, etc. It doesn't need to be a hijacked airliner either - a 'private' twin entering UK airspace from the south would give so little warning time, a CGY jet would never make it in time.
Are you that confident in the capability of our European neighbours to totally guarantee that nothing of the sort could ever launch from their shores that we can leave southern England and our capital city devoid of the sort of protection that New York, Paris, Washington, Brussels, et al have available at just a few minutes notice? I still say that basing policy is a Cold War hangover; saving money has taken priority over logical planning

I wonder what sort of guarantee was given to the IOC about security?
rhajaramjet is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 08:56
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
parkitup

LJs arguments are not flawed at all. Typhoons located further north would obviously be better positioned if the threat came from the north. If the threat came from the south, then the QRA South could easily handle it.

The same goes for tracking bears frankly. Whilst Leuchars currently cope without any problems, why do you feel that a jet from Lossie couldn't do just as well?

The fact is that there are pros and cons on both sides, but there is certainly no obvious reason to choose Leuchars over Lossie. In fact, it is probably better to keep Lossie open over Leuchars simply to provide a military base in the north of Scotland, should anyone have a problem and needed to get down quickly. Inverness is short and there's not much else about!

IMHO, the airfield at Leuchars will remain active, and will be opened to allow more civilian traffic to operate from there to keep the 'Swish-Fu**it' golfing brigade happy!

It's sad to see Leuchars go, but at least with the army coming in, its' future is secure.......ish!

Oh, and by the way ezydriver....Scampton IS staying open!
Winco is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 09:29
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
^^^^What the good Winco said...I agree.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 09:57
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anyone really think a 9/11 style attack is possible nowadays? Just thinking about the layers of security at airports now - that's before the would be kamikaze pilot gets to the armoured/steel (?) door to the cockpit.

I think worrying about where to put our jets in order to intercept that specific threat is a bit narrow-minded.
Unchecked is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 10:03
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,121
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
I think the IOC may well have been reassured by the promise of a ring of Rapier batteries set up around the East End.
diginagain is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 14:54
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Down There!
Age: 52
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by parkitup

I have not heard a single convincing argument for the retention of Lossie over Leuchars yet.
The same can be said in reverse

Unless of course you are an Air Officer needing a round on the Old Course
Dave Angel is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2011, 18:06
  #116 (permalink)  
Sir George Cayley
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, and what about the BBjs and G6s that drop in for the Open?

Sir George Cayley
 
Old 19th Jul 2011, 18:24
  #117 (permalink)  
sidewayspeak
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
So the Army is going to make Cottesmore a central Hub, much like Catterick....

How sad for all the moaning minnie locals in Stamford and Oakham who will now have to learn to live with the green machine. Snigger snigger. Low flying aircraft will be nothing in comparison to an Army garrison on the rampage. Eng-ger-land Eng-ger-land.
 
Old 19th Jul 2011, 21:22
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,333
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts
Should make the uniform-wearing haters in Peterborough and Stamford interesting!!!

Fury at uniform ban for troops | RAF | Peterborough | Royal Air Force | The Sun |News
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2011, 05:22
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From parkitup

F-35 will be based at Marham post GR4 retirement.
Missed that announcement- thought Lossie was to be the one and only?

or is this a flawed statement?
Kitbag is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2011, 12:55
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kitbag

I agree - never heard an official announcement re Marham and F35, sounds pretty unlikely to me. To be fair to parkitup, this is a rumour site, but he should probably have made it clearer that he was making stuff up!

Given the noise of the JSF, I can't see anyone except the desparate Scots accepting it in their back yards.
Rector16 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.