JSF for Marham?
Thread Starter
JSF for Marham?
According to local press the JSF, Lightning 2, is not to be based at Lossiemouth but will be heading down to Marham. Hope the locals have quadruple glazing!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lossiemouth is now planned as the second Typhoon base. Would guess 6sq, 1sq plus atleast one other. Going by reports in Janes recently the RAF seem to want a force of 7 Typhoon combat squadrons, not including OCU and OEU. If that happens then Lossie may end up with 4 Typhoon squadrons. Though the extra Typhoons will mean an earlier withdrawl of Tornado GR4 from service.
So in the coming years Lossiemouth will be almost full to the brim of Typhoons hence no room for F-35. Marham is fairly remote with very little housing that close to the base so should be a fairly good choice.
So in the coming years Lossiemouth will be almost full to the brim of Typhoons hence no room for F-35. Marham is fairly remote with very little housing that close to the base so should be a fairly good choice.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the point of moving typhoons to Lossiemouth at a huge, unnecessary cost? Leuchars and Coningsby are more than sufficient.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 1st Aug 2012 at 17:39.
Threat of Scottish indie may well be a good reason to change the basing plan to south of the wall. Leuchars is quite capable of hosting FJs until the splitters go, as long as we recover our assets South before they are claimed as Scottish Free Air Force assets.
Marham would be a great place to put them.
Marham would be a great place to put them.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney.
1. It ain't going to happen.
2. Believe me, Marham is not one of the best, having served there on occasion. Made me realise how lucky we AD Lucharasians were. It's great for mess life [when the staff turn up] and work, if that's how someone clicks between the sandy places [so far, it may be paddy fields in the future] but it's not very user friendly in the least.
If anyone says otherwise it's because they have located "away".
all the best gamecock
gr.
1. It ain't going to happen.
2. Believe me, Marham is not one of the best, having served there on occasion. Made me realise how lucky we AD Lucharasians were. It's great for mess life [when the staff turn up] and work, if that's how someone clicks between the sandy places [so far, it may be paddy fields in the future] but it's not very user friendly in the least.
If anyone says otherwise it's because they have located "away".
all the best gamecock
gr.
Last edited by glad rag; 1st Aug 2012 at 19:34.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess Leeming could be used. Waddington has no HAS sites and would be unlikely to be used for a fleet of fast jets.
But Marham seems the most logical choice. It could end up being a kind of F-35 Superbase with maintenance facilities and all. IF Lakenheath ever gets F-35s then the possible idea of a joint maintenance facility could be possible. Maybe European operators of F-35s could also take part.
Interestingly a rumour heard at Lakenheath recently talks of Lakenheath being a joint RAF/USAF F-35 base but I consider that unlikely.
But Marham seems the most logical choice. It could end up being a kind of F-35 Superbase with maintenance facilities and all. IF Lakenheath ever gets F-35s then the possible idea of a joint maintenance facility could be possible. Maybe European operators of F-35s could also take part.
Interestingly a rumour heard at Lakenheath recently talks of Lakenheath being a joint RAF/USAF F-35 base but I consider that unlikely.
Last edited by Ronald Reagan; 1st Aug 2012 at 22:34.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are HASs much good these days? Bombs are now so accurate they'll open 'em up like a tin of beans.
Probably less risky parking them out in the open, unless they are much afeared of the rain.
Probably less risky parking them out in the open, unless they are much afeared of the rain.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 1st Aug 2012 at 22:35.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but you would have to atleast hit each HAS ie one bomb per HAS and probably destroy 1 or 2 aircraft, if you have a whole squadron housed in one soft hangar then one bomb could destroy a whole squadron!!!! So if we have bases with HAS sites we might aswell use them, they are already built and paid for and offer some security. Would imagine when locked up in a HAS they are somewhat safer from terrorists aswell as more conventional threats.
HASs not useful in their original role any more. However they do act as a very useful way of keeping aircraft out of the elements whilst leaving the main hangars free to act as depth maintenance facilities. Also makes it easy to do things like prepare aircraft for transcontinental bombing raids without attracting the interest of spotters peering through the wire at aircraft being loaded up in the open..