POSSIBLE BOULMER CLOSURE
Thread Starter
POSSIBLE BOULMER CLOSURE
If as rumoured Boulmer closes as the MOD don't think that there is a need for a hardened Bunker, would this make sense, or would it be madness?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In the cold light of day it is probably not madness.
Back in the day the mission was to defend the nuclear deterrent. After 1982 it continued more out of habit. 26 years after the cold war things have changed out of all recognition. Russian conventional forces are not capable of a massive air assault on UK and at the same time the number of military target has reducecd greatly.
OTOH the political threat of nuclear attack is very real and our defence wholly on counter attack.
Back in the day the mission was to defend the nuclear deterrent. After 1982 it continued more out of habit. 26 years after the cold war things have changed out of all recognition. Russian conventional forces are not capable of a massive air assault on UK and at the same time the number of military target has reducecd greatly.
OTOH the political threat of nuclear attack is very real and our defence wholly on counter attack.
In the cold light of day it is probably not madness.
Back in the day the mission was to defend the nuclear deterrent. After 1982 it continued more out of habit. 26 years after the cold war things have changed out of all recognition. Russian conventional forces are not capable of a massive air assault on UK and at the same time the number of military target has reducecd greatly.
OTOH the political threat of nuclear attack is very real and our defence wholly on counter attack.
Back in the day the mission was to defend the nuclear deterrent. After 1982 it continued more out of habit. 26 years after the cold war things have changed out of all recognition. Russian conventional forces are not capable of a massive air assault on UK and at the same time the number of military target has reducecd greatly.
OTOH the political threat of nuclear attack is very real and our defence wholly on counter attack.
If I were playing Devil's advocate I'd say your comment on Russian conventional forces applies equally to us, but we are still taken seriously. It doesn't need a massive air assault, just a couple of ALCMs launched from miles off the coast but inside the UKADR on to key targets and there's probably not much that could be done about it. Can you imagine the headlines as the armchair Air Marshals with their encyclopaedic grasp of military matters if the likes of Boulmer was closed? Degraded Air Defences, an insult to the Few etc etc, regardless of the reality.
Bunkers are great for a small range of legacy jobs that need hardened accommodation and an ability to ride out a blast for a short period of time. For all other purposes they present an enormous pain in the backside in terms of facility management, upgrading and keeping going.
I suspect crossed wires here - BOULMER will almost certainly stay open, but perhaps the question is whether to build a new building or not. Having been inside it, I'm not sure what military advantage having it in a bunker offers in the current threat environment. Yes I know someone will go "BUT THE RUSSIANS", to which my view would be 'if the Russians are launching strikes on the UK mainland, then we all have a very short time to live".
I suspect crossed wires here - BOULMER will almost certainly stay open, but perhaps the question is whether to build a new building or not. Having been inside it, I'm not sure what military advantage having it in a bunker offers in the current threat environment. Yes I know someone will go "BUT THE RUSSIANS", to which my view would be 'if the Russians are launching strikes on the UK mainland, then we all have a very short time to live".
I thought this might be a revival of an old thread from various points in the last 20 years...suffice to say that Boulmer has weathered every storm so far and I suspect it will again!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jimlad, quite, it was the bunker I was addressing. Melchett, there is no realistic, ie economical, counter to a cruise missile. An island may be penetrated from any direction. Any window or door may be hit.
The only defence is attack, or threat thereof.
The only defence is attack, or threat thereof.
Boulmer was my first posting after West Drayton, in 1978. So is the R3 not being used any longer? Pardon my ignorance of the current situation, but have they moved to an interim facility on the top?
I have some nostalgic memories of the austere accommodation at Boulmer, rough cast white painted buildings like Holiday Chalets.
FB
I have some nostalgic memories of the austere accommodation at Boulmer, rough cast white painted buildings like Holiday Chalets.
FB
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finningley Boy, you are a little behind the times. The Boulmer Interim Facility closed as a CRC in the early 90s,though the buildings were re-used for a bit by No 1 ACC. The bunker at Boulmer has subsequently been the home to CRCs using first the ICCS* then UCCS** and now UCCS2*** (or CERBERUS). The second CRC in current use is at Scampton in an above ground facility (in the building where the Damn Busters Raid was briefed); this also operates as No 1 ACC.
Back to the original question, Boulmer is now the only underground facility operated solely as an AD facility (although the National Air Defence Operations Centre operates out of the RAF High Wycombe Bunker).
When the decision was taken to close Neatishead in 2002(?), the common line stated was that in the event of a resurgent Russia, the UK would have 10 years to return to underground operations. What no-one has ever explained is how we know when the 10 years starts - Russia taken over by an unchallenged President who builds a power base to the extent that he is able to change the constitution so that he can remain in power in perpetuity, then invades a candidate member of NATO and starts throwing his weight around in the Middle East? Well those of us being taceval'd during the Cold War will recall scenarios that started a bit like that, but which many considered far-fetched.
As far as basing is concerned, few places are safe. I would put money on Waddington, Wyton, Lossiemouth, Brize Norton and High Wycombe staying - for obvious reasons. I have no ability whatsoever to influence the decision-making - this is a rumour network after all. I await developments with the same interest (and frustration) as many others in (and outside of) the Service.
STH
*ICCS - Improved United Kingdom Air Defence Ground Environment Command and Control System (Built by UK Systems Limited).
**UCCS - UK Command and Control System (Built by IBM).
***UCCS2 - UCCS 2015/16 tech refresh (Project CERBERUS) (Built by IBM).
Back to the original question, Boulmer is now the only underground facility operated solely as an AD facility (although the National Air Defence Operations Centre operates out of the RAF High Wycombe Bunker).
When the decision was taken to close Neatishead in 2002(?), the common line stated was that in the event of a resurgent Russia, the UK would have 10 years to return to underground operations. What no-one has ever explained is how we know when the 10 years starts - Russia taken over by an unchallenged President who builds a power base to the extent that he is able to change the constitution so that he can remain in power in perpetuity, then invades a candidate member of NATO and starts throwing his weight around in the Middle East? Well those of us being taceval'd during the Cold War will recall scenarios that started a bit like that, but which many considered far-fetched.
As far as basing is concerned, few places are safe. I would put money on Waddington, Wyton, Lossiemouth, Brize Norton and High Wycombe staying - for obvious reasons. I have no ability whatsoever to influence the decision-making - this is a rumour network after all. I await developments with the same interest (and frustration) as many others in (and outside of) the Service.
STH
*ICCS - Improved United Kingdom Air Defence Ground Environment Command and Control System (Built by UK Systems Limited).
**UCCS - UK Command and Control System (Built by IBM).
***UCCS2 - UCCS 2015/16 tech refresh (Project CERBERUS) (Built by IBM).
Yes I know someone will go "BUT THE RUSSIANS", to which my view would be 'if the Russians are launching strikes on the UK mainland, then we all have a very short time to live".
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The security of the bunker is illusory anyway. The upgrading of the bunkers done during the 80s was designed to make them survivable against improving Soviet Warhead CEP; by the time it was finished the CEP was such none of the bunkers were survivable against a warhead anyway. Modern conventional "buster bunkers" designed for far more protected bunkers would also make short work of them.
Mobility and dispersal is now far more survivable, and the entire computer power of the original UKADGE with links into the distributed radar and comms system is possible on an tablet PC. I would have thought the larger problem was classrooms and domestic accom and logistic support - and after successive rounds of closures it must be increasingly hard to squeeze any more units into anywhere.
Mobility and dispersal is now far more survivable, and the entire computer power of the original UKADGE with links into the distributed radar and comms system is possible on an tablet PC. I would have thought the larger problem was classrooms and domestic accom and logistic support - and after successive rounds of closures it must be increasingly hard to squeeze any more units into anywhere.
Last edited by ORAC; 19th Oct 2016 at 08:52.
