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

Should have kept Lyneham Open

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.

Should have kept Lyneham Open

Old 21st Jul 2021, 15:30
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 939
Err just noticed that Fairford still seems to be open. Shirley that would be a suitable alternative? I imagine the facepalms at Brize when they hear this news - "Goddamandbuggeration Why didn't someone think of this?!"

S'funny coz the Reds flew over my house on Sunday on their return from Silverstone. I'd automatically assumed they were running in to Brize, then just found on they'd been operating from EGVA.
dead_pan is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 18:52
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Yes
Posts: 15
Didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. Can't work out wjy an important MOD base put "out of action" by a few hot Days? Beggers belief.

Take Khartoum for example, one of the honest places on earth, they Don't have this sought of trouble with their single runway. There is always Heathrow to use I guess. Makes a "valid" military target if the military start using civil airports.

Last edited by RichardJones; 21st Jul 2021 at 22:05.
RichardJones is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 21:24
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 64
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by ACW342 View Post
  • Brize Norton, Home of the RAF Strategic Airlift Fleet
  • Brize Norton, Home of the RAF Tactical Airlift Fleet
  • Brize Norton, Home of the RAF Air to Air Refuelling Fleet
  • Brize Norton,1 single runway.
Bean counters win every time. Come the next war, and the enemy will win, in no small part due to the bean counters.
Thaihawk is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 08:44
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Gloucester
Posts: 4
Oh yes the Herc wheels up landing , they'd been doing circuits and bumps for a while and forgot the gear, I had the deep joy of being the Eng Ops controller on the day it happened, mind you it was a lovely landing smack down the middle and I did have the fun of using the bat phone to call OC Eng and let him know!
jcgooch is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 08:52
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Location: Location!
Posts: 2,073
Sone of you are not taking this sticky problem seriously enough....

Jack
Union Jack is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 11:20
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pembrokeshire
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by Stratnumberone View Post
If only someone had told them that putting all the AT assets into a station with only one runway could cause problems. We are all culpable for not doing so.
I did......on many occasions, both to the CATARA Team and to the VSOs of the day. Driven by cost savings - nothing else!
bunta130 is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 11:47
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Freedom Sound
Posts: 331
As this a a Rumour network, a few of us were led to believe that a paper written by a navigator on 101 sqn was spotted by a Bean Counter/Treasury and then put forward. Unfortunately the "idiots" refused to accept most arguments against and carried on regardless, obviously common sense ( single runway being the most obvious reason not to pursue this farcical idea ) within many officials mind's when mentioning saving money. Well said originator went far, became Air Attache at Washington in later years!
esscee is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 12:37
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,642
the RAF needs to 'relearn skills not practiced for 30 years'.
like strategic planning for instance...............
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 17:37
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pembrokeshire
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by esscee View Post
As this a a Rumour network, a few of us were led to believe that a paper written by a navigator on 101 sqn was spotted by a Bean Counter/Treasury and then put forward. Unfortunately the "idiots" refused to accept most arguments against and carried on regardless, obviously common sense ( single runway being the most obvious reason not to pursue this farcical idea ) within many officials mind's when mentioning saving money. Well said originator went far, became Air Attache at Washington in later years!
In fairness to Snake, it is unlikely that he came up with the idea, but rather staffed the paper for someone else.
bunta130 is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 17:45
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pembrokeshire
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
like strategic planning for instance...............
Whilst I would love to agree, the old Planning Rounds appear to have been replaced by yearly (and often more frequently) desperate savings measures makes coherency almost impossible. That process, mixed with tribal in-fighting for scarce assets in ordeer to protect cap badge etc, constantly changing contract specs that attract cost and time over-runs, and vortex of pet projects designed to get each VSO noticed within his or her 2-year in each tenure, is a recipe for poor planning at the Strategic and muddled execution at the Operational levels. Naturally, the people at the sharp end muddle through gallantly to cover failings. I would contend that it is not much different now than 30 years ago though....
bunta130 is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 07:27
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 64
Posts: 852
I seem to remember visiting the Vindolanda Museum on Hadrians Wall and reading a parchment by a Roman Soldier about people at the sharp end muddling through and keeping the show on the road whilst senior officers caused chaos and confusion whilst trying to climb the greasy pole.
DC10RealMan is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 08:10
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rural England, thank God.
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by esscee View Post
As this a a Rumour network, a few of us were led to believe that a paper written by a navigator on 101 sqn was spotted by a Bean Counter/Treasury and then put forward. Unfortunately the "idiots" refused to accept most arguments against and carried on regardless, obviously common sense ( single runway being the most obvious reason not to pursue this farcical idea ) within many officials mind's when mentioning saving money. Well said originator went far, became Air Attache at Washington in later years!
I see a resumé for his ? current role? describes him as having been "aide de comps" to HMQ!
skua is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 08:35
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford
Age: 83
Posts: 371
A400 airborne from BZN a little while ago, runway serviceable or did it use the grass? !!
Bill Macgillivray is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 12:00
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 74
Posts: 1,256
Isn't REME Lyneham a different budget, so handing it over to the Army saved RAF budgets, even though the overall cost to MoD was the same? (Or possibly more at the end of the day!)
radeng is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 12:12
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 938
The MOD (RAF) saved circa £7m pa in direct operating costs by closing Lyneham & dodging the repair bill to bring the real estate up to scratch after many years of (deliberate?) neglect.

The MOD (Army) spent circa £1b bringing the real estate up to scratch and converting it for the REME training school.

Different budgets? Or just one taxpayer funded pie? Discuss...
Ken Scott is online now  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 12:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Ken Scott View Post
The MOD (RAF) saved circa £7m pa in direct operating costs by closing Lyneham & dodging the repair bill to bring the real estate up to scratch after many years of (deliberate?) neglect.

The MOD (Army) spent circa £1b bringing the real estate up to scratch and converting it for the REME training school.

Different budgets? Or just one taxpayer funded pie? Discuss...

let’s also not forget the money the MOD have made from selling Prince Phillip Barracks in Bordon sur le Merde for the building of a new eco slum that has offset some of the money.
dagenham is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 15:33
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 67
Is it cancelled? Sorry, thought this was a golf thread.
DuncanDoenitz is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2021, 15:55
  #38 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,769
It's hard to imagine any kind of operating risk assessment or OPEVAL for Brize Norton not starting with;

1. Runway unusable - present options.

In fairness, it is a relatively new station...
Two's in is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2021, 08:07
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,341
Originally Posted by DuncanDoenitz View Post
Is it cancelled? Sorry, thought this was a golf thread.
I thought I was the only one.....
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2021, 08:48
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Their Target for Tonight
Posts: 556
Ken,

The cost of the move (Project Hercules) was considerably south of £200M, a little adrift from your figure. Incidentally, Lyneham sits within the Defence College of Technical Training, which itself is part of the Air Top Level Budget, so infra costs still fall to Air, not Land, Command. The major savings were in the disposal of both Arborfield and Borden.
Red Line Entry is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.