RAF to deploy to civvy airports
Thread Starter
In so far as they use or have The runways which continue/continued were usually one, or perhaps two, or in the case of Marham, three, which were picked to be extended, sometimes doubled in length, usually as close to a 90/270 orientation as possible, but always an existing runway. There were usually three at least to pick from, but that became the main runway if it was 3,000' before, it was 6,000' or even 7,500' after. The V-Bomber stations had theirs' extended to 9,000'. All of this usually meant claiming more farmland. The main runway at Scampton required the A15 to be routed around it from its original north/south straight line, hence the bulge. But I'm not revealing anything new.
FB
FB
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...Dn9PBZxdReBw6M
4kinell! 😱Heralding the return of Exercise Micky Finn? Ohhh errr missus!
Hey guys, you’ve got to be seriously ancient to remember them….
Not Mickey Finn but 50 Sqn on Ex Sunspot - I’m there in the ‘0’ somewhere...along with that nice Mr Stacey and a few others.
4kinell! 😱Heralding the return of Exercise Micky Finn? Ohhh errr missus!
Hey guys, you’ve got to be seriously ancient to remember them….
Not Mickey Finn but 50 Sqn on Ex Sunspot - I’m there in the ‘0’ somewhere...along with that nice Mr Stacey and a few others.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 78
Posts: 7,542
Received 40 Likes
on
20 Posts
All very well, but what about the civilian infrastructure that is being placed in harm's way? Certain "others" might decide that obliterating the main terminal is justified because there are "enemy forces" There.
On the plus side, I suppose it would at least show the public that there is an Air Force.
On the plus side, I suppose it would at least show the public that there is an Air Force.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 78
Posts: 7,542
Received 40 Likes
on
20 Posts
All very well, but what about the civilian infrastructure that is being placed in harm's way? Certain "others" might decide that obliterating the main terminal is justified because there are "enemy forces" There.
On the plus side, I suppose it would at least show the public that there is an Air Force.
On the plus side, I suppose it would at least show the public that there is an Air Force.
Ceased to be a major player decades ago?
You are having a laugh and spouting utter nonsense.
Whether or not we are a major player is not the point. Having so few runways available is the problem so the idea of dispersal and operations from civilian airfields makes sense. Why not also take a leaf from the Swedish (and others) book and look at road bases.
I guess the reason we have 2 aircraft carriers is the hope that at least one will work.
I guess the reason we have 2 aircraft carriers is the hope that at least one will work.
What? An indigenous nuclear power, 65,000 ton aircraft carriers for 5th generation combat aircraft, nuclear powered hunter killer submarines, armed with cruise missiles, 9 Typhoon Squadrons, 3 F-35B Squadrons with more to come, developing Tempest, RC-135W Squadron, Shadow Squadron, 2 P-8A Posiedon Squadrons, 3 Chinook Squadrons, 2 Puma Squadrons, 2 Voyager AT/AAR Squadrons, 3 A400M Atlas Squadrons, C-17A Squadron, 3 Hawk T2 Squadrons, 2 Reaper Squadrons, Type 45 AAW Destroyers, Type 23 Frigates, developing and building Type 31 and 32 Frigates, autonomous Mine Countermeasures capability, Merlin MHA2, Wildcat MH2, Merlin HC4, Royal Marines, AH-64E Apache, SAS, Parachute Regiment, SBS, Challenger 3, Boxer, GMLRS, Sky Sabre, Ajax (!). UK forces deployed worldwide, on operations constantly for the last 30+ years, key NATO member, permanent member of the UN Security Council, key and leading European supporter to Ukraine providing lethal military hardware, military training and support...
Ceased to be a major player decades ago?
You are having a laugh and spouting utter nonsense.
Ceased to be a major player decades ago?
You are having a laugh and spouting utter nonsense.
Whether or not we are a major player is not the point. Having so few runways available is the problem so the idea of dispersal and operations from civilian airfields makes sense. Why not also take a leaf from the Swedish (and others) book and look at road bases.
I guess the reason we have 2 aircraft carriers is the hope that at least one will work.
I guess the reason we have 2 aircraft carriers is the hope that at least one will work.
The Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is limping back to shore after breaking down shortly after embarking for exercises in the US.The carrier left from Portsmouth Naval Base on Saturday before an "emerging mechanical issue" occurred.
On Monday, the warship was moving slowly from the south east of the Isle of Wight towards Stokes Bay, Gosport.
It is understood the sheltered area will make it easier for divers to examine the damage.
Whether or not we are a major player is not the point. Having so few runways available is the problem so the idea of dispersal and operations from civilian airfields makes sense. Why not also take a leaf from the Swedish (and others) book and look at road bases.
I guess the reason we have 2 aircraft carriers is the hope that at least one will work.
I guess the reason we have 2 aircraft carriers is the hope that at least one will work.
In the days of the recent Cold War, we had on average 2 squadrons/OCU's per station, (Wattisham, Binbrook, Coningsby, Leuchars, Wittering) whereas the current RAF has large numbers of squadrons on a station, take Lossiemouth and Coningsby as typical examples. This was a cost saving measure when there was no perceived threat to the Homebase whatsoever. That has all changed since 2014 and 24th February 2022, but we simply do not need oodles and oodles of newly opened RAF airfields.
proone
I am entitled to my view as much as you I would say.
Have you checked the status of the numerous airfields that you mentioned? The chances of them all being available as airfields is debateable , not only that but is the runway length sufficient for large ac anyway. Add to that fuel supplies etc and the problems get worse.
Why did the system even look at the dispersal to civilian airfields in the first place?
I am entitled to my view as much as you I would say.
Have you checked the status of the numerous airfields that you mentioned? The chances of them all being available as airfields is debateable , not only that but is the runway length sufficient for large ac anyway. Add to that fuel supplies etc and the problems get worse.
Why did the system even look at the dispersal to civilian airfields in the first place?
