Can any Harrier Jocks out there confirm that the 188' elevation difference between Cottesmore (461' AMSL) and Wittering (273') prevents the T12 operating at Cottesmore?

T12 performance
 

The higher airfield elevation certainly doesn't prevent the T12 from operating at Cottesmore. If you are referring purely to hover and vertical landing performance, then the approx 7 millibar difference between the stations will have a marginal detrimental effect at Cott.

In any case Wittering is easily the better station for Harrier VSTOL trg in my opinion becaue of the multitude of strips and pads, the ramp and the Vigo wood for bouncing around on.

Regards

The Peg 11 exchange rate was 13lb of thrust per millibar

Back to basics...

Defence is bankrupt. The recent Financial crisis saw to that. Next years defence vote has been shrunk, and has already been spent. Long term forecasts reach no further than 12 months ahead.

We knew back in 2003 that Afghanistan was going to be the long-term focus, as Iraq was meant to be wrapped up quickly...as has been bourne out in the recent enquirey highlighting the woeful lack of post-op planning.

Our near recent CAS's are at fault for failing to identify the changing role of our airforces; for failing to recognise that projection of military capability was a global requirement. For too long we adapted cold war tactics, and therefore our stance/equipment as and when required.

How long have our SF Chinooks sat in their hanger for? How long did it take for us to act on the need for true strategic airlift? How long did our chiefs allow the Government to get away with going beyond the terms of SDR?

:E

Anyhow, Lyneham will stay as the home for the C130 and A400M. Brize has no room; the resource requirements outlined for accommodating Lyn have not been met; there is no money in the budget to allow for anything other than FSTA.

We live in changing times. Lets hope Dalton doesn't let us down - we need a strong hand at the tiller (yoke)... :ok:

Marshalls..
 

Wonder if Marshalls might be interested in Cottesmore?
Is the runway long enough for their purposes? :hmm:
It doesn't look like their plans for Mildenhall or Wyton will come to anything.

Guzlin

All very quiet in the Cambridge area on Marshalls possible move. They haven't even started building the potential 10,000 houses at Northstowe yet (old RAF Oakington site) so my guess is a Marshalls move to free-up further building space is at least 10 years away. No sign of any improvement to the infrastructure around Cambridge to cope with extra housing except for the further delayed misguided-bus' and the A14 re-route to start maybe in 2012, with a public enquiry to be overcome as yet . (I prefer Greene King IPA.)

IPA?
 

I say AW,
I know this is thread creep plus but IPA!
Apart from Adnams, Woodfords Wherry, Norfolk Nog, Bartrams AH 64 plus many many more. IPA indeed!

Sorry about that, had to get it off me chest.

The market is dire for any sort of development and construction at the moment, I've suffered as well as many others who work in that industry.
Alconbury has now gone as well so long term if Cott is to be sold and not be given to the army Marshalls would get it for a pretty good price long term. That's bad for the MoD obviously but thinking about business in the world outside of the armed forces, they just might see it as a good time to speculate. It will be interesting.

My own humble view is that it shouldn't close, there should be no Treasury enforced changes/reductions in order to fund the present conflict and the budget should be enhanced. Somebody needs to stand up to these blasted politicians.

Guzlin

Oooops, thats' wound you up! I'd of thought you'd support your local (Bury) brewery? Cottesmore runway more than adequate for any aircraft Marshalls operate now or are likely to in the future.

Don't know if its been mentioned but there are 2 petitions to sign.

Petition to: keep RAF Cottesmore open. | Number10.gov.uk

Petition to: SAVE RAF COTTESMORE. | Number10.gov.uk

Also added a CMS portal to RAF Cottesmore - The Front Page

Not entirely popular petitions are they. Circa 300 on one and just about double figures on the second.

However, I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is not the Prime minister closing Cott. It is not No 10 closing COTT. The decision to close COTT was made by the Royal Air Force. The RAF offered up COTT to close as a saving measure to save money. The petition should be aimed at the RAF.

To be fair it was one of a number of options offered up by all 3 Services (which would have included cancellation of the carriers, JSF, FRES, The Reds etc etc [there are no sacred cows]) that the Defence Board (which includes the 1SL and CGS) selected as 'viable'. As has been said before the decision to close COTT was probably one of the less painful options that Defence needed to take to try to get close to balancing the books - if it was so important to the 1SL and the RN he would have fought harder to save it (but in doing so would probably have to offer something up to "pay for it" - guess that shows what the 1SL thinks of FW FAA .....!). The Defence Secretary can over-rule any decision on options/savings measures made or offered up (but I guess the Carriers are more useful than COTT;))

But why let the truth get in the way of another attempted crab bashing!

Why would 1 SL complain about a measure which doesn't really alter the amount of JFH cockpits available to the RN and maintains as many FE@R as the CVS can accomodate?

If people think the closure of Cottesmore (5 years earlier than already planned) is bad news, wait until after the general election when the next government (of whichever party) takes the inevitable axe to the defence budget....

I expect it to make the current "cuts" seem like chickenfeed, still, I could be wrong...:}

... or perhaps it is that it reduces the amount of cockpits available to the number the RN can actually fill!

So this is a long overdue reduction then?

The RAF appears to be saying, that it can (or is prepared to) now do everything required of it (FW FJ wise) with GR4 or FGR4 (tee hee- are we still calling it that? ). CVS is the gaping hole in its otherwise perfect argument. Therefore JFH has probably survived due to CVS. To cut the force to a level commensurate with CVS Ops isn't overdue, as anything you can do from CVS you can do elsewhere, in some cases using support and surfaces that GR4/FGR4 cannot hope to.

I've said it before, but anyway...A RAF organised into Expeditionary Air Wings, forged by a COIN war...favouring the two platforms that aren't ideal for either.

Orca,

'A RAF organised into Expeditionary Air Wings, forged by a COIN war...favouring the two platforms that aren't ideal for either.'

So when will we use an expeditionary air wing? never, COIN is inside the procurement cycle, but the assets available are able to prosecute the current target set, 2 platforms that the seniors have decided are the future of the air force at the expense of all other capabilities.

My point, we cannot predict the political will to match our future capabilities therefore we hedge our bets and produce what we can, backed up by UORs such as UCAV.

G8D

A Seagoing Force
 

"Therefore JFH has probably survived due to CVS."

There's no probably about it. CVS is the only reason the Force has survived in any shape or form. Sec of State even said as much in his statement to the House.

It seems anyone left in JFH better get used to life at sea!

G8D,

Completely agree with your post - with a caveat. The EAW construct always appeared a little like a re-branding exercise to me and didn't fit into any enduring commitment. I also agree that with the GR4/FGR4 you can service the current target set, and will continue to do so as long as (here's the caveat) HNS and well found international length runways are available and you are prepared to feed the beast that is GR4 logistics. I have assumed in accepting this that FGR4 is full-up A-A (which i hope it is, but can't confirm) and has a clear air mass to employ LGB. This strikes me as a lot that has to be going your way when a small foot print, flexibly based option with GPS weaponry was available. (But that's my opinion and i don't expect everyone to agree - we're all human and agreeing is boring)

You make a valid point about UCAV. It appeared to me in theatre that the RA in particular favoured organic fires and couldn't wait for a mix of loitering munition and GMLRS to remove air from the equation. Not an approach i favoured, but we were only there to do what the Ground Commander wanted, so if he didn't want us then who were we to argue?

AW

Half of JFH is dark blue. They'll cope with being at sea. Let's see if Fleet can cope with actually giving them something meaningful to do when they're there.

And the other half of JFH is light blue and they'll cope with being at sea also. Just like they have been for the last 15 years. I agree with orca regards FLEET, most specifically CSG...it's time for those within the RN to realize that Carrier Strike depends on JFH...they are one in the same. Hence, it's time the tasking for cvs reflected realistic training for the Harriers.

CMS,

I would argue quite the opposite. It's about time the JFH ATP reflected meaningful embarked time for the jets, then the CVS could go and conduct realistic training for the whole Air Wing and associated Task Group - they all need training for CS ops. Deck bashing with no other a/c types embarked in "Lake Cottesmore" will never generate a CS capability.

I agree that both light and dark blue elements of JFH have undertaken the seagoing aspects of the job over the last 15 years with good grace. However, in order to achieve a realistic CS capability, and one that justifies continued retention of any Harriers, will require much closer alignment between Fleet and Air Cmds in order to develop a realisitic and sustainable capability. Illustrious had her programme for 2009 completely subjugated to what the jets wanted and Ark's for next year is being tied and adapted in a similar fashion. Not clear, therefore, on what basis you claim Fleet are failing to deliver meaningful tasking.............