Wrath,

I agree, it would be ideal. But we can agree that the Harrier's future is all about QE/PoW.

S41

S41,

Interesting - I hope you're right. I'm not convinced though that two Scottish bases will survive...

I still don't get how you can be absolutely sure of what you think is safe and unsafe. You've already decided, seemingly, that the Northern QRA will be based at Kinloss. If this was so obvious from the outset, surely as far back as the 1950s this would have been seen, when it really mattered, or at least in the 1960s when the short legged Lightnings were holding the fort up north.

Would it not have made even more sense then to swap Kinloss and Leuchars around? put the Shackletons and latterly Nimrods at Leuchars and Lightnings, F4s, Tornadoes and so forth up at Kinloss!

FB

FB,

This is a rumour site and I've put my personal views forward to provoke debate. I don't work for the MoD and this is on the basis of a reasonably informed outsider.

As I said, having served at Leuchars, I'd be gutted to see it close, but given the other options in Scotland, it makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you, then please explain why - the fact that something was or wasn't done in the 1950s & 60s doesn't seem especially relevant to now.

S41

Dear SQ,

I understand your suggestion for basing QRA aircraft at Kinloss rather than Leuchars was, as you point out, closer to the QRA threat. i.e. Russian aircraft transiting through the Iceland Faeroes Gap or wherever. This was a much greater and more pressing concern for those overseeing U.K. Defence strategy back in the 1960s and onwards until the 1990s. At that time, as I've mentioned earlier, the principal Fighter type used to address this matter were, as you'll be aware, English Electric Lightnings, until the somewhat longer legged Phantoms appeared from 1969, and then only as a result of a surplus of aircraft which the FAA no longer needed (something to do with a reduction in carriers I believe)

The point is the Lightnings had a very short range compared with anything before or since. But they were sent to Leuchars rather than what would have made much better sense at the time, Kinloss or Lossiemouth. So if Leuchars was considered far enough North to put Lightnings within reach of Soviet intruders then, well surely the much greater stride of the Typhoon would be satisfactory for dealing with the reduced, albeit resurgent number of Russian flights today.

There would indeed be some expense incurred surely by moving them all lock stock and Barrel just a few miles further up the road. Kinloss I imagine may more likely go, as the dwindling Nimrod numbers will probably be more logically accommodated at Waddington, if they survive the review at all. In which case, Kinloss may well become an Army Garrison for units returning from Germany along with at least Cottesmore.

The idea that it would be preposterous to have as many as 3 x R.A.F. stations in Scotland after the review is quite frankly another indication of the English mind set that Scotland is as foreign a country as Bangladesh. Rather than being a component part of the one country, United Kingdom.

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking suits the SNP nonsense as well.

But then again, you could be bang on the money!;)

Until October, we can only guess, just like the Daily Telegraph is fond of doing. Just so long as the Red Tops (there's a phrase for Lightning fans) don't have a bash at it as well! Or the next thing we'll be hearing is an emotional explosion about the Air Force being disbanded and Super Tucanos replacing Harriers, Typhoons and Tornadoes.:=

FB:E

"The idea that it would be preposterous to have as many as 3 x R.A.F. stations in Scotland after the review is quite frankly another indication of the English mind set that Scotland is as foreign a country as Bangladesh. Rather than being a component part of the one country, United Kingdom."

The problem is though that if you look at where closures have ocurred, its almost exclusively in England in recent years. I'm struggling to think of the last RAF Flying station in Scotland that closed? While in the past this wasnt an issue, at a point where flying stations are very few in number and only going to get fewer, maintaining a large percentage of them north of the border is risky politically, as it puts otherwise safe seats at risk south of the border, and also strategically - what happens if Scotland goes independent and we lose several airbases.

While I appreciate that Scotland has a different economic set up to some degree from the wider UK, it has been heavily protected from defence cuts in recent years, and its time for them to share in the pain that English counties suffered with the loss of many flying stations over the last 15 years.

Sorry, who actually said that? Earlier posts simply said (I think!) that it's just very unlikely we'll have 3 RAF stations in Scotland after the review. That said, it would be preposterous to keep 3 RAF stations in Scotland at the expense of airfields in England, if only because the HQ will never move far from London and the English airfields will (probably) all be in the London/Bristol/Lincoln triangle. My personal guess? We'll lose at least one Scottish station, probably two, as well as quite a few in England.

I can't see Valley closing though - while it would be possible to move its functions elsewhere, it's already well set up for both FJ and SAR trg, and Anglesey is already on its knees having lost the aluminium factory.

FB,

Thank-you for your considered answer. No, I'm not taking a Scotland vs England position as a little Englander, merely that it will be considered in the Review as it is a political impact as well as an operational one. Agree that v short legged Lightnings must have made the range to 64N 001E "sporting" but I wasn't there and don't know.

The cost of moving the "stuff" is unlikely to take many years savings to pay off - and that's before any asset sales have taken place. We're going to end up with a smaller force with many fewer bases - the station overhead costs are going to be driven down on in no uncertain terms, so the sharing of services between Lossie and Kinloss makes them much more "efficient" (that word again! :hmm:) than either base plus Leuchars.

S41

Lossie, Kinloss and Leuchars would be good bases for redeployed Light role Inf bns from Germany.

Unless you liked drinking in the Abbey or owned a house near the centre or Forres!

Perhaps, but not all three, one only. In my humble opinion, that would be Kinloss. For my money, it's the most devoid of a role and will probably come out the other side of the review with nothing else but pongos to accommodate.

As long as the Government go ahead with purchasing as many 100 Typhoons, I'd have thought that 2 bases Coningsby and Leuchars would have been the logical choices for basing them all.

But again, who knows?

FB

Why put Pongos' into Kinloss when Fort George (just down the coast with ranges etc etc) is so sparsely populated?

I would say that both Kinloss and Lossie are both looking at being closed. With Nimrods, Tornado and Sea King all for the chop there will be no requirement for either of them.

Id have to say that despite sitting on top of the best run ashore in the South West, RAF St Mawgan has got to be shutdown. I can't believe that they managed to maintain the base despite selling the airfield.

FB,

In terms of your historical debate with Squirrel 41 about fighter basing in the 60s, short legged Lightnings, etc...... One point to make is that Lossiemouth was RNAS Lossiemouth until 28 Sep 72, by which time you say the Phantoms had appeared. While this doesn't detract from your arguement about Kinloss vs Leuchars for Lightnings as such, I thought I would throw it into the mix for historical accuracy. :ok:


aw ditor

No doubt Fort George will have to be maintained as a historic building, however, I was under the impression that it is in pretty poor condition, and the Army would be keen to move out. Can't remember exactly where I heard that, probably from the cleaner...... In which case it must be true!





Generally, in terms of Scottish airbases, Leuchars is in a prime area for development, between Dundee and Edinburgh, and is valuable real estate. The exact opposite applies to Kinloss and Lossie. Leuchars already has a mainline railway station for the commuter crowd. Leuchars needs (I believe) a lot of money spending on it before Typhoon comes in, none of which (apart from the runway resurface) has yet been spend. The obvious conclusion from all of this..........?


Leuchars will stay open and one/both of Lossie/Kinloss will close! :ugh:

I'm not convinced by the argument that 9 aircraft large aircraft wouldn't justify an air base. For a good few years Waddington only operated 7 Sentry, then 51 Sqn moved 3 R1s in and it was 10 for plenty more years. At that point the base was said to be almost full, since then they have taken 5 Sqn with 5 Sentinel etc. Isn't it full?
I can think of another base too which only operates 9 aircraft, red ones and they are small (OK 10). From a personal perspective I would prefer to be based at Waddo with the MRA4 however I don't think it's the right option for the aircraft, of course that is irelevant if it doesn't survive SDSR.

Would there be significant savings to basing all one type at a single station? e.g:
Lossie - GR4/4A
Coningsby - Typhoon, forget QRA north that is cold war dogma. Detach/deploy aircraft north if needed or scramble when your neighbours phone hours earlier telling you they have launched!
If pushed try and keep all types as close as possible to reduce costs, e.g:
Waddington - 1 Sqn of Typhoon
Kinloss - 1 Sqn of Tornado

I know basing options have been dominated by votes, golf courses and various fleet agendas in the past, but with things looking this tight our LEADERS must ensure that the ones we retain are based purely on what is best for the military, not the politicians.

I have to agree with you. I don't want to get into a crab bashing contest (Although I do enjoy it) it seems to me that when Culdrose is operating with close to 100 Aircraft and Yeovilton has over 100 aircraft then the RAF trying to maintain an active airfield with 10 small red aircraft just seems a complete waste of money. There will be plenty of arguments from the RAFAT team lovers claiming that they need the airspace to go up-tiddly-up but even if they conduct 3 sorties per day that is still only 60 movements per day..... Most airfields have managed that by mid-morning.

It's not the number of aircraft based at an airfield that decides how busy it is - it's the number of runway movements that take place every day that really matters. The last time I flew into Culdrose it seemed like a sleepy hollow! Remember that the majority users of Scampton probably aren't the Reds.

The last time I went to RNAS Culdrose; I could not get out for days due to Fog. Whilst that could just as easy apply to many airfields, it appears that Culdrose has in excess of its fair share of foggy days during which nothing gets airborne. Perhaps that is why the home based aviators like it :cool:

Last I heard Army was pulling out of Fort George due to expense of maintaining it. Scottish Heritage happy.
Maybe sell Leuchars and use money to refurbish Lossie and Kinloss as Infantry Barracks. Like the refurbishment of Aldershot by selling of a large chunk of the Garrison.
Why move the army into ex RAF camps I can't see the need to keep troops in Germany any more and I'm sure the Germans would be happy to see us leave.

NURSE noted:

The issues with getting out of Germany are complex AFAIK - the major problem is that a lot of cash is needed up front to restore the facilities to an acceptable standard before handing them back to the German govt - which is why BORONA - the project to scale back the remains of BAOR - has been hamstrung; it offers big savings in a little while, but needs up front cash now. BORONA is delivering some closures in Germany, though - IIRC 102 Logs Bde is going to Cosford (when/assuming technical training gets PFI'd to Saint Athan... :ugh:) and ARRC is or has moved to the former HQ PTC site at Innsworth (lucky them....).

Secondly, Germany is closer to large armoured training areas in Poland that Cavalry types have become fond of in recent years. Obviously that depends on the future of the armoured brigades and other training (eg Suffield / BATUS in Canada) but the main point is that this is a non-trivial task.

S41