Royal Air Force

20 Oct 2010 08:27 #121 by David Thompson
Replied by David Thompson on topic Royal Air Force
Front page headline from this mornings Northern Echo ;

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8462340.Leeming_at_risk/

Youth is wasted on the young !

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 08:44 #122 by ted angus
Replied by ted angus on topic Royal Air Force
trouble with the announcement yesterday was it contained little substance re the RAF except the Nimrod news.
My money still on Wittering's exped assetts to Leeming, then Wittering closes, Lossie to close in possibly 2-3 years time as the Afgan war fighting commitment winds down and the GR4 fleet shrinks. Kinloss will close very soon. Which ever its lots of bad news for a lot of people and I fear today's announcement will bring even more tears and uncertainty.
TED

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 09:44 #123 by mawganmad
Replied by mawganmad on topic Royal Air Force
Surely Lossie will survive its station rebuild programme to become the JCA base?
I agree about Wittering.
Waddington will become quiter now, the Sentinal R.1 has been chopped (very odd decission)and the Nimrod R.1 to go next year, with training to centre at valley could Leeming go aswel?
Also can you see both Odiham and Benson surviving?

James Thomas

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 10:58 #124 by mitrovitchp
Replied by mitrovitchp on topic Royal Air Force
Regarding Odiham and Benson, I assume the Merlin fleet will eventually move to Yeovilton which will create a lot of space at Benson. However the Puma (now 40 years old) looks safe for the moment, and with extra Chinooks ordered I think both Stations look secure -until the next Defence review in 5 years time.

There was talk of entire training fleet moving to Valley, and Linton closing; Re Leeming, speaking to a FRADU pilot last year he said the Hawk T1 fleet out of service date will be 2012 - 2014, which will mean the end of 100 Squadron.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 12:40 #125 by George
Replied by George on topic Royal Air Force
Thank you very much all of you, for your input and speculation into this thread.

Some of the posts have been very funny and some detailed, a large majority about tescos too.

At the moment regarding the potential closures for Fast Fixed Wing Bases,

Kinloss, Waddington and Cottesmore are on my potential to go list and I would appreciate if anyone has any links with those air bases.

Does anyone have any other bases apart from the ones already said (Wittering, Lossiemouth and Bovington, Odiham and Lyneham).

Thanks for the banter!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 13:35 #126 by mawganmad
Replied by mawganmad on topic Royal Air Force
Waddington is safe, no doubt about that. The Sentry and Shadow are based there, the RC-135 due to go there, and talk of UAV units aswel as the Reds moving in.

Linton and Leeming seem to be another two that there is alot of talk about at the moment, especially as all training aircraft are proposed to be based at Valley.

I still don't get why both Benson and Odiham will survive, surely each station can house two helicopter types, and the land must be highly rateable (costs), or highly desireable (savings or income).

James Thomas

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 14:21 #127 by WJT
Replied by WJT on topic Royal Air Force
Gents: I commend the actual White Paper, which carried a bit more of the detail that everyone is searching for.

It seems that only Kinloss is slated to go at the moment, but the reduction of two Tornado squadrons will render EITHER Marham or Lossie surplus to requirement. Given the investment in Tornado majors and component repair at Marham, my guess is that Lossie is vulnerable. Whether it will be needed for F-35C, who knows? When the Harriers to go in 2011, presumably Wittering will be available also. Note also that the Sentinels will only go when they are no longer needed in the 'Stan, and there will be no risk to Waddo.

The detail of which stations will actually close, and those that will be handed to the Army to rehouse units from BAOR, will be determined by the Defence Reform Unit or someting like that, which will report in July 2011, so watch this space. No-doubt more ex-RAF stations will be needed by 2020 to rehouse the last units from BAOR following the final withdrawal from Germany. I think there is still a lot of water to pass under the bridge. Thinking about it, Wittering would be ideal for tank units coming home from Germany, wouldn't it?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 16:46 #128 by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic Royal Air Force
Are the Sentinels really going???? Only just entered service, or is someone possibly confusing them with the Beech 200 derivative that was rushed in to service?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 17:07 #129 by WJT
Replied by WJT on topic Royal Air Force
Canberra: "Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty - The Strategic Defence and Security Reviw" Cm 7948 dated 19 October 2010. Page 26/27, para 2.A.11:

"We will, accordingly:

[the last of seven bullet points]

withdraw the Sentinel airborne ground surveillance aircraft once it is no longer required to support operations in Afghanistan."

Presumably that will be when we withdraw, or when the Rivet Joints are declared operational.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

20 Oct 2010 17:09 #130 by mawganmad
Replied by mawganmad on topic Royal Air Force
Yes, Sentinal R.1 is definitely going after it has finished its Afgan commitment.
Seems ludicrous as highly capable and must be relatively cheap to operate (it's based on an aircraft that rich Americans fly around in after all). Still NATO customers will be queing up to buy it.
The Shadow R.1 (Beech 200) is remaining, and the RC-135 is still down to enter service - both ancient designs and in the case of the latter, costly.

James Thomas

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.057 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to this. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.

  
EU Cookie Directive Module Information