RAF Mildenhall to close. Lakenheath to get F-35 by 2020

[PONSH]

With the money already invested in FFD & the infrastructure & equipment installed there, wouldn't it make sense to put the Tankers & Recon' units in there? It makes unfortunate sense to put the SOG into Germany as it's closer to where it would be needed. The Transporters can 'Splash & Dash' as when & where required. Also an available runway West of the London TMA would facilitate easier access to the ARA's in the Eastern Atlantic. What would be handy is a 'European Theatre Maintenance Base' at Mildenhall. Low-Level 'Line' Maintenance can be done at the individual bases but the 'Heavy' engineering could be done at a single big base. With all it's space, hangarage & infrastructure, Mildenhall would be ideal.

[PONSH]

With the money already invested in FFD & the infrastructure & equipment installed there, wouldn't it make sense to put the Tankers & Recon' units in there? It makes unfortunate sense to put the SOG into Germany as it's closer to where it would be needed. The Transporters can 'Splash & Dash' as when & where required. Also an available runway West of the London TMA would facilitate easier access to the ARA's in the Eastern Atlantic. What would be handy is a 'European Theatre Maintenance Base' at Mildenhall. Low-Level 'Line' Maintenance can be done at the individual bases but the 'Heavy' engineering could be done at a single big base. With all it's space, hangarage & infrastructure, Mildenhall would be ideal. Pray for a Republican victory in 2016.

[Ravendriver2008]

Hi all I would say Happy New Year but it appears with this and the terrible events happened in Paris in the last 72 hours, 2015 star is not particularly outstanding . A couple of questions come to mind in light of the sad news about closure of the 'Hall

1) is it here a strong likelihood for Lakenheath to have a rotational deployment of say a handful of tankers throughout the year post Mildenhall being vacant ?

2) Will there be a provision on base for a mini AMC terminal for personnel and their dependants to utilise to fly back stateside or anywhere else in the theatre ?

3) Assuming all goes well with the F-35 and so it be s full house on base, there will be enough provision for handling a certain amount of C-17/C-5/KC-10/KC-135 Or at best the new KC-46 Pegasus on top?

4) Likewise as some1 mentioned, the 5 to 7 year plan, includes a Presidential election so if republicans come in , maybe and just maybe in a brief glimmer of hope, Mildenhall may have a stay of execution

5) what are the chances the authorities will build another viewing area say around the otherside of the base where it overlooks the base?

Lastly , feel for John as when everything stops at the 'Hall then the field will become empty unless someone majorly comes into 06 and everyone converges. He's done a fantastic job of keeping the campsite and field for all that come and visit. Also the civil servants and contractors that work not only at the Hall but at Alconbury/Molesworth as well.

offhand - does anyone what to hazard a guess how much deploying the F-35 and associated support et al will cost plus day to day ops. Cannot remember who I spoke to but there was a bit of cynicism regarding that the re nrt decision all revolves around the F-35 which is the be all and end all...

I'm haivng a meet with some RAND executives fortnight in London so I will ask around ....to see if anyone has s notion of what brought about this sudden change ......in D.C be interesting to ask and see their reaction. 9 times out of 10 I may not get an answer, on the odd chance it may drop to 7 or , and might be able to read between the lines.

Cheers and all the best

[Supra]

If the Simulator is that 'good' it'll only work on Mondays & Tuesdays to reflect the true availability of the F-35 'Latening' in the real environment!
In the run-up to National Holidays or major air-shows I will expect a little puff of smoke from the Sim' Building to signal another IFE & virtual loss of aircraft.

[the concerned]

its a shame that mildenhall is shutting [2019 i believe] but i'm sure that brize norton could handle a half a dozen tankers. theres no point maintaning a whole base .also surely the raf base in cyprus would be a good base geographically for special operations assets.

[Contrail1958]

Cyprus is fine but you'd lose weight quickly as they are reluctant to feed you.

[Andy_99]

Putting all eggs in a single basket may make sense financially but what about in the real world ?

Surely having Mildenhall open makes sense as we're geographically separated from mainland Europe.

What happens if German bases are unavailable due to weather issues ?

The Germans are heavily into Green Politics so does the flying get restricted ? More aircraft on base results in less flying hours available

Mildenhall is ideally placed for operations out in the Atlantic

If it has to close then I could see an increase in use at Fairford for deployed tankers & the Recce aircraft.

[POL]

its a shame that mildenhall is shutting [2019 i believe] but i'm sure that brize norton could handle a half a dozen tankers. theres no point maintaning a whole base .also surely the raf base in cyprus would be a good base geographically for special operations assets.

Sorry but I disagree.Brize is chaotic on the ground sometimes with the 17s hercs voyagers and now the start of the a400m as well as charter flights by civvy aircraft like the an-124and 747.I really don't think there would be enough space to accommodate 135 aircraft too. Fairford would be the better bet for these but i think the decision is they are going elsewhere anyway.
Regards

Brize Norton coped perfectly well with C-130Js and Ks, C-17s, Tristars and VC-10s, as well as innumerable civilian aircraft of various guises. Pretty sure you'd fit two or three KC-135s in there.

Of course, it'll never happen, so the point is moot.

[filmman]

Money, the US Government needs to make massive savings, defence is a big spender.
Bases are expensive and better to close whilst keeping the planes.
US politicians will only accept USA base closures if a significant number of overseas bases are closed.
Putin is a problem, so you move appropriate assets forward whilst closing rear bases, such as Molesworth and Alconbury which whilst not saving much adds to the number of bases closed; They don't have usable runways and their personnel are being relocated elsewhere in the UK.
Mildenhall is not very busy but it is a very useful tanker base. Remember when the KC 97s were replaced the Germans did not want the noisy KC 135. Because they were faster and longer ranged they were based at Mildenhall. It's possible that the Germans will still not want them even though their new engines make them quieter.

Marshalls want to sell their Cambridge airfield for housing development (big bucks) and move to Mildenhall which is a large, high quality airfield at a now cheap distressed sale price.

The US military appear to have already started to resurrect Fairford as a partial standby tanker base, the recent job adverts. That appears to confirm that the military do not really want to lose Mildenhall.

The military might need to keep the housing on the north side of Mildenhall and what about the fuel bunkers. In America some bases do share a runway with civil airports.

So it's possible the Americans hand the base back to the UK who lease housing on the north side back to the Americans and most but not all of the southern side to Marshalls with an option to buy if the Americans finally move out. This would allow the US to temporarily base tankers at a real RAF base run by the Uk. Everything else moves out.

The US military achieve base closures, Local and UK politicians keep local jobs, provide much needed housing for Cambridge and Marshalls prosper to the benefit of MOD and the UK economy. It sounds Machiavellian but life is stranger than fiction.

[Snoop 95]

I am intrigued by the fact that the US Government's consultants' recommendations seem to have been completely ignored in this decision. If I remember correctly they came up with three options, two of which involved closing Lakenheath and the third placing LKZ into 'care and maintenance'. None mentioned closing Mildenhall.
What conclusion can we draw from this? Probably that the US Politicians and their concerns/influence have weighed heavily in this decision and the USAF have had to make-do with it, just as ours armed forces do.

[filmman]

I understand that Lakenheath has to be handed back to the original owners when it ceases to be an "RAF" base where as Mildenhall was originally bought by the UK Government pre war and can be sold/leased at a profit.

[TankBuster]

It is the handiwork of bean counters who probably have little knowledge about the operational assets which they are making decisions about, just the money which they cost to operate. The bean counters are tasked to find ways of running things on the cheap, and then make it all look good on paper, so that Joe Public thinks everything is still the same as before.

I imagine the bean counters have a decision making kit modelled on the RAF WWII Fighter Command Operations Centre, where they all stand around a big map of Europe, and each bean counter has a long pole where he, or she can push big piles of money around the table from one airbase to another, after which they congratulate each other about a job well done!

Call me cynical, but its probably not far off the mark! I've seen similar goings on in the UK Fire Service, which is also trying its best to maintain the same level of service at a reduced cost (less personnel, machines and equipment), and as a result some areas have literally been cut back to the bone, but it goes un noticed because Joe Public knows no different... that is until something goes wrong and questions start being asked .

Everything we know is gradually being ground down... The RAF, USAF, NHS, Police, Fire Service, the list goes on...


TankBuster

[Reach1985]

I am intrigued by the fact that the US Government's consultants' recommendations seem to have been completely ignored in this decision. If I remember correctly they came up with three options, two of which involved closing Lakenheath and the third placing LKZ into 'care and maintenance'. None mentioned closing Mildenhall.
What conclusion can we draw from this? Probably that the US Politicians and their concerns/influence have weighed heavily in this decision and the USAF have had to make-do with it, just as ours armed forces do.

Well it's been quite a week - my heart goes out to those who rely heavily on the US forces for their livlihood up there. Plus as an enthusiast i will miss it.

In answer to Snoop 95 i think the situation in the Ukraine has had a major influence on what has now happened which the more i think about it seems to be the only option available to the US who are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

A number of years ago the US military doctrine and sphere of influence predicted and projected to move its focus from Europe to the Pacific - this would then result in a continuing draw down of US forces in Europe with the forseen 'enemy' now in the East.

The events of the past few months and the Cold War-lite stand-off that we are currently living with has obviously had a significant effect behind the scenes on these decisisons. Originally i think the predicted re-alienment was to include either the disbandment of the 493rd FS at LN, as i remember there was a recomendation to loose one foriegn based squadron of F15Cs - with the 493rd being heavily commited to the Baltic air policing and the US commiting man power and equipment to this area they could not be seen to be loosing their only air-to-air FS in the European theatre (it must after all cost more to TDY fighters from the US?). The other option was the closure of LN and i imagine the returning of the 48ths assests stateside - again to loose your largest FW in Europe would send a strong message to both NATO, the Balkan nations and Russia

As the European geo-politic has changed over the past year or so the way i see it is that the US could not be seen to be drawing down any(more) forces in Europe (even though at home they may well have wanted to and there is certainly an element of reticence that NATO and Europe relies heavily on US Forces, especially the airfoce for airlift, refueling and the air policing) but it still needs to make savings and it still needs a big headline saving somewhere - a big base closure ticks that box.

Ramstein would never go, Spang neither, even with the draw down of the F16 and A10 it is sitauted close to the US army in the Rhine and has the AMC role too - Aviano i imagine is too valueable as a forward base (it certainly was during the variuos Balkan conflicts) is the agreement with the Italians slightly different too?

I imagined that what might happen is the F16 force in Europe would be consolidated somewhere - probably Spang with AV retained in much the same way FFD is but by USAFE - which could be PR'd as a base closure - but even though you look at Mildenhall and think "well they'd never close that" as it has played such a huge part in the US forces history in Europe and the UK when you look at it in terms of stategic importance it does look rather fragile.

The air refuelling mission is not particularly location sensitive and the SOG guys are peripatatic by their very nature - though i can see them missing the training areas of the UK - perhaps we'll see more deployments to FFD? The AMC traffic there has certainly lessened significantly over the years - much goes into Spang and with the withdrawel from the desserts and mountains of the middle east the stop-over isnt quite as important. The 95RS i'd imagine will possibly forward deploy to Waddington to aid opperability and sharing of info with the RAF and thier Rivet Joint / Air Seekers.

Seen in that light Mildenhall looks like the sacrifical lamb. The carrot of the basing of F35s at LN being the sweetner to the UK and our 'special relationship' - whether that materialises maintains to be seen - i can imagine that if it does happen then the 48FW fielding 2 squadrons of F35s will replace the 3x F15 and 3x F16 squadrons as the USAFs only offensive weapons in the European theatre - but then this jet can do everything right?!! Out of interest what is the out of service date of the F16s?

It's sad all the same - with the closure and the redeployment of the 100ARW we will loose that connection that East Anglia has had with that unit going back to its 'darn Hundreth' days (through obviously it has moved about a bit and been dispanded and reactivated a number of times).

Ben

[Reach1985]

Sorry that should have read 'darn Hundredth' not sure how 'darn Hundreth' got written!! ;-)

[Reach1985]

It seems there is a filter on swearing - you guys know they weren't the Darn Hundredth and they were the Bl**dy 100TH

[welshandy]

If the Simulator is that 'good' it'll only work on Mondays & Tuesdays to reflect the true availability of the F-35 'Latening' in the real environment!
In the run-up to National Holidays or major air-shows I will expect a little puff of smoke from the Sim' Building to signal another IFE & virtual loss of aircraft.

Maybe they will have some of these. A lot cheaper than the real thing and probably more reliable

http://www.nitrotek.co.uk/rc-jet/64mm/f ... 24ghz.html

Just a thought as this thread is now 9 pages, what if the internet & FC were going back in the 1990's post Cold War. I wonder what would have been said about the drawdown of US airpower & base closures in the UK then?(UH,WR,AR closed or flying stopped, sqn's deactivated or relocated 3x F111E, 1 x F111F[495th LN], 1 x EF111A, 6 x A10A, 1 x F16, 1 x TR1A )

[mushbuster]

It's interesting reading about this on the Pentagon website, here is the transcript of the Pentagon announcement for the EIC plan
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Tran ... iptID=5562 and official USAF news release http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123929
They are quite long but if you don't want to read them all, they claim that EIC is a budget driven plan that requires better use of existing capacity to reduce operating costs without losing capability. The US Army list is also quite long and referred to here http://www.army.mil/article/140882/Army ... in_Europe/
I guess we have to accept that the budget cuts that have been pretty drastic already are not going away. Last year they were talking about over $100B cuts across the US Department of Defence to be spread out over 10 years. I have to say, basing a USAF fighter in the Uk with the range limitations it has and then taking the tankers away seems like a strange decision.
Ominously, it looks like there is more to come http://thehill.com/policy/defense/budge ... the-offing although this appears to be more stateside based

[C-Harvey]

Range limitations for UK based fighters?

Aren't there carrier based a/c flying operating over Syria/Northern Iraq from carriers in the Gulf?

F15s are currently over the Baltic as I understand.

SOG could still use the UK from Germany on a temporary deployment basis. Temporary accommodation (Afghan style) could be used in the UK as required in the short term.

[filmman]

And then there were none?

Was the reason for last years Fairford deployment to reassure USAF that it was a viable stand by option which would allow shutting Mildenhall and to show up necessary enhancements? Hence the fuel job adverts. Will Mildenhall also become a standby base with Marshalls also using?

[Agent K]

It's less of an issue (if at all) with runway space than the infrastructure required to support the tanker fleet. E.g, hangarage and engineering facilities, spares and logistics, tarmac/parking bays, engine run pens, supporting ground equipment, accommodation etc. etc.