F35 JSF for Marham and Lakenheath

[RichC]

I know they will need to do Vertical landing practice at the home base but the majority of landings will be a rolling landing like the Harriers with the odd coming into the hover each day (Like that at the Cake Stand, Yeovilton). This would reduce the amount of noise for most of the day.
For me, basing the jets as far away as possible from their carriers is a bit absurd. You can't get much more distance between them from Lossiemouth to Portsmouth and the English Channel.

[Malcolm]

I know they will need to do Vertical landing practice at the home base but the majority of landings will be a rolling landing like the Harriers with the odd coming into the hover each day (Like that at the Cake Stand, Yeovilton). This would reduce the amount of noise for most of the day..

Yes, but the B is supposed to be very, VERY noisy in the hover. A lot worse than the old SHAR/GR7/9. Unbelievably noisy - up there with "Disaster Area". Even an RVL by a Harrier was a lot noisier than a conventioal landing by (say) a Typhoon (or Dave-C). Pilots will have to do lots of practicing before they're allowed anywhere near a carrier, so the home base is going to be noisy whichever way you look at it And the fuss It'll cause when they start doing nighttime circuits, pressups and RVL's . I live 5 miles south of Yeovilton, and I could hear them doing circuits at night from here. Lord knows what a Dave-B will be like.

For me, basing the jets as far away as possible from their carriers is a bit absurd. You can't get much more distance between them from Lossiemouth to Portsmouth and the English Channel.

i'm not quite so bothered about that. For most of theis time, 892 Phantoms were at Leuchars, and 809 Buccs at Lossie. They're unlikely to embark till the carrier is out into the western approaches, so if they have to stop into Yeovilton or Culdrose for a splash and dash what's the problem? It'll be less than an hour from Scotland at altitude and cruise for a JSF - rather than a fuel priority diversion for a SHAR

[RichC]

I live 5 miles south of Yeovilton, and I could hear them doing circuits at night from here. Lord knows what a Dave-B will be like.

Pretty wicked if you ask me....

[Rerun57]

Have I been mistaken in interpreting a report in MOD Oracle that JSF may get the chop at the US end?

Sent from my OMNIA7 using Board Express

[Tronk 11]

Marham has some local villages but is quite isolated in the Fens so the noise wouldn't affect that large a population. I'd say Lossie would be the favorite at the moment due to the proximity to the coast, both bases have been fighting for their survival.
Transit time to a carrier on the south coast would be an hour max, racks up the airframe hour time though.
As for not having a base open with no planes based their, Wittering has survived so far (fingers crossed I haven't jinxed them).
Who knows what the politicians will dream up (Tory & Labour, this isn't a political party bash!), they need to make sound stratigic decisions & listen to the guys who know whats best. I think the enviromental impact will have a big say where they go, but on a selfish note I hope its Marham or Wittering, although with Wittering being close to a big city I can't see it happening.

[Ronald Reagan]

In some ways Marham has less housing close to it than Lossiemouth. Could end being politcal ie Conservatives try to save a base in a Conservative stronghold while Labour tried to save as many Scotish bases as possible hence their plan for F-35 at Lossie. I still hear talk there will be a third Typhoon squadron in Scotland. With 3x Typhoon squadrons at Lossie don't know if they would have enough room in the HAS sites for the 20 to 40 F-35s we may end up with (assuming we get any;). Plus I assume that with aircraft as costly as Typhoon and F-35 they will want to keep them in a HAS rather than soft hangars.
Guess I am biased living in Norfolk, just want RAF Anglia to survive which it won't if Marham goes, plus having 3x fast jet bases in the UK is slightly better than having 2! Marham is also far closer to the channel and hence less flying time for the F-35s to get to the carrier, also Marham is very close to Holbeach and Donna.
Also at a later date if we wished to expand either the Typhoon or F-35 fleets then am sure Lossie could hold extra Typhoons and Marham could hold extra F-35s, assuming we have any money and the country survives! Its a shame we are in this situation, I had always hoped for enough F-35s to require 2x bases ie Marham and Lossie plus 2x Typhoon bases at Coningsby and Leuchars:(

[steve149c]

Definately food for thought in all the posts above - a great discussion going on. My thoughts are that JSF will probably be somewhere else. My understanding is that the JSF is primarily for the Royal Navy Carriers? Basing them close to the sea is not really a prerequisite, as they can happily transit. Harriers were always last on and first off the Carriers, joining somewhere in the western approaches, and flight time from Scotland to there is only an hour.

Noise is going to be the important factor here - but again, only operating 40 JSF's, means that there are not going to be many launches and recoveries per day, maybe 12? Plus circuits? I think that any RAF Base in the Uk could be considered, and not nessecary to have Hardened shelters. Lossie is going to be full on Typhoons, Marham is a good option - but will the JSF fit in the same hangars as the tornados (dimensions?), Coningsby is another choice, then the outsiders like Leeming (it use to operate F3's so has the facilities).

There is a long time to go yet, but I think all bets are on.

[bobthehandyman]

Keevil! nuff said

[Gary]

but will the JSF fit in the same hangars as the tornados (dimensions?).

There are usually 2 Tornado's in each HAS at Marham so a HAS should fit a F-35 in no problem. Marham has been going through a lot of building work, moving the hot pit etc to accommodate the Lossie Tornado's when/ if they move. So probably a sign the base is doomed

[Thunder]

Up until last year Lossie had 4 Sqns of fast jets 12, 14, 15 and 617. Before 2002 they operated 12, 15, 16 and 617 Sqns and going back before the Tornados arrived they had 8,12, 208 Sqns and 226, 237 OCU's all operating from the base at the same time, so Lossie will hardly be full with 3 Sqns of Typhoons based there. One Sqn in each HAS site the third?? in the ex 14 Sqn line, this will leave the current 15 Sqn line available for future use with two large hangars each capable of accommodating at the moment 15 Tornados, with the F35 being smaller this c ould be increased to maybe 20 a/c. Obviously where ever they go large scale building work will be required regardless.

[Ronald Reagan]

Up until last year Lossie had 4 Sqns of fast jets 12, 14, 15 and 617. Before 2002 they operated 12, 15, 16 and 617 Sqns and going back before the Tornados arrived they had 8,12, 208 Sqns and 226, 237 OCU's all operating from the base at the same time, so Lossie will hardly be full with 3 Sqns of Typhoons based there. One Sqn in each HAS site the third?? in the ex 14 Sqn line, this will leave the current 15 Sqn line available for future use with two large hangars each capable of accommodating at the moment 15 Tornados, with the F35 being smaller this c ould be increased to maybe 20 a/c. Obviously where ever they go large scale building work will be required regardless.

I guess it depends on how many F-35s we buy. All combat Typhoon Squadrons have been housed in HAS sites. Would hope they would also put F-35s into HAS sites simply due the aircrafts cost. I guess that always ruled out any possible bases without HAS sites ie Cottesmore, Wittering, Yeovilton. Guess it doomed Coltishall to never be on the short list for Typhoon aswell.
But I guess lots of things could happen such as B being cancelled or us simply pulling the plug on the whole project sometime in the future.
If we did walk away from the carrier project I wonder if there would be any desire/political will to still get some F-35s to replace the GR4?!

[Malcolm]

Jaguars and Harriers never needed to be in HAS's in the UK because their primary role was to forward deploy in times of conflict. That's why Colt and Wittering/Cottesmore never got shelters. Naval aircraft have never operated from shelters either because again, their role was to forward deploy aboard ship. You only need to use HAS's if there is a chance that your base would come under attack during a conflict. Even then, modern weapons have shown that a HAS isn't the be-all and end all. A well targeted attack by a laser guided weapon or cruise missile does the trick.

If HAS's are available then a front line squadron will use them. But how many squadrons do people believe we'll get? My guess is one or two front line(10-12 aircraft each), and an OCU (with 18-20), which is 50 odd aircraft. The OCU's have never used shelters.

The MOD will need to keep QRA assets in Scotland for the forseeable future. So Lossie will keep some Typhoons. But you don't need 2 or 3 squadrons for that. There are only 4 Typhoons down in the Falklands, 4 at Northolt, and lots of USAF ANG bases have just 4 jets allocated to QRA at dispersed locations. And how many Tornado F3's were kept at Coningsby before the Typhoon took over Southern QRA? So it's not impossible that Lossie will lose all it's Typhoon squadrons to be replaced by JSF, with a QRA detachment of 4 Typhoons housed there.

If that happens, Marham is on a very sticky wicket. OSD for GR4 is when - 2025? Three elections and a scottish independence reforendum before then.

[Ronald Reagan]

I can't see the GR4 remaining in service until 2025, can just see the bean counters wanting to ditch them post Afghanistan!!!!!!

I understand your points about a HAS, but still a squadron of jets in a HAS site will be far harder to take out than lets say a hangar containing a whole squadron! A single weapon on that hangar could remove the whole squadron. With the HAS site its a case I would imagine of requiring one weapon per HAS. There is not a major threat to the UK now but one cannot be so sure about the future.

The current plans are for Lossie to equip with 3x Typhoon squadrons from what I can see. Assume thats around 36x Typhoons? So far 6sq are operational and 1sq will soon reform.

See the latest stated ammount of planned F-35s for the UK is now 48 jets. Thats essentially a relatively large (for the UK) combat wing in its own right. To put them at Lossie would mean having around 84 jets at one airbase. I think a 48 jet force need their own base really. Either Marham or Leeming would be fine.

Could be some game changing events as you suggest though with elections, independance referendum, possibly cancelations by UK or US.

[Malcolm]

I can't see the GR4 remaining in service until 2025, can just see the bean counters wanting to ditch them post Afghanistan!!!!!!.

Yes - and if they did that they would either cut back drastically on GR4, or scrap it completely. We're supposedly out of Afghanistan in 2015, so if they cull the GR4's completely then Marham would be empty for at least 5 years before JSF came online. If that happened, the chances of Marham ever regaining fast jets would be low IMHO.

They're standing up 2 squadrons (perhaps 3 at a push) of Typhoons at Lossie. i can also see them cutting two front line GR4 units at the same time, and moving all front line GR4's to Marham. They'll probably leave the Tornado OCU up at Lossie like they did with the Jaguar OCU. It's what hapens next when the JSF arrives that I'm struggling with. I suspect at Lossie they'll replace the 2/3 squadrons of Tiffies with two of JSF, the Tornado OCU with a JSF OCU, and just leave a QRA flight of 4-6 Tiffies there. Coningsby keeps it's 2 front line squadrons of Tiffies plus the OCU and OEU, and Marham gets the chop.

I understand your points about a HAS, but still a squadron of jets in a HAS site will be far harder to take out than lets say a hangar containing a whole squadron! A single weapon on that hangar could remove the whole squadron. With the HAS site its a case I would imagine of requiring one weapon per HAS. There is not a major threat to the UK now but one cannot be so sure about the future.

But regardless of HAS or no HAS, if the JSF base gets attacked with all of them still on the ground, it's failed in it's intended role. It was supposed to be on the carrier, ready to strike back. if it wasn't then the carriers would be at the bottom of the oggin, and the tankers all destroyed too. So from their HAS's the JSF's might be able to strike back at the Isle of Wight i suppose. Or Rockall.

The current plans are for Lossie to equip with 3x Typhoon squadrons from what I can see. Assume thats around 36x Typhoons? So far 6sq are operational and 1sq will soon reform.

3 squadrons at Lossie? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing official has been announced. The Tranche 3A order is only currently for 40 jets IIRC - Tranche 3B hasn't been signed, and may not happen. Or they could fudge the numbers again and sell all the 3B jets on to the Saudis. There are persistent rumors that Whitehall would like many/all of the Tranche 1 jets retired - There were 53 of them (including 1 written off, and 15 twin sticks). This might have already started if the Tranche 2 jets had been a bit more reliable. Now they're getting on top of Tranche 2 reliability, this could easily rear up again in the next round of cuts. Some of the twinsticks will probably survive, but the 40 odd single sticks look vulnerable to me. So I think they're looking to scrap 40 and replace them with 40, leaving a total fleet of around 120. It could be that RAF Typhoon numbers have already peaked, and there is 10 years still to go before JSF arrives.

See the latest stated ammount of planned F-35s for the UK is now 48 jets. Thats essentially a relatively large (for the UK) combat wing in its own right. To put them at Lossie would mean having around 84 jets at one airbase. I think a 48 jet force need their own base really. Either Marham or Leeming would be fine.

48 is barely enough for an OCU, OEU and two front line squadrons. There were that many Sea Harriers built, and we only had 2 front line squadrons each with 6 aircraft, plus 899NAS with 10-12.

Could be some game changing events as you suggest though with elections, independance referendum, possibly cancelations by UK or US.

Yep - the only thing in your list that won't happen is a US cancellation.

[Thunder]

No need for HAS's now as the threat towards us has shifted from the WarPac to unconventional terrorism. The Typhoons of 6 Sqn at Leuchars don't operate from either of the 2 sites with only the "armed" QRA jets doing so. It costs a fortune to maintain these sites and even when I worked at Lossie up until 2003 they were downgrading the HAS sites from what they were designed for. Take a look at the USA they have never used HAS's Stateside and even operate the F22 from nothing but a sun shade covered line.

[Ronald Reagan]

No need for HAS's now as the threat towards us has shifted from the WarPac to unconventional terrorism. The Typhoons of 6 Sqn at Leuchars don't operate from either of the 2 sites with only the "armed" QRA jets doing so. It costs a fortune to maintain these sites and even when I worked at Lossie up until 2003 they were downgrading the HAS sites from what they were designed for. Take a look at the USA they have never used HAS's Stateside and even operate the F22 from nothing but a sun shade covered line.

They do use them at Coningsby though don't they? Also at Marham? Think most European Air Forces do so aswell.

I don't think stateside they have ever used HAS sites feeling an attack there was highly unlikely.
Though all USAFE combat wings do so and still do so. I am not sure about PACAF, assume they use hardened facilities to?

How about the soon to be leading air forces of the world ie China, Russia, India?

[Malcolm]

The HAS shelters were built during the 70's and 80's because there was percieved to be a danger of an attack from the Warsaw Pact countries by large numbers of strike planes such as Mig 23/27 and Su17/20/22. The shelters would afford protection to our airborne defence planes (QRA) plus our strike planes , and their crews so we could strike them back. All of Europe built loads of shelters so the planes could hit back at targets in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc. Similarly, the Warsaw pact built shelters to protect their tactical planes from attack by NATO.

Use of larger planes would have been extremely provocative by either side. I think the largest HAS's were those built for the TR1's at Alconbury. We never built shelters to protect Tanker, ELINT or AWACS assets. The lack of protection for these meant that striking anything deeper into the Warsaw pact would be virtually impossible using tactical aircraft.

There are HAS shelters at Misawa in Japan, and I believe at Osan in Korea. Not sure about Kunsan. But there aren't any at Kadena. Even in the 80's our QRA aircraft at Leuchars, Binbrook and Wattisham didn't use HAS's. they had their own small QRA hangars, but these weren't concrete HAS's.

So wind forwards to today. What exactly do you think the HAS's are protecting the planes from? East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovakia are all in NATO. Tactical planes wouldn't have the range to strike any further than that. Similarly, it's difficult to see who has tactical planes capable of striking at us. (well perhaps the French )

The squadrons will use HAS's because they are there. However, they would also use (and probably prefer to use) normal hangars if they were available. The only thing you probably need to keep in a separate hangar is the QRA, because these are fuelled and armed. It doesn't need to be a HAS, but RAF airfields don't have anything else suitable. JSF isn't going to be used as a QRA jet (by the RAF) - it's a Strike Fighter.

[Ronald Reagan]

I would say that a soft hangar full of very costly aircraft would be more of a terrorist target and easier for them to strike than aircraft dispersed amongst a HAS site. Also a cruise missile/aircraft strike from an enemy could destroy an entire squadron in one hangar but with a HAS site unless nuclear armed would require a single missile per shelter, one missile could take out at most around 2 aircraft!

We live in a very uncertain world and I would prefer and feel its safer to keep the majority of our very costly combat aircraft in already built and paid for HAS sites.
With the RAF of today being so small and having so few aircraft I would say this is even more important.

I guess with QRA aircraft back in the 1980s if anything were to happen the aircraft would already be in the air and thus keeping them in a HAS or other reinforced building would be pointless. But the rest of the aircraft might aswell be kept safe.

I always assumed that one of the main reasons Coningsby was kept over Coltishall was the fact it has HAS sites and the RAF wished to keep the majority of Typhoons in the shelters?

Would also imagine assuming we do end up getting F-35 it will remain in service longer than the Typhoon and thus could end up having to do QRA even though as you say its really a strike fighter. Some nations such as Australia and Canada plus others in Europe will probably only have F-35s and will have to use it as such from day one.

[Malcolm]

At any one time, half the aircraft are going to be in a hangar whatever you do - routine servicing, depth servicing, hangar queens, and OCU's etc.

It's the old Pearl Harbour question. If you keep everything together in one hangar/dispersal then it should be easier to guard from a terrorist attack. If you disperse them around the airfield, then they're harder to guard individually, but they won't all be wiped out by a single bomb in the right place.

Australia is an interesting case. They have shelters up north at Tindal (near Darwin) but no-where else AFAIK. They have fighter bases near Darwin, Sydney and Brisbane. but no fighter cover permenently stationed around Adelaide , Melbourne or Perth (i.e. south and west coasts). They don't appear to stand any QRA alerts at any of their airfields (possibly at Tindal - never been there). And Austraila is bigger than the whole of Europe put together. The assumption seems to be that they'll get enough warning of any attack to arm up some jets and fly them to wherever the trouble spot is. But it's a 5 hour flight from Sydney to perth, or 4 hours from Sydney to Darwin. The jets could do it much quicker supersonic, but they would need tanker support, which is all based at Brisbane. So unless they get enough warning to pre-position assets they're on the barbie mate!

I see JSF in USAF terms as a replacement for F-16 and (to a lesser extent) A10. The USAF didn't use F-16 for (primary) air defence for years. That was the F-15's job with TAC (forward deployed), and the ANG's job at home using old F-106's (eventually replaced by F-15's) and F4's (replaced by F-16's). It wasn't untill the ANG started getting large numbers of older F16A's to replace the F-4's that they started to stand QRA using them. And today you see ANG squadrons being stood up next to front line F-22 units so they can trade in their F-16's and share F-22's in the air defence role.

Most of NATO Europe bought F-16 to replace everything (F-104, F-100, Mirage, Draken, F-5). And they use it for QRA. It's good enough for that. But it's not the best in that role since that was never it's original purpose. Similarly JSF will be bought by most of (Western) NATO Europe to replace it's F-16's. Again, good enough but not the best. I think the RAF have it right - use Typhoon for air defence with a secondary strike role, and use the JSF for strike with a secondary air defence role.

[swingy]

I can see 2 typhooon sqdns at Lossie plus the F35 ocu. I can see 2 front line F35 sqdns at Marham and the 3 front line plus ocu phoon sqdns at Coningsby. I came to this conclusion on the basis LM provides the best local training environment for the mud movers reduced transit costs etc etc plus LM will likely lose the 2 front line tonka sqdns by end of 2013 making way for the Phoons and then 15 moving south 2019 making way for an F35 ocu with Marham keeping tonkas until 2025 while ramping up sqdns on F35 from 2021 through to 2025 . I could see 41 moving to Marham to spread things out a bit..