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

[Lossie]

Interesting that Fairford's runway needs work for the RC-135s when from what I can see it is longer than Mildenhall's.

[Stroudy]

It was also long enough for the Space Shuttle so how is it not long enough for an old 707 that's put on a bit of weight!?

[graham luxton]

To clarify the Fairford/Mildenhall runway issue.
Unless these have stretched since I last checked Fairford's runway is 9,996 ft long with 1,000 ft overruns at each end. Mildenhall's is 9,220 ft long but the difference here is that its 1,000 ft overruns are strengthened to take heavyweight departures. Only the approach end overrun, commonly called the underrun, is available for departures giving an RC- 10,220 ft of runway to depart on.

With regard to the overrun work at Fairford. In my view there is only scope to strengthen the overrun at the East end for heavyweight departures as per Mildenhall, giving an RC- almost 11,000 ft of runway. At the West end there is a significant downward slope which would take a mammoth construction job to level for it to be acceptable for departures. It would also result in a cliff edge by the boundary fence - hardly a safety feature for something going off the end of the runway!

If the RC's ever do get there I'd also expect supporting tanker's to come and go as required - just like they did when RC's operated from Upper Heyford, Lakenheath and Mildenhall, before it became a tanker base.

[page_verify]

The budget documents describe how the eastern overrun needs to be reconfigured for a displaced threshold, by converting it into a regular runway surface. To support this change, the airfield lighting system needs extending, the ILS system relocating, and water drainage adding.
They also mention how an RC-135's regular fuel load is 105,000lbs, but without the runway extension then that would have to be reduced in wet conditions to 95,000lbs and sometimes down to 85,000lbs. The aim is to reduce the need for the expensive tanker support that operations currently require.

[graham luxton]

The budget documents describe how the eastern overrun needs to be reconfigured for a displaced threshold, by converting it into a regular runway surface. To support this change, the airfield lighting system needs extending, the ILS system relocating, and water drainage adding.
They also mention how an RC-135's regular fuel load is 105,000lbs, but without the runway extension then that would have to be reduced in wet conditions to 95,000lbs and sometimes down to 85,000lbs. The aim is to reduce the need for the expensive tanker support that operations currently require.

Interesting, relocating the ILS suggests it will have to move outside the existing boundary fence. Wondering if these changes will require the road under the approach to be diverted? It would certainly put a stop to idiots belting along that road exceeding the speed limit.

[filmman]

I note that the estimates are current being submitted in May, but has the reconsideration of the overseas base closures concluded. If it has then Mildenhall is closing. But if they still have to report who knows. The estimates timetable, like all Regular Government submissions to legislators would not be delayed by a very minor issue like Mildenhall, it would be dealt with, along with all minor amendments, at a later date. It's like building a car, if they didn't freeze the design to produce we would still be walking.
Filmman

[page_verify]

Interesting, relocating the ILS suggests it will have to move outside the existing boundary fence. Wondering if these changes will require the road under the approach to be diverted? It would certainly put a stop to idiots belting along that road exceeding the speed limit.

Apologies Graham, as always the devil is in the detail and without copying paragraphs, it's easy to miss clarity, as I've just done.

The exact texts are:

"Reconfigure eastern overrun for a displaced take off runway threshold (convert to take-off runway surface) to include renewal of airfield markings and adjustment of airfield ground lighting. Regrade and resurface western overrun and reconfigure to enable use for aircraft take-off. Include relocating instrument landing system localizer transmitter."

"Regrade, reconstruct, strengthen and repaint the runway overruns to permit their use for runway displaced take off thresholds. Includes the repositioning of the western instrument landing system localizer transmitter to a new level, rewiring and modification of runway approach and runway edge lighting systems."

"Failure to reconfigure the runway 27 and 09 overruns would significantly increase costs associated with conducting RC-135 operations from RAF Fairford as the requirement for in-flight refueling operations would be substantially increased."

This looks as though both ends of the runway are getting some hardcore poured over them, and one end is having its ILS localiser raised to support the lengthened runway. I'm assuming east and west here refer to points on a map, rather than runway headings.

[Reach1985]

When the news of Mildenhall's closure broke and the rumours of RC missions at Fairford started circulating I initially thought that it was a fairly stupid idea considering you already have a viable operating base in Mildenhall but the more I think about it the more sense it seems to make.

If the future of USAF assets in the UK & Europe is to be one of fewer but more 'capable' (note the inverted commas - especially in regards untested assets like F35) multi-role assets then having a small number of strategic locations in Europe from which to operate makes sense. Fairford is perfect for this role in that it can support a number of strategic missions and types (RC, U2, tankers, bombers) and has plenty of room to house these assets should the need arise (though clearly not housing and accommodation). It looks like Lakenheath will assume the role of the key 'offensive' base in Europe with both F15 & F35 assigned (I'd imagine that at times elements of this force will be forward deployed to Eastern Europe) and Ramstein will operate as the key airlift / taker facility.

I'd suggest it puts a question mark by Aviano and Spang - does anyone know what the out of service date of the F16s might / will be? I've always wondered why these 3 squadrons weren't combined at one of the two bases?

[page_verify]

I had a USAF Colonel once describe Mildenhall to me as "a jack of all trades, a master of none" or whatever the slightly different American equivalent saying is. And, he ended his sentence with "and that's going to be a problem for them".

[Reach1985]

Spang if I'm right supports the airlift mission and the army in Germany too (and will be home to the special ops guys too)?

[graham luxton]

Thanks for clearing that up page - still have visions of virtually a cliff edge at the Western end of the runway if the work involves the whole of the overrun. Likely to make Fairford unavailable for some months I suspect.

[graham luxton]

Why would there be a cliff edge?

Because there is a significant drop from the end of the runway to the end of the overrun. If the overrun is made part of the runway both ends must be more or less level. Having a heavyweight a/c start its take off roll uphill doesn't seem very likely to me so if whole overrun is to be used for take off the end would be very much like a cliff edge next to the crash gate at the West end.

[page_verify]

Having to change the level of the western end ILS localiser does suggest there's going to be some considerable height changes.

[Agent K]

It was also long enough for the Space Shuttle so how is it not long enough for an old 707 that's put on a bit of weight!?

Although, of course they're not old 707's (different fuselage diameter completely although look similar), they are old KC135's. Their family connection is to the Boeing 367 prototype that was widened to make the 707 but the KC135 used its diameter.

[Seahornet1]

It was also long enough for the Space Shuttle so how is it not long enough for an old 707 that's put on a bit of weight!?

Although, of course they're not old 707's (different fuselage diameter completely although look similar), they are old KC135's. Their family connection is to the Boeing 367 prototype that was widened to make the 707 but the KC135 used its diameter.

The key difference is that the C135 variants all have a smaller wing than the 707 and its derivatives. Fully loaded, the RJ has about 10% higher wing loading than a (707-based) E3-D, for instance. Hence, the longer take-off distance requirement.

[slogen51]

There used to be KC-135s detached to Fairford all the time - I am amazed that a fully loaded RC with modern engines requires more runway.

Eventually the RC will be replaced by some unmanned device in the not too distant future?

[page_verify]

The RC-135s will be around at least 2040, so there's the potential for there to be at least 18 years of operations at Fairford. (The RC-135s move in either FY21 or FY22 I forget which now, with some of the airfield construction work starting in FY18).

Btw, I saw elsewhere people are worried that the airfield work would affect RIAT, the estimate start and finish dates for all of the work are in the budget document if anyone is worried enough to want to know.

[johnwayne]

The RC-135 relocation to Fairford is FY21. Confusingly the Lakenheath pages include (p186) 'future missions include the F35A and RC-135 ' - possibly a left over from an earlier draft that slipped through ?

[Northsky]

And in the future UAV`s

N

[TonyO]

Interesting statement from USAFE...

In January of 2015, the Department of Defense announced the divestment of RAF Mildenhall as part of the European Infrastructure Consolidation Review, which included the need to relocate the 95th Reconnaissance Squadron and the 488th Intelligence Squadron. After a strategic and thorough review of options to determine the best potential sites, in March 2017 the Secretary of the Air Force approved the relocation of the 95RS and 488IS to RAF Fairford, UK. This move enables U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa to reduce excess capacity without any loss of operational capabilities.

There was a decision to relocate the 95RS and 488IS to RAF Lakenheath by the SecAF in July 2016. Following an assessment at RAF Fairford, and emergency operational requirements across the USAF AOR, the SecAF determined that the 95RS and 488 IS basing and operational requirements would be best supported at RAF Fairford.