Red Arrows RAF Scampton air base to be sold off

[Spitfire250]

So if HHA relocate does that mean we're going to see the Buccaneer and SU-22 they've been storing so that: "The aircraft, its systems and spares are maintained in such a condition that it can readily be reactivated to flight status, should a contractual tasking arise" take to the skies again?

[TankBuster]

Move to Valley ?

Realistically, I think this would be VERY high on the list for where the Reds would re-locate to. We shall see...

TankBuster

[graham luxton]

I remember a while ago that with a new typhoon squadron standing up at Coningsby that the bbmf might of relocated to scampton, (if there was any truth in that I don't know) I guess they will not be moving there if it's closing.

Leering would be my choice (not that I get one) for the Reds given the vast amount of airspace around North Yorkshire especially with Linton closing down.

Is it really vast amounts of airspace they need, surely they need airspace from the ground to say 12,000ft? Having lived in Yorkshire for my younger life next to RAF Leeming I'd suggest a lot of that Yorkshire airspace wouldn't suit the needs (lack of clear centreline/runway, hilly, foggy, rainy, not flat etc.)

The airspace requirement for the Reds used to be 5nm radius and up to around 7,000 feet. I've been out of it long enough to forget the detail, and I'm not hooked into the modern Notam system, so please don't rely on my figures. Others on here may be able to give accurate and up to date information on this.

5nm radius from surface to 9,500ft at Scampton. Base of controlled airspace over the top limits it from being any higher.

[gamecock]

With regards to SMEs, is there a BAES presence at Scampton? Rolls-Royce's Adour facility is at Valley.

[Agent K]

The airspace requirement for the Reds used to be 5nm radius and up to around 7,000 feet. I've been out of it long enough to forget the detail, and I'm not hooked into the modern Notam system, so please don't rely on my figures. Others on here may be able to give accurate and up to date information on this.

Interesting, yes, I'm not 100% sure either but my friend who is a current ATCO at Swanwick did, if I recall correctly, say to me a few years ago she gave 6000ft for the rolling display and 12,000ft for the full display. I'll ask her again.

[Vulcanone]

HHA operate under MAA rules hence that's why they were still flying Hunters when the CAA had grounded them.

[MRTT]

Buccaneer is the only aircraft on the civil register, I believe.

[johnwayne]

Re - Fairford I rather think inflexible nature of USAF ops there [bomber deployments/U2 swapovers] becoming more constraining as activity increases and base becomes fully operational again [2021] with RC135's etc. means its totally incompatible with Reds needs [ notwithstanding the airspace conflicts mentioned by the Luxton's earlier post].

[stealth117]

The airspace requirement for the Reds used to be 5nm radius and up to around 7,000 feet. I've been out of it long enough to forget the detail, and I'm not hooked into the modern Notam system, so please don't rely on my figures. Others on here may be able to give accurate and up to date information on this.

Interesting, yes, I'm not 100% sure either but my friend who is a current ATCO at Swanwick did, if I recall correctly, say to me a few years ago she gave 6000ft for the rolling display and 12,000ft for the full display. I'll ask her again.

There is a notam for a red arrows display at raf coningsby tomorrow and that says 6nm radius and upper height limit of 8100ft

[Agent K]

There is a notam for a red arrows display at raf coningsby tomorrow and that says 6nm radius and upper height limit of 8100ft

Clearly she built in contingency!!!!!!!! or I remember wrongly....

[Pune]

What about RAF Fairford, just a thought?

Well, they started there, so appropriate to finish there too!

My thoughts exactly F4..

[filmman]

Nothing is for ever. As the Armed Forces shrink certain things, like bands, pilot training, training bases are centralised. But eventually you run out of new cost saving wheezes. The prime function is defence, with industry interests being taken into account. Eventually there might well come a point where the Reds end; they are not a given, they have to compete against other priorities. Would we really miss the Reds? Would real squadrons benefit from demonstrating their skills? Mo doubt this view will be upsetting, but life moves on.
Filmman

[Andy_99]

The thing that I don't understand is that almost every day we read about the relations with Russian souring, the expansionist views of Russian etc...
We keep closing all of these bases & centralising resources into fewer & fewer locations, What's the saying about not putting all one's eggs in one basket.


What position are we in now should the US want to station some extra squadrons over here ? I know Lakenheath is expanding for the F35, Fairford is getting the RC's from Mildenhall & a tanker deployment etc.

[POL]

What position are we in now should the US want to station some extra squadrons over here ?

If the Americans want to base things at our bases they can darn well pay for it!

[baz1]

they wont be doing as there will be no bases left available for them!

[Andy_99]

they wont be doing as there will be no bases left available for them!

Indeed or for us shuld we ever need to expand.

I'm think now of all the complaints should the Reds move to Valley, Ooo it used to be so quiet & peaceful here now look at those horrible aircraft spoiling our peace & tranquillity.

[Agent K]

I'm think now of all the complaints should the Reds move to Valley, Ooo it used to be so quiet & peaceful here now look at those horrible aircraft spoiling our peace & tranquillity.

Because there's no Hawk aircraft there at the moment are there????

[Agent K]

If the Americans want to base things at our bases they can darn well pay for it!

What a naïve statement. They do already (RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Feltwell, RAF Fairford etc.....), they funded a good amount of the original HAS programme allowing forward deployment of types such as F111's to Boscombe Down.

I guess we could tell them, against and contrary to NATO agreements with forward deploying to European bases (to protect us!!!!!), we could insist they pay, whereupon they tell us to f*** off and withdraw from all the current bases......

[PR9]

The base is knackered due to years of cuts, neglect and a lack of investment.

Only thing we can hope for is if someone buys it that will preserve the heritage with the intent to continue to use it for aviation.

To just build houses on it would be criminal.

[POL]

If the Americans want to base things at our bases they can darn well pay for it!

What a naïve statement. They do already (RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Feltwell, RAF Fairford etc.....), they funded a good amount of the original HAS programme allowing forward deployment of types such as F111's to Boscombe Down.

I guess we could tell them, against and contrary to NATO agreements with forward deploying to European bases (to protect us!!!!!), we could insist they pay, whereupon they tell us to f*** off and withdraw from all the current bases......

In what way is it naiive? The post I quoted talked about basing new squadrons here, why would HMG pay for for a base upgrade if it's the US that want to base something here?