492nd & 494th FS stood down as of 9th April + 15 other sqn

[Thunder]

There are four outcome's in that list for the units mentioned

1/ Combat mission ready
2/ Basic mission ready
3/ Grounded
4/ Stand down

What are the chances of the units in the latter two ever making a come back come September?

[POL]

5 if you include Spang's A-10 wing; "Closed"

[The Phantom]

Shocking news

[li'l spotter]

Will the f15's stay at LN in hangars or will they be shipped back to the states? I'll now never see f15's again unless i go to the states

[POL]

This is only until the end of the fiscal year, which is the end of September. There will be a further decision around then as to what happens, I would imagine. Don't expect anything to go anywhere just yet.

[page_verify]

I admire your optimistic point of view, but I've never seen a department (public or private sector) that can find cuts but go on to be given their original funding levels again for something they can obviously live without, even if only for a short while?

[RichC]

But surely you can't remain combat ready without currency flying?

Correct, this is going to take the USAF years to recover from, if they can ever afford to.


It's interesting that no airlift, tankers, UAVs, or special ops units are affected. It's almost like this is their first "this is what we don't really need any more" list.

The Tankers are affected big time (but only those that are not on Stratcom missions. So much so that a lot of tankers are getting airborne with 4-5 crews in each KC135 so they can swap boomer/pilots in flight to keep them current as their flying hours have been cut dramatically.
Stratcom aircraft are not affected, according to the USAF or any Nuclear forces including those tankers which support them.

[POL]

I admire your optimistic point of view, but I've never seen a department (public or private sector) that can find cuts but go on to be given their original funding levels again for something they can obviously live without, even if only for a short while?

I wasn't being optimistic at all, I was simply stating fact; these cuts only go until the end of September, and there will be either more cuts and units disband, or some money and units start flying again. Hence, I wouldn't expect the USAF to fly any aircraft out of the bases they're currently at and back to CONUS for storage at the moment.

[Maurits37]

5 if you include Spang's A-10 wing; "Closed"

81FS withdrawal was already announced, the first A-10s left Spang recently, only 11 left to date....

About the 480FS F-16s it should surprise me if these were stood down/withdrawn too. Last year a lot of construction activities took place at Spangdahlem which suggest USAFE would stay at this air base. Time will tell....

[POL]

Construction at a USAFE base? Doomed to close soon then!

[Maurits37]

You can see it on this link:
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=49.99434 ... =0&src=msl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The part close to the main gate at the north side was newly constructed the last 1,5 year..

[Ronald Reagan]

I can sadly see most USAFE bases closing in the coming years. I can't see them keeping Spang open with just a single F-16 squadron, plus with the withdrawl from Afghanistan the ammount of AMC traffic will reduce in a big way, if we lose the 48th FW in the long term plus with no 52nd FW and a reducation of AMC traffic then it puts into question the need for the 100th ARW with KC-135s. The next BRAC will be grim indeed.

[RichC]

The 100th are the only permanent ARW in the whole of EUCOM. which covers the largest area in terms of square miles in any US MAJCOM.
They are needed for everything from supporting MC130s, MC130 helicopter trails, AMC refuelling, High priority transport and bomber refuelling, not to mention fighter trails. If they disband the 100ARW it will leave a rather large gap in Europe.

[page_verify]

Hi RichC, if I were a betting man, I'd want to say that its not the 100th ARW who provide the tankers, but the 351st ARS.
Is there a need for an ARS in Europe yes; is there a need for an ARW in Europe, no.

[stuie492]

Spoke to a good friend of mine at lakenheath..they report the base is not closing and the eagles wont be grounded as long as been stated. as she put it..typical airforce bullxxxx

[Richard B]

Only cost saving would be fuel, cannot see any other cost saving.
you will still have the wage bill and all other running costs, only thing this says is that the USA have no fuel to fly them, or low on reserves and need to build up stock.

[steve149c]

You also save on Maintenance costs - every hour in the air is man hours on the ground

How much does fuel cost? An F-15 has approx 36,000lbs of fuel (3 external tanks) - approx 18,000 Litres. Assume only 15,000 litres used

So best price for fuel (without taxes) is approx 20p/Litre

That equates to GBP 30,000 per plane, multipy up by 10 planes per day - 150,000
5 days a week - GBP 750,000
52 weeks a year - GBP GBP 39 Million

Thats quite a quick saving

[Reptile 1]

Great short term solution Steve but in the long term that saving will be gone you still need to maintain the aircraft or they go into a none airworthy state and getting them back in the air will cost again not to add more hours in the Air retraining the crews that are out of hours and what saving you have made over 5 months is gone in the space of 2-3 maybe.

The Gauntlet has been laid down and someone will crack, question is when?

[steve149c]

Indeed Reptile - but that is all the USAF are looking at - short term reduction to get within budget, hence the Thunderbirds not flying this year, and now the Blue Angels.

I don't think that many are looking at the ramifications beyond September - maybe put the F-15's in deep maintenance for the next few months

[Reptile 1]

Don't see the point in looking for a short term solution as it always ends up being the worse decision, pull yourself out of a financial crisis only for a few months to go back into it and back to square one, something has to give