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

[MRTT]

To be honest, they chose to live next to the airfield, knowing it could be called into action at any given time. Quite frequently get people moaning about aircraft noise when they knew the airfield was there, really pisses me off.

[city42]

The US/UK basing deal is that usually they each pays half the cost of infrastructure, the UK pays the base Community charge and unlike most of Europe the US does not pay rent. The immediate population around RAF Fairford does not work on the base and accepts its occasional use. However, Kempsford housing is expanding, along the perimeter of the base and expansion will continue. If the Government believed in good planning it should have declared a no build zone round the base. I frequently stay in Kempsford and I have been told they put up with RIAT because it's only a week and for a good cause, but a full time base is a different matter. Being woken at 3am by a B1 take off was not welcomed, nor was the Thunderbirds flying over the village. So politically having a busier base might might now be more difficult. Where will the tankers go and to the locals it makes no difference whether they are called a deployment or permanent, they are still there.
Filmman

politically having a busier base might now be more difficult why difficult what can the locals do about it

[welshandy]

To be honest, they chose to live next to the airfield, knowing it could be called into action at any given time. Quite frequently get people moaning about aircraft noise when they knew the airfield was there, really pisses me off.

Reminds me when growing up in Farnborough(late Father worked at the RAE) & somebody bought a House on the Farnborough Road opposite the RAE South Gate/Runway. They complained about the Aircraft especially when the SBAC show was on. Either they had lived under a Rock or Born on another Planet not to have heard of the Farnborough Airshow!!

[wezgulf3]

Anyone moving near an active Air Base should either do there own due diligence, or the Estate agents should have.

I cant understand why people are allowed to be more vocal with Aircraft noise than any other type of noise! i hear stupidly loud bikes on the road all the time, but they seem to be ok.

Wes...

[mushbuster]

The US/UK basing deal is that usually they each pays half the cost of infrastructure, the UK pays the base Community charge and unlike most of Europe the US does not pay rent. The immediate population around RAF Fairford does not work on the base and accepts its occasional use. However, Kempsford housing is expanding, along the perimeter of the base and expansion will continue. If the Government believed in good planning it should have declared a no build zone round the base. I frequently stay in Kempsford and I have been told they put up with RIAT because it's only a week and for a good cause, but a full time base is a different matter. Being woken at 3am by a B1 take off was not welcomed, nor was the Thunderbirds flying over the village. So politically having a busier base might might now be more difficult. Where will the tankers go and to the locals it makes no difference whether they are called a deployment or permanent, they are still there.
Filmman

Filmman, the tankers were supposed to be going to Ramstein according to the announcements made in 2015 and work to support that move is underway. The RC135 operation can only be a couple of aircraft at a time if you watch their activity at Mildenhall and the RC135 budget documents referred to the runway work being intended to get rid of the tanker support in any case. Regarding the 'no build zone', all military airfields in the UK are protected with 'statutory consultee' status in UK planning law, for Kempsford, the local planning authority (Cotswold District Council) is required by law to consult with MOD. If you or I submit a planning application for a house extension or a even a housing estate like those proposed for Kempsford just now, MOD has to have reasonable grounds to object but must receive formal consultation paperwork. On the taxes and infrastructure costs USAF do not pay taxes under standardized NATO basing agreements from the 50s and from what I can work out, pay significantly or almost all of the costs for infrastructure works. Regarding the low flying, I have had helicopters low flying over my house during RIAT for years and during the 80s and 90s it happened repeatedly during the show weekend as they were using them as taxis. This year it was not just the Thunderbirds that flew over Kempsford, you might want to check out the videos of RAFAT, they also flew directly over the village, one instance of low flying is hardly grounds for an objection. B1s at one in the morning (as that is actually when they took off on a Sunday morning as I was kept awake by the engine runs) well....
IME the residents in the area wholeheartedly support the base and most support increased levels of operations, an often stated comment from people I meet is that it will be good to see the base being used again. I wonder how much?

[andrewn]

The US/UK basing deal is that usually they each pays half the cost of infrastructure, the UK pays the base Community charge and unlike most of Europe the US does not pay rent. The immediate population around RAF Fairford does not work on the base and accepts its occasional use. However, Kempsford housing is expanding, along the perimeter of the base and expansion will continue. If the Government believed in good planning it should have declared a no build zone round the base. I frequently stay in Kempsford and I have been told they put up with RIAT because it's only a week and for a good cause, but a full time base is a different matter. Being woken at 3am by a B1 take off was not welcomed, nor was the Thunderbirds flying over the village. So politically having a busier base might might now be more difficult. Where will the tankers go and to the locals it makes no difference whether they are called a deployment or permanent, they are still there.
Filmman

You are right Filmman - madness to allow all those extra houses in both Kempsford and the outskirts of Fairford, but money talks and there's nothing anyone can do about it now they are built. The Americans in particular are quite sensitive to host nation concerns and complaints, and the constant whining of the local populace (if that's what happens) will just hasten the end of both RIAT and the US presence.

[andrewn]

Regarding the 'no build zone', all military airfields in the UK are protected with 'statutory consultee' status in UK planning law, for Kempsford, the local planning authority (Cotswold District Council) is required by law to consult with MOD. If you or I submit a planning application for a house extension or a even a housing estate like those proposed for Kempsford just now, MOD has to have reasonable grounds to object but must receive formal consultation paperwork.

Interesting points, but largely irrelevant I suspect in the current climate where local authorities are being forced to build as many houses as possible. I'd imagine that "reasonable grounds" protects the immediate areas at each end of the runways, but not a lot else. You only have to look at Coningsby, Brize and Mildenhall as other examples of where its deemed sensible to bang up new houses or industrial estates adjacent to the bases.

[Spitfire88]

Take it from a local, the residents in Fairford and the surrounding villages 99% support the reactivation of the base, it's fantastic news for us, the aircraft presence has been missed greatly since the tankers left

[graham luxton]

Adding to Mushbuster's well considered post I understand that Kempsford Parish Council are opposed to further major housing development on the grounds that Kempsford is an "un-sustainable" village lacking public transport, shops and facilities. Allowing further development would have an adverse effect on the village due to the increase in road traffic which would result. The Council have been told by the base that approximately 540 American personnel with an estimated 740 dependants are connected with the RC move.
I was in Kempsford when the Thunderbirds overflew - great for me but I did wonder if there would be trouble over this as Mandatory Noise Abatement Procedures are in force at Fairford which require pilots to avoid overflying local towns and villages. Whether this was suspended for RIAT I don't know. There is probably more noise over the village by low level Brize traffic routing to/from the South West than anything else!
As for the future RC operation I'd expect it to be the same as Mildenhall - 1 a/c in situ periodically rotated with occasional deployments of the RC-135U. Speculating, I think RC transits to/from the Middle East would also use the base as well as the RC-135S, WC-135 and OC-135, all of which get support from the 95thRS. The consolidation of the Molesworth and Alconbury missions at Croughton may also generate additional activity but whether a transit capability like Mildenhall's is established I have my doubts.

[filmman]

With regard to housing our village parish is now required to accept another 500 houses as is happening throughout England. Kempsford is a domitary for Swindon and building will continue around RAF Fairford. The Germans may repeat their refusal of KC 135s as happened when they replaced KC 97s. Mildenhall has the advantage of already accepting 24/7 jet operations. The trend is a continual reduction in UK/US bases, once lost never reopened - "and then there were none". So don't be surprised if The USAF suddenly wakes up to it and decide to keep both Mildenhall and Fairford. Time will tell.
Filmman

[andrewn]

Adding to Mushbuster's well considered post I understand that Kempsford Parish Council are opposed to further major housing development on the grounds that Kempsford is an "un-sustainable" village lacking public transport, shops and facilities. Allowing further development would have an adverse effect on the village due to the increase in road traffic which would result.

Whilst both Mushbuster's and your posts may be "well considered" the points you raise mean nothing in the current free for all that masquerades as a Planning System! What Parish Council would support an influx of 500 new homes into a village with no facilities, infrastructure or public transport links to support them? But, unfortunately, the NPPF presumption in favour of development makes it virtually impossible for parishes, local authorities, district or county councils to do anything more than raise a token objection. They know that if these applications are contested the Developers will simply take them to appeal, more often than not they will win and the objectors will have to suck up the appeal costs, and then the Developers will take the opportunity to "vary" the application to either reduce the number of affordable homes or just push up the number of units even further. It's called Democracy, apparently

[johnwayne]

Adding to Mushbuster's well considered post I understand that Kempsford Parish Council are opposed to further major housing development on the grounds that Kempsford is an "un-sustainable" village lacking public transport, shops and facilities. Allowing further development would have an adverse effect on the village due to the increase in road traffic which would result.

Whilst both Mushbuster's and your posts may be "well considered" the points you raise mean nothing in the current free for all that masquerades as a Planning System! What Parish Council would support an influx of 500 new homes into a village with no facilities, infrastructure or public transport links to support them? But, unfortunately, the NPPF presumption in favour of development makes it virtually impossible for parishes, local authorities, district or county councils to do anything more than raise a token objection. They know that if these applications are contested the Developers will simply take them to appeal, more often than not they will win and the objectors will have to suck up the appeal costs, and then the Developers will take the opportunity to "vary" the application to either reduce the number of affordable homes or just push up the number of units even further. It's called Democracy, apparently

Yeah 'democracy - say what you think and do what you're told'. Sympathy with all of the above views - from my experience of various planning inquiries/appeals relating to airfields or development near airfields , the very sensible arguments against the proposed residential development expressed by GL will likely get overruled exactly as andrewn suggests . What I think it would take to seriously hamper the development would be co-ordinated objections from MOD/USAF/RIAT on grounds of eroding of airfield safety margins and operational flexibility required for military ops . For example I seem to recall SOG MC 130's practicing night approaches/landings on the southern parallel taxiway several years ago (Graham will surely have chapter & verse) , C130's [from Ramstein I think] low level para dropping near the FFD TACAN , etc. In the 'post Shoreham' era with public safety near airfields higher up the political agenda I think this approach could carry more weight with the Planning Inspectorate . Won't happen of course - relies too much on 'common sense' !

[andrewn]

Now looking at 2024 to complete the 100ARW move to Ramstein...

https://www.stripes.com/tankers-move-to ... cJxxIxSzmY

[Snoop 95]

A delay. Oh goodie!

[page_verify]

Will the 100th ARW even still exist by then.....?

[filmman]

Not surprised. I think its a case of the Germans are not keen to have the tankers. When the original noisier turbo-jet KC135s replaced the KC97Ls in Germany they refused to host them and they ended up at Mildenhall. Germany does not like military flying at weekends, bumps and grinds, bombing or supporting bombing abroad. There is a strong green and pacifist lobby and Merkel is seeking re-election. The Americans who dreamed up the move arrogantly assumed that host nations would fall in line. There is also a lack of common sense in moving support assets too far forward and away from the North Sea and Atlantic customer areas. As the whole exercise was about justifying the shutting of bases in the USA the longer the delay the less reason to shut for that reason.
Filmman

[page_verify]

Rumour is that the KC-135s will end up in several places around Europe.

[andrewn]

Rumour is that the KC-135s will end up in several places around Europe.

Moron, Ramstein, Fairford by any chance?

[page_verify]

Something like that!

[apex]

Given that the report states that the delay is due to on going discussions between the US and Germany, and how it is all going to work, rather than the logistics of moving the 100 ARW, I would say anything could happen now.

Yes they may have a plan but depending on how the discussions go and the issues raised by Filmman earlier, bearing in mind there will be at least one election in the US and Germany before 2024, it may be plan B that presents the best option, although I fear that plan A or B, or C for that matter, will not result in Mildenhall being saved, although I would love to be proved wrong if Mildenhall is still worth going to in seven years time.