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

[Andy_99]

With the recent decision to expand Heathrow, it makes me wonder why they don't just turn Mildenhall into an international airport, the runway is long enough, a certain amount of infrastructure is probably there already, good transport links to London down the A11 and the Midlands on the A14.......

Seems a waste of a perfectly good airfield!

Don't think the runway is long enough & think of the outcry from the NIMBY's,

In Reality Stansted is only a short distance away & is sat on a Motorway, has rail links etc..

[graham luxton]

Turn Mildenhall into an International Airport then Lakenheath would have to close!

[quid21]

Don't think the runway is long enough & think of the outcry from the NIMBY's,

Planes are not as loud as they used to be - I lived near Stansted's flight path and remember hearing BAC1-11 and Il-76's before the greater noise restrictions - you just get used to it - but today's aircraft are much quieter!

[Agent K]

With the recent decision to expand Heathrow, it makes me wonder why they don't just turn Mildenhall into an international airport, the runway is long enough, a certain amount of infrastructure is probably there already, good transport links to London down the A11 and the Midlands on the A14.......

Seems a waste of a perfectly good airfield!

Single runway thus a single point of failure, too far away from the capital, the S and SE catchment areas that LHR serves too, poor transport links, but I agree otherwise a waste of a good base and useable runway.

[quid21]

With the recent decision to expand Heathrow, it makes me wonder why they don't just turn Mildenhall into an international airport, the runway is long enough, a certain amount of infrastructure is probably there already, good transport links to London down the A11 and the Midlands on the A14.......

Seems a waste of a perfectly good airfield!

Single runway thus a single point of failure, too far away from the capital, the S and SE catchment areas that LHR serves too, poor transport links, but I agree otherwise a waste of a good base and useable runway.

Stansted has a single runway and copes just fine! I agree about the distance, but the Heathrow and London road traffic in general is heavily congested most of the time, but hypothetically at Mildenhall you could be on the A11 to Cambridge or beyond in a couple of minutes.

[Agent K]

With the recent decision to expand Heathrow, it makes me wonder why they don't just turn Mildenhall into an international airport, the runway is long enough, a certain amount of infrastructure is probably there already, good transport links to London down the A11 and the Midlands on the A14.......

Seems a waste of a perfectly good airfield!

Single runway thus a single point of failure, too far away from the capital, the S and SE catchment areas that LHR serves too, poor transport links, but I agree otherwise a waste of a good base and useable runway.

Stansted has a single runway and copes just fine! I agree about the distance, but the Heathrow and London road traffic in general is heavily congested most of the time, but hypothetically at Mildenhall you could be on the A11 to Cambridge or beyond in a couple of minutes.

I think we're discussing different types of operation here. Stansted is predominantly short-haul, narrow body, traffic, without a real hub and spoke operation, once that is factored in the dynamics change as you have distinct peaks and troughs in the daily operation which are restricted in a single runway operation. In fact the single runway operation is a factor that BA has long stated that has restricted it's growth/investment/development at LGW.

I agree with you about traffic congestion! I face it daily

[filmman]

During the Stansted public inquiry I saw the plans for the proposed airport. Stansted has "planning permission" for a second runway; the infrastructure was planned for two and the land for the second runway was supposed to be within the airport boundary. As before there is an ongoing road upgrade for Stansted (A120), Cross rail will improve connections and the Stantead express can easily be improved. A busy Mildenhall civil airport would conflict with both Lakenheath and Stansteas, so it will not happen. Currently ex military sites become housing estates. So the bookies order of probability seems to be (1) Housing estate (2) Marshalls move in and Cambridge airport becomes a Housing estate (3) Mildenhall stays USAF (Putin) (4) MOD keep it as an airfield used by the Army (5) The RAF move in, keep the runway but use the base for mainly non flying uses. I bet those supposedly in charge don't really know either so we keep hearing later and later dates.

[skysearcher]

interesting summary Filmman, thanks.

Any news on latest closure dates for mildy? I think i remember the DoD plan (European Infrastructure Consolidation) saying close by 2020, then saw in the report by SQW commissioned for local authority that EIC said 2022.... any one got another date? Thanks in advance.

[page_verify]

The estimated date of disposal given in the MoD's base review is 2022.

[Snoop 95]

The estimated date of disposal given in the MoD's base review is 2022.

and the review also states that there is no UK need for the base: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _FINAL.pdf

[Snoop 95]

The 'waters' seem to be muddy about Mildenhall's future military requirement, but am I surprised? No!
The Bury Free Press says that when they read in the Review that there was no future military need for the base they contacted an MoD spokesperson, who said that the RAF did not require the site but the British Army might after it is handed back. Uh!

[the concerned]

I was wondering if mildenhall would be a viable alternative for wattisham and wattisham be used to replace marshalls and maybe Norwich

[Nighthawke]

Well clearly the MoD don't think the first is an option as they've decided they don't want Mildenhall after the USAF leave. As for Cambridge and/or Norwich relocating - no way. The roads around Wattisham are totally unsuitable especially compared to their current accessibility. CBG has the A14 within spitting distance and even "rural" Norwich has the A140 to serve the airport. So in summary - no, no and er...no.

[baltimore]

So, Donald Trump is now the President elect. Does this potentially alter future US strategy insofar as its military assets based in the UK are concerne? Discuss.

[Agent K]

I was wondering if mildenhall would be a viable alternative for wattisham and wattisham be used to replace marshalls and maybe Norwich

Why would you move and incur huge cost (and who would pay, MoD for the military side of stuff but what private company is going to pay for the civil side of stuff and why?) just for the sake of it. I can't see a business case for that at all.

[Doughnut]

If Mildenhall were to be used by Marshalls and Cambridge airport were to close the big winner would be City of Cambridge. The City does not like the airport as a neighbour and the land prices for CBG are going to be far higher than at MLD.
So long are Marshalls get a high enough return for the sale of land at Cambridge then the relocation costs and advantages of the greater space available at Mildenhall will make this a very interesting offer. Big question will the locals at Mildehall suddenly object to a civil maintenance operation with possible parting out / scrapping area ? Such operations at Kemble and Bruntingthrope are unpopular with the locals. There are also a small number of schedule service and Bizjet flights into CBG.

[filmman]

As I previously said elsewhere there is the Trump wildcard. Trump expects Europe to pull its weight, increase defence spending and to pay for USA forces stationed in their countries -otherwise they pull out. Uk runs 4 Trident subs which are politically useful for making Russian strategy more risky. We took up 3 Rivet joints which the USA could no longer afford. Apparently we don't charge the USA rent and pay half USAF infrastructure in UK. Other countries charge rent. So will the USA continue the eastward shift of forces if countries do not pay? Will they overall pull forces back to the USA. He said America first, jobs for Americans. Whereas Obama had open tanker and helicopter competition before stopping foreign wins, Trump won't let foreign companies compete. Will BAe be allowed to compete because it has an American presence?
Mildenhall and even Lakenheath's futures look more precarious.

filmman

[POL]

We took up 3 Rivet joints which the USA could no longer afford.

The three RC-135s purchased by the UK were converted from KC-135s, so not sure where you got this from?

[page_verify]

Filman, some interesting opinion, thank you for sharing, although as EGVP mentioned, some of the points you make rely on having misunderstood the facts they're based upon.

[filmman]

I am only quoting what Trump said during his lengthy campaign. Most media was fixated on the border wall etc. He threatened to pull forces out if they were not paid for, etc. With regard to the Rivet Joints did not the USA reduce their fleet by 3, as we boughht 3 "new" ones; I was surprised we did not use new airframes. You think we are duplicating USA missions, what's the point? With regard to Trident, it's a very murky area, but if your looking at it from a Russian point of view, even if they could detach the USA deterrent from Europe, one Trident boat could do unacceptable damage.
Filmman