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

[johnwayne]

Well spotted that man & thanks for sharing - have you read all 380 pages ?

[page_verify]

I did a search and then read the two dozen pages about Fairford and Lakenheath, does that count?
The detailed texts about Lakenheath give some interesting insights about who'll be "boss" there when the F-35s arrive.

[CHINOOKER]

As I read it,it will cost some $46m to upgrade Fairford for RC-135 ops....what is the cost of upgrading the facilities at Mildenhall currently projected at????

[EGNV]

Nice find and thanks for sharing! It also states the F-15C'S are due to leave.

[page_verify]

Nice find and thanks for sharing! It also states the F-15C'S are due to leave.

That's well hidden isn't it! I originally thought that keeping the 18 F-15Cs was why a larger parking ramp was required - but then it goes on to say they're leaving, perhaps just not soon enough.

[Agent K]

Also states for RAF Lakenheath: "Future missions include the F-35A and RC-135"

[EGNV]

Nice find and thanks for sharing! It also states the F-15C'S are due to leave.

That's well hidden isn't it! I originally thought that keeping the 18 F-15Cs was why a larger parking ramp was required - but then it goes on to say they're leaving, perhaps just not soon enough.

Any hope of them staying seems to be fading fast, looks like they need the space for the F-35's
Pages 197 and 206 for anyone interested.

[page_verify]

Indeed, four squadrons, each with 24 aircraft seems to be the plan.

[CHINOOKER]

Seems like some of the moves are akin to "squeezing a quart int a pint pot"....interesting read on Aviano,with the 57RQS having to basically work out of "temporary facilities",with all thier equipment etc scattered about!!....seems the bean counters in charge do not understand the operational side of things!!

[Nighthawke]

That's because bean counter only understand one thing - beans! Happens in all walks of life. I've spent all my working life in an engineering industry and the only times things go really well is when an engineer is in charge. Put an accountant in charge and things start going down rapidly - bloomin' penny pinchers!

[page_verify]

Seems like some of the moves are akin to "squeezing a quart int a pint pot"....interesting read on Aviano,with the 57RQS having to basically work out of "temporary facilities",with all thier equipment etc scattered about!!....seems the bean counters in charge do not understand the operational side of things!!

The funding is to provide housing for the 57RQS though because they don't currently have their own facilities.

[Lossie]

It is worth noting that under Lakenheath in that docuemnt it states one of the future missions as RC-135.

[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?