Naval Air Facility Lossiemouth ?

[Ravendriver2008]

Around 80m USD is allocated by the US Gov under the National Defense Authorisation for purchasing areas / construction of new facilities for USN VP squadrons to base their P-8 Poseidons along our Seedcorn fleet come 2019.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/funds-a ... no_cache=1

cheers

[Supra]

Bargain for USN & great news for Lossiemouth. Having seen the number of Poseidon a/c visiting lately, $80 million is probably less than the daily parking tickets?
Who could have seen this coming when the MOD rejected the Kawasaki P1 citing inter-operability? Since they closed NAF Mildenhall the USN have had no 'home' in the UK to lay their hat.
Hopefully it leads to even more linked visitors & offsets the bland Typhoons.

[Thunder]

Great news for Lossie and the wider community. All we need now is a deep water berth off the "Skerries" for their carriers.

[toom317]

Surely it would be better to open up Kinloss again, and put all this Poseidon stuff there? I know it won't happen as that would mean politicians admitting they got it wrong, but you can only cram so much into Lossie, and besides, it would be another runway available.

[Malcolm]

Surely it would be better to open up Kinloss again, and put all this Poseidon stuff there? I know it won't happen as that would mean politicians admitting they got it wrong, but you can only cram so much into Lossie, and besides, it would be another runway available.

The Runway at Kinloss isn't long enough for P8 operations. I asked the P8 crew at VLAD, and they said to ensure 24/7 all weather operation needs 8000'+, and ideally 9000'. Kinloss is only 7500' ish, which is fine most of the time, and would be Ok for fighters, but not for an asset that forms part of our nuclear deterrant and MUST be available under all conditions if required.

[Thunder]

The 25 end could easily be extended by 500 mtrs, but it ain't gonna happen.

[alanp]

but not for an asset that forms part of our nuclear deterrant and MUST be available under all conditions if required.

Apart from the last seven years when we didn't have any capacity at all.

[Malcolm]

but not for an asset that forms part of our nuclear deterrant and MUST be available under all conditions if required.

Apart from the last seven years when we didn't have any capacity at all.

Indeed, but if we're going to restore that capability for unilateral deterrent, then it makes no sense to base the planes somewhere where they can't operate under all possible circumstances. Personally, I'd put them at HMS Gannet, under RN control.

[toom317]

Surely it would be better to open up Kinloss again, and put all this Poseidon stuff there? I know it won't happen as that would mean politicians admitting they got it wrong, but you can only cram so much into Lossie, and besides, it would be another runway available.

The Runway at Kinloss isn't long enough for P8 operations. I asked the P8 crew at VLAD, and they said to ensure 24/7 all weather operation needs 8000'+, and ideally 9000'. Kinloss is only 7500' ish, which is fine most of the time, and would be Ok for fighters, but not for an asset that forms part of our nuclear deterrant and MUST be available under all conditions if required.

Find it strange that what is basically a 737 needs more runway than a Comet variation. Had a look at Edinburgh's runway, they have numerous 737's in through the day and their runway is around 7500 feet, and they operate in all conditions.

[Malcolm]

Surely it would be better to open up Kinloss again, and put all this Poseidon stuff there? I know it won't happen as that would mean politicians admitting they got it wrong, but you can only cram so much into Lossie, and besides, it would be another runway available.

The Runway at Kinloss isn't long enough for P8 operations. I asked the P8 crew at VLAD, and they said to ensure 24/7 all weather operation needs 8000'+, and ideally 9000'. Kinloss is only 7500' ish, which is fine most of the time, and would be Ok for fighters, but not for an asset that forms part of our nuclear deterrant and MUST be available under all conditions if required.

Find it strange that what is basically a 737 needs more runway than a Comet variation. Had a look at Edinburgh's runway, they have numerous 737's in through the day and their runway is around 7500 feet, and they operate in all conditions.

Take off requirements are based on number of engines and available thrust after V1. A Comet/Nimmy had 4, so if one packed up at V1 you lost one quarter of your thrust. A 737/P-8 has two engines, so if one packs up you've lost half your thrust and the other donkey still has to get you airborne.

The Flight management computer gets input with the aircraft weight, fuel, passengers, luggage, temperature, pressure, wet/dry runway etc and comes up with a required take of distance. If that's longer than the available runway, then some baggage or fuel gets offloaded. Better to have grumpy passengers with no luggage at the destination, than grumpy passengers sitting in the wreckage in a field off the end of the runway.

For military ops, I've no doubt that if push came to shove and you absolutely had to get an aircraft at MTOW off the deck for an urgent operational tasking then rules would be 'bent', fingers crossed, and off they go hoping that both engines would be Ok during take off. But why take that risk when there is another military airfield 10 miles down the road with a much longer runway?

Oh - and EDI's published runway length is 8386'.

[toom317]

Ooops, I messed up converting metres into feet on that one Malcolm, Edinburgh is indeed over 8000 feet.

[Evergreen 44]

Machrihanish anyone ?
Ideal for redevelopment and it's out of the way location was previously ideal ...

[IMarsh]

I can see the logic (cost saving) for basing the entire Poseidon fleet in one place i.e. Lossiemouth but operationally wouldn't it make sense to have at least a second base as we did with the Nimrod's which used St. Mawgan and Machrishanish in addition to Kinloss?

[Evergreen 44]

I can see the logic (cost saving) for basing the entire Poseidon fleet in one place i.e. Lossiemouth but operationally wouldn't it make sense to have at least a second base as we did with the Nimrod's which used St. Mawgan and Machrishanish in addition to Kinloss?

A dedicated support/satellite base makes perfect sense ( Gannet, Machrihanish, Leuchars)
Lossie now has a large number of small/fast a/c mixing the circuit with a small number of large a/c
Clearly both a/c types have different approach requirements and operating patterns.
Once the main runway is blocked, for whatever reason, any airborne traffic needs to divert, with fuel reserves to suit.
If Aberdeen and Inverness are both closed due to weather, other options are Stornoway, Wick or Kirkwall, or much further South if weather is really bad.
With five Squadrons of a/c based there this weather or operational scenario is virtually inevitable.
For that number of a/c and the cost of buying and operating them having a stand-by airfield down the road seems like incredibly cheap insurance ...
P8's at an extended Kinloss and Typhoons at Lossie. Too logical to ever happen...

[baz1]

Machrihanish anyone ?
Ideal for redevelopment and it's out of the way location was previously ideal ...

and a very long runway!

[Evergreen 44]

Machrihanish anyone ?
Ideal for redevelopment and it's out of the way location was previously ideal ...

and a very long runway!

and Gaydon hangar in good nick :
http://www.machrihanish.org/property-details.php?id=354

[baz1]

thanks for the link Evergreen 44, that base could tell some stories if it could speak!

[Bushpilot]

Evergreen, there is a perfect diversion field already heavily used by the US - Prestwick. Also the cross runway (10-28) at Lossie which won't be used by the P-8s could be used if 23-05 is blocked.

[Evergreen 44]

Thanks Baz/Bush pilot
Noted and agreed on the rwy ops at Lossie and Prestwick already in regular use by US, ideal for temporary diversions.
I was thinking of Machrihanish more as being a dedicated satellite base c/w hangarage, mtce, briefing facilities etc.
Seeing as good facilities already exist and refurbishment has been done by MoD and NATO before.
Because times change it was held in reseve in a good state for many years before being finally relinquished.
Who knows - after a busy few years of joint base ops at Lossie they may still need some extra real estate ...
Cutting assets is easy - knowing what to keep is the tough bit.

[wezgulf3]

Is Leuchars completely done with now?

Wes...