UK Confirms 9 Boeing P-8's to be purchased

[Malcolm]

Pitty they shut Filton

Filton is/was only 8000'.

I've heard stories that there are quite severe weight restrictions on the "Bucket and Spade" flights out of Bristol Lulsgate. Runway length there is 6600', and apparently Thompson/TUI have been operating B-757's out of there on many of the summer flights to sunny places because these have much better short field performance than their B737-800's. When operating the 737's they were routinely weight limited. However, the 757's are due for retirement, which is likely to result in lots of unhappy holiday makers being stung for overweight baggage on 737's.

Back to the point - military aircraft tend to end up weighing more than their civilian counterparts, due to all the junk/operational equipment/things that go bang they carry. There is a story over on pprune that the P-8 cannot take off with a full fuel load and full weapons load due to that exceeding the Max Gross Take off weight limit. So if TUI can't get the bucket and spader's off of Lulsgate in 6600', then the chances of the RAF/MOD basing P8 at somewhere with only a 6000' available seems unlikely.

On that basis the only realistic basing options now in the South West are Yeovilton 7500', and Brize 10000' (Even though Brize is actually in the North as far as I'm concerned ). But - they won't be based in the South West.

Kinloss is 7600', and Lossie is 9000'. Waddo is 9000', and currently being extended to 9500' I think. Just sayin'.

[C24]

Why don't we organise a lottery? Not for money of course, 'cos that would break some law or other. I would not enter as I have already demonstrated that I really have no idea what I am talking about.

[Phoon]

Pitty they shut Filton

Filton is/was only 8000'.

I've heard stories that there are quite severe weight restrictions on the "Bucket and Spade" flights out of Bristol Lulsgate. Runway length there is 6600', and apparently Thompson/TUI have been operating B-757's out of there on many of the summer flights to sunny places because these have much better short field performance than their B737-800's. When operating the 737's they were routinely weight limited. However, the 757's are due for retirement, which is likely to result in lots of unhappy holiday makers being stung for overweight baggage on 737's.

Back to the point - military aircraft tend to end up weighing more than their civilian counterparts, due to all the junk/operational equipment/things that go bang they carry. There is a story over on pprune that the P-8 cannot take off with a full fuel load and full weapons load due to that exceeding the Max Gross Take off weight limit. So if TUI can't get the bucket and spader's off of Lulsgate in 6600', then the chances of the RAF/MOD basing P8 at somewhere with only a 6000' available seems unlikely.

On that basis the only realistic basing options now in the South West are Yeovilton 7500', and Brize 10000' (Even though Brize is actually in the North as far as I'm concerned ). But - they won't be based in the South West.

Kinloss is 7600', and Lossie is 9000'. Waddo is 9000', and currently being extended to 9500' I think. Just sayin'.

Now we are getting warmer......

[flarkey]

How long is the soon to close Mildenhall runway?

[Malcolm]

How long is the soon to close Mildenhall runway?

9200', Though I'm not sure if that includes the under/overruns. One of the reported problems at Mildenhall is that the runway isn't long enough to support a fully gassed up RC-135 or KC-46 which I think has ultimately sealed it's fate.

Back to P-8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... off_weight

The B737-800 has a MTOW of 174,200 lbs (79,000 kg), and requires a take of run of 2308m (7572 feet)
The B737-900 has a MTOW of 187,700 lbs (85,100 kg), and requires a take of run of 2500m (8202 feet)
The P8 has a MTOW of 184,000 lbs (83,500 kg), and requires......

NAS Jacksonville has a runway length of 8000' (2439m)
NAS Whidbey Island has two runways, both 8000' long

RAF Kinloss has a runway length of 7600'.

[Thunder]

Well Kinloss has supported most if not all the large NATO a/c types and has never had a problem, it even took an AN-124 that seemingly requires 2520m and it was loaded with a Nimrod fuselage.

[Malcolm]

Well Kinloss has supported most if not all the large NATO a/c types and has never had a problem, it even took an AN-124 that seemingly requires 2520m and it was loaded with a Nimrod fuselage.

True, but the take off distances relate to an aircraft operating at max weight. If the runway isn't long enough to operate at max weight, you offload fuel and/or payload. I doubt an Nimmy fuselage comes anywhere close to max payload for an AN-124, and even if it did, they'd just put less fuel in so they can get off in the available. But, is it sensible to base a new MPA somewhere where the runway isn't long enough for it to take off at max weight, particularly when you have no way to inflight refuel it?

The safety margin for a twin jet has to be much higher than for a 4-jet because if you lose an engine after V1 with a twin that's 50% of your thrust gone. With a 4 jet you only lose 25%. Hence B767/KC-46 and B737/P-8 requiring more runway than you might expect.

On the plus side, the arctic climate in the far north of Scotland does increase engine efficiency thus reducing required take of run (compared to the tropical climate at say Navy Jax or Yeovilton)

[C24]

EGXT, aka RAF Wittering has 9025' of asphalt.

[Andy_99]

Stick them at Fairford then 10,000ft of finest blacktop, Munition Stores, accommodation.


Can't see it happening though.

[Phoon]

EGXT, aka RAF Wittering has 9025' of asphalt.

Yes - but only around 6000ft is now usable I believe. - Hasn't taken long to deteriorate.

[onemac]

Heathrow/Southern - 12,000'. Sorted.

Al

[Contrail1958]

Heathrow/Southern - 12,000'. Sorted.

Al

When Al are you going to take this debate seriously like the rest
of us.

[Topol-M]

Trump is rumoured to be requesting the runways at Turnberry are reopened

[Typhoon2]

Please don't shoot me down if this is a silly question but with RAF Midlenhall closing in 2019 could this be an option? The runway must be good enough for large aircraft as it has KC-135s stationed there, among other aircraft, and surely the infrastructure for large aircraft is already in place.

[onemac]

When Al are you going to take this debate seriously like the rest
of us.

Not in this lifetime sunshine Kinloss indeed

Al

[Contrail1958]

Please don't shoot me down if this is a silly question but with RAF Midlenhall closing in 2019 could this be an option? The runway must be good enough for large aircraft as it has KC-135s stationed there, among other aircraft, and surely the infrastructure for large aircraft is already in place.

You are quite correct it could be an option, but if you've read the whole post you are asking
to move even further away from your operating area. Why would you wish to do so ??

[TankBuster]

Please don't shoot me down if this is a silly question but with RAF Midlenhall closing in 2019 could this be an option? The runway must be good enough for large aircraft as it has KC-135s stationed there, among other aircraft, and surely the infrastructure for large aircraft is already in place.

You are quite correct it could be an option, but if you've read the whole post you are asking
to move even further away from your operating area. Why would you wish to do so ??

When you consider the distances that the KC-135s & RC-135s fly to from Mildenhall then base location probably wont be much of a deciding factor when a base is chosen for the P-8's. Any decision will probably lean towards which airfield has the best infrastructure already in place.

When you look at a map of the UK nowhere is really very far from the sea, so many locations could be deemed suitable. Its probably a good bet that they would go to Waddo as the base has the infrastructure and it is centrally located to despatch aircraft north, south, east & west. Mildenhall could still be a possibility as a joint facility with the US Navy P-8s could even be considered, that could secure Mildy's future???

TankBuster

[C24]

EGXT, aka RAF Wittering has 9025' of asphalt.

Yes - but only around 6000ft is now usable I believe. - Hasn't taken long to deteriorate.

Yes, I take your point but I am basing my "plan" on money being spent to upgrade it. There is sufficient space to extend it to about 5.8 miles if required. That should be long enough.
So we would then have two excellent airfields (RAF Waddington) within a sensible range of each other to act as alternatives for both sets of aircraft.
If they started soon, the runway upgrade would be about ready for the P8 replacement. The UAV-MRA Mk 1UP, perhaps?

(I am going to ban myself from this thread).

[graham luxton]

How long is the soon to close Mildenhall runway?

9200', Though I'm not sure if that includes the under/overruns. One of the reported problems at Mildenhall is that the runway isn't long enough to support a fully gassed up RC-135 or KC-46 which I think has ultimately sealed it's fate.

Over the years I've seen various official references to the length of Mildenhall's runway vary from 9,220` to 9,240`. Currently 9,221`?
Using the underrun increases the take off distance available to approx. 10,220`.

[Malcolm]

How long is the soon to close Mildenhall runway?

9200', Though I'm not sure if that includes the under/overruns. One of the reported problems at Mildenhall is that the runway isn't long enough to support a fully gassed up RC-135 or KC-46 which I think has ultimately sealed it's fate.

Over the years I've seen various official references to the length of Mildenhall's runway vary from 9,220` to 9,240`. Currently 9,221`?
Using the underrun increases the take off distance available to approx. 10,220`.

Thanks - yes I was rounding to the nearest whole hundreds. Used to enjoy the old C141B's & KC-135A/Q's as they took off (with water injection),rotated at the last possible moment, and retracted the wheels to avoid taking the perimeter fence with them. KC-135R's have spoilt all that