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

[Ian1963]

This post should be closed down it’s like play school.

[filmman]

No, schools out until next year? The strategic decision has been made, subject to October's election. I would be surprised if all basing decisions have been made. So be patient.
Filmman

[XWP29]

Whatever the DOD/USAF decide on where they base their aircraft based on changing strategic planning is not going to be based on the preferences of those who are willing the dice to land in their favour, from a spotting point of view. As you know.

[Cranberry]

Or the residents of 'spy corner' as the USAF call John's Field

[Unknown74]

Was Spy Corner not the Viewing Area at the opposite end from Johns Field? The Fenced Area?

[Tronk 11]

People go on about the length of runway the RC's use for taking off due to fuel they carry, which is probably true. I think theres another factor too. The new larger engines lave a lower ground clearance ( I've heard as low as 18 inches!), so none of the 135s ever launch fully loaded, tanker or intel jets. The tankers have 4 crew and are basically empty. The RCs are packed with crew, plus all of the electronic wizzardry which will weigh a bit. I'm not sure lengthening any runway will make any difference unless its like a billiard table. As for moving, who can tell, they've spent millions at Spang and are saying they are off, so people saying millions are being spent at Fairford has no factor if they'll move there. Contracts have probably been agreed a long while ago, so they have to get the work done or they'll loose the money and get no work done. That doesn't make sence spending money on nothing, and the Armed services don't work that way, bid for the cash and use it even if its not going to happen.

[XWP29]

Or the residents of 'spy corner' as the USAF call John's Field

Anywhere, defence and ever changing strategy/politics define location. Not spotters viewing points or the occupants of same.

[page_verify]

People go on about the length of runway the RC's use for taking off due to fuel they carry, which is probably true. I think theres another factor too. The new larger engines lave a lower ground clearance ( I've heard as low as 18 inches!), so none of the 135s ever launch fully loaded, tanker or intel jets. The tankers have 4 crew and are basically empty. The RCs are packed with crew, plus all of the electronic wizzardry which will weigh a bit. I'm not sure lengthening any runway will make any difference unless its like a billiard table. As for moving, who can tell, they've spent millions at Spang and are saying they are off, so people saying millions are being spent at Fairford has no factor if they'll move there. Contracts have probably been agreed a long while ago, so they have to get the work done or they'll loose the money and get no work done. That doesn't make sence spending money on nothing, and the Armed services don't work that way, bid for the cash and use it even if its not going to happen.

Nothing in the KC-135 or RC-135 operations procedures pubs, do you have a link?

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/prod ... -135v3.pdf
https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/prod ... -135v3.pdf

[graham luxton]

Even if the overruns at Fairford were strengthened for take off's, an RC-135 still wouldn't be able to operate from there with a maximum fuel load as the Take Off Run Available (TORA) would be limited to approx. 11,000 feet and not 12,000 as mentioned earlier. This is because the 1,000ft or so of overrun at the departure end would, for safety/obstacle clearance reasons, remain an overrun and not be useable for TORA. Compared with Mildenhall this increase is only about 800 ft greater than the RC currently has available.

Another consideration mounting these missions from Fairford, being further West from
Mildenhall. is that fuel burn and flight time will be jncreased, eating into any advantage that extra 800 ft of runway would give regarding fuel load.

As the reason for moving has gone away why uproot an operation which has been at Mildenhall since 1970, at great expense and disruption, only to move it somewhere less cost effective? - can't see it happening.

[baz1]

Was Spy Corner not the Viewing Area at the opposite end from Johns Field? The Fenced Area?

on the A1101 which is now another entrance to the base sat in that fenced area many a time perfect for T/O from rnwy 29

[Nighthawke]

Indeed it was and a great shame when removed.

[Proteus]

And if you go back in time it was a lay by opposite St Johns Street in Beck Row, 45 years ago.

[rh226]

It certainly was, Proteus.

Many a time a mate and myself slept in the car there - which was also useful for the Air Fete as they used to open a section of fence there as the entrance. Not quite so good when they put the fuel dump(?) in front of it.

[Proteus]

Yup that fuel dump certainly broken up the vista, thinking back that fuel store was dug in 1975 or thereabouts, don’t you just love getting ol?

[C24]

Perhaps this has already been answered but ...


This is aimed at the USAF community on here to answer please.

As the RJs have an hour or so of cruise after takeoff, why flog the aircraft with a full load when there are lots of 100ARW people who could fill them up closer to the operating area?

Thank you (spasiba or similar)
"Spy" C24

[johnwayne]

Even if the overruns at Fairford were strengthened for take off's, an RC-135 still wouldn't be able to operate from there with a maximum fuel load as the Take Off Run Available (TORA) would be limited to approx. 11,000 feet and not 12,000 as mentioned earlier. This is because the 1,000ft or so of overrun at the departure end would, for safety/obstacle clearance reasons, remain an overrun and not be useable for TORA. Compared with Mildenhall this increase is only about 800 ft greater than the RC currently has available.

Another consideration mounting these missions from Fairford, being further West from
Mildenhall. is that fuel burn and flight time will be jncreased, eating into any advantage that extra 800 ft of runway would give regarding fuel load.

As the reason for moving has gone away why uproot an operation which has been at Mildenhall since 1970, at great expense and disruption, only to move it somewhere less cost effective? - can't see it happening.

Wise words , have to agree.

[Cranberry]

Because a gallon of gas transferred from a tanker costs about 15x that of what a gallon of gas from a pantograph on the ground costs, that data is part of the business case for re-engining the B-52s, I've pasted a link to a study relating to that below. Additionally, as most RC-135 flights are HHQ missions then the 100ARW would be obliged to have a spare tanker available in case the primary doesn't get to the RC-135, so the 15x has probably just jumped to 20x.

The RC-135s do take 100ARW fuel in the air when they fly a 'long route' primarily because their take off weight is limited enough at Mildenhall for it to matter. The conversations people had above need to differentiate between taking off with maximum fuel and taking off with more fuel. The 501CSW Lt Col I spoke to said the extra 2000' feet at Fairford (you decide which rounding errors he made but that's how it's seen) would allow the RC-135s to leave with enough extra fuel to significantly increase their mission time, rather than mentioning an ability to take off at maximum weight. The gap between the maximum take off and maximum landing weight is probably large so not worth the risk most of the time.


https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... ent=safari

We don't know because the USAF budget isn't transparent, but who's to say that AFGSC isn't co-funding some of the upgrades at Fairford so that it's bombers get a longer runway, a new maintenance hangar and better burgers. We should assume there's more to the RC-135 investments than just relocating from a closing Mildenhall. (Like why didn't the 99th ERS get told to deploy to normally open Mildenhall rather than normal closed Fairford?)

[Spitfire88]

There is a meeting with local residents tomorrow at Fairford, which the usaf and RAF base commanders are attending, we should find out tomorrow is the move to Fairford is still on , all that’s been said far is that activity will continue to increase at Fairford.

[Cranberry]

There is a meeting with local residents tomorrow at Fairford, which the usaf and RAF base commanders are attending, we should find out tomorrow is the move to Fairford is still on , all that’s been said far is that activity will continue to increase at Fairford.

No one has a meeting to say nothing's changed but thanks for taking the time during Covid-19 to come and hear us say that anyway, do they?

[johnwayne]

From above ''(Like why didn't the 99th ERS get told to deploy to normally open Mildenhall rather than normal closed Fairford?)''
Possibly for similar reasons to the U2 'swapovers' past several years coming through Fairford rather than the Hall - operationally better suited to the unique demands of U2 ops including lack of 'competing' demand for runway occupancy ?