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

[graham luxton]

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 [/quote][/quote]

I know what you mean Malcolm - had a lot of KC-135 flights with water injection. T/off's were pretty scary from the cockpit and the noise was deafening. The water ran out after about 3 minutes after which it seemed to go almost silent but by then it had served its purpose. Multiple launches during big `Coronets`would cover the base in smoke - the '135 certainly lost a lot of character when it got CFM56's!

[page_verify]

Generally speaking, the Americans have always based the take off needs of their larger aircraft around 10,000ft+ runway lengths, the odd exclusion being the F-117. In America that doesn't cause many problems as they're all well beyond that length but in the UK that often limits a lot of "preferred" US activities to the old SAC and V-Force bases in the UK. The 200ft taxiway width is also a common requirement for their wider aircraft. To someone who isn't a pilot, my understanding is that beyond a certain runway length the amount of fuel an aircraft can take off with increases exponentially so the 9,500 to 10,000ft distance has a big benefit for the larger types.

[Sparts99]

Really interesting thread, and I've learnt loads. But, distance from the sea is mentioned fairly often, surely the area of the UK's resonsibility for SAR and ASW would dictate the basing location rather than purely distance from the sea ? on that basis then wouldn't a Scottish base make a lot more sense than a Southern/Eastern England base, with a SW detachment as & when required ? All this assumes the RAF are getting P-8s of course, is there any concrete nevidence to suggest this or is it all circumstantial ?

[POL]

Annex A shows the UK SAR region, but this is a Maritime and Coastguard Agency responsibility, as has been mentioned in this thread before, rather than a Ministry of Defence one. Thus, it isn't a major requirement for the UK MOD to take this region in to account when considering basing options for the MPA platform that is purchased.

However, if we take the UK SAR region to be the same as the area the UK needs to perform ASW in, then surely Aldergrove is the perfect location?

[page_verify]

My understanding is that the UK MoD no longer have any formal SAR mission that would involve an MPA. We know from recent NATO mutual support that MPA can operate on a short-term basis from the Scottish bases.

[Contrail1958]

My understanding is that the UK MoD no longer have any formal SAR mission that would involve an MPA. We know from recent NATO mutual support that MPA can operate on a short-term basis from the Scottish bases.

Hence the reasoning to support the idea that any future MPA would operate from Scotland and
with all the investment in Kinloss as recently as 2014 in hangar flooring and special coverings
and treatments that would be a fine place to start.

[Phoon]

My understanding is that the UK MoD no longer have any formal SAR mission that would involve an MPA. We know from recent NATO mutual support that MPA can operate on a short-term basis from the Scottish bases.

Hence the reasoning to support the idea that any future MPA would operate from Scotland and
with all the investment in Kinloss as recently as 2014 in hangar flooring and special coverings
and treatments that would be a fine place to start.

Wouldn't assume that recent spending points to future plans. How many millions were wasted upgrading the Nimrods in the months running up to seeing them consigned to the scrap heap?

Exactly - Both Harrier and Jaguar fleet were either being or had been extensively upgraded literally months before they were declared surplus. Coltishall itself had a fair amount of refurbishment to buildings (two hangars completely reclad and re-roofed around two years before closure. Honington also had considerable investment shortly before 13 sdn and the TWCU were relocated to Lossiemouth and Marham.

[scimitar]

This is magic, 8 pages debating and speculating over a decision made a while ago.
Just move the army from Kinloss to Wittering. The army likes digging things up I'm sure they'll make short work of the remaining 5,500 ft of runaway. I know it was 6,000 ft earlier this week but you how quickly these things deteriotate when they're not being used.
And just to reiterate earlier postings the army aren't allowed to dig anything up at Kinloss.

Cammy

[Phoon]

This is magic, 8 pages debating and speculating over a decision made a while ago.
Just move the army from Kinloss to Wittering. The army likes digging things up I'm sure they'll make short work of the remaining 5,500 ft of runaway. I know it was 6,000 ft earlier this week but you how quickly these things deteriotate when they're not being used.
And just to reiterate earlier postings the army aren't allowed to dig anything up at Kinloss.

Cammy

It what this group is for is it not?

Just to keep it going, Kinloss isn't reopening soon - MOD ar elooking to reduce number of active airfields and real estate in general, not increase it.

[baz1]

just lets see what hits the deck were and when, we can speculate till doomsday!

[scimitar]

[/quote]

It what this group is for is it not?

Just to keep it going, Kinloss isn't reopening soon - MOD ar elooking to reduce number of active airfields and real estate in general, not increase it.[/quote]

Define soon, my definition and those others in the know is that soon means in time for the RAF getting a number of P8's.

Cammy

[POL]

Forgive us for not believing your definition of "soon" though; after all you did suggest that the army move in to Wittering; an airfield that has a complement of aircraft in double figures based there.

[Thunder]

It what this group is for is it not?

Just to keep it going, Kinloss isn't reopening soon - MOD ar elooking to reduce number of active airfields and real estate in general, not increase it.

But they wouldn't be increasing the amount of real estate just re aligning and making better use of what they already have.

My understanding is that the UK MoD no longer have any formal SAR mission that would involve an MPA. We know from recent NATO mutual support that MPA can operate on a short-term basis from the Scottish bases.

.

I don't think they had any formal SAR undertakings, it was always seen as a good will gesture to assist in these matters.

Why do think the NATO MPA's operate from Leuchars and now Lossie. NATO chiefs weren't too happy when Kinloss shut as there was/is no other facility to fully support MPA's between Andoya in the far North of Norway to Keflavik in Iceland leaving a massive open door into the North Atlantic. There was word that the MPA fleet were going to relocate to Waddington during JW's, but this has never materialized for a number of reasons one being time on station being severely reduced. There was also word a few years ago that the Nimrod MRA4 fleet were going to relocate to Waddington once they got established on type, but it was deemed that Waddo didn't provide a suitable base and the fleet would remain at Kinloss, obviously that didn't happen either for other reasons.

[scimitar]

Forgive us for not believing your definition of "soon" though; after all you did suggest that the army move in to Wittering; an airfield that has a complement of aircraft in double figures based there.

I'm sure the army won't mind working around a few grobs.
Just using Wittering as it was being held up as a shining example of what happens to a runway when it's not been used, apparently.

Cammy

[Malcolm]

Found this from 2005...

From: M O D Press Office Scotland

FUTURE SECURE FOR ALL THREE RAF BASES IN SCOTLAND

Defence in Scotland received a boost today when Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram, announced that both the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) and the new Nimrod MRA4 will be based at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss.

RAF Lossiemouth will be home for the new JCA, which will progressively replace the Harrier from around the middle of the next decade. The RAF's new fleet of Nimrod MRA4 will be based at RAF Kinloss when they enter service towards the end of this decade. It was also announced earlier this year that RAF Leuchars will be home to three squadrons of the new Typhoon, replacing the Tornado F3 around the end of this decade.

Lossiemouth was one of eight stations considered as a possible home for JCA, and was identified as the best option after a thorough year-long review. It provides excellent access to training areas, modern facilities and is most cost effective.

RAF Kinloss has a proven track record as a base for the current Nimrod MR2 fleet. A comprehensive study has shown that whilst RAF Waddington and RAF Kinloss would both be suitable operational bases, the substantial financial investment required at Waddington was not justifiable.

Adam Ingram said: "This is great news for RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss. It means both bases have an exciting and challenging future ahead. But this is also the right strategic decision for UK Defence. The Joint Combat Aircraft and new Nimrod are excellent examples of the more capable, flexible, expeditionary equipment that our Armed Forces need to meet modern defence challenges.

"It is important to get such a critical decision right, and I know the review has caused some uncertainty in Moray over the past year. So I would like to pay tribute to our staff, their families, and members of the local community for their patience and valuable help in the consultation process, and thank them for their support to the air bases year on year. As I've said before, Scotland is of great importance to defence, but defence is important to Scotland too - the decision announced today reinforces the future of Defence in Scotland and its local communities."


NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The review into JCA basing was announced on 11 October 2004. In all, eight options were considered: RAF Kinloss, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Marham, RAF St Mawgan, RAF Cottesmore, RAF Wittering, RNAS Yeovilton, and RAF Leeming which was added to the list in March.

2. Outcome of the study is that RAF Lossiemouth will be the initial base for JCA.
Stations discounted:
RAF Leeming - Adverse noise profile
RAF St Mawgan - An expensive option
RNAS Yeovilton - Potential severe noise impact/short runway/too far from training areas.
RAF Kinloss - High birdstrike rate/short runway.
RAF Wittering Limited space available
RAF Marham/RAF Cottesmore - Not ruled out completely, should a second base be required these stations will be considered. It is too early to say whether the second base will be necessary.

3. The study into Nimrod MRA4 basing considered RAF Kinloss and RAF Waddington. Waddington was considered in order to evaluate the advantages of co-locating Intelligence Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance with Nimrod on one base. The study found that whilst RAF Waddington and RAF Kinloss would both be suitable operational bases, the substantial financial investment required at RAF Waddington was prohibitive.

4. Trades Unions and local authorities have been consulted/informed as appropriate

5. The decision to discount RAF St Mawgan as an option for JCA means there is no long term Strike Command use for the airfield. This decision will allow Cornwall County Council to continue to plan for the long term future of Newquay Cornwall Airport (NCA). Discussions between MoD and DfT continue to ensure a smooth hand over of NCA to civilian authorities.

6. For more information please contact Sara Reed in the MoD Scotland press office on 0131 310 2004 or Matthew Willey in the MoD Press Office on 0207 218 7925 or Michael Mulford on 01309 672161 ext 7597.

7. The MoD web-site can be found at http://www.mod.uk . You can find current information and pictures of the Nimrod MRA4 at: www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/nimrod.htm ; and the JCA at: www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/jca.htm and www.mod.uk/dpa/news/pn2002/sept02/jump jets.htm


ENDS 17 November 2005

Most of the report has been overtaken by events, but it appears that the MOD believed Kinloss has a short runway and is a bird strike risk (for JSF), whereas Waddo would be expensive to update (for Nimrod).

[Contrail1958]

This is magic, 8 pages debating and speculating over a decision made a while ago.
Just move the army from Kinloss to Wittering. The army likes digging things up I'm sure they'll make short work of the remaining 5,500 ft of runaway. I know it was 6,000 ft earlier this week but you how quickly these things deteriotate when they're not being used.
And just to reiterate earlier postings the army aren't allowed to dig anything up at Kinloss.

Cammy

It what this group is for is it not?

Just to keep it going, Kinloss isn't reopening soon - MOD ar elooking to reduce number of active airfields and real estate in general, not increase it.

Where's the increase ?? Just moving the army out and bringing in say Number 42 Sqdn P-8's in.

[baz1]

if people cast there minds back we had a P8 at Waddington airshow it landed with a female USA pilot, and on departure with a brit male pilot I don't know what fuel load or how many crew were on board but it took off no problems, and that was the old runway not the new extended runway!

[POL]

It went to Farnborough with no payload. Hardly a taxing sortie.

[onemac]

Where's the increase ?? Just moving the army out and bringing in say Number 42 Sqdn P-8's in.

Looks like they might merge the P-8's into 8 Sqn and base them at Lossie given the works that's going on opposite Delta Paul.

Al

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Short(ish) runway, twin engined aeroplane, high bird strike risk... Mmm