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

[Snoop 95]

The estimated date of disposal given in the MoD's base review is 2022.

and the review also states that there is no UK need for the base: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _FINAL.pdf

[Snoop 95]

The 'waters' seem to be muddy about Mildenhall's future military requirement, but am I surprised? No!
The Bury Free Press says that when they read in the Review that there was no future military need for the base they contacted an MoD spokesperson, who said that the RAF did not require the site but the British Army might after it is handed back. Uh!

[the concerned]

I was wondering if mildenhall would be a viable alternative for wattisham and wattisham be used to replace marshalls and maybe Norwich

[Nighthawke]

Well clearly the MoD don't think the first is an option as they've decided they don't want Mildenhall after the USAF leave. As for Cambridge and/or Norwich relocating - no way. The roads around Wattisham are totally unsuitable especially compared to their current accessibility. CBG has the A14 within spitting distance and even "rural" Norwich has the A140 to serve the airport. So in summary - no, no and er...no.

[baltimore]

So, Donald Trump is now the President elect. Does this potentially alter future US strategy insofar as its military assets based in the UK are concerne? Discuss.

[Agent K]

I was wondering if mildenhall would be a viable alternative for wattisham and wattisham be used to replace marshalls and maybe Norwich

Why would you move and incur huge cost (and who would pay, MoD for the military side of stuff but what private company is going to pay for the civil side of stuff and why?) just for the sake of it. I can't see a business case for that at all.

[Doughnut]

If Mildenhall were to be used by Marshalls and Cambridge airport were to close the big winner would be City of Cambridge. The City does not like the airport as a neighbour and the land prices for CBG are going to be far higher than at MLD.
So long are Marshalls get a high enough return for the sale of land at Cambridge then the relocation costs and advantages of the greater space available at Mildenhall will make this a very interesting offer. Big question will the locals at Mildehall suddenly object to a civil maintenance operation with possible parting out / scrapping area ? Such operations at Kemble and Bruntingthrope are unpopular with the locals. There are also a small number of schedule service and Bizjet flights into CBG.

[filmman]

As I previously said elsewhere there is the Trump wildcard. Trump expects Europe to pull its weight, increase defence spending and to pay for USA forces stationed in their countries -otherwise they pull out. Uk runs 4 Trident subs which are politically useful for making Russian strategy more risky. We took up 3 Rivet joints which the USA could no longer afford. Apparently we don't charge the USA rent and pay half USAF infrastructure in UK. Other countries charge rent. So will the USA continue the eastward shift of forces if countries do not pay? Will they overall pull forces back to the USA. He said America first, jobs for Americans. Whereas Obama had open tanker and helicopter competition before stopping foreign wins, Trump won't let foreign companies compete. Will BAe be allowed to compete because it has an American presence?
Mildenhall and even Lakenheath's futures look more precarious.

filmman

[POL]

We took up 3 Rivet joints which the USA could no longer afford.

The three RC-135s purchased by the UK were converted from KC-135s, so not sure where you got this from?

[page_verify]

Filman, some interesting opinion, thank you for sharing, although as EGVP mentioned, some of the points you make rely on having misunderstood the facts they're based upon.

[filmman]

I am only quoting what Trump said during his lengthy campaign. Most media was fixated on the border wall etc. He threatened to pull forces out if they were not paid for, etc. With regard to the Rivet Joints did not the USA reduce their fleet by 3, as we boughht 3 "new" ones; I was surprised we did not use new airframes. You think we are duplicating USA missions, what's the point? With regard to Trident, it's a very murky area, but if your looking at it from a Russian point of view, even if they could detach the USA deterrent from Europe, one Trident boat could do unacceptable damage.
Filmman

[Ghost from above]

filmman I think you will find that they do pay something. I came across this which shows Visiting forces pay £15.96 million in 15-16
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ended_.pdf

[filmman]

With regard to rent and infrastructure costs I was merely quoting from briefing given by the USAF to visiting Senators and Congressmen.

[filmman]

With regard to the £15.96 million it said " contributions in aid of visiting forces exempt property". It didn't give further details, and I do not know whether normal RAF bases pay rates. Paid in aid sounds like HMG Departments moving money around to make up for the money not paid by exempted property to local authorities. The fact they are exempt seems to confirm that rent is not being paid.

[Agent K]

...With regard to the Rivet Joints did not the USA reduce their fleet by 3, as we boughht 3 "new" ones; I was surprised we did not use new airframes. ......

I don't think so, these airframes were ones from long term staorage and (re)built for the RAF (MoD).

New airframes?, the KC135 hasn't been produced for half a CENTURY or more, so new airframes are not available????!!! if you mean a new type, you just wouldn't do it, for 3 airframes?!, the design, development, certification and operational costs would be hugely prohibitive for very little gain, a crazy idea, especially when a good design and airframe was already available.

[Nighthawke]

Or even half a century

[Agent K]

Or even half a century

Good spot and of course I meant half century! given that I visited the Boeing production lines in the mid 80's (30 years ago... and the tooling was long gone even then!) duly corrected......

[filmman]

Precisely, I know the c 17 has a design life of 100 years but what is it for the KC 135 and derivatives. What is its fatigue life and what about structural spares. Say a seat broke you could machine a new one with computerised machine tools. I understand that our old Nimrod RC equivalents had less electronic kits than airframes and aerials because they were so expensive. They were swapped into the active airframes. At some point RC135s will be scrapped and replaced by possibly a derivative of their new tanker; a smart move would have been to use the RAF order to launch a new programme.
Fimman

[POL]

Precisely, I know the c 17 has a design life of 100 years but what is it for the KC 135 and derivatives.

It's worth remembering that many KC-135Rs have undergone re-skinning and had new wing spars installed, effectively zeroing their fatigue life.

The Air Force projected that E and R models have lifetime flying hours limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit and no KC-135E's will meet the limit until 2040. Flying hours for the KC-135s averaged about 300 hours per year between 1995 and September 2001. Since then, utilization is averaging about 435 hours per year.

Only six KC-135s would need to be retired by 2040 because they would exceed their airframe life. According to 1996 letter from the defense secretary's office, the planes still had 35 years left in them.

From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... c-135e.htm

So, you're looking at around 80 years for the KC-135 fleet, assuming they're not replaced beforehand. RC-135s probably somewhat longer, as they've likely been stripped down and rebuilt at least once, and fly less hours and cycles compared to KC-135s.

[markranger]

Yes KC-135s are a bit like Triggers Broom in Fools and Horses.
It's the Original Broom but has had 5 new heads and 3 new Handles.