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

[Thunder]

The RAF's three RC-135's were all converted KC-135's and have been returned to 'zero' hour status.

[page_verify]

The KC and RC's biggest issue in the future won't be physical but a lack of audit trail. I still haven't read how the MAA got around that when the RAF aircraft arrived.

[Seahornet1]

...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... Fimman

We only had a total of 3 Nimrod R1 airframes - did they really only have (literally!) 1 or 2 sets of electronics to share amongst them...?

[plmc135]

I think you will find that the simple answer to your query about Nimrod R.1's is yes. If memory serves me correctly when XW666 splashed down on an air test from Kinloss they had to take all the equipment out and refit it into what became the replacement XV249.

However as each Nimrod was hand built, not two of them were identical, meaning what fitted on one might not fit on the other. That was one of the big problems they came to realise with the infamous MRA.4 version and the fitting of the wings.

[Seahornet1]

I think you will find that the simple answer to your query about Nimrod R.1's is yes. If memory serves me correctly when XW666 splashed down on an air test from Kinloss they had to take all the equipment out and refit it into what became the replacement XV249...

Not quite the same issue, though. They used kit from one of the three R1s, to fit out a replacement (fourth) airframe. It doesn't show that there were fewer than three sets of gear altogether.

[tm74sqn]

My memory of the incident is that the R.1 that crashed was on a post-maintenance test flight and that, as part of the maintenance process, the specialist equipment had been removed but not yet re-fitted. Thus it was available for the replacement airframe. Only a small addition to what has already been said, but really proves nothing!
HTH, TM74

[filmman]

The specialist electronic gear was very expensive. As one plane was usually in maintenance there was no need for three kits. So the gear was designed for easy removal. Unlike the USA we were short of cash. For instance, the type 42 destroyers were designed for two twin Sea Dart launchers, HM Treasury said no, only one and insisted that the hull was shortened to prevent retro fitting the second. The shortened less efficient hull design increased fuel burn and made its ride through waves worse. End result fatigue cracks across the fore deck, which nearly sunk one ship during the Falklands War.
Filmman

[Snoop 95]

RAF Sculthorpe is used extensively by the SOG from Mildenhall as a DZ, but is it technically leased to the Americans? If it is I guess that it will go when they leave Mildenhall, but if not it seems likely to become even more desolate and crumbling.

[skysearcher]

Hi all

Snoop I dont think Sculthorpe is leased to USAF, but maintained by MoD?

Interesting article re mildenhall here http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... inish.aspx
suggests missions slated to be re-based remain at Mildy until 2022 (currently), can anyone corroborate the end date?

Thanks in advance,

[skysearcher]

more.. an interesting piece about LKs current mission here http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... les%20nest

[Snoop 95]

Interesting indeed, Skysearcher. I note that the Mildenhall Commander says in the first article, that "nothing irreversible has been done (at Mildenhall)" re the closure, although he does then mention further-on that plans for re-location of the tankers are advanced.
Lakenheath's future still looks bright and it seems that there will be "over 100" jets there; a figure not seen since the days of the F111F (and I am not sure that they had more than 100 even then).

[andrewn]

Hi all

Snoop I dont think Sculthorpe is leased to USAF, but maintained by MoD?

Interesting article re mildenhall here http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... inish.aspx
suggests missions slated to be re-based remain at Mildy until 2022 (currently), can anyone corroborate the end date?

Thanks in advance,

Great find with some interesting and candid thoughts from the base commander. My take on it:
- USAFE would like to keep MH open and is holding out on "irreversible" move activity for as long as they possibly can
- There's some bi-lateral "understanding" between US/UK Govts which is driving this closure, undoubtedly the DoD were looking for a base closure in Europe in advance of a stateside BRAC however the cynic in me thinks UK Govt were more than willing to see MH go as it releases new housing land they are looking for from MoD
- We have limited UK basing options for our own RJs, and the closing of so many mil airfields with nice long runways is now looking rather short sighted in my opinion.

I personally live in hope that there's a few more twists and turns in this one that just might result in MH staying open a while longer

[page_verify]

A really interesting article, thank you for sharing it. A lot of what it mentions is what I'd called "internal affairs"- the USAF needs some tankers in Western Europe, it'll still have some somewhere. Perhaps the most revealing comment was about how the RAF don't like operating the RC-135 from RAF Waddington. While there's an element of reading too much into simple comments, I can still see both the RAF and USAF RC-135s operating from Fairford even if they're assigned on paper to Lakenheath and Waddington.

[baz1]

A really interesting article, thank you for sharing it. A lot of what it mentions is what I'd called "internal affairs"- the USAF needs some tankers in Western Europe, it'll still have some somewhere. Perhaps the most revealing comment was about how the RAF don't like operating the RC-135 from RAF Waddington. While there's an element of reading too much into simple comments, I can still see both the RAF and USAF RC-135s operating from Fairford even if they're assigned on paper to Lakenheath and Waddington.

as regards the RC-135 operating out of Waddington I believe that's what part of the runway work and restructuring was undertaken for so they could take of fully loaded i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong!

[Unknown74]

On the subject of the RAF and US RC-135 operating from Waddington if I remember rightly do Mildenhall not have a rotation of USAF E-3 Sentries which Waddington could take on once Mildenhall closes.

[BOLLO]

On the subject of the RAF and US RC-135 operating from Waddington if I remember rightly do Mildenhall not have a rotation of USAF E-3 Sentries which Waddington could take on once Mildenhall closes.

The E 3's only come as a divert or a night stop to and from the Med/Middle East.The RC's are not going to Waddington the are relocating to LN should the Hall close .

[page_verify]

as regards the RC-135 operating out of Waddington I believe that's what part of the runway work and restructuring was undertaken for so they could take of fully loaded i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong!

That's certainly what I thought, but the comment in that article suggests it's still too short for the operational missions they want to launch from Waddington. As a comparison, Waddington's new runway is 8,860ft, Mildenhall's is 9,219ft and Lakenheath's is 8,999ft. So all fairly similar. The game changer potentially is that Fairford's is currently 9,990ft and could I once heard be lengthened to around 11,000ft fairly cheaply. I forget the exact distance, but at some point around 8,500ft, every extra foot of runway allows the amount of fuel they can take off with to increase almost exponentially.

[C24]

Baz1's comment about RJs wishing to launch fully laden with fuel from Waddington.

As a layman, why wouldn't they launch with a low fuel load and fully tank during the transit period to their operational area.

It would be easier to return to base early if necessary, extend their time on task and maybe other clever things beyond my grasp

[page_verify]

As a layman, why wouldn't they launch with a low fuel load and fully tank during the transit period to their operational area.

They could, but the RAF depend on the USAF for tankers to refuel its RC-135s. I'm sure there's no shortage of USAF tankers that could support RAF RC-135 missions but at the same time, I'm sure the RAF would like to be able to send an RC-135 whenever and wherever they'd like without having to prebook with Uncle Sam.

[conelrad]

as regards the RC-135 operating out of Waddington I believe that's what part of the runway work and restructuring was undertaken for so they could take of fully loaded i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong!

That's certainly what I thought, but the comment in that article suggests it's still too short for the operational missions they want to launch from Waddington. As a comparison, Waddington's new runway is 8,860ft, Mildenhall's is 9,219ft and Lakenheath's is 8,999ft. So all fairly similar. The game changer potentially is that Fairford's is currently 9,990ft and could I once heard be lengthened to around 11,000ft fairly cheaply. I forget the exact distance, but at some point around 8,500ft, every extra foot of runway allows the amount of fuel they can take off with to increase almost exponentially.

They use that extra portion for takeoffs at Mildenhall. So over 10,000 feet for takeoffs there.