492nd & 494th FS stood down as of 9th April + 15 other sqn

[wezgulf3]

Good job its gone all quiet on the Mali front then

Wes...

[Richard B]

You also save on Maintenance costs - every hour in the air is man hours on the ground

How much does fuel cost? An F-15 has approx 36,000lbs of fuel (3 external tanks) - approx 18,000 Litres. Assume only 15,000 litres used

So best price for fuel (without taxes) is approx 20p/Litre

That equates to GBP 30,000 per plane, multipy up by 10 planes per day - 150,000
5 days a week - GBP 750,000
52 weeks a year - GBP GBP 39 Million

Thats quite a quick saving

You still pay for the man hours if they fly or not so no savings, you have a Maintenance team to pay for doing nothing.

[graham luxton]

Hi RichC, if I were a betting man, I'd want to say that its not the 100th ARW who provide the tankers, but the 351st ARS.
Is there a need for an ARS in Europe yes; is there a need for an ARW in Europe, no.

There is another option - run the tanker operation in the UK like SAC used to, on a rotational basis from units in the USA. Taking the 11th Strategic Group (Fairford 1979 to 1990) as an example. This unit had no air refueling squadron of its own but had aircraft and crews attached to it for periods of six weeks TDY on missions which ranged all over Western Europe and the North Atlantic. Clearly, there will be a time when fewer KC-135's will be required in Europe and this may be an oppertunity to make more use of Fairford. Deactivate the 351stARS, downgrade the 100th ARW to an Air Refueling Group, move it to Fairford and close Mildenhall.
Do likewise with Mildenhall's SOG assets - move them to Fairford and make them rotational. Consolidating a fewer number of rotational aircraft on a base which has to be kept for its bomber role makes sense to me. Don't believe Mildenhall is safe at all.

Couldn't happen - I wonder?

[steve149c]

You also save on Maintenance costs - every hour in the air is man hours on the ground

How much does fuel cost? An F-15 has approx 36,000lbs of fuel (3 external tanks) - approx 18,000 Litres. Assume only 15,000 litres used

So best price for fuel (without taxes) is approx 20p/Litre

That equates to GBP 30,000 per plane, multipy up by 10 planes per day - 150,000
5 days a week - GBP 750,000
52 weeks a year - GBP GBP 39 Million

Thats quite a quick saving

You still pay for the man hours if they fly or not so no savings, you have a Maintenance team to pay for doing nothing.

Completely agreed Richard - my figures were only fuel burnt/used

[airfixpilot]

That's a heck of a read on the cut-backs in air combat. Just thinking what are the air refuelling guys going to refuel, their workload will suffer a lot. All they will be doing is the transits to and from the US to Europe & Mildenhall flown by Air mobility command. . Following on from what steve 149c calculated, about the fuel. The altenative is get rid of maintanance crews, as there is not enough flying hours for the jets. Yet again savings by redundency from the USAF. .

[gamecock]

steve149c - you changed the wording from 'maintenance costs' to 'man hours' - I'd say you were right the first time. If you're only doing anti-deterioration maintenance you're not consuming as many components, consumables, spares etc which is by far the bigger cost involved. As an example, all of the Tornados at RTP, including the F3s, have to be maintained in a serviceable condition before they can be broken for spares.

[bobthehandyman]

A bit off subject, but a similar feeling, back in 1985 someone told me that by 1995, the only US bases flying in the UK would be the Hall & LN, how we laughed, , but he was spot on, if a little out on his timing. His opinion now is that LN will close within 5 years, and the Hall will be 50% of what it is today, now don't go shooting me down it's just an opinion.

[TankBuster]

I certainly cant see all of the European USAF bases being closed, but some most likely will be as a result of these cuts.
I personally think Spangdahlem will eventually see closure before anywhere else does, regardless of the money that has recently been spent there.

Who knows what the future holds for LN, but if it does ever close I do think its a possibility that in the future we could see either US based F-15s or F-16s on detatchments at Mildenhall with the tankers & SOG's, just to maintain a pool of combat aircraft in the UK.


TankBuster

[Viper28]

By the end of all this there will be US base closures in Europe. The US focus is no longer to Europe its to the APAC region and well be for a while to come. I personnally think that LN will loose one of the F15 squadron's, most likely the 493rd. I'd love it if they were replaced with Spang's F16's if they close that but I fear thats wishful thinking

[POL]

Surely an F-15E squadron would be replaced with an F-16CG/CJ squadron? Not sure the USAF would replace an air-defence/superiority squadron with a ground-attack/SEAD one?

Stranger things have happened, of course!

[TankBuster]

There will certainly be some big changes as a result of these cuts & I dont things will ever return to how they were.

If it turns out that they can ground squadrons for several months & continue to provide an air force without them, then they will certainly start asking... do we really need these squadrons at all?

I think these groundings are just the start of things to come .


TankBuster

[Tronk 11]

I think the entire USAF is entering uncharted waters at the moment, I think any saving will help. The fuel cost would be huge, approximate 6 billion pounds, I'd rather save that than loose jobs of professional maintenance crews and fliers, the lesser of two evils. If I went to my boss saving 6 billion they'd have my hand off.
Remember the threats are still out there.

[steve149c]

Remember the threats are still out there.

Yes they are - but they no longer come from behind the Iron Curtain - hence the need for European bases is decreasing.

[page_verify]

Hi RichC, if I were a betting man, I'd want to say that its not the 100th ARW who provide the tankers, but the 351st ARS.
Is there a need for an ARS in Europe yes; is there a need for an ARW in Europe, no.

There is another option - run the tanker operation in the UK like SAC used to, on a rotational basis from units in the USA. Taking the 11th Strategic Group (Fairford 1979 to 1990) as an example. This unit had no air refueling squadron of its own but had aircraft and crews attached to it for periods of six weeks TDY on missions which ranged all over Western Europe and the North Atlantic. Clearly, there will be a time when fewer KC-135's will be required in Europe and this may be an oppertunity to make more use of Fairford. Deactivate the 351stARS, downgrade the 100th ARW to an Air Refueling Group, move it to Fairford and close Mildenhall.
Do likewise with Mildenhall's SOG assets - move them to Fairford and make them rotational. Consolidating a fewer number of rotational aircraft on a base which has to be kept for its bomber role makes sense to me. Don't believe Mildenhall is safe at all.

Couldn't happen - I wonder?

No, the only place a "permanent TDY" is allowed these days, for many reasons, is for a certain flying unit in Cyprus.

[page_verify]

By the end of all this there will be US base closures in Europe. The US focus is no longer to Europe its to the APAC region and well be for a while to come. I personnally think that LN will loose one of the F15 squadron's, most likely the 493rd. I'd love it if they were replaced with Spang's F16's if they close that but I fear thats wishful thinking

The 493rd, with the F-15Cs, is the only unit at Lakenheath with a role that actually gets performed within its home region, NATO air defence, and is why it wasn't grounded in the announcements yesterday. Everything the USAF have that's ground-to-air focused in Europe is here because, well that's the problem for them, there's no reason anymore.

[POL]

No, the only place a "permanent TDY" is allowed these days, for many reasons, is for a certain flying unit in Cyprus.

Would it not be a similar setup to the ANG tankers that are based at Geilenkirchen for fuelling the NATO E-3 fleet?

[Doughnut]

All these changes are due to the Air Force balancing their budgets for year FY2013. As has been stated FY2014 starts in September, unless Congress / White House get their act together things could get worst, as I understand these cuts are the start of a year on year percentage reduction of non operational spending. Combat missions are ring fenced.

Europe's bases will find little support in the US where each Senator will support bases, and jobs, in their own state. If the US sees no threat in Europe then combat forces will be reduced. Spang has already lost its A-10 squadron, maintaining a whole base for a single F-16 sqadron seems worthless, so expect Spang to close and its work load be transfered to Aviano. The number of permanent F-16's at Aviano could be reduced and more TDY / ANG used. Although this has extra costs for the AAR to / from USA, also do not expect the crews to be happy with yet more time away from home.

With most AMC traffic using Ramstein, and TDY ANG C-130 using Prestwick, Mildenhall's usefullness must be in doubt. I have stated before that moving tanker opperations to Fairford, and SOS to either Fairford or Lakentheath, would allow another base closure. Lakenheath should be able to function with just three squadrons of F-15E/C. The saving are not just the direct airframe time and fuel costs, but longer term personnel costs. The US Congress can shout loudly about the short term saving of grounding a few jets, but the personnel cost is still the same, lets wait and see if Congress is brave enought to announce job cuts.

[page_verify]

No, the only place a "permanent TDY" is allowed these days, for many reasons, is for a certain flying unit in Cyprus.

Would it not be a similar setup to the ANG tankers that are based at Geilenkirchen for fuelling the NATO E-3 fleet?

Ah thanks, that'd the second place I was told it happened for that I assumed I'd misunderstood. Neither the ANG tankers for the E-3s or the Cyprus flyers are paid for by the USAF.

[Doughnut]

No, the only place a "permanent TDY" is allowed these days, for many reasons, is for a certain flying unit in Cyprus.

Would it not be a similar setup to the ANG tankers that are based at Geilenkirchen for fuelling the NATO E-3 fleet?

Had forgetten about the Geilenkirchen Tankers, guess these are funded by NATO. Surely these are not need in the same way as years ago when AWACS were on a 24 hour airborne duty ? Are they used more as a training asset to keep AWACS crews AAR current ?

[Doughnut]

A lot of talk about Airforce, Navy and Marines cuts. What, if anything, is happening to the Army flying units ?