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

[BOLLO]

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

Postby TonyO » 22 Sep 2016, 12:44
Been told today that the 95th's UK Operating Location will be Lakenheath.

[page_verify]

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

Ok, that makes more sense now then. That already gives them 1,000+ft more than Waddington which will be a significant quantity of extra fuel as SAC-era aircraft were often designed to require 12,000ft to take off with their maximum take off weight.

[johnwayne]

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,

I believe Sculthorpe is MOD and admistered by the Army as part of STANTA (although physically separate). Yes used continually by SOG from the Hall for airdrops/remote strip training etc. which would presumably cease when/if move to Germany goes ahead . However other RAF/Army CAS and helo exercises also take place at Scully several times a year so may just about 'survive' as a training facility beyond SOG !

[baz1]

i wonder what the main reason the RAF don't like operating the RC-135 out of Waddington maybe with so much time at the hall the like the USA way of life! and were will the maintenance be carried out I wonder.

[Proteus]

Bld523 and BLD 525, the Intel support facilities Baz1, that I would think is the reason the RAF goose stays around.

[page_verify]

You mean the 488th IS? They provide both intel support AND the aircrew for European RC-135 operations, and are one of the reasons why in my view there's not been any official announcement of where the RC-135s from Mildenhall will be relocating to.

[skysearcher]

hi all appreciate this interesting discussion

my thoughts exactly - and at risk of reading too much into a comment by OC 100ARW in a magazine article, it could be viewed that extrapolation of one comment is that re-basing USAF RC-135 rotation and associated intel support to be closer to eventual home of the European based USAF tanker fleet would make sense - particularly given his view that their tanker force is over-stretched and having to re-assign priority missions at expense of routine refuelling. I wonder then for this reason if he is suggesting RAF is waiting to see where the USAF beds down the RC's before deciding where to base theirs. ... my money here might be on Ramstein, despite the number of comments from a range of knowledgeable contributors which suggest 95RS to go to Lakenheath.... If it does turn out to be Ramstein would the RAF stand up a detachment at Ramstein too? plum duty for some me thinks

[page_verify]

Skysearcher,

A thoughtful interpretation of the article. My only suggestion would be that based on previous politics, the UK would be a far more preferable place for the US to fly its regular RC-135 missions from than Germany. From what little we know, the UK government has almost always allowed US intelligence operations on and from its soil, both here on the mainland and other territories around the world. I don't know - and we may be surprised - but my gut feel is that Germany wouldn't be so willing to allow regular strategic reconnaissance missions from its soil. Is there any relatively recent history of SR-71, U-2 or RC-135 missions from Germany that we could learn from? I'd imagine if they could, then the Americans would already be using Ramstein for Central European missions? But who knows?

[skysearcher]

Hi page_verify

That's a great question regarding German political support for intelligence gathering flights operating from German bases. There may not be an appetite following public controversy around NSA hacking merkels phone and ramstein's alleged involvement as a drone relay station http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 29279.html But, other US mil intel activities are operating in germany (army units in weisbaden and darmstadt areas)... hope the 95th stay here but who knows

[filmman]

The RAF has already decided their base for RC 135s. Reasoning they could have during the rebuilding of Waddington extended it if necessary for heavier T/O weights. So either (a) they are happy to routinely rely on USAF tankers or (b) they are not using Waddington or (c) short sighted cheese paring MOD/HMT would not finance it. Our problem is we have too much common sense. Our "Special Relationship" is really how useful our intelligence function is to the USA; that includes SIGINT and various world wide off shore islands. If Mildenhall shuts, Lakenheath could be too crowded but the USAF might still prefer to move their RC135s there. Thought are our P8s to have boom or probe refuelling and if boom will the RAF convert some of our tankers?
Filmman

[TankBuster]

I noticed that the airforcemag article is dated April 2016, before anyone realised that DT would become president! Edit: I just noticed that there's two articles .
Is it possible that everything will be reviewed again when the new administration takes up office later this month?

TankBuster

[skysearcher]

Yes, I guess the new president and new administration is the wild- card.

In todays stripes article stating the F-35s will in time replace the 2xF-15E squadrons at LK http://www.stripes.com/news/new-facilit ... h-1.448046

[page_verify]

No mention of the F-35s replacing the F-15s? (Nor any mention of anything being done to support RC-135s either)

[skysearcher]

Oh that is interesting they've changed the phrasing during the course of the day.
1st edition = F-35s will replace F-15E and C squadrons ... 2nd edition saying the F-35s will operate alongside the '15s. hope second version is the right one....

[Snoop 95]

Last I knew was that the C models would be going, but that the E's would stay alongside the F35's. Wothout the C's there could still then be the 100 based jets the base commander spoke about.

[welshandy]

I'm still confused about total numbers. I know a typical USAF Squadron is between 8 & 24 aircraft. The article mentions 2 squadrons of 54 F35's!! I hope that's a typo & it means 27 per squadron 54 in total? The article also seems to imply the C's are staying.

"The U.S. Air Force in January 2015 announced RAF Lakenheath as its first base for the F-35 in Europe. The two squadrons of 54 F-35s will operate alongside two squadrons of F-15E Strike Eagles and a single unit of F-15Cs currently based there."

Then again as already been mentioned, we have the Trump effect to hit

[page_verify]

I wonder if someone's now realised just how much space 5 squadrons of fast jets require and that that's quite a lot....?!

[Reach1985]

If i remember the initial news on this which must be 2 years ago now was that the F35s would join the two F15E squadrons. If i'm right this was also around the time when there was a question over the C's remaining in Europe (a C squadron was to be 'lost' from either USAFE or pacific in one of the many defence reviews) but then with the heightened tensions with Russia and the introduction of the TSP (Theatre Security Packages) that appeared to be put on hold. It wouldn't have been a good PR move if the 493rd had been dissolved.

But with these recent articles it looks like the F35 introduction has been pushed back by at least a year (and maybe it will move back further) and that is going to make those C models a pretty vintage outfit by the time the F35 arrives.

I suppose its a strategic question that needs to be answered: the C is a pure air-to-air fighter - the F35 does 'everything' (maybe??) and the F15E is a strike fighter (it can fight its way there and fight its way back) - chances are there is never going to be a need for the US to have air-to-air fighters in Europe - especially old ones. Whereas having a 'super base' or hub of strike / interdiction assets makes sense.

In terms of basing (and potential crowding) i suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the USAFE could forward deploy small numbers of jets on a rotational basis (the hub concept) nearer to the 'front line' in Eastern Europe like we have seen with the TSP's - i can't see the US 'building' permanent airbases and permantantly basing sensitive assets that close to Russia). This wouldn't be a million miles away from the old Bentwaters days when at least one A10 squadron would be forward deployed in Germany allowing them to train in the environment that they would have been expected to fight in if the day had come.

Also the helicopters are going (as far as i'm aware) so there's some more room! When are they due to go to Aviano?

[skysearcher]

Who knows how long the Cs will be at LK? I think the C's are now being kept at LK on temporary funding under the European Reassurance Initiative; an Obama administration temporary funding programme designed to mitigate against down-sizing at EUCOM in light of geo-political events in Ukraine and Syria. my understanding is the plan is still for eventual withdrawal of the Cs ?

Hi all

Yes can confirm in DOD budget request for fiscal'17, 493rd being maintained in europe for another year.... after that who knows. Also some money spent upgrading airfileds in eastern europe. I agree the comment this is possibly building up bases in eastern europe as potential forward operating locations, with a view to deploying jets from Lakenheath and Spangdhalem / Aviano on rotation.

http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/ ... J-Book.pdf

cheers all

[XWP29]

They are staying on Five Squadrons is going to get busy