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

[page_verify]

I understand from earlier posts that the RC-135s will be at Lakenheath. But I can't understand how it can work from an operational aspect.

I wonder if the USAF have asked themselves similar questions recently, which is why there's been a few media articles recently about the RC-135 basing decision? I wonder if they might change their minds about where the RC-135s are moving to now that they've started planning just how it'd work? I wonder if the RAF thinking about a new home for its RC-135s has made them think twice about moving to Lakenheath? Who knows?

[page_verify]

Question, can you have a cable system that deploys and retracts at the fick of a switch.

In the (public) RC-135 operations manual, you'll find very specific and strict guidance on RC-135 operations around cables, but essentially they don't mix.

5.18.1. RC-135 aircraft will ensure all barriers and cables are removed prior to recovery. Do
not land on approach end arresting cables. If the aircraft lands before the cable, the crew
should contact the tower to have the cable inspected.
5.18.2. If time or operational constraints dictate, the aircraft commander may taxi over
approach end cables and use the remaining runway for takeoff provided the departure end
cables have been removed and the AC recalculates TOLD using actual distance remaining.

[Thunder]

Question, can you have a cable system that deploys and retracts at the fick of a switch. Or do you lengthen the runway so that none hooked planes land further down the runway and hooked (F15) land at the start before the cable; or is that unsafe. Elsewhere do they have the problem of busy runways landing mixed hooked and non-hooked planes?
Thought is Mildenhall staying open longer so they can lengthen Lakenheath's runway, moved the public road out of the way and build more airfield structure. You could even lengthen the runway used by RC-135's.
Filmman

The arrestor cables are held aloft by a series of rubber discs spaced equally along the cables length, these discs hold the cable approx 6" above the runway surface along the cables entire length so there are no sags are in the cable. In order to lower the cable the discs have to be pushed manually to the side(a job normally done by the Fire section).

A runway is designed and built in such a way that a/c land at the beginning of the runway in an area called the touchdown zone, this area is specially constructed and strengthened in order to withstand the continual impact of the landing gear slamming down on the runway surface. If a/c were to routinely touchdown past this zone the runway would quickly fall apart.

The answer into basing a mixed fleet of arrestor capable and non arrestor a/c would be to base them at a twin runway base where one runway is rigged and the other isn't,

[baz1]

Correct. There has been no decision made, and therefore no announcement been made, about where the RC-135s will move to.

To help understand some of considerations the USAF must be having right now, the RC-135s love very long runways, as the RAF are finding.

Waddington's total available take off runway length is 9,279ft,
Lakenheath's is 9,000ft,
Mildenhall's is 10,221ft and
Fairford's is 10,997ft. Fairford's apparently can be lengthened to around 12,000ft for not much money.


If I put my management strategy hat on, I suspect someone right now is working out who could pay to build the infrastructure at Fairford needed to support 24/7 operations and 500 permanently deployed USAF personnel, while higher-ups are asking why they can't just move to Lakenheath.

Time will tell gentlemen.

so I gather the Airseekers will be at the heath with a shorter runway than Waddington all that time and money spent updating the runway etc to extend its life for the next 25yrs and for what purpose as no more airshows and from what I hear on the scanner everyday it is getting very little use at the minute not even heard any F15s doing P/Ds like they used.

[MRTT]

From your post, it sounds like you're saying that because an airshow is no longer held at Waddo, the airfield has no purpose?

[page_verify]

I couldn't find it yesterday, but this is the line from the (public) Mildenhall operations manual about runway cables: "NOTE: In addition to some transient aircraft, all 95 RS operations require all cables to be disconnected."

[Thunder]

By 'disconnected' do they mean lowered,or removed all together?

[filmman]

You have all convinced me that the USAF operations people have been going through the same debate and coming to the same conclusion: who the ........ decided to shut Mildenhall.
(Don't they realise that we can't efficiently operate RC-135's from Lakenheath. We need more than one European tanker base and the Germans in most cases won't let us operate tankers to support real bombing missions. Having two neighbouring bases is an operations multiplier and allows more room for plane surges. It's cheaper to share infrastructure. Okay let's delay moving whilst we beaver away at keeping Mildenhall. But the limeys might be a problem, they think it's their base and can make big bucks developing it.)
Just a thought.
Filmman

[morleyca]

From what i have been told by a friend is that the Base is now on hold for 4 years, then the draw done begins, so we are talking 2026 as Closure at Mildenhall.

[slogen51]

Seymour Johnson is similar in a way , F-15E and Reserve KC-135s and one Runway. But maybe the tankers only fly at the weekend? Surely not.

I went to SJ in the 90s with Touchdown when they also had KC-10, some sort of composite wing so they must have a method of making it work but it certainly impacts on the fighters at Lakenheath as I am sure we have all seen.

[baz1]

From your post, it sounds like you're saying that because an airshow is no longer held at Waddo, the airfield has no purpose?

i'm not an airshow nut so doesn't really bother me !

[TankBuster]

I wonder if Merkels recent refusal to increase Germany's military budget by the end of the year could upset Mr Trump, after all, he has told them what he expects from them in return for continued full American support within NATO.

Perhaps this could be a blessing in disguise for Mildenhall, because why would Mr Trumps government want to base further U.S assets in a country that isn't investing the required funds into NATO, yet still expects the same benefits as those countries that are?

TankBuster

[bobthehandyman]

I wonder if Merkels recent refusal to increase Germany's military budget by the end of the year could upset Mr Trump, after all, he has told them what he expects from them in return for continued full American support within NATO.

Perhaps this could be a blessing in disguise for Mildenhall, because why would Mr Trumps government want to base further U.S assets in a country that isn't investing the required funds into NATO, yet still expects the same benefits as those countries that are?

TankBuster

Maybe, but Poland are meeting the required 2% of GDP, and USAF seems to be doing a lot of work with them, and less work with the UK..

[TankBuster]

I wonder if Merkels recent refusal to increase Germany's military budget by the end of the year could upset Mr Trump, after all, he has told them what he expects from them in return for continued full American support within NATO.

Perhaps this could be a blessing in disguise for Mildenhall, because why would Mr Trumps government want to base further U.S assets in a country that isn't investing the required funds into NATO, yet still expects the same benefits as those countries that are?

TankBuster

Maybe, but Poland are meeting the required 2% of GDP, and USAF seems to be doing a lot of work with them, and less work with the UK..

Yep, but the US deployments to Poland were actioned by the Obama administration, not Trump.
I don't think we'll see an increase in US deployments in the UK, but having said that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Mildenhall assets that were pencilled in for re-location to Germany stay put here in the UK. Merkel has made it clear that Germany wont increase their defence spending over the timescale which Trump has requested, so it wouldn't be any surprise to me if he threatened to reduce the USAF presence in Germany in light of Merkels unwillingness to play ball?..

TankBuster

[POL]

Just wondering, why does it appear from the posts on here that people are expecting countries to do as Trump wishes? Most countries, from memory, are already meeting the 2% target are they not?

[TankBuster]

Just wondering, why does it appear from the posts on here that people are expecting countries to do as Trump wishes? Most countries, from memory, are already meeting the 2% target are they not?

Out of the twenty eight NATO member countries only five are currently meeting the 2%. Those countries are United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland, Greece and the United States.

I think from the American's point of view its a case of 'If you want to have access to the full benefits of being in the club then you gotta pay for it!'

TankBuster

[C24]

Could some one please explain the source of the comment/rumour that the RAF RC135s are to be moved from Waddington?

The runway has been modified, new hangar space has been made available with spacious squadron space. Where would the three aircraft go?
The current aircraft seem to operate successfully at the moment. The Station has ISTAR type of operation which match with this type of aircraft.

[tm74sqn]

The only problem with Waddington is said to be that the runway is not long enough for RC-135 to take-off with a full fuel load. Rumour is that ZZ665 had to be topped-up by a Mildenhall-based KC-135 for the Atlantic crossing en route to the recent Red Flag at Nellis AFB. However, one or both of these "reasons" could be wrong - anyone know for sure?
Cheers, TM74

[page_verify]

Could some one please explain the source of the comment/rumour that the RAF RC135s are to be moved from Waddington?

The most credible mention was by Col. Thomas D. Torkelson, 100th ARW commander, in the article below and while it quoted him from summer 2016 you have to wonder why that article was written in spring 2017 - around the same time mutterings started about where the USAF might actually relocate its RC-135 to. Almost as if both the RAF and USAF realised around the same time that they might need to think twice about previous basing assumptions, but mutterings are nothing more than mutterings.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... inish.aspx

[baz1]

Could some one please explain the source of the comment/rumour that the RAF RC135s are to be moved from Waddington?

The runway has been modified, new hangar space has been made available with spacious squadron space. Where would the three aircraft go?
The current aircraft seem to operate successfully at the moment. The Station has ISTAR type of operation which match with this type of aircraft.

yes and Waddington is a secure base with Aircraft locked away in alfa behind gates and we all know how twitchy the Americans get about security and when a E3 lands at the hall they usually have a 24hr armed guard around it from what I've seen when I used to spend nights in johns field