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

[skysearcher]

My take on Col. Torkleson's comments in the AF mag

“The UK doesn’t like Waddington as a long-term solution for their Rivet Joints, because the runway is too short and they require a tanker for every mission from there. And so they’ve been waiting for our basing decision [for the location of US Air Force RC-135s in Europe] to see if they might be able to potentially pile onto that and maybe put their UK Rivet Joints there,” Torkelson explained.

I dont think that's about trans atlantic ferry flights to redfalg, nor actually just the length of runway at waddington, but also about Air to Air refuelling support for the RC-135 operational deployments, whilst it is in orbit off its target location, scooping up data wether its ELINT, COMINT and SIGINT or some newer form Im not aware of...it needs a lot of gas to there and back.

Where do the UK RCs fly? the 95RS aircraft seem often all over eastern europe and the med?

[andrewn]

I'm pretty sure the option of lengthening Waddingon's runway WAS considered as part of the recent work, but obviously didn't happen for whatever reason. That said no-one is saying that RJ's cant operate (safely), more that it's not ideal for them. And when the Waddo runway work was decided the closure of Mildenhall was not even on the cards and therefore the option to "dual base" the RJs between Waddo and MH was still very much in mind.

It's pretty obvious the subsequent decision to close MH, and not lengthen the Waddo runway, has now given both the RAF and USAF a bit of a headache!

[baz1]

well I guess that's forward thinking for you!

[filmman]

If Waddington's runway is not long enough the cheapest and operationally most effective solution is to lengthen it. If the RAF move their RC-135's elsewhere you have removal/setup costs, the cost of an extra operational base and the personal disruption. If Mildenhall shuts, it makes sense to move their RC's to Waddington because of the operational problems at Lakenheath (shorter runway and arrester system). Although MOD would pay for the full costs of Waddington work it would have to pay half the cost of RAF Lakenheath infrastructure costs. Does the USAF charge for inflight refuelling? It's also simpler to reduce inflight refuelling. Thought, in the long term what happens if USAF tankers are not available?
Filmman

[Reach1985]

Here's a question: the RC135 and the E3 are based on the same airframe and E3's have operated quite happily from Waddo for many years - is it the loiter / mission time of the aircraft that is critical here in terms of the fuel question as I'd imagine that they can both carry a similar fuel load? I'm sure someone better informed than me will be able to tell me whether the average missions are much shorter for the E3's than the RC's.

[POL]

the RC135 and the E3 are based on the same airframe

Incorrect.

The RC-135 is based on the Boeing 717-100 series, a development of the prototype 367-80.
The E-3 is based on the commercial Boeing 707-300 series.

[page_verify]

Although not identical, the two use a similar enough airframe and engines to mean they have similar ranges and endurances. The more significant difference between the two is that the E-3 doesn't need to routinely perform long range missions from the UK mainland. There's also (slightly) more E-3s, so they can afford to fly with less fuel.

[Reach1985]

Thanks for the replies - that all makes sense. Does rather limit capabilities if we have to rely on the USAF to refuel the RCs.

Just another example that NATO are reliant on the US to support the full range of missions of NATO partners (and we're surely one of the only NATO nations with this sort of strategic reconnaissance capability). Does make you wonder whether any of this was ever thought about in the procurement process doesn't it...

[mushbuster]

Although not identical, the two use a similar enough airframe and engines to mean they have similar ranges and endurances. The more significant difference between the two is that the E-3 doesn't need to routinely perform long range missions from the UK mainland. There's also (slightly) more E-3s, so they can afford to fly with less fuel.

The significant difference is really that the two airframes are substantially different. For example the 707 320 used as the basis of the E-3 was developed for shorter fields and has 20% larger wing area and nearly 15' extra wing span than the RC135. This makes its runway length requirements for take off and landing much less critical in wet or windy conditions, also the RAF E-3s do not need a USAF tanker to refuel them.

[page_verify]

Ok, what I meant was we're talking about two fairly similar aircraft rather than an F-16 compared to a Global Hawk - there will be slight difference in their performance but we're not going to dine out on the difference. We can expect the physical differences to be absorbed by the mission profile rather than needing a bigger boat.

[baz1]

and the next scenario will be the E8!

[page_verify]

The E-8 will finally have been retired before any of this happens, non?

[baz1]

more than likely !

[page_verify]

The irony of course Baz1 is that Fairford has always been the European forward operating base for the E-8 (it has dedicated/special power hookups) yet it's never really left the Middle East since it was first created in 1991!

For any Skunkworks historians, Fairford was made the E-8 FOB around the same time that it was made the European base for the SR-71 had it have been forwarded deployed in its reincarnation - they were days away in their rehearsal from being able to accept the aircraft.

[CHINOOKER]

Surely one answer to this is a joint RAF/USAF tanker detachment/unit,based either at Waddington or Brize,specifically set up to support both UK/US missions. It doesn't have to be that big a unit,poss 4x KC135s and jointly funded/crewed. For RAF crews already trained to fly E-3 and RJ aircraft it should be a fairly easy conversion course.....same goes for "boomers", ground crews and maintenance. We seem to have quite a few "seedcorn" crews,operating on the P8s at present....why not train some more up on KC135 ops?. Seems to be a much cheaper option than going through the long and expensive process of converting Voyagers to boom ops!

[page_verify]

But would the USAF (or the British government) want US sigint aircraft operating from an RAF RAF station - does having a USAF wrapper around it make things a little better?

[graham luxton]

The irony of course Baz1 is that Fairford has always been the European forward operating base for the E-8 (it has dedicated/special power hookups) yet it's never really left the Middle East since it was first created in 1991!

For any Skunkworks historians, Fairford was made the E-8 FOB around the same time that it was made the European base for the SR-71 had it have been forwarded deployed in its reincarnation - they were days away in their rehearsal from being able to accept the aircraft.

They even had to modify the East entrance to the main hangar so the E-8 would fit in!

[baz1]

Surely one answer to this is a joint RAF/USAF tanker detachment/unit,based either at Waddington or Brize,specifically set up to support both UK/US missions. It doesn't have to be that big a unit,poss 4x KC135s and jointly funded/crewed. For RAF crews already trained to fly E-3 and RJ aircraft it should be a fairly easy conversion course.....same goes for "boomers", ground crews and maintenance. We seem to have quite a few "seedcorn" crews,operating on the P8s at present....why not train some more up on KC135 ops?. Seems to be a much cheaper option than going through the long and expensive process of converting Voyagers to boom ops!

we often used to have a KC-135 on tdy at Geilenkirchen Parked on ALFA dispersal at waddington on a thurs night that had been tanking the E-3

[skysearcher]

thanks folks - as ever lots to think about and ponder here. My tuppence - despite lots of info saying LK, makes more sense to rebase 95RS to Ramstein,no qulams then conducting SIGINT from there 'in support of NATO' operations..... UK aircraft to remain at based at waddo, but TDY to Ramstein, for shared air-spares / forward maintenance, etc. Then creation of a NATO air refuelling unit, similar to the multinational airlift wing at Pappa AB, Hungary, in order to provide A-A refuelling capability. US led, but NATO operated, and based at.... Fairford??

Anyone know when the new USAF tanker is supposed to come into service to replace the current 100ARW KC-135Rs ?

[bizfreeq]

NATO tanker force is already in the making:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_141382.htm