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

[TankBuster]

I just read this article on the subject. A very interesting read too.
https://www.airforcemag.com/u-s-to-end- ... m-germany/

TankBuster

[Richard B]

With Mildenhall staying open, do they really need Fairford.
The Hall can accommodate the role and cost saving of Fairford.

prime Cotswold location for housing.

[thevulcan]

The issue with that Richard B would be the B2 facilities at fairford. As I don't think these can be replicated at mildenhall. I also believe fairford will be around for a while yet given the B21s are smaller then the B2's and so will be able to fit in the same hangars with ease.

[johnwayne]

I believe the RJ's will still move as there was some sort of issue with take off weight restrictions at mildenhall and fairfords runway is better suited?

You are correct - strengthening Fairford overrrun(s) to extend TORA (take off run available), planned for RC move but put on hold , enabled higher take off weights than currently possible at Mildenhall thus reducing need for 'top up' tanking after take off . Made sense with the Hall closing but now looks a costly luxury .

[Ian1963]

We love Mildenhall ya

[CHINOOKER]

Wonder if this means that Fairford may become busier with "transient" aircraft?. At present we have C-5s,C-17s and Herks etc transiting through Belfast/Prestwick and occasionally Cardiff. Maybe now Mildenhall's future is secured,the powers that be may be thinking of utilising both bases more often for these?. In the case of Fairford,it would keep ground crews/ATC staff etc occupied a little more than handling the one or two U2/RC movements each day!

[graham luxton]

Wonder if this means that Fairford may become busier with "transient" aircraft?. At present we have C-5s,C-17s and Herks etc transiting through Belfast/Prestwick and occasionally Cardiff. Maybe now Mildenhall's future is secured,the powers that be may be thinking of utilising both bases more often for these?. In the case of Fairford,it would keep ground crews/ATC staff etc occupied a little more than handling the one or two U2/RC movements each day!

Doubt if Fairford will gain anything out of this at all. Reckon It'll be business as usual!

[EGDR]

Mildenhall and Fairford both have a heap of different reasons why they're useful, looking at it as a case of if you close one then you'll save money is too simple.

Mildenhall has all the infrastructure for supporting C-135s, C-130s and V-22s as well as the regular transport flights. Fairford might have the physical room, but all of that would have to be rebuilt there - hangars, maintenance facilities, crew rooms, operations facilities, cargo handling (I know Fairford handles cargo flights too, but it can't really compare to the volume that Mildenhall gets).

Then the other way around, Fairford has the facilities to support intensive bomber operations as well as the almost unique ability to handle the B-2's specific needs. It might be empty a lot of the time, but that's the point of it. If it was suddenly completely filled with former Mildenhall aircraft its ability to act as a forward base for strategic bombers would suffer.

The RC-135s might (saying this just in theory) still move regardless of the facilities being existent at Mildenhall already because if those more in depth facilities are required the aircraft can simply be moved there, the RC fleet isn't a stranger to operating from all kinds of far flung bases.

[Knife 04]

Wonder if this means that Fairford may become busier with "transient" aircraft?. At present we have C-5s,C-17s and Herks etc transiting through Belfast/Prestwick and occasionally Cardiff. Maybe now Mildenhall's future is secured,the powers that be may be thinking of utilising both bases more often for these?. In the case of Fairford,it would keep ground crews/ATC staff etc occupied a little more than handling the one or two U2/RC movements each day!

Doubt if Fairford will gain anything out of this at all. Reckon It'll be business as usual!

Now there speaks the voice of reason! End of!

[Stewyb1]

This thread has disintegrated in to a mine is bigger than yours. Suggest everyone just waits and sees!

[Thunder]

Looks like the savings are going to made through the run down and possibly the eventual closure of Spangdahlem.

I remember reading an article back in the mid 90’s, which stated back then that the US would rather sacrifice everything in Germany before the UK, due to the various limitations placed on them by the German Government.

[the concerned]

Quite a few years ago there was a failed planning application at mildenhall to buy the land where the road goes round the back of beck row and west row. This was with extending the runway in mind I wonder if they will try again. They did offer to relocate the road.

[page_verify]

There seems to be some risk of over-interpreting the announcement;

The announcement said the tankers and special ops aren’t leaving the UK.

It didn’t say Mildenhall would close, it didn’t say Fairford would close.

It didn’t say any thing at Mildenhall will change, it didn’t say anything at Fairford will change.

Unless the USAF budget, rather than the EUCOM strategy, says anything will change then nothing will change. Until then, we don’t have any reason to believe anything will change at Mildenhall or Fairford.

[RJ79]

There was also the comment of everything changing should there be a change of President (Biden making friends with Germany again). It’s not all as cut and dried as it may originally sound.

[page_verify]

Indeed, and we'll known when changes are planned because they'll be announced.

Even the media is speculating as all that's been officially released is that "the 2,500 airmen based in Mildenhall, United Kingdom, who are responsible for aerial refueling and special operations, and who had been scheduled to rebase to Germany, will remain in the United Kingdom, thus ensuring the uninterrupted readiness and responsiveness of these units." Does that mean they'll stay at Mildenhall or move to another base in the UK? We don't know, it doesn't say.

[Reach1985]

I’ve read Dr Esper’s speech the key word for me as regards Mildenhall is “uninterrupted” Which suggests that there will be no change in the current basing.

And remember Dr Esper visited Mildenhall just a few weeks ago. No doubt to give them the good news.

[RJ79]

I think the only thing that may change (IMO) is the closure of the facilities at Stuttgart and move to Belgium, billions on moving this to spite the Germans isn't the brightest of ideas. One squadron at Spang is pointless and the move to Aviano is sensible though. It was never a smart move to stick your special forces in a place where you can't go low level, though I thought the 100 ARW was slated to move to Ramstein and not Spang? Lets hope Mildenhall gets a cut of the Spang budget and gets a really good facility upgrade (that it apparently needs)

[CHINOOKER]

With regard to my post above,if I were a "bean counter" within the DoD,I would be asking questions as to why we were paying landing fees/transport and hotel costs at civilian airports,when we have readily available facilities of our own,down the road. I thought that some of the decisions made with regard to the DoD report,was not just about moving equipment and personnel around,but saving Uncle Sam a load of$$$$$.
As for transient flights throug Fairford,they seem to cope easily with the regular Embassy C-17 flight,so why would it be that difficult to handle the odd aircraft,when required??

[Reach1985]

There has been a few discussions on here regarding Prestwick, Belfast etc. & some docs were recently shared - perhaps on another topic I can’t remember.

As far as I am aware Prestwick have worked very hard PR wise to attract the USAF custom especially ANG & AF reserve units transiting east (none critical missions) & they have probably been given very attractive landing fees.

I think the positives are that they are both geographically well suited as well as being open 24/7 which FFD & Mildenhall are not (due to good neighbour policies and quiet hours etc.).

I can’t see this changing anytime soon so I wouldn’t expect any increase in traffic anytime soon.

[page_verify]

CHINOOKER, the quick answer USAF pilots give to your point over on the Base Ops forum is that the using commercial airports and hotels, and buying commercial fuel, costs the same as using the military equivalents given the preagreed contract DoD rates . However, airports like Prestwick, they say, have far better opening hours, availability of accommodation, and turnaround times. E.g. "The ones who have routinely put me into Mildenhall when no billeting or contract billeting exists?". Making Fairford available to all and any transient aircraft is unaffordable in its current role.