So we pay to close down one perfectly operational air base in Wittering in order to pay to stand up another in Lossie…and we wonder where the MoD’s money goes???. Rather than spending all this money in infrastructure isnt it smarter to spend it on the actual aircraft?. Wittering is perfectly capable of taking the 800sqdn based NSW, 1 & 4 sdns reformed with F-35B and the -35B OCU. It doesnt need more spending on it to achieve this and wont even take much effort to rehome the present Cotts sqdns there – what is it 20 miles down the A1 from Cotts to Wittering?.

I suspect you’d find that any infrastructure improvements would be more needed at Wittering, as opposed to Lossie. I suspect Lossie (2 + 1 OCU has far greater capacity than Wittering (historically as an FJ base 1 OCU and 1 front line Sqn in the RAFG days) too, and better facilities for a FJ base.

An article which entirely factual and true.:p

And there’s lots of other RAF stations that the UK could do well without. For example, Wittering. With the patetic number of Harries left, is it truly needed as “support base” for the Harrier Force…?

I suspect once Cottesmore is closed, Wittering may be a little vital for the Harrier force!:)

Northolt is truly justified just because it is closer to London and thus a comfortable nest for the VIP transport 32° “The Royals” Squadron…?

Indeed, and it also make it an ideal location for the MoD to make a little bit of money with the civilian business/VIP traffic there. It’d be interesting to see through FoI how much money we make offering the use of the airfield in such a capacity.

I think you are missing the point HC… (say) an F18 can (and is) operate(d) as a tanker for post launch topping up and as previously mentioned – other tactical refuels.

In what way am I missing the the point?

Yes, there are aircraft that can be operated as tactical refuelling aircraft (and have been for decades), but during the life of the FSTA contract, UK PLC would have to pay what I suspect are fairly severe financial penalties to be allowed to operate them, due the the exclusivity afforded to Air Tanker in being the sole MoD operated tanker asset (once the legacy aircraft reach OSD). Even if such an airframe was configured just for “topping up”, it’s still a tanker!:)

Can’t see us operating the KC-30 off QE or PoW. 🙂

Come on mate, peddling out of date trash talk is really a rather desperate method of trying to dismiss something.

The Damocles is tested and going onto the in service planes in the next few months.

Not out of date yet then.;):p

Still rather an F-18E/F.:D And the Mirage F1 looks far cooler than the Rafale, but that’s straying a little off topic!

Do the ranks and pay work out the same in the FAA than in the RAF?

Give or take a couple of differences within the services, yes, the basic rank and pay scales are the same (as recommended each year by the Armed Forces Pay Review Board).

Plus it would not just be transferring WSO it would be transferring their training and support structures and on top of which the entire institutional knowledge would be in the RAF. Assuming the RAF would be happy with it I think the second seat should remained filled by the RAF but since I am a civvy what I think does not mean squat.

Considering that RAF and RN fast jet pilot training is pretty much identical (the RN/RM do the same courses at Linton on Ouse and Valley as their RAF counterparts), there’s no reason that future RN WSO’s couldn’t be fed into the current system (particularly if there were to be no future RAF FJ WSO requirement).:)

It is very much an ongoing requirement when you consider that if it comes to a war one of the priority targets will be airfields then where will your conventional aircraft be without their 11-12000 feet of flat tarmac?

Simple, your engineers go in first a make a useable few thousand feet (if you have the intention of occupation, as shown in Iraq and Afghanistan), or you use those ship thingys we keep going on about.