Used to be Dunsfold, they now have a purpose built facility at Enstone in Oxfordshire, less distance for JC to travel……………..

BRAC2005

Dubya,

Pope AFB is transferring to the Army, both the A-10 and C-130 Wings are moving out, A-10s to Moody and C-130s to Little Rock leaving an enhanced AFRC C-130 Sqn at Pope.
There is considerable movement of F-16, F-16, C-130 and KC-135 to achieve larger squadrons and fewer bases, the ANG is consolidating on fewer larger squadrons and quite a few older model F-16s, C-130s and KC-135s are being retired.

Shadow1,
Ellsworth Bones are moving to Dyess. Dyess C-130s are moving out to make way.

F/A-18RN,

Not this P1154 myth again. It didn’t work! The concept of plenum chamber burning, the only way you will ever get a vectored thrust aircraft with a Harrier type layout to go supersonic, was a flawed concept from the outset. It was not practical in the mid sixties when it was first proposed and it was still not workable when they tried it again in the eighties, it was then abandoned for good.

If the RAF and or RN had persevered with the P1154 in whatever form instead of the F-4 you would have had a seriously inadequate front line in the late sixties and seventies.
The RAF rejected the Buccaneer repeatedly because, among other things, the requirement that led to TSR-2 had a Mach 2 high level element and the Buccaneer could get nowhere near that. They only accepted it when it was the last option remaining after cancellation of TSR-2, F-111K, AFVG and UKVG and even then it was as an interim type pending what eventually became Tornado via MRCA.
A two seat P1154 in place of the lightning is simply a non starter and would have been totally inadequate. The RN were never keen on P1154 and as a fleet air defender it was always second or third rate compared to the F-4.
When P1154 was cancelled a developed version of the experimental P1127 was proposed as a partial replacement for Hunters along with the Spey Phantom, this P1127(RAF) became what we know today as Harrier. This was as far as the P1154 could ever have been taken. That is why Harrier is being replaced by the F-35 and not a supersonic Pegasus development.

P1154 was a journey down a dead end.

Sens,

There is no such thing as an established aircraft complement for an RAF squadron. They range from 3 to over 25 depending on function and type. Some squadrons don’t even have ANY aircraft allotted to them, the Nimrod MR fleet, Hercules and Sentry fleet are all allotted to a central engineering organisation and the flying squadrons consist of aircrew who fly aircraft allocated to a task.

As to change, the allocation of aircraft to squadrons has always been in a constant state of flux and there has never been a “norm”. 12 is the most commonly quoted number of fast jets in a squadron but even that is VERY much a generalisation. Lightning squadrons always tended to have 12 single seat aircraft and 1 two seater, as do the current Tornado GR4 squadrons, in their case the two seater is a twin stick frame as they are of course ALL 2 seaters!

There has been massive variations over the years, in the pre 1957 days in Fighter Command and RAFG a standard complement was 22 aircraft, this was reduced to 16 or 18 and then back up to 22 when the number of Hunter squadrons was drastically reduced. It then fell to 10 in the days of the 2 FR10 squadrons at Gutersloh.

The Harrier force is a good “for instance”. They were established at Wildenrath as a wing of 3 squadrons each with 12 single seat and 1 two seat Harriers. When the wing moved to Gutersloh there was not the administrative accommodation for the 3 squadrons so they merged into 2 squadrons of 18 GR with 1 or 2 two seaters. By the time the GR3 was coming up for replacement the 2 Gutersloh squadrons had reached a complement of 21 single seaters and 3 two seaters. The GR5 was issued at a rate of 12 per squadron, increased in the late eighties to 16 and then back down to around 12.

A constant confusion is the UK MOD habit of established strength versus actual strength. A case in point is the E-3D Sentry fleet. There are 7 of these aircraft, owned by the RAF Waddington Engineering Wing and flown by No 8 and 23 squadrons yet you will see time and time again references in enthusiast mags to there only being 6. This is because there is an ESTABLISHED strength of 6, this means that the allocation of aircrew, servicing equipment etc is calculated at a certain rate per aircraft times the established strength of 6, yet all 7 are flown and operated.
216 Squadron is another case where the actual strength of 9 is constantly quoted as 8, for the exact same reason as above.

Sorry to harp on.

Nothing is simple is it?

RAF Leeming is not going to be a Typhoon base, Coningsby and Leuchars will be the only Typhoon bases with 3, 6 and 11 Squadrons the only units that have been announced so far after 29(R) as the OCU and 17(R) as the OEU.

The 4 operational Harrier GR9 units will be 800 and 801, reforming from 2006 at Cottesmore alongside 1 and 4 Squadrons. 3 Sqn will disband as a Harrier GR7 Squadron and it’s aircraft and staff will be split amongst the other 3.The number plate will then be taken up by the first operational Typhoon squadron at Coningsby. All 4 operational GR9 squadrons will be joint, 800 and 801 being RN heavy and 1 and 4 being RAF heavy.

There is a very strict seniority system that governs which squadrons remain and in which order they are reformed or disbanded. Former members can lobby all they like but they will have no affect as the system is very inflexible.

crazymainer,

What on earth makes you think that the F-14 will be appearing with the reserves? They have never operated F-14’s and never will.

RIAT 2005?

Has to be a full blown Canberra PR9 display.

MMITCH,

How many complete aircraft are built ANYWHERE today? What on earth does that have to do with the state of the Aerospace industry, you are merely talking about final assembly, which is low tech and worth zilch!
The 146/RJ could not compete so it went.

The UK is part of a global aerospace industry and is a very succesful and highly profitable part of it, second only to the USA.

Albert Ross,

Fair point, I misread your 1958 for 1948 as that was the year on the first post.

My point is still valid though, the show may be dull but the industry is still more effective and profitable now than it was then. Just because we don’t do as much final assembly now as then does not make it then better. There is virtually no value or technology involved in final assembly, it’s manpower intensive and expensive, all for little gain.
Systems is where todays cutting edge is and we have an industry second to none in that field, why do you think even Boeing are considering selling off manufacturing and most famous names in the US industry no longer make airframes?

The Viscount and the 748 were excellent products, but they still pale in to insignificance alongside the money made by Airbus wings and technology, an Airbus 340-500 is more than 50% UK content by value and components and that is just one example.

BTW,

I’ve been to every Farnborough since 1974 and to be honest, they are far better now because you can actually hear what your customers are saying and get things done, not that you need to do that at an airshow, which it doesn’t actually need to be anyway.