Waco Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/RAF-Lakenheath-recommended-for-closure-by-report-commissioned-by-US-government-20140319144617.htm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Yep! Also heard some rumblings about moving the SOC assets out of Mildenhall and into the now nearly vacant, Spangdahlem. Maybe Spang will be home to the Heath jets as well, since they are down to a single squadron with the 22/23 merge and 81st closure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
markmarples Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 i didnt think the UK government were allowing them to leave, after the Radiation leak they had in one of the bunkers a few years ago, im sure i read somwhere the the USAF were responsible for it for x amount of years Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 ...and add that flight restrictions are tighter in Germany than the UK, as the UK has Shorter travel distance to suitable training areas. Germany do not or have Limited facilities. I'm just waiting for hearing the Call to move the 52FW to Poland ;) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scotthldr Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Although it was said to me a few years back and these things have a habit of changing several times before fruition, a Major from the 21st SOS based at Mildenhall at the time, said to me that the USAF would shut every base in Continental Europe before they lost either Lakenheath or Mildenhall. As both bases give better training, security and quality of live to those stationed there. Moving AF assets into Germany is highly doubtful and Italy have been funny ever since the EA-6B/Cable Car incident. However Poland could offer a real and less expensive alternative. Common sense does say to fully utilise both Lakenheath and Mildenhall, but since when does common sense apply. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 i didnt think the UK government were allowing them to leave, after the Radiation leak they had in one of the bunkers a few years ago, im sure i read somwhere the the USAF were responsible for it for x amount of years The UK doesn't have a say in this. If the US DOD decides the bases are unnecessary, they will be shut down. Any environmental liabilities would be addressed by the US as part of the closure process. From the article referenced above: In its current state RAF Lakenheath costs the USAF around $211 million per year to run. The report also suggests relocating some forces from nearby RAF Mildenhall but the base would remain open and continue to host the 100th Refuelling Wing. RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall contribute an estimated £500 million annually to the local economy and residents are concerns about the impact the potential closure. Seem to me, if the Brits are concerned about the impact to the local economy, they should be footing the entire cost to keep these bases open. If not, I'm all for shutting them down. Disband the units or bring them back to the US where they can pump those millions into the local (US) economy instead. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Disband the units or bring them back to the US where they can pump those millions into the local (US) economy instead. We should bring it all back. And the Navy should only do port calls in the Continental US. Join the navy, see the states. I think we should stick the forces from the two UK bases to Burlington, Vermont. Or other military friendly locations, like near UC Berkeley, or the Hamptons. But I like to troll like that. Any populated area really though, would probably love to an air force base open up next door. Edited March 22, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ghatherly Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The UK doesn't have a say in this. If the US DOD decides the bases are unnecessary, they will be shut down. Any environmental liabilities would be addressed by the US as part of the closure process. From the article referenced above: In its current state RAF Lakenheath costs the USAF around $211 million per year to run. The report also suggests relocating some forces from nearby RAF Mildenhall but the base would remain open and continue to host the 100th Refuelling Wing. RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall contribute an estimated £500 million annually to the local economy and residents are concerns about the impact the potential closure. Seem to me, if the Brits are concerned about the impact to the local economy, they should be footing the entire cost to keep these bases open. If not, I'm all for shutting them down. Disband the units or bring them back to the US where they can pump those millions into the local (US) economy instead. Well said! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 The UK doesn't have a say in this. If the US DOD decides the bases are unnecessary, they will be shut down. Any environmental liabilities would be addressed by the US as part of the closure process. From the article referenced above: In its current state RAF Lakenheath costs the USAF around $211 million per year to run. The report also suggests relocating some forces from nearby RAF Mildenhall but the base would remain open and continue to host the 100th Refuelling Wing. RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall contribute an estimated £500 million annually to the local economy and residents are concerns about the impact the potential closure. Seem to me, if the Brits are concerned about the impact to the local economy, they should be footing the entire cost to keep these bases open. If not, I'm all for shutting them down. Disband the units or bring them back to the US where they can pump those millions into the local (US) economy instead. I actually think the impact on the local economy when a USAF base in the UK closes is pretty minimal. The vacated land either gets used by the MoD (usually putting up squaddies coming back from Germany or Afghanistan) or gets turned into an industrial estate, which generates more local jobs that the base ever did. And there's the increase in property values, too. The value of houses in Upper and Lower Heyford rocketed once the base closed down as, strange as it may seem to us, most people don't want to put up with the noise and disruption of an airbase on your doorstep. And if you're selling your house, you no longer need to pretend to a potential buyer that there's absolutely zero risk of an F-111 crashing through your roof one night... :whistle:/> Vince Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 I actually think the impact on the local economy when a USAF base in the UK closes is pretty minimal. The vacated land either gets used by the MoD (usually putting up squaddies coming back from Germany or Afghanistan) or gets turned into an industrial estate, which generates more local jobs that the base ever did. And there's the increase in property values, too. The value of houses in Upper and Lower Heyford rocketed once the base closed down as, strange as it may seem to us, most people don't want to put up with the noise and disruption of an airbase on your doorstep. And if you're selling your house, you no longer need to pretend to a potential buyer that there's absolutely zero risk of an F-111 crashing through your roof one night... :whistle:/>/> Vince See - it's a win for the Brits and for the US taxpayer! Shut 'em down!! TT - I like your suggestion about building an airbase next to a yuppie community a great deal, however, my suggestion more pertained to bringing these units back to a US base that would otherwise be BRAC'd. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scotthldr Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 It's exactly the same as a few years ago when the RAF pulled out of Germany, everyone in the UK couldn't understand why we were still there 50 years after the war. We had British people spending British money supporting a Foreign economy whilst our own was toiling. As much as I would hate to see the USAF leave, I can see why the Americans would want them home. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) It's exactly the same as a few years ago when the RAF pulled out of Germany, everyone in the UK couldn't understand why we were still there 50 years after the war. We had British people spending British money supporting a Foreign economy whilst our own was toiling. As much as I would hate to see the USAF leave, I can see why the Americans would want them home. In addition, I would think that by now, we have worn out our welcome just a bit (as Vince somewhat alluded to). I know that if there was a huge British (or German or Jamaican or whoever) military installation next to my town here in beautiful SE Massachusetts; after 50 years plus, I would be extremely happy to see them pack up and finally go home. Nothing against the Brits, Germans, etc but after a while, it would just get a bit much. Edited March 22, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 We should bring it all back. And the Navy should only do port calls in the Continental US. Join the navy, see the states. I think we should stick the forces from the two UK bases to Burlington, Vermont. Or other military friendly locations, like near UC Berkeley, or the Hamptons. But I like to troll like that. Any populated area really though, would probably love to an air force base open up next door. Reopen MCAS El Toro, its quite a "Yuppieville" around there now ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Well anyway there are advantages to maintaining bases over seas, OTOH see my signature. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zerosystem Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 See - it's a win for the Brits and for the US taxpayer! Shut 'em down!! TT - I like your suggestion about building an airbase next to a yuppie community a great deal, however, my suggestion more pertained to bringing these units back to a US base that would otherwise be BRAC'd. have you seen how much more it costs to clean up a former installation rather than just keeping it open? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yardbird78 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Clean up costs eventually end. Operational costs continue on and on and on and on. Darwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yardbird78 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 We should shut down more of the foreign soil bases and bring the people and equipment home. Put them on an AF Base or Army Post that is in danger of being closed and/or spend the money to continue the current level of ships, planes and tanks instead of scrapping them or letting them rot at DM. Darwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) have you seen how much more it costs to clean up a former installation rather than just keeping it open? You are wrong. I've got 20 years in the environmental remediation field. The most involved cleanups, while costly, are nothing compared to what it takes to keep a base running year after year after year. Plus, unlike 50 years ago, the military can't ignore spills anymore. Regardless of whether an installation is active or closed, they still have to the spend the money to clean up the site. They can't ignore it and wait until they shut the place down. One of the biggest cleanups at a US military base was here in MA at Otis ANGB, which is still an active facility. Any other questions? Edited March 23, 2014 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
markmarples Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 Guys i wasnt arguing Although it would be sad to see them go i understand why. I did a bit more digging and the Radiation leak was in the old bomb dump and USAF 'officially' are ment to clean it up or safe guard it for 99 years as for the UK economy, i recently had a tour of the ex RAF Alconbury site, which the USAF turnered over some 10 - 15 years ago, its now a thriving industrial site and the old, F4 and U2 hangers are now industrial units my only worry for you guys would be the same as happened to the RAF once your bring them home they arnt needed anymore, so will get disbanded Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) Guys i wasnt arguing Although it would be sad to see them go i understand why. I did a bit more digging and the Radiation leak was in the old bomb dump and USAF 'officially' are ment to clean it up or safe guard it for 99 years as for the UK economy, i recently had a tour of the ex RAF Alconbury site, which the USAF turnered over some 10 - 15 years ago, its now a thriving industrial site and the old, F4 and U2 hangers are now industrial units my only worry for you guys would be the same as happened to the RAF once your bring them home they arnt needed anymore, so will get disbanded The radiation issue is probably going to be the big problem with closing Lakenheath. It means that, whilst they could close the rest of the base, the US are compelled to guard, maintain and monitor the bomb dump for years to come. That also brings other problems - it'd be difficult to persuade any businesses or property developers to build on land which will be widely regarded as contaminated. My guess would be that the USAF moves it's operational units out, but the DoD will be forced to keep on paying the rent and maintaining at least some the site until the 'all clear' is given. That's still cheaper than keeping it open as a fully operational base, however. Vince Edited March 23, 2014 by vince14 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nev Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 You guys do realise that there are practical, stragetic, geo-political, military reasons why the US maintains bases overseas, and not just to provide minor support to the UK economy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 You guys do realise that there are practical, stragetic, geo-political, military reasons why the US maintains bases overseas, and not just to provide minor support to the UK economy? Protection from " " Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Uncle Uncool Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 ...strange as it may seem to us, most people don't want to put up with the noise and disruption of an airbase on your doorstep. And if you're selling your house, you no longer need to pretend to a potential buyer that there's absolutely zero risk of an F-111 crashing through your roof one night... :blink: Well, dunno 'bout havin' a 737NG thru' my window, but certainly I couldn't eva quite understand these folks any day, y'know. I'm totally unhappy that my apartment buildin' is three blocks away from the local airport's glide path. There's this buildin' that it's just one block away; buildin's so high that ya're able to see the landin' aircraft's fuselage from above while ya're standin' on the roof, then rejoice on that marvelous smell of burnt Jet A-1 fuel. Whut more could anyone ask for...? :wub: Cheers, Unc² Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I'd be sorry to see Lakenheath close, yes we've had the US military in the UK for 70 years but they contribute to our safety as well as the economic benefits of having them here. I'd also like to think that the US has benefited from having forward deployed forces as well. At the end of the day we stood together during the Cold War and as relations are deteriorating with Russia we should continue as such. Stephen Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 I'd be sorry to see Lakenheath close, yes we've had the US military in the UK for 70 years but they contribute to our safety as well as the economic benefits of having them here. I'd also like to think that the US has benefited from having forward deployed forces as well. At the end of the day we stood together during the Cold War and as relations are deteriorating with Russia we should continue as such. Stephen Its a good point. not to mention the 1990s and all the missions with kosovo and the former yugoslavia. In fact the bases in europe (the UK, Germany, and Italy) have been firing more live rounds post cold war. If we want to step back we can, that is an option. Its good for the USN and USMC, the further back we step the greater the need for projection abroad from other means. If you don't have an airbase near by you have to resort to the floaty type of airbases more. http://f-111.net/patches/patches_rough_files/libya.jpg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.