Jump to content

Bye bye, Lakenheath?


Recommended Posts

I wonder if anyone in Whitehall factored this (possible) development into their equations when they were decimating the RAF and closing it`s bases?

Yep, if the Americans go, they`ll be missed for a whole lot of reasons.

Cheers, Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

f111_route.jpg

http://f-111.net/patches/patches_rough_files/libya.jpg

All good stuff but you conveniently forgot that the US has invested billions in a stealth bomber called the B-2. The B-2 is just perfect for long range surgical strikes on uppity third world nations when they get out of line.

I thought the whole point of the USAF's "Global Strike" was to avoid having to depend on foreign bases. Why would we send those aging F-15E's when one or two B-2's could do the job in safer (and more impressive) fashion?

As far as other justifications for keeping these bases open, none of them add up. Do we need a transport / tanker hub in Europe? Absolutely. Do we need tactical aircraft in Europe? No. I think we can all safely say that the Hun is not going to be a threat for the foreseeable future. The cold war is long gone (we won, right?). If anyone suggests that we need the 48th Fighter Wing to keep Russia in check, I think they are delusional. Does anyone think that Putin lost a minute of sleep worrying about a single understrength fighter wing flying 30-year old aircraft when he annexed Crimea? If he plans on taking additional Ukrainian territory (which is starting to look pretty likely), the 48th is going to do exactly what it is doing right now. Which is pretty much either nothing or acting as a token gesture at best.

If we want to put Russia in check, we either need to go back to our cold-war posture circa 1985 or be prepared to use the token forces we have over there as a sacrificial tripwire. I would suggest that we don't have the economic means for the first option and don't have the appetite for another conflict so option two is also out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All good stuff but you conveniently forgot that the US has invested billions in a stealth bomber called the B-2. The B-2 is just perfect for long range surgical strikes on uppity third world nations when they get out of line.

of course! why if Libya happened more recently, like say in 2011, you wouldn't have a bunch of piddly fighters flying from europe to fight right?

With the B-2s you wouldn't need to be shuffling MEUs and Harriers out there right?

And our allies who don't have B-2s or any strategic bombers (imagine that) don't need these bases to operate from either. especially when the need to deploy and support NATO comes up.

I thought the whole point of the USAF's "Global Strike" was to avoid having to depend on foreign bases. Why would we send those aging F-15E's when one or two B-2's could do the job in safer (and more impressive) fashion?

I really hope you are trolling.

As far as other justifications for keeping these bases open, none of them add up. Do we need a transport / tanker hub in Europe? Absolutely. Do we need tactical aircraft in Europe? No.

what?

I think we can all safely say that the Hun is not going to be a threat for the foreseeable future. The cold war is long gone (we won, right?). If anyone suggests that we need the 48th Fighter Wing to keep Russia in check, I think they are delusional.

are you laboring under the assumption that the entire tactical US military force's sole job in Europe is to keep Germany and Russia in check??

Does anyone think that Putin lost a minute of sleep worrying about a single understrength fighter wing flying 30-year old aircraft when he annexed Crimea? If he plans on taking additional Ukrainian territory (which is starting to look pretty likely), the 48th is going to do exactly what it is doing right now. Which is pretty much either nothing or acting as a token gesture at best.

Well try to keep up with this John because I know this is hard, but you see although there is a token force of fighters there, as long as the base remains open and operational you can send more airplanes there, and then more airplanes can do more stuff, faster. Shutting down that base, means that in an emergency it could be opened but it will take time and energy and could risk serious exposure to danger and possible failure.

Now should the airbase remain open? well thats a matter of opinion, but trying to paint it as a tiny little po dunk airport with no tactical or strategic value is simply untrue. It doesn't exist to support a token force, a token force exists there, to train and protect should it be needed until reinforcement can arrive.

If we want to put Russia in check, we either need to go back to our cold-war posture circa 1985 or be prepared to use the token forces we have over there as a sacrificial tripwire. I would suggest that we don't have the economic means for the first option and don't have the appetite for another conflict so option two is also out.

yes because there is no middle ground, or other postures that can be taken :rolleyes:/> Its one or the other. Also unless I missed something its not the USSR anymore, so spending at the level to match or beat a super power circa 1985 is kind of far fetched. When did Russia become a first rate military force on par with the Soviet military? I'm not saying one should underestimate russia, but what I am saying is once again you are setting up a straw man.

You are saying the only reason to keep bases there is to beat russia, and thats an impossibly expensive endeavor because its like the soviet days. Both of those statements are untrue. Russia is still struggling to rebuild its military post USSR.

There are good reasons to shut these bases down, but there are also good reasons to keep them going. saying the US is there to keep Germany in check is like saying the purpose of your smoke detector is to blink a little light. its more layered. its more complicated than "shut it down because we have B-2s and putin isn't scared unless its 1985 again"

One of the problems you encounter with military spending that is different than civil and even more so with businesses is redundancy. The military has much larger need for redundancy than its civilian contemporaries. The reason being that in war you need redundancy because you lose stuff. Things die and get broken. its a different standard. A Marine rifle squad of 13 people has 4 leaders in it! a squadleader and then 3 fireteam leaders. There aren't many professions that require that kind of oversight and leadership. but there is good reason for it. in the civilian world you don't typically have four managers for 9 employees. It would be culled.

can the military be too redundant? of course. but its tougher to measure and what happens is in peacetime it looks excessive, and then in war its barely enough. When wars lasted years and you had time to "spin up" and get things going it wasn't as important. When wars last a month maybe two at most conventionally, then there isn't much spin up time.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

TT,

I appreciate your comments but that's my opinion. You posted that one important reason for keeping LN open was an El Dorado Canyon scenario. I suggested that nowadays, it would be more practical to use B-2's. I don't consider that to be trolling. Is that not one of the missions that justifies the B-2's existence and do those pilots not train for ultra-long range precision strike?

As for the rest of your post, I disagree. If there is any contingency worth fighting for in that hemisphere, we can depend on our allies to deal with it until we can deploy whatever forces are needed. And if we can't depend on our allies to assist, there is probably a pretty good chance that they would restrict our forces from using those bases anyway. Also, if we can't depend on our allies to assist, that is probably a good reason for not getting involved in the conflict either.

I wasn't belittling you in my post, so save the snarky comments. I believe that those installations are a waste of US taxpayers money and should have been shut down years (along with the units based there). I don't think we have any reason to have such an extensive military footprint over Europe (and good part of the rest of the world) and the money saved could be put to much better use elsewhere.

If you feel otherwise, that is certainly your prerogative.

Regards,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

TT,

I appreciate your comments but that's my opinion. You posted that one important reason for keeping LN open was an El Dorado Canyon scenario. I suggested that nowadays, it would be more practical to use B-2's. Is that not one of the missions that justifies the B-2's existence and do those pilots not train for ultra-long range precision strike?

Thats just one example. and if you think that B-2s are all you need then we are wasting a lot more money than just what is spent on bases.

I don't consider that to be trolling.

I just kind of figured you knew the difference, short-comings, and advantages in the types, that was my mistake.

As for the rest of your post, I disagree. If there is any contingency worth fighting for in that hemisphere, we can depend on our allies to deal with it until we can deploy whatever forces are needed. And if we can't depend on our allies to assist, there is probably a pretty good chance that they would restrict our forces from using those bases anyway. Also, if we can't depend on our allies to assist, that is probably a good reason for not getting involved in the conflict either.

Yeah thats not the only scenario but thanks for trying

I wasn't belittling you in my post, so save the snarky comments. I believe that those installations are a waste of US taxpayers money and should have been shut down years (along with the units based there). I don't think we have any reason to have such an extensive military footprint over Europe

But We have never had a smaller footprint there than we do now... :blink:

(and good part of the rest of the world)

Seeing as you don't seem to understand the purpose of it I can understand the sentiment. if the purpose is wasted on you, then no amount of money spent makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside any of the tactical considerations or financial implications, can I just say, as a UK citizen, it would sadden me greatly to see the USAF disappear from the UK completely? You have been welcome friends, allies, neighbours and ambassadors for over 70 years. I've watched the drawdown over the years as base after base has disappeared and the assets have returned whence they came, and always with a heavy heart. Again, it's nothing to do with tactical or strategic thinking, it's simply an emotional reaction - you guys were NICE to have around, and always fantastic to interact with at shows and the like. You will be missed, and it will be a dark day when it's over. All of which leaves aside my fierce possessiveness over the 48th! You guys are ours really, less so with the F-15's, but in the F-111 days, you were the very embodiment of force projection.

I now return you you to your scheduled bunfight over the issue. Mine was an emotional point, nothing more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if anyone in Whitehall factored this (possible) development into their equations when they were decimating the RAF and closing it`s bases?

Yep, if the Americans go, they`ll be missed for a whole lot of reasons.

Cheers, Ian

The USAF have nothing to do with Whitehall or how the RAF operate, so no it wouldn't have been in any equations or altered any decisions regards RAF cutbacks or operational changes.

I've seen some suggestions here and on other forums that the 48th FW help provide the UK with air protection, this is not true and the protection of UK airspace lies solely with the RAF. Any involvement by the 48th would require lengthy diplomatic discussions and quite possibly a change in British law.

Regards this joint RAF/USAF servicing idea for the F-35 at Marham and Lakenheath, the RAF will be operating the B version while the USAF the A, although there is alot of commonality between the two types would it be possible/feasible to operate a joint servicing unit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The USAF have nothing to do with Whitehall or how the RAF operate, so no it wouldn't have been in any equations or altered any decisions regards RAF cutbacks or operational changes.

I've seen some suggestions here and on other forums that the 48th FW help provide the UK with air protection, this is not true and the protection of UK airspace lies solely with the RAF. Any involvement by the 48th would require lengthy diplomatic discussions and quite possibly a change in British law.

I`m not suggesting direct American involvement in decision making, but it`s unimaginable that, as a fellow NATO member, if our airspace was compromised in time of crisis, that the Americans would not, at least, offer assistance.

We may be responsible for our own airspace when all is well and tickity-boo, but no-one can believe that we would not welcome assistance in such a crisis.

We liase with NATO partners regarding our mercantile security. Factoring-in American assistance in an aviation crisis is not far-fetched, particularly in light of the new emphasis in `co-operation` to share defence burdens in these times of austerity.

There`s no questioning the primacy of the RAF in guaranteeing UK sovereignty, but either having, or not having, forty-odd F-15s on your soil defineatly comes into the equation (particulary if your own fast-jet force is as small as ours may turn out to be). Those at Lakenheath are there to implement US policy, a major strand of which, is the support of American allies, which includes good old Blighty.

It may be politically embarrassing to ask allies for help, but we`ve done it before, several times, and we`ll do it again.

Cheers, Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...