Joint UK / US Rivet Joint base?

[Trevatanus]

I am told that the yanks have spent some money upgrading Fairford in recent years, they still us it for Dragon flights, and it has a very long runway (which I am told is a problem with the current UK Rivet Joint base, meaning lower take off weight and aircrafting needing to be refueled.
Could we see Fairford being used?

http://www.janes.com/article/67072/us-looks-to-joi...

[aeropilot]

Trevatanus said:

I am told that the yanks have spent some money upgrading Fairford in recent years, they still us it for Dragon flights, and it has a very long runway (which I am told is a problem with the current UK Rivet Joint base, meaning lower take off weight and aircrafting needing to be refueled.
Could we see Fairford being used?

http://www.janes.com/article/67072/us-looks-to-joi...

More logical would be to not close the 'hall, and chuck ours in there with theirs.

MOD don't do logical though.

There's also the issue with joint basing in that IIRC, all the US bases have 110v electrics, not 240v, so I could see MOD having to buy a shed loads of travel adapters

Refuelling is still an issue for ours unless, the joint requirement is we'd have access to their KC tanker fleet based at same location (?) for top ups, as the RAF RJ's haven't been fitted with probes to refuel from our own new Voyager tankers.
On that basis it wouldn't matter what base was chosen.....enough accommodation would be the biggest issue I would think....that's a lot of crews, plus ground bods.

[anonymous-user]

Apparently the runway at Waddington is a bit short, but a quick look up shows it's just shy of 9000 feet, which is hardly short and only 300 feet shorter than Mildenhall. Is that really the problem? Surely they would have considered that prior to spending a fortune getting the runway re-done?

[baldy1926]

Inkyfingers said:

Surely they would have considered that prior to spending a fortune getting the runway re-done?

Ha Ha its the mod you are talking about so it probably never entered their heads

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Inkyfingers said:

Apparently the runway at Waddington is a bit short, but a quick look up shows it's just shy of 9000 feet, which is hardly short and only 300 feet shorter than Mildenhall.

While the TORA (Take Off Run Available) and LDA (Landing Distance Available) are similar (Waddo being shorter by 240ft), Mildenhall has a 'stopway' at either end of the runway meaning that it has about 1000ft more ASDA (Accelerate-Stop Distance Available) and TODA (Take Off Distance Availlable).

Having a longer ASDA will affect your V1 (Stop-Go decision speed) because you have a greater distance in which to accelerate to Vr and a greater distance in which reject the take off and stop.

Hhaving a longer TODA will affect your MTOW (Maximum Regulated Take Off Weight) because you have a greater distance in which to meet your V2 (minimum engine out climb safety speed) and screen height (in the case of the RC-135, given it's age I should imagine the screen height is 50ft rather than the more modern 35ft).

Whether the difference between Waddo and Mildenhall significantly affects the take off performance of an RC-135 I don't know.

[baldy1926]

Do you think with the Trunp take over Mildenhall will be kept or converted to housing as is planned for 5/6 years time.

[aeropilot]

baldy1926 said:

Inkyfingers said:

Surely they would have considered that prior to spending a fortune getting the runway re-done?

Ha Ha its the mod you are talking about so it probably never entered their heads

Indeed. Hasn't it been a standing joke in the RAF for decades, that rumours of a base closing starts when it announced the runway is being resurfaced, given the amount of times that MOD spends a fortune on a base (incl runway work) only to announce the base being closed within a few years after.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

aeropilot said:

Hasn't it been a standing joke in the RAF for decades, that rumours of a base closing starts when it announced the runway is being resurfaced

Indeed. Finningley and St Mawgan come to mind.

[tuffer]

What about St Mawgan, long runway, big hangers, accommodation......ass end of nowhere.

[Trevatanus]

aeropilot said:

Trevatanus said:

I am told that the yanks have spent some money upgrading Fairford in recent years, they still us it for Dragon flights, and it has a very long runway (which I am told is a problem with the current UK Rivet Joint base, meaning lower take off weight and aircrafting needing to be refueled.
Could we see Fairford being used?

http://www.janes.com/article/67072/us-looks-to-joi...

More logical would be to not close the 'hall, and chuck ours in there with theirs.

MOD don't do logical though.

There's also the issue with joint basing in that IIRC, all the US bases have 110v electrics, not 240v, so I could see MOD having to buy a shed loads of travel adapters

Refuelling is still an issue for ours unless, the joint requirement is we'd have access to their KC tanker fleet based at same location (?) for top ups, as the RAF RJ's haven't been fitted with probes to refuel from our own new Voyager tankers.
On that basis it wouldn't matter what base was chosen.....enough accommodation would be the biggest issue I would think....that's a lot of crews, plus ground bods.

Brize and Fairford are only 12 miles apart, could something not be worked out on that basis?

[aeropilot]

Trevatanus said:

aeropilot said:

Trevatanus said:

I am told that the yanks have spent some money upgrading Fairford in recent years, they still us it for Dragon flights, and it has a very long runway (which I am told is a problem with the current UK Rivet Joint base, meaning lower take off weight and aircrafting needing to be refueled.
Could we see Fairford being used?

http://www.janes.com/article/67072/us-looks-to-joi...

More logical would be to not close the 'hall, and chuck ours in there with theirs.

MOD don't do logical though.

There's also the issue with joint basing in that IIRC, all the US bases have 110v electrics, not 240v, so I could see MOD having to buy a shed loads of travel adapters

Refuelling is still an issue for ours unless, the joint requirement is we'd have access to their KC tanker fleet based at same location (?) for top ups, as the RAF RJ's haven't been fitted with probes to refuel from our own new Voyager tankers.
On that basis it wouldn't matter what base was chosen.....enough accommodation would be the biggest issue I would think....that's a lot of crews, plus ground bods.

Brize and Fairford are only 12 miles apart, could something not be worked out on that basis?

You mean accommodation wise....?

If so, I seriously doubt it, Brize is already packed to the rafters, after Lyneham closed down.

[tuffer]

Trevatanus said:

Brize and Fairford are only 12 miles apart, could something not be worked out on that basis?

I know, I walked back to Brize one night after getting pissed at Fairford.....

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

tuffer said:

What about St Mawgan, long runway, big hangers, accommodation......ass end of nowhere.

The airfield there is now civilian owned and operated.

[anonymous-user]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

While the TORA (Take Off Run Available) and LDA (Landing Distance Available) are similar (Waddo being shorter by 240ft), Mildenhall has a 'stopway' at either end of the runway meaning that it has about 1000ft more ASDA (Accelerate-Stop Distance Available) and TODA (Take Off Distance Availlable).

Having a longer ASDA will affect your V1 (Stop-Go decision speed) because you have a greater distance in which to accelerate to Vr and a greater distance in which reject the take off and stop.

Hhaving a longer TODA will affect your MTOW (Maximum Regulated Take Off Weight) because you have a greater distance in which to meet your V2 (minimum engine out climb safety speed) and screen height (in the case of the RC-135, given it's age I should imagine the screen height is 50ft rather than the more modern 35ft).

Whether the difference between Waddo and Mildenhall significantly affects the take off performance of an RC-135 I don't know.

Thank you for the explanation.

[mebe]

tuffer said:

long runway, big hangers, accommodation......ass

Sounds more Wales than Cornwall to me

[Clio_16REG]

Heard rumours of the joint base being at Brize, I honestly cannot see that happening. It's full to the brim after the C-130s moved in, the most logical decision in my eyes would be to send them to Fairford.

If that was to happen, it begs the question- what would happen to RIAT?

[Trevatanus]

Clio_16REG said:

Heard rumours of the joint base being at Brize, I honestly cannot see that happening. It's full to the brim after the C-130s moved in, the most logical decision in my eyes would be to send them to Fairford.

If that was to happen, it begs the question- what would happen to RIAT?

Nothing I would imagine.
It was held at Greenham Common when that was an active base.

[Clio_16REG]

Trevatanus said:

Nothing I would imagine.
It was held at Greenham Common when that was an active base.

Fair point.

Forgot that there were also KC-135s based at Fairford during it's first couple of years there as well.

[Yertis]

Clio_16REG said:

Trevatanus said:

Nothing I would imagine.
It was held at Greenham Common when that was an active base.

Fair point.

Forgot that there were also KC-135s based at Fairford during it's first couple of years there as well.

I don't think Greenham was ever an active base while IAT took place, it was also a standby base. The F111s were there in '76 when the UH runway was being resurfaced, and after '83 when the cruise missiles arrived IAT went elsewhere. Also, there's a bit of difference between Rivet Joint and tankers, and the terrorist/political landscape has changed somewhat.