It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


rumours from the front line - USAF to leave UK

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:48 AM

Well the word around the campfire at Wattisham on Wednesday evening was mainly focused on the subject of more UK base closures:

1) Fairford - USAF pulling out and the RAF don't want it with Brize being so close....
2) Mildenhall & Lakenheath - F-15's to Spangdahlem
3) Marham - Everything up to Lossiemouth (the RAF are short on certain essential people....)

So with that joyess news coming to light anyone know anymore?

any truth to these?

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:32 AM
Can you please supply the official source for your post?


posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

I wouldn't of thought there would be an official source as the title states theses are rumours


[edit on 1-3-2009 by Pockets]

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:53 AM
I cant imagine that would be so.
You cant get a much better spot for sorties into europe than east anglia. Lakenheath and Mildenhall have been there since the war, i imagine theyre practically institutions.
Surley given the so called "special releationship" between britain and the US it would be easier diplomatically to have a base here than in germany?.

As for Fairford, it seems a pretty valuable forward operating base, along with Lakenheath and Mildenhall. Why would the US have gone to the trouble of building a maintainence hangar for the B2 Spirit if they just going to leave it?......

RAF Fairford

And Brize Norton's in Oxfordshire, its not thaaaat close surely?

But aye, where did you hear of this then?

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:59 AM
I like your thread titles man, at least you say "Rumors" and not some huge attention getting, "Its happening now look look its here"

I cant say for sure, but ive been told something similar.
Not so much as "Leaving" but slimming down.
Seems to be a global moving of resources to concentrate to certain areas.
More than likely a budget shake up thing.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:10 AM
The `info` i have is about fairford - the uniforms will be leaving and replaced by civilian contractors and the entire base slimmed right down to a runway and a few hangers , but closure IS an option and being talked about

brize is at carterton whilst fairford is at cirencester , by road its 23 miles so i would say in a straight line its 10

as for the hanger - since when has it mattered to spending money then throw it away? i know of at least 1 case where the base was closing down whilst contractors where finishing a build!

you say about special relationship? well , i have actually `heard` that the pentagon are looking at changing the relationship and are talking to Australia and Japan - the UK cannot defend its own airspace or waterways - the USGC have more ships - by 2020 the RN will be 6 destroyers , 10 frigates and 2 carriers and the USN feels its carrying the UK in operations.

once again Labour have #ed the UK royally.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 01:30 PM
Lets hope so.

The US spends oodles of money maintaining utterly unnecessary bases in Europe (and all over the planet.)

The UK, and certainly Europe as a whole are perfectly capable of defending themselves from any likely attacker without US help.

If we want to maintain our technical and training edge during an economic downturn like we're seeing now, we're going to need to make cuts.

I'd much rather see Cold War holdovers like most of our overseas bases shut down than lose advanced platforms like F-22 or the training necessary to use them.

We're shutting down US bases and killing local American economies and jobs, while we continue to blow billions and billions in wealthy Europe "defending" them from a Soviet threat that hasn't existed since 1991

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

I'm clearly not on the same terms with the USN as you, but we will have 17 Frigates during the early 20's.

As at November 2008:
Name Out-of-service date
HMS Argyll 2023
HMS Lancaster 2024
HMS Iron Duke 2025
HMS Monmouth 2026
HMS Montrose 2027
HMS Westminster 2028
HMS Northumberland 2029
HMS Richmond 2030
HMS Somerset 2031
HMS Sutherland 2033
HMS Portland 2035
HMS Kent 2034
HMS St Albans 2036

Name Out-of-service date
HMS Cornwall 2019
HMS Cumberland 2021
HMS Campbeltown 2020
HMS Chatham 2022

These will have been subject to a range of significant improvements Including radar and sensor upgrades installation of the latest Seawolf and even, in the case of the 23's, modifications to the rear of the hull to improve fuel efficiency.

Hopefully, this will go some way towards easing the USN's 'Burden'.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:45 PM

thats where i got the part about the USN and its apparant feeling towards the Royal Navy.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

Another inaccurate, 'my how the mighty have fallen' article from an American commentator. How many 'Zumwalts' will the USN be getting? The rot set in in the 90's with the arrival of a Labour Government? He obviously hasn't heard of John Knott and Francis Pym.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:17 PM
That article ignores the fact that the UK, as part of the EU, is likely to be operating in conjunction with naval forces that have plenty of capable escort vessels but not much of a carrier force. France will have two big deck CV's, Italy has two jumpjet carriers, and Spain has one.

However the EU as an aggregate has a huge fleet of capable, modern frigates and destroyers.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 04:51 PM
Yeah, but the article was plain wrong. The RN isn't what it was in terms of size and yes, some major projects are facing cuts and reductions, The 45's down from 8 to 6 and more worryingly, The Astutes numbers are still to be finalised. This has more to do with the inability of of BAE to deliver anything on time and on budget than perfidious politicians.

Anyway, back on topic, a reduction in the number of US bases in the UK does seem logical in the face of geopolitical changes. Too many bases in the wrong place.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by xmotex

I think that you are correct... The Europeans are perfectly capable of defending themselves and (let's face it) the world of the Cold War alarms has long gone. Oh, I know that some will say "but you never know" and that's true, but I don't think Russia would / could invade Europe and I'd rule out the Iranians, Chinese and Serbians too.

However, the US bases are not in Europe to defend Europe anymore. The US are in Europe because it is appropriate to be so embedded. It gives a presence and a pracatical staging post to assert foreign policy and there are a whole bunch of examples from US bombing Libyia, intervening in Serbian and a short-cut to northern Iraq etc... In the great scheme of things Germany is somewhat closer to Iran than Kansas and I bet our friends in Iran take that factor into account. Another benefit is that the rotation of US personnel to other countries makes them a bit more worldly wise, which cannot be bad.


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:39 PM
Yeah, a withdrawal from the unsinkable aircraft carrier does seem somewhat implausible but perhaps we are presuming that the Pentagon is going to try harder to win world war three than it did Korea, Vietnam and everything since? In my opinion the US has been prepared , mostly internally, for losing the next major war since at least the 60's and while there is plenty of utility in having bases everywhere to conduct police actions against unhappy locals it wont do you much good comes world war III. As can be seen from the Russian cutbacks in the early 90's you don't have to have sattelite states everywhere ( or on your borders) once you have prepared defenses of the right variety and in the right places and have managed to have your likely enemies disarm far faster than you did.

The US administration that withdraws it's forces to North American content to best conserve resources, and recreate it's former strength, is one that i could respect but the current policy is a slow national suicide that wont be as slow as the Roman one.

But what do i know....


posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:50 PM
With the possibility of US interceptors in Poland etc. they may be wanting to move some bases there as well.

Love them or hate them a US military base does dump money into the local economy so it would be an economic hit as well for local area.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by paraphi

I'm aware of this, but given a shift to a less interventionist foreign policy, which I see as likely with this administration for a number of reasons, staging areas are going to become less important. It's not as if closing down overseas bases prevents us from using allies' bases for this purpose when necessary.


With the possibility of US interceptors in Poland etc. they may be wanting to move some bases there as well.

I'm willing to bet money that the NMD bases in Poland and the Czech Republic are already off the table, within the Administration.

They haven't declared this yet, simply because they're a good negotiating card we can sacrifies in exchange for some concessions or other by the Russians, but I'd bet a decent sum that they will never be built now.

Which is fine by me, IMO they're just costly and provocative white elephants.

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by xmotex

Its possible that they are. It would be shame IMHO, but the Interceptors In place at Ft. Greely and Vandenberg will be fine for the defence of the CONUS. Ill bet in that case most US bases will see a THAAD battery or two inplaced.


posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 06:12 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

Yes Labour have yet again **ck it!

But: 4 new subs / maybe 6.. type 45 6 and upto 8.
Lot's of type 23's kicking about

and an airforce of 200 ish combat types maybe more dependant on source

The fact is that no one is going to attack europe! So real blue water op's are out for most of the eu.. The uk could but hopefully will not need to!

But Harlequin the uk is more than able to defend it's airspace and waterways.

Also the source seem very one sided. one questions the source (dodgy source)


posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by RAB

Yes Labour have yet again **ck it!

Well, while I appreciate your Labour Party's impressive track record of scrapping good projects (hello TSR.2!,) I agree with Fang above, it seems that much of the problem is due to contractors being unable to live up to promised timelines and costs.

Gee, I guess the USA and UK really do have a great deal in common

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by xmotex

The TSR 2 was a tragedy as was the subsequent sodding around trying to find an alternative. What is often overlooked however was the economic environment in which the decision to cancel was made and a concern as to whether the avionics and delivery systems matched the performance of that wonderful airframe and engines.

I have to be honest and say that I do get tired of the regular rants against Labour governments. I'm no supporter of New Labour. My political leanings are sufficiently left of centre to send most posters on threads like this into a hysterical fit. But I enjoy and respect most of the postings of people such as Waynos, Harlequin, Fritz and Paddy Inf, who I hope is safe and well. It's just the incessant, ill informed Daily Mail, Victor Meldrew moans that get me down, along with the implication that things would be better under an alternative Govt.

Had the Argies waited a few more months, there would have been no chance of sending a Task Force South. Invincible would be under the Indian flag, Hermes and the County Class Destroyers would have been on their way to the breakers along with some of the older Frigates and yet 'St Margaret' has acquired a completely undeserved reputation as a champion of our armed forces. For every TSR2 there is a Blue Streak. For every Denis Healey or Jeff Hoon there is a Duncan Sandys, John Knott or Frances Pym.

[edit on 07/21/06 by Fang]

new topics

top topics


log in