RAF expansion, or not?

[Lord Riot]

Ok, so absolutely NO politics from me, purely an aircraft enthusiast point of view. Given the awful war in Europe and a return to Cold War mentality from Russia, is it even being discussed by the UK Govt to increase our fighter strength?
 

Are we likely to see any old bases reopened or at least a couple of new fighter squadrons reactivated to operate off the shelf US jets or stored Typhoons?
 

Or is that all very unlikely given financial constraints? It seems as though NATO had reduced its defensive forces significantly since the 80s, and understandably so, but now we seem to be going back to the era of mistrust and Russian aggression will we see a larger RAF or more USAFE squadrons based here?
 

What does everyone think?

[Latinbear]

Seems unlikely to me. There's no money and the weakness of sterling makes buying foreign kit even more expensive. Any spare cash will likely be used to replenish what we have donated to Ukraine rather then expand on what we have. And then there is the issue of the training system being able to produce the necessary personnel which with the Hawk engine problem is creating a severe bottleneck. I would love to see old squadrons being brought back into service but I don't see it happening unfortunately. 

[Des]

2 hours ago, Latinbear said:

Seems unlikely to me. There's no money and the weakness of sterling makes buying foreign kit even more expensive. Any spare cash will likely be used to replenish what we have donated to Ukraine rather then expand on what we have. And then there is the issue of the training system being able to produce the necessary personnel which with the Hawk engine problem is creating a severe bottleneck. I would love to see old squadrons being brought back into service but I don't see it happening unfortunately. 

Would agree with all of the above and would add that under the present circumstances with training it seemed very surprising that HMG has promised to provide aircrew training to Ukraine unless the intention is to finance it to be conducted in and by some other country.      Although one source quoted recently in The Times boasted that training time for a fast jet pilot from enlistment to frontline squadron had dropped from nine years to six.

[Vesa Jussila]

Because Hawk was mentioned. I have been thinking already some time what would be replacement. I know that Finish Air Force need to start to look replacement in near future. I think in US is developing T-7A to replace T-33, but do we have anything in Europe?

[Slater]

With regard to reopening old bases that have been closed for some length of time, has the RAF ever done this? As far as I'm aware, when the USAF closes a base it's pretty much gone for good and ends up being a regional airport, business campus, or some such.

[Latinbear]

1 hour ago, Slater said:

With regard to reopening old bases that have been closed for some length of time, has the RAF ever done this? As far as I'm aware, when the USAF closes a base it's pretty much gone for good and ends up being a regional airport, business campus, or some such.

Not that I am aware of although others may be. The RAF has been in contraction mode for years. My sense is that with the latest aircraft the infrastructure investment required to support them is substantial and so it's not as straightforward as saying RAF Wittering/Honington/Cottesmore are now open for business. If you look at Lossiemouth there has been huge investment to support the Typhoons and Posiedons with more needed for the Wedgetails (or whatever we call them).

The other aspect is that as the army withdraws from Germany it is taking over some old airfields. Kinloss, Leuchars, Woodbridge and Wattisham come to mind further reducing the available airfields. 

[junglierating]

No chance 

[wellsprop]

Hahahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

Hahahahaha

Hahahahahaahahhahaha

 

Hahahahahahahahaha

Hahahah

 

It'd be nice if we could just replace the aircraft were retiring in equal numbers (Puma). 

 

 

Am I being too cynical again 😕

[Evalman]

4 hours ago, Slater said:

With regard to reopening old bases that have been closed for some length of time, has the RAF ever done this? As far as I'm aware, when the USAF closes a base it's pretty much gone for good and ends up being a regional airport, business campus, or some such.

 

I can only think of Chivenor.  Although a small enclave was used by A Flt, 22 Sqn, the airfield needed rebuilding when the reopening was announced. 

[junglierating]

1 hour ago, wellsprop said:

Hahahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

Hahahahaha

Hahahahahaahahhahaha

 

Hahahahahahahahaha

Hahahah

 

Its be nice if we could just replace the aircraft were retiring in equal numbers (Puma). 

 

 

Am I being too cynical again 😕

Agree matey although my current money isnt on Yeovil's finest atm 😐

[Giorgio N]

Very unlikely to happen for a number of reasons. Not least is that even if the world may be falling into a new Cold War mentality, Russia, that is the likely opponent at the moment, is very far from having forces comparable to those of the Cold War Soviet Union. Shouting and propaganda are free, tanks and aircrafts on the other hand need financial resources to be built and today Russia can not hope to build an air force capable of competing with the whole of NATO forces (that of course mainly means the USAF). More so as Russia is today squandering equipment of every kind in Ukraine and even just to return to their pre-war level they would need to invest a lot of money

[hairystick]

It appears as though this is a situation that encompasses all of Europe.

Refilling the units (battalions, squadrons, etc) after the "peace dividend" nonsense has come home to roost, should allow a considerable boost for most countries armed forces.

Sadly I can see politicians being involved, so no chnce of seeing things painted grey/olive drab very soon.

[Lord Riot]

I vaguely remember during the brief Truss era, an additional two RAF fighter squadrons were mentioned in response to Ukraine. I assume like many ideas from that tenure this has now been quietly dropped.

[Alan P]

On 3/26/2023 at 8:09 PM, wellsprop said:

Hahahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

Hahahahaha

Hahahahahaahahhahaha

 

Hahahahahahahahaha

Hahahah

This is the right answer 😂

[ianBke]

It would be pilot training that would dictate any expansion if it ever was approved.......   It sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far behind.

[Aeronut22]

Easiest airfields to turn into active military ones are Finningly (now Doncaster doesn't want an airport anymore) and Boscombe Down, which would only need RAF painted on the sign at the gate.

[Seahawk]

3 hours ago, Alan P said:

This is the right answer 😂

No.  Not nearly enough haha s.

[Bandsaw Steve]

My guess (purely a guess by the way) is that any increase in the defence budget would be well spent on ‘invisible assets’ such as fuel reserves, ammunition stocks, spare parts, rations and general consumables as well as additional training and recruiting. All too often it’s these lower-profile items that make or break the effectiveness of a military force.  My guess is that many governments around the world would do well to look at these more mundane items before spending more on new jets and airbases. 
 

Just saying…

[Hoppy]

29 minutes ago, Bandsaw Steve said:

My guess (purely a guess by the way) is that any increase in the defence budget would be well spent on ‘invisible assets’ such as fuel reserves, ammunition stocks, spare parts, rations and general consumables as well as additional training and recruiting. All too often it’s these lower-profile items that make or break the effectiveness of a military force.  My guess is that many governments around the world would do well to look at these more mundane items before spending more on new jets and airbases. 
 

Just saying…

Totally agree. The Australian ADF has already expressed concern at the low stock levels of certain ammunition and consumables ( MRE's etc ) because of the amount supplied to Ukraine. America is experiencing similar concerns. Australia's problem in the future will also be manning future purchases such as the nuclear submarines on order. The government seems more concerned with current divisive policies than future defence needs.

[Lord Riot]

So I guess we won’t be seeing 56 and 74 Sqn F-16s at Wattisham or A-10s back at Woodbridge anytime soon then! 😂😂

[Bandsaw Steve]

Apparently the RNZAF is gearing up to buy two squadrons of new-build Saab Gripens…

 

 

Ahhhh…. No they aren’t… Just kidding! 🤪

[Roland Pulfrew]

22 hours ago, ianBke said:

It would be pilot training that would dictate any expansion if it ever was approved.......   It sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far behind.

The only realistic way of fixing the flying training problem is to buy more aircraft, train more military flying instructors, accept that you need to have some irreducible spare capacity if you want to be able to surge training, stop selling off national training capacity to other air forces (but use the irreducible spare capacity for IDT).

 

20 hours ago, Aeronut22 said:

Easiest airfields to turn into active military ones are Finningly (now Doncaster doesn't want an airport anymore) and Boscombe Down, which would only need RAF painted on the sign at the gate.

Boscombe is still active (and I think, still belongs to the Defence Estate).  Scampton would be an easy option (apart from the lack of married quarters), as would Kinloss and Leuchars. 
 

The thing is, the latest buzz words are “agile combat employment” which sees the use of any available airfield, with aircraft supported by small detachments of multi-skilled techies.

[exdraken]

Maybe at least the rel new Typhoon T1s do not need to be scrapped, they can't have too many hours on them. But the two seaters were mostly scrapped already quite some time ago 🤔  if that was cost efficient,  not sure.... and definitely does not provide any surge training capability now...

[Rob G]

In the end, it all comes down to money, and most governments don't have enough of it. To spend more on whizzbang things, something's got to give - which particular sector of society should we nominate as Peter, who can be robbed to pay Paul? Hands up if you want to volunteer to have your standard of living reduced... 

 

Didn't think so.

[Head in the clouds.]

On 3/30/2023 at 10:27 AM, Rob G said:

In the end, it all comes down to money

Maybe not, money can be raised in many ways but human beings are another matter, pretty much every government department is having recruitment issues and the armed forces are no exception. Having equipment sat on parade grounds and airfield dispersals  being unable to be manned would be a bigger sin. Automation is coming but not here yet in the quantities that would alleviate this issue.

For some reason folks just don't want to enroll at the moment.