If USAF leave the UK, how would the RAF re-deploy its assets?

Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 2,040

http://www.nation.lk/edition/feature-issues/item/25217-after-70-years-of-foreign-troops-bases-should-be-shut-down.html lots of talks on the UK re-examining its relationship with US forces stationed in the UK. Ranging from stricter controls to outright removal. in the case the Uk decides to asks its ww2 saviors to go home, how would they redeploy their units to make up for the defensive gaps? It could be a positive for the local defense industry as it might force the UK MOD to purchase more.
Original post

Member for

6 years 11 months

Posts: 976

http://www.nation.lk/edition/feature-issues/item/25217-after-70-years-of-foreign-troops-bases-should-be-shut-down.html lots of talks on the UK re-examining its relationship with US forces stationed in the UK. Ranging from stricter controls to outright removal. in the case the Uk decides to asks its ww2 saviors to go home, how would they redeploy their units to make up for the defensive gaps? It could be a positive for the local defense industry as it might force the UK MOD to purchase more.
Firstly you can stop the WW11 Savior sh!t as for redeployment of forces with one F15C and two F-15E units of which one is stood down there is no defensive gap as the USAFE has no part in the UK QRA the big hole that would be left if the US left would be the NATO tanker fleet of which the UK uses little or none of as for stricter controls the USAFE has had a outstanding safety record in the UK and this so call talk is media rubbish
Profile picture for user jbritchford

Member for

15 years

Posts: 1,518

If the US were to go, leaving Mildenhall and Lakenheath vacant, it might be interesting to see what happens to the bases themselves - merge them into a new major airport perhaps?

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 201

I can't really see the point in the USAF been in the UK anyway,apart from some economic income what else? Regarding our saviours good job we gave them a decent engine to power their poor fighters :)
Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 4,619

don't bite on the barb of "saviours". Cold War deployment made sense, but they still need a dependable port in any storm and we are it, so it wont be the case that they pull out of all bases.
Profile picture for user hawkdriver05

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 1,190

I'm not sure why 48 fighter wing is still over there.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

We are now at the 100th anniversary of the bloody battle of WWI... And that we have to read the above... ( head shaking) http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html
Sorted by percent dead of total Mobilized Dead % Wounded % Missing/PoW % Rumania 44.76% 16.00% 10.67% France 16.36% 50.73% 6.39% Germany 16.12% 38.33% 10.48% Austria-Hungary 15.38% 46.41% 28.21% Russia 14.17% 41.25% 20.83% Italy 11.58% 16.87% 10.69% Turkey 11.40% 14.04% 8.77% Great Britain 10.20% 23.47% 2.15% Bulgaria 7.29% 12.70% 2.25% Portugal 7.22% 13.75% 12.32% Serbia 6.36% 18.82% 21.62% Montenegro 6.00% 20.00% 14.00% Belgium 5.14% 16.74% 12.98% US 2.89% 5.38% 0.10% Greece 2.17% 9.13% 0.43% Japan 0.04% 0.11% 0.00%
Source: http://www.worldwar1.com/tlcrates.htm And last... to get a sense of their relative involvement relative to their own history: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 5,373

What happened when RAF Upper Heyford and RAF Greenham Common closed?

Member for

9 years 5 months

Posts: 252

What happened when RAF Upper Heyford and RAF Greenham Common closed?
Well, we all know the truth here but why dont you tell us!! I am sure it will be more interesting with a bit of American spin. The last time I flew down that way the newts and bats were making a comeback at GC and UH was a giant car park!!

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 887

I was a Guardian reader for aeons but have left (ha!) since their puerile pursuit of the intelligence/military complex, such as branding BAES as the devil incarnate. Cold War ended with the WW2 Allies signing agreements not to target each other (though not with PRC). So: proper Q: why retain any Deterrent capability? The A is simply the prime duty of a Leader is Defence of the Realm…against whom? Well, you never can tell. Today's sane team player could tomorrow not be so. So: we need a modicum of power just in case. Proper for debate is how much. We, UK, and all other Members of NATO, including the newcomers, judge that a modest %age of National Wealth should be pooled into task/role-sharing Joint Force. Not even US now does it all, everywhere, and is more alert to the East right now than to the West. Japan, Australia no doubt welcome that. But in this one world, Expeditionary Force able to debouch from Suffolk and Bavaria is seen by US as a prudent asset. If I were to own hefty assets, my Insurance Consultant would tell me that a premium of (1,2,3,4%) of my asset value was simply a cost of holding that stature. So, to OP's Q: if US were to upsticks and retreat to Fortress America, UK would explore with its remaining neighbour-Allies who was prepared to take on what tasks within extant NATO capability. France and UK retain distant interests (France treats its dotlets as Departements of France), hence CVFs in build, so will spend a higher GNP %age than, say Belgium. We would face up to the expense of some substitution for departed US assets - such as in intel-gathering. As for the Guardian's headline - why is US still in UK: because it is in US, UK, and all NATO States' National Interest, separately and collectively.