Army Not Going To Leuchars?

[Joe_90]

So now we have 3 stations supporting 1 QRA.DT_Xtremez_17:

Jesus people, I'm not formulating a detailed plan as to how to do it, I'm just defending an opinion I have after being accused of being a crayon wielding mong. Take a step back and explain to me why running QRA from Leuchars with a primarily civvy workforce isn't workable? I'm well aware that running it from Lossie is the cheapest option but in the big cost/risk analysis I talked about there is a greater risk. In this hypothetical debate if Coningsby did take on responsibility for QRA then Lossie would have nothing to do with it other than to rotate aircrew and aircraft in when required. This would be controlled by Coningsby and in an emergency that required extra jets, if Lossie was shut, then Conz could cover it.

Nobody has yet given a reason why my opinion is wrong, we've had a few insults and a few selective readings of certain posts that I've made.

The best option at the moment is the status quo, that isn't going to happen.

 

[Realist78]

Jesus people, I'm not formulating a detailed plan as to how to do it, I'm just defending an opinion I have after being accused of being a crayon wielding mong. Take a step back and explain to me why running QRA from Leuchars with a primarily civvy workforce isn't workable? I'm well aware that running it from Lossie is the cheapest option but in the big cost/risk analysis I talked about there is a greater risk. In this hypothetical debate if Coningsby did take on responsibility for QRA then Lossie would have nothing to do with it other than to rotate aircrew and aircraft in when required. This would be controlled by Coningsby and in an emergency that required extra jets, if Lossie was shut, then Conz could cover it.

Nobody has yet given a reason why my opinion is wrong, we've had a few insults and a few selective readings of certain posts that I've made.

The best option at the moment is the status quo, that isn't going to happen.

What is the great risk with Lossie doing Northern Q and Coningsby doing Southern Q?

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

What is the great risk with Lossie doing Northern Q and Coningsby doing Southern Q?

The main risk I can pick up from this thread is that Joe90 might have to move

 

[briggfairy]

I'm still not getting why the engineers on q need to be civvy? surely there has to be some security assessment carried out as to whether having civvies on what will most likely be a poor wage are really the best people to ensure that this countries first line of defence against an enemy is the best option.

will it be any cheaper anyway? as it is at the moment servicemen man q at all hours day and night 7 days a week every week of every year, the amount of civvies you will need to cover leave / sickness means that you will need arounf 1.5 times the current manpower on q.

 

[Joe_90]

The main risk I can pick up from this thread is that Joe90 might have to move

Don't be a prick, throughout the thread I've said that my belief is that there is a possibility Leuchars may go purple with the majority of RAF posts civvy. Trust me, my trade would be one of the civvy ones.

 

[Joe_90]

I'm still not getting why the engineers on q need to be civvy? surely there has to be some security assessment carried out as to whether having civvies on what will most likely be a poor wage are really the best people to ensure that this countries first line of defence against an enemy is the best option.

will it be any cheaper anyway? as it is at the moment servicemen man q at all hours day and night 7 days a week every week of every year, the amount of civvies you will need to cover leave / sickness means that you will need arounf 1.5 times the current manpower on q.

QRA doesn't have to be civvy but in the scenario I suggested it would probably be cheaper. It was only a suggestion that was jumped all over with no reasons given as to why it couldn't work.

 

[Joe_90]

What is the great risk with Lossie doing Northern Q and Coningsby doing Southern Q?

There is an increased risk, whether it is a great risk or not I am not qualified to say, but I'd guess probably not. The bigger risk revolves around only having one airfield in Scotland. Barch touched on it when he mentioned Lossie being weathered in, what do the jets do if they are launched and can't land there? Where is the next nearest military airfield to land armed aircraft?

Anyway, I'm out of this, it was two sentences that had a suggestion of a possible future for Leuchars that seems to have offended a lot of you. I'm going to stop getting drawn into arguments with strangers on the Internet.

 

[Realist78]

There is an increased risk, whether it is a great risk or not I am not qualified to say, but I'd guess probably not. The bigger risk revolves around only having one airfield in Scotland. Barch touched on it when he mentioned Lossie being weathered in, what do the jets do if they are launched and can't land there? Where is the next nearest military airfield to land armed aircraft?

Anyway, I'm out of this, it was two sentences that had a suggestion of a possible future for Leuchars that seems to have offended a lot of you. I'm going to stop getting drawn into arguments with strangers on the Internet.

Just because folks respond doesn't mean to say they're offended. As for Lossie being 'weathered in', they don't lose many days flying to weather. Also, who says that an armed jet has to land at a military airfield?