Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Presence In U.K. Necessary?  
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3744 times:

Hello,

With the RAF modernising it's forces, is the USAF presence necessary? I know the RAF is currently in the act of trimming it's forces down to a scary level, but what can the USAF do?

Surely the Typhoons are more capable than the F-15Cs stationed in country. Whether or not the Typhoon can best an F-15E is highly questionable. My money is on the strike eagle, sorry RAF.

Could the U.K. just be a stop for tanking and transport assets?

/J

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4840 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

The UK is a good location for fuelling on the way from US to Middle East, Eastern Europe. It is a close ally of the US and having the US military presence there actually allows the UK to have a lower level of defence spending than if they had to defend the place all by themselves. Same applies to Germany although the US has been downsizing there for a long time.

As for your comment regarding the Typhoon..... It is more manoeverable than the F-15 yes, more capable? thats questionable... It is a good fighter though.
As for a one on one between the types, the F-15C is actually a better fighter than the F-15E.... the E model is a beefed up bomblugger good for ground attack... it is not as good air-air as the C model. The F-15 still has the faster top speed, more power, and higher ceiling than the Typhoon so from a standoff position it should be better but in a close in dogfight (which is actually unlikely due to modern day technology) the typhoon would probably win.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 1):
is more manoeverable than the F-15 ye

Doesn't seem logical that a delta wing aircraft could be more manoeverable than one of the best dogfighters. Maybe at high speeds


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

Does the UK need the USAF?

Probably not.

Does haveing a friendly force operating both similar and different equipment and tactics around to train and compete with and against help? Certainly.

That's why we have foreign military services in the CONUS.

There is always something to learn from the other guys.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3669 times:

I think the whole premise that the USAF is in the UK to defend the UK itself, is incorrect.
As stated, it's a good location for a range of reasons.

Remember too, the USAF in the UK today is a fraction of what is was during the Cold War, same appiles across Europe with what was once called the USAFE.

I'm not sure if comparing the Typhoon with an aircraft a least a generation older, the F-15, is serious?


User currently offlineSpectre242 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

Since the end of the cold war (decade and a half ago now), I think it is safe to assume the USAF is not in the UK to defend it from anyone. The main (perhaps only?) credible aerial threat to the UK homeland these days is from terrorists (with a light aircraft or indeed a hijacked airliner, etc). This threat doesn't exactly require a particularly large air defence force to counter it; and whether it's a Typhoon, Tornado F.3 or even a F-15C doing the defending, it probably isn't going to make much difference either. (Does the USAF even maintain a QRA in the UK?)

Of course that isn't to say that the Typhoon is a pointless aircraft which no longer has a role in the RAF (though some people would have you think this). Who can to say how things will change in 20 years, in Europe, Asia or wherever. (Though that is another topic entirely really.)

I think a number of the USAF units in the UK are permanently based here, rather than deployed (can anybody confirm/correct this?). I'm sure the US sees the UK as a more reliable ally than most countries and so it provides a friendly, secure and long-term location for the USAF to use as a base, both as a stopover point as mentioned above, and for launching operations (e.g. F-111s for Op. El Dorado Canyon in 1986, and B-52s in the Gulf War, Kosovo War and Iraq War).


User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

SO, the US and the UK are in a strategic partnership?

Thank you

I wish the US would take more of an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

/J


User currently offlineCitation501SP From United States of America, joined May 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3598 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 6):
SO, the US and the UK are in a strategic partnership?

Been that way after we had our pub brawls in the late 1700's and early 1800's.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 6):
I wish the US would take more of an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

I think we are doing a good enough job at getting to that point. Unfortunatly the world has shrunken to a point where globalization is more important that living in a cave. In terms of military training, it can be benefitial to have some friends from around the world. You can teach them as much as they can teach you.

Having an Isolated view on foriegn policy puts you in the dark ages, that being said... The current situation hasen't helped our foriegn relations either.

501SP



Smoke and Thunder! Stage 2 FOREVER!!!
User currently offlineWingnut135 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
what was once called the USAFE

It still is USAFE. Just a lot smaller.

Having spent 5 wonderful years in the UK I can attest to the fact that it is a strategic spot as far as getting to the rest of the world. I worked En Route at RAF Mildenhall and we were the first stop for cargo traffic coming from the States and the last stop for traffic cargo leaving Europe. After the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and most of the traffic started going to Germany we slowed down considerably, with most of our business being maintenance diverts.

From what I understand (coming from friends still there) the US is trying to make their footprint smaller still (ie 3rd Air Force standing down). With RAF Lakenheath having the only F-15Es in Europe I don't really see it going anywhere; Spangdahlem in Germany is a possibility due to the other fighters already there. And with the KC-135s from Mildenhall to catch traffic coming in and out I can't see it going anywhere either.

Wingnut



A good friend will get you out of jail. A real friend will be there with you saying, "Damn that was fun!"
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

Who thinks that the UK will be home to some Raptors in the future?

Funny, the F-22 has yet to make it overseas...

/M


User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

Think of the UK as a 250 miles wide and 750 miles deep Air craft carrier of the coast of Europe.

The UK does not need the US Forces based in the UK as we are one of if not the Strongest Countries in Europe, But it is nice having such a big Friend who can lend a hand if we need to get somthing from A-B with out to much hastle.

Also we provide the US with at least Three huge Air force Bases.

Fairford for Bombers, Mildenhall for Tankers and transports and Lakenheath for Fighters!

Which would probably need to be in seperate countries in Europe but the UK had Air force bases to spare after World War 2 so they are here and we enjoy having them here!


User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3439 times:

I kind of did think of the U.K. that way but did not want to appear rude. The British forces that I have worked with , SAS, were the utmost professional and competent in their roles.

Think the British could beat the French?, Germans?

/M


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

I don't think it is serious to speculate whether this ally could beat the other.

The F-15E wing (using the Squadron 'Number Plates' of what were once F-111, before that F-4's, before that F-100's I think), look to be pretty permanment.
With long standing links with the local community.

To give an example of a Cold War role, Eastern England once housed many A-10's, clearly a major tank attack on the UK was not a threat, but from there, they would deploy, in times of tension, to Forward Operating Locations in West Germany.

Mildenhall still I think houses US tanker and Elint assets, was a regular location for SR-71's.

Fairford has few if any stationed aircraft, but, as most recently with Iraq in 2003, is a regular forward location for B-52's.


User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3410 times:

I apologize

Serious is not always a necessity. I just started the thread to see what people thought. I am of the opinion that the US has no need for an overseas military presence. We have plenty of local problems that the resources of our armed forces could be better tasked. The U.S. has carriers to project power, global-power B-2s, plenty of spy satellites, and who knows what else in Area 51.

NATO/Europe/Middle East is not our rope to swing on. The time when the world needed the U.S. Military has passed, no?

/M


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 9):
Funny, the F-22 has yet to make it overseas...

that is because it is still early in the program, and overseas support does not exist yet.

Quoting Lurch (Reply 10):
The UK does not need the US Forces based in the UK

Maybe, but when the UK needs to project force for its own purposes, isn't it convenient that the US assets are still protecting the UK?

Quoting Lurch (Reply 10):
as we are one of if not the Strongest Countries in Europe

I would say THE strongest

Quoting Migfan (Reply 13):
. The time when the world needed the U.S. Military has passed, no?

It is exactly that type of thinking that leads to war. Have you no grasp of history?

Quoting Migfan (Reply 13):
NATO/Europe/Middle East is not our rope to swing on

NATO was created for a reason. Europe prooved during the Clinton administration that they are still not capable of suppressing genocide inside Europe for many reasons.

The middle east is very much ours, we drew the borders, we created Israel, we did not create Palestine, we created Iraq's out of other countries. We support Israel. If not ours, who's problem is it?



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 14):
It is exactly that type of thinking that leads to war. Have you no grasp of history?

It is historical thinking that brings me to those conclusions. The prescribed formula has already lead us to war. Although, history proves war is an inevitable part of human nature, it is still unecessary. I do not think the US needs to police the rest of the world.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 14):
NATO was created for a reason. Europe prooved during the Clinton administration that they are still not capable of suppressing genocide inside Europe for many reasons.

The middle east is very much ours, we drew the borders, we created Israel, we did not create Palestine, we created Iraq's out of other countries. We support Israel. If not ours, who's problem is it?

NATO is a dinosaur, an obsolete creation of history. There is no more Warsaw Pact. I do agree a potential Soviet threat still exists. Europe's problems belong to the Europeans. Lots of things were proved during the Clinton administration, but that is for another forum. I have been to Europe a number of times (East and West) and they hate us, they think we're a joke. That is just fine with me, I am comfortable with who I am and damn proud to be an American.

Two things created the Middle East of today; Oil and Religion. I think it is quite arrogant to say the Middle East is ours. We do business there as the largest arms dealer in the world. Those nations belong to their people, whether the leaders like it or not. Every nation cannot and is not meant to be the US.

/M


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3207 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 15):
I think it is quite arrogant to say the Middle East is ours.

Let me clarify, the PROBLEMS in the middle east are ours because we caused a great many of them by forcing border changes and inserting puppet regimes.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 15):
I do not think the US needs to police the rest of the world.

Not wanting to and denying the need are two different things, think about that and consider your response. I don't want to either, but the need exists. Letting things get even more out of hand risks a greater conflict, as proven by history a thousand times over.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 15):
NATO is a dinosaur, an obsolete creation of history

Add the UN to that in its current paralysed form. I would love to just get out of Europe and South Korea, and many other places. But, do you really think it would be only a good thing? Do we have no responsibility to the world when we dominate it culturally, economically, and miltarily?



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

I agree we helped to create the problems in the Middle East (ME). The capitalists are to blame for that just as the greedy, rich, ME leaders.


Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
Letting things get even more out of hand risks a greater conflict, as proven by history a thousand times over.

If what you say is true, how come we are stalling on Iran? There is a problem waiting to bloom or "boom" (pun totally intended). The US does not dominate anything, we fight, and then we rebuild. Empiring nations never had to justify their policy to a free and global press as the US does. The US could dominate as a ruling nation, but that brings more bloodshed and actions well outside the scope of "political-correct" behavior. No US politician wants to get dirty in the sand.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
But, do you really think it would be only a good thing? Do we have no responsibility to the world when we dominate it culturally, economically, and miltarily?

The world needs the US when a disaster strikes, or they are short on cash, or they do not like their government. The US will respond if it satifies their interests, aka money. How responsible were we in Rwanda, Cambodia, or in Darfur? The bottom line is about money, and I am for keeping as many US dollars and jobs in the US. American soldiers do not need to die over issues that do not concern the US (i.e. Iraq, Bosnia). This will sound real liberal, but believe it , I am no such person, imagine how much money could be saved by reducing overseas military presence. Take that same money and provide health-care assitance to those who have none. We have to take care of our people before the rest of the world.

/M


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3176 times:

Quoting MigFan (Reply 17):
I agree we helped to create the problems in the Middle East (ME). The capitalists are to blame for that just as the greedy, rich, ME leaders.

There were many people with very good intentions screwing things up too. Nothing is black or white with this subject.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 17):
If what you say is true, how come we are stalling on Iran?

Same reason we are stalling on N Korea, Taiwan, Palestine, Cuba, and Syria... it is in our best interest to do so. We tend to go for the stalemate and deal with problems that a stalemate will not work.

With Iraq, Saddam put a hit out on Bush 1, and that just wasn't a good enough reason for the democrats. Had it been Clinton they tried to assassinate, things would have moved quicker towards an overthrow. People just don't like to view this situation for what it is, we cannot work with a leader that would do that.

Genocide, inspections, WMD, and other things were to appeal to certain audiences and form a consensus. Remember, the GOP does not have a super-majority, Iraq could not have taken place without the Democrats on board, no matter what they say now.

Quoting MigFan (Reply 17):
imagine how much money could be saved by reducing overseas military presence

We have done that several times, and when the shit hits the fan, we have spent more money catching back up than we would have by simply maintaining the status quo.

Look at whats going on now after the Clinton peace dividend reductions, we end up with old crap and super expensive replacements because we are backed into a corner due to the age of the equipment.

Look at the situation after WW I, we scrapped much of our navy and agreed to only build relatively small ships in limited numbers after that because Japan and Germany signed an agreement that they would too. How did that work out?

There are no examples of what you want succeeding that I am aware of.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
Same reason we are stalling on N Korea, Taiwan, Palestine, Cuba, and Syria... it is in our best interest to do so. We tend to go for the stalemate and deal with problems that a stalemate will not work.

That approach is similar to not paying a credit card bill and expecting the creditors to never call you. Stalemate or not, the problem still has to be handled. Shall we wait for Iran to nuke Israel or us until we do something? N.Korea I agree can be handled by stalemate. Pretty soon the N.Koreans will all starve and there will be no country left to be a threat.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
Saddam put a hit out on Bush 1

That fact right there, should have warranted an equal response. The US could have saved lots of money, time, and lives with that approach.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
Genocide, inspections, WMD, and other things were to appeal to certain audiences

What about genocide is appealing? "OK, he gassed his own people. I guess he's evil" was that the concensus the GOP was looking for? Everyone knows where the WMD went, but that whole stalemate thing you mentioned earlier is prevailing in those circumstances.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
We have done that several times, and when the shit hits the fan, we have spent more money catching back up than we would have by simply maintaining the status quo.

The next time it hits the fan, let the locals deal with it. What ever happened to detterence?

/M


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2895 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 13):
We have plenty of local problems that the resources of our armed forces could be better tasked.

Let me be a little bit provocative, it can be argued that the UK has not needed to be defended from any real threat for some years. If you go along with the suggestions that a goodly proportion of the threat from Russia in the cold war was manufactured it could be argued that you would have to go back to about October 1940 or at latest mid-1941.

During the Cold War, the UK was a handy base, not too close but close enough to threaten the Russian. Since that problem faded, the US seems to use bases in the UK partly out of habit but also for a range of other strategic reasons that still depend on its geography. Remember where the raids on Libya were based? I dont know that at least some of the recent used are going to stand well in the light of history.

Perhaps someone here can tell me why in 1970 when Leuchars base in Scotland held both Lightning and Phantom squadrons it was the Lightnings that took off for the intercepts - easy to tell because they took off in afterburner when on intercepts.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
Let me clarify, the PROBLEMS in the middle east are ours because we caused a great many of them by forcing border changes and inserting puppet regimes.

Well neither Sykes nor Picot was American, but after that there is a great deal in what you write DeltaDC9.

I dont argue at all for US isolationism, but certainly rather more judicious international interventions would be good. And the Middle East would be a good place to start producing solutions rather than problems. And Aus does have to take a fair bit of the blame here in relation to FOX News – where did the dirty Digger have his origins?.

It can be argued that the other area where a large intervention was tried (SE Asia) seems to have done better since US intervention was lowered in intensity.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
Let me be a little bit provocative, it can be argued that the UK has not needed to be defended from any real threat for some years.

If "some years" means from the late '80s to now, I agree. If earlier, then I would suggest a review of the Soviet air order of battle--particularly their capability with long/mid range nuke cruise missiles. Remember, only a couple would have had to get through. Soviet Long Range Aviation had the capability to punch a few through, IMO. Why didn't they try? Well, we had the capability to puch a few through also.

Back OT, why does USAF have a presence in the UK now? I suspect there's a certain amount of inertia here and a certain amount of "we've always done it that way". Also, the USAF touts the UK as one of it's premier overseas duty assignments. Could either of us get along without it? Of course. Should we? I don't know the answer.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGarysted From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Being a photographer who lives quite near to both Lakenheath and Mildenhall I think I can offer a local viewpoint on the two bases future and current operations.

I'm quite intrigued about the original suggestion that a F-15E could hold a Typhoon in ACM where a F-15C could not as I'd suggest that, of either model, the F-15C has a better chance. The E is a lot heavier than the C and the Lakenheath E's are not equipped with such goodies as AIM-9Xs and the off-boresight helmet sights that go with them. The 493rd FSs F-15C/Ds have these air-to-air goodies whilst the Typhoon will not have the planned FLIR or Helmet sights for ASRAAM for a while yet - and the RAF airframes will not have a operational gun!

Its been widely assumed locally for a while now that one of the two bases will close (as do many of the based personnel if asked privately). Mildenhall is the favourite as it seems to be the most superflous despite ongoing construction (a new tower has just been completed) and Marshalls at Cambridge have already informally asked about taking over the facility. The based assets are gradually being rundown; the USN C-12 flight disbanded last year and the 352nd SOGs C-130/MH-53s are already intending to move to Eastern Europe in the near future. This would just leave a already under tasked 100th ARW with 15 (ish) KC-135Rs who rarely fly more than a couple of missions a day. I imagine if this happens, they could locate to Fairford quite easily, or even operate out of Lakenheath alongside the 48th (there must be room, they've done it before).

Unfortunately for us local photographers, most transisting US aircraft route elsewhere nowadays so the number of visitors is quite small. Obviously this is partially because of the US move East, but also the few USAF/USN flights that have to come to the UK will go elsewhere (even civilian airports) if it means avoiding Mildenhall/Lakenheath ATC given that they have gained a certain reputation for lack of competence!

Sometime ago I believe there was a annoucement that, at some unspecified date the 493rd FS at Lakenheath would convert to the F/A-22 but that seems to have quietly been forgotten given that the number of official annouced operating locations already must be quite near the planned overall buy of the aircraft.

Hope thats some help.

Gary

[Edited 2006-06-11 19:35:16]

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
Let me be a little bit provocative, it can be argued that the UK has not needed to be defended from any real threat for some years. If you go along with the suggestions that a goodly proportion of the threat from Russia in the cold war was manufactured it could be argued that you would have to go back to about October 1940 or at latest mid-1941.

I don't see how you can make that argument. You can't ascertain what would happened in Europe if the US just packed its bags and left after WWII. If the Soviets marched through western Europe to French side of the English Channel, would a UK nuclear deterrent be enough to stop a government who has no compunction against allowing millions of its citizens die?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
It can be argued that the other area where a large intervention was tried (SE Asia) seems to have done better since US intervention was lowered in intensity.

I doubt it has little to do with lowered US intervention but rather the fact that the USSR has long since disappeared, taking a away a source of support for the SE Asian communist governments, and communism has proven itself a bankrupt, murderous ideology. Most of the nominally communist governments in the region are not following communist economic policies anymore.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

Quoting Garysted (Reply 22):
Mildenhall is the favourite as it seems to be the most superflous despite ongoing construction

Actually when I was in the Army that was a bad sign the base was about to get shut down. Usually that was when the feds started to spend money on the base.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Baroque : Most of the so-called Communist rulers have been extreme control freaks so you might argue that Mao�s comment about the French Revolution should
26 Atmx2000 : They did it because xenophobic Khmer Rouge-run Cambodia was a threat, perscuting ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia and the border region between, and fin
27 LMP737 : What sort of local problems? Yes we have carriers to project power. However don't forget that we also have overseas bases to support these carriers.
28 Cloudy : It is not that Communism just had a few control freak leaders early on. Communism is a movement created and advocated by control freaks. The very tea
29 Baroque : There does seem to have been a third option, removing or altering Saddams regime by diplomatic means, backed by military power. It was clear that Sad
30 MigFan : Domestic, non-military, non-aviation issues. Health-care costs, Immagration frustration, Energy crisis. I think it would be best to focus the nation'
31 LMP737 : Name a time in our history when we haven't had those problems or other problems in our history? You mentioned we have carriers to project power. Well
32 MigFan : Politically speaking, would that be so bad? (I already know what everyone else will think, so they need not say it). Economically, the capitalist nat
33 Dougloid : Yep...along with Canada, Oz and the Kiwis we're all one big, happy dysfunctional family whether we know it or not....we can fight among ourselves but
34 MigFan : You are right, I just wish it wasn't so... Room temp beer rocks in the absence of cold beer... /M
35 LMP737 : We operate in a global economy. We can't isolate ourselves even if we wanted to.
36 MigFan : You are right, it is just too bad. I wish it wasn't so. /M
37 AirSpare : Are U2-Rs or TR-1s still being flow out of Mildenhall? Also remember that the US wanted to fight WWIII on European soil, not US. Twice a year, we wen
38 Garysted : Hi, Afraid that U-2s and/or TR-1s never were based at Mildenhall, there used to be a TR-1 squadron based at Alconbury which disbanded after the cold
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Presence In U.K. Necessary?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf Activity In DC Area Today posted Mon Nov 28 2005 18:27:24 by Contrails
Usaf Thunderbirds In CLE? posted Mon Sep 5 2005 17:51:27 by MasseyBrown
Any Usaf B-1s In Europe? posted Fri May 27 2005 21:32:19 by INNflight
Drunk Usaf Crews In Germany! posted Wed Apr 6 2005 03:03:29 by Duce50boom
Usaf Fleet In 2010 posted Wed Jan 14 2004 13:20:35 by Greaser
Second USAF's BBJ In Full C/s posted Thu Jan 23 2003 19:29:31 by Alpha
Why So Many People In The USAF Dislike C-5? posted Sun May 7 2006 00:31:24 by 747400sp
Usaf F15 Accident In SCL posted Wed Apr 5 2006 05:31:15 by Arcano
Any Usaf In-Flight Refuelers In Here? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 08:57:32 by Delta767300ER
Usaf Aircraft Shot Down In Iraq? posted Wed Apr 21 2004 18:33:31 by Russophile

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format