Talk:RAF Chicksands

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

FLR-9 antenna

The FLR-9 antenna, fondly called Elephant Cages, were used for Direction finding but was not part of the Iron Horse system used in Viet Nam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Websluice (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

Hi @Blackshod, I note that you've undone my revert of your article move from RAF Chicksands to MOD Chicksands, but with no explanation as to why other than to say MOD Chicksands is the correct name. Whilst MOD Chicksands may be the correct name for the site now, this article is about the historic use of the site by the RAF, not the current use. So its not the correct name for the article. Joint Intelligence Training Group is the article which covers the post-RAF and current use. If a name change is required then it is that article that should be moved.

On the name change itself, can you provide a source to demonstrate that the name is MOD Chicksands? There seems to be several names in use -

- MOD Chicksands

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5103507/contact-information

- UK Strategic Command (UKSC) Chicksands

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.052473,-0.3618661,3a,15y,91.13h,85.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXdMC8N8tSDCq2ddN2fehOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (Street sign from Oct 2021)

https://www.oscar-research.co.uk/tenderalerts/326884

- Defence Intelligence Training Group (DITG)

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/intelligence-corps/ (map shows DITG)

https://forcespensionsociety.org/event/group-briefing-defence-intelligence-training-group-ditg/

https://www.findforcesjobs.mod.gov.uk/vx/mobile-0/appcentre-ext/brand-5/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/3/opp/2712-JMICR-INSTRUCTOR/en-GB

Its maybe the case that all these names are in use and used interchangeable.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thx811 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal into MOD Chicksands

Hi everyone,

@Blackshod, Thx811, BritishSpaniard, and The joy of all things: (i will also be posting a notice on the MILHIST project page)

Why do we have separate articles for the same physical site? This article (RAF Chicksands) has only 7 sentences actually taking about the RAF use of the site which has a page size of 8,837 the rest is virtually the same as MOD Chicksands which a page size of 8,347 bytes. Since the site is used the Intelligence Corps which is known to carry out secret work, i realistically can't see the article growing that large that a split in future would be required.

Additional note: [1] "Former WW2 military station to be sold in 2030" BBC article from December 2023. Quote "The MoD spokesperson said: "MoD Chicksands will become surplus to military requirements when the current units move to more purpose built facilities as part of a significant investment in Defence Intelligence infrastructure. “We are working towards a schedule that will enable a disposal from 2030 onwards. " Gavbadger (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

Gavbadger (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A merge is fine by me. The section for JITG on the Defence Intelligence article, points to Chicksands the area, not any of the articles covering the base. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Dormskirk (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, approach proposed would align with the MOD Stafford article, which covers in the same article the current MOD Stafford use and the previous RAF Stafford use, but has little content on either periods. Thx811 (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Against; The most significant portion of this base's history was as RAF Chicksands, albeit as a USAF establishment, in many ways related to RAF Croughton, RAF Digby, RAF Menwith Hill, RAF Edzell, RAF Barford St John, RAF Wyton, RAF Feltwell (have I missed any?). Some of these bases had history involving actual flying units (e.g. WWII), others were always SIGINT operations. But either way, if the base closes and is sold off for housing development or industrial warehouses, or just reverts to farmland, the page detailing the RAF history remains.

Unfortunately RAF Chicksands isn't being shut-down; instead it is undergoing a re-organisation and a name change, and the proposal will lead to an article title that only reflects the modern identity. I would vote to merge, but retain the title as RAF Chicksands.

I realise I have arrived late to the party, as changes have already happened in a number of cases, of which MOD Stafford is just one. Also see MDP Wethersfield, Sculthorpe Training Area, and Robertson Barracks, Swanton Morley. Two of these were once major bases with thousands of personnel and rich histories, but the page title now refers to a far less significant period when they were occupied by low hundreds of personnel, or fewer, leading towards end use as an asylum centre, or a short stretch of non-descript concrete surrounded by farmland. In some cases what is described by the new heading is only part of the original base, and therefore the new title is positively disingenuous. (Yes, I recognise that is not necessarily the case with Chicksands). I'm just waiting for the day that Hampton Court is described as a 'tourist attraction' with a nice café and a maze for the kids, and just a side-note that it was once a royal palace. Grrr!

The final issue is the perennial problem of chasing a moving target. In the case of MDP Wethersfield, when the Secretary of State sought redevelopment as an asylum centre in March 2024, he made an order under The Town and Country Planning Act referring to the "Former RAF Airfield Wethersfield", totally by-passing any reference to MDP Wethersfield. It almost seems as if that name doesn't exist anymore, whereas the RAF history is forever. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-development-order-former-raf-airfield-wethersfield-braintree-essexcm7-4az

Meanwhile, at RAF/MOD Chicksands, the UK Highway Agency perseveres with road signs directing you to 'UKSC Chicksands'. Google Earth Street View will confirm. And six years from now it will all be sold off anyway. What sort of page title will we want moving forward from that point?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merger but remain neutral on what the name of the merged articles should be. 17:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Lineagegeek (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]