Talk:RAF Machrihanish

[Untitled]

Your report fails to mention very important aspects of the bases 'murky' past. This whole area is known as the UK equivalent of Nevada's Area 51. Many unexplained UFO phenomenon and strange weather patterns has happened here and continues to this day.

Second longest runway in the UK?

The second-longest after RAE Bedford presumably? Do we have a list of such things anywhere on Wikipedia? Ojw 14:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not got access to data on RAF airfields handy but the AIS website gives Machrihanish as 3049M, Heathrow 3901M & 3660M, Gatewick 3316M, Stanstead 3048M. It just seems to be a story that has been repeated so many times that it is believed, like the Aurora report which originated in one newspaper report that has been copied numerous times so thata web search gives many matches but all from the same source.

Security was originally very heavy because of the nuclear weapons stored there rather than any mysterious aircraft being tested or LGM kept there. --jmb 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dark Past, Dark Future.

Ron Halliday has published in his book UFO Scotland a list of some of the many UFO sightings that has happened at this base. He also asks the very relevant question, why does the MOD still keep this place, for what purpose? In July 2005 the local paper published a number of UFO reports. They are up to no good there!

There have been rumours of RAF Macrihanish re-opening as an active base.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=202502005

That rumour resulted in a question to parliament - the base remains in "care and maintenance" mode, with no plans to change that status.

Inaccuracies

Inaccuracies, POV... For starters the "massive" runway for sure isn't. In reality it is shorter than Heathrow's and well down the pecking league. Until fairly recently the HIAL website had the same claim (only recently watered down, but still OTT). wangi 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

MOD Machrihanish ?

The RAF still call it RAF Machrihanish on their website. --jmb 00:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

SEAL ID Added

I've added the Navy SEAL unit identification and the unit strength. I did not put down that this unit had the Small Atomic Demolition Munition as part of its arsenal because I cannot confirm it. But it was always widely rumored that this base stockpiled these U.S. man-portable nuclear weapons.Lastcharlie 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Fortress Scotland it was NSWU 2 that was based at Machrihanish but it is probable that various units used it. Also USN MMAG Det 2 according to the same source. --jmb 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

I agree about deleting most of the speculation, the more it appears then the more it is believed by some. I think the reply about USN pulling out in 1995 was purely the storage facility there, they were never involved in the operation of the airfield. The fact that an airfield is used for occasional exercises does not prove any dark purpose behind it, many others are used especially during the old JMC / present day Neptune Warrior. --jmb 01:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I visited Macrihanish when I was with the ATC, and the US base was pretty far away from the runway and the whole compound looked fairly isolated from the RAF buildings. Overall though, the whole base was pretty sparse, it wasn't exactly a hive of activity, like say RAF Finningley used to be. As far as I know, the runway was used by NATO aircraft as well as civil, but that's not an uncommon thing in military airfields. Douglasnicol 15:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony about info

While this site may not be POV, it's ironic that this version of a wiki seems to have more information, and be better overall about Macrihanish

http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/RAFMachrihanish

Good page overall Douglasnicol 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Test Site?

Local Newspapers often run stories of local people old enough to remember the brilliant flashes of intensely strong light that lit up the night sky around Machrihanish. There was also rumours of testing of Nuclear Depth Charges being tested in the waters around the base. Locals accuse the M.O.D. of being unhelpful in dealing with enquiries about the Nuclear Tests if there were any. The M..O.D. has owned up to many Operations which it formally denied, so there seems little to be gained by them keeping any such papers on Machrihanish secret.Johnwrd (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RAF Machrihanish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090526231945/http://www.campbeltowncourier.co.uk:80/news/fullstory.php/aid/5066/Base_for_sale.html to http://www.campbeltowncourier.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/5066/Base_for_sale.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaelic motto

I'd like to note that the motto is at best hopelessly mangled Gaelic. For the first thing, "adhna" means "advocate" as in "lawyer." Perhaps they meant Airm a dhìon na fairgeachan (note accent), which means "Arms (or army) that defended the seas." Because bad Gaelic is a systemic problem, I'd rather not leave it up uncritically. Perhaps add a note? Catrìona (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot speak Gaelic so my apologies on that score. Several possibilities arise for the inaccuracies but what I can say is that the cite given (The RAF Heraldry Trust) have had access to the original painting as approved by the monarch at that time, so no matter how inaccurate it may be, that is the approved motto. Incidentally, Pine states the motto to be Airm a dhionadh na fairgeachan.

Best guess? The Herald who approved it was not particular about the translation, the station submitted and did not check properly or someone stuffed the RAF for a laugh (could be a combination of all three!) I think a note should be inserted because whilst it is clearly wrong, it still is the station's motto regardless. Perhaps it is meant to say advocate and the translation into English is incorrect? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

References

I think the most likely case is that there is a typo on the RAF website, and the actual motto was "Airm a dhionadh na fairgeachan." According to the IWM, there is a memorial in Campbeltown with the words "AIRM A DHIONADH NA FAIRGEACHAN." Except for the missing accent on dhìonadh, that's correct Gaelic for "Arms/army that would defend the seas." Catrìona (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

References

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:RAF Machrihanish/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review @Hawkeye7. Couldn't find a source for the unreferenced content so have removed it. Thx811 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Last sentence of "Redevelopment for US and NATO use" lacks a reference

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   One issue. Placing on hold.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.