B-52 Re-engining?

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

Tex Houston

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

35x2 engines versus 93x8............plus whatevers in the pipeline.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

Tex Houston wrote in message ...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

Cheers
Graeme

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

Tex Houston wrote in message ...

"The Raven" wrote in message
...

Agreed the engines are different but the point was that a small country
can
maintain 35 "obsolete" aircraft and produce all the necessessary engine
parts. The US B-52 fleet by comparison is massive so, one would assume
that
would be a more economically viable solution.
The Raven

I'd hardly call the 93 plane B-52 fleet vs 35 F-111s as 'massive'.

I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

The Raven wrote in message ...
I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?

That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as many
people living in it as the US does.

nitpick mode off

Cheers
Graeme

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

The Raven wrote in message ...
I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?

That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as
many
people living in it as the US does.

nitpick mode off

Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
population.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

The Raven wrote in message ...
Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
population.

Britain's got a fair size airforce, hasn't it ?

I'd have thought that Australia would have had more aircraft due to the size
of the territory they have to defend.

The fact that Australia is entirely surrounded by oceans means that it needs
to be able to guard its coastline.

Most of the population is coastal, and is concentrated in and around the
major cities, so I suppose that's where the airforce will be concentrated.

But they will still need to prevent any potential threats making a landing
on the coast in a secluded area and then setting up base on Australian soil.

Cheers
Graeme

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

The Raven wrote in message ...
Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but
it's
not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
population.

Britain's got a fair size airforce, hasn't it ?

and their population V Austs?


I'd have thought that Australia would have had more aircraft due to the
size
of the territory they have to defend.

But you need to factor in that Australia needs to provide services and
infrastructure to a country the size of the USA with a population of 20
million, it means that a lot of tax money is already spent.


The fact that Australia is entirely surrounded by oceans means that it
needs
to be able to guard its coastline.

Most of the population is coastal, and is concentrated in and around the
major cities, so I suppose that's where the airforce will be concentrated.

But they will still need to prevent any potential threats making a landing
on the coast in a secluded area and then setting up base on Australian
soil.


No credible attacker has that capability.

In article ,
"The Raven" wrote:

"Anonymous" wrote in message
...

The Raven wrote in message ...
I'd hardly call Australia "a small country" !!

And the population is what compared to the US?

That's my point - Australia is a big country. It just doesn't have as
many
people living in it as the US does.

nitpick mode off

Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
population.

Could they have more with an indecent population?

Steve Hix wrote in message ...
In article ,
"The Raven" wrote:

Fair enough, perhaps I should have clarified.......................but it's
not like a nation is going to have heaps of aircraft without a decent
population.

Could they have more with an indecent population?

They wouldn't need any if they were all indecent. No bugger would try and
invade !

NUDE AUSTRALIANS - the ultimate deterrant against invasion...

Cheers
Graeme