RAAF releases jet fighter back-up plan

"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
m...


Kevin Brooks wrote:
[Snip]

If the RAAF really had its back to the wall in terms of replacing the
F-111
with a similarly capable strike platform in the near term, and leasing
is
the way you want to go, I'd suggest that a more realistic way of taking
advantage of that "special relationship" would be to talk the US into
loaning (or leasing at nominal/symbolic rate) about four B-1B's. That
way
you only require a minimum of 16 rated aircrew (and IIRC keeping aircrew
for
the current F-111 fleet has been a significant problem) to keep them
mission
capable, and each one hauls a lot of munitions. Getting an older
aircraft
like that at good terms would be a lot more likely than your F-15T at
similarly good terms option, IMO. Scratch the F-16 proposal at the
get-go;
keep your F/A-18's flying and updated until the F-35 is available.

Brooks



Kevin,

Doubt you'd only want a fleet of 4 of any aircraft. I've had the
experience of trying to support 3 customers with a squadron of only 6
Bones (6 + 1 in depot), and it wasn't pretty. This is at a base with
two other squadrons flying another 24 planes, 4 would be unworkable.
Furthermore, there aren't enough Bones left to lease four unless
congress backs off from bringing the 23 out of retirement (7 are gone
for good). Even at that not sure you'd want the ones at DM, pretty
picked over.

That said, it could be workable with a fleet size of 10 or 11 if the US
follows through with the plans to stand up a squadron in Guam. Although
that would depend on us only bringing back 11-12.

Good and valid points. The only way something like this would work is if the
maintenance/spares chain remained tied to the USAF. I'd still think a
nominal force (i.e., that figure of four, or even six, for example) could
work (albeit with extra money appropriated to procure spares, but if the
aircraft procurement cost is negligable, that makes the spending for spares
more palatible), especially if they had a maintenace relationship with the
USAF at Guam. But hey, this was all a "what if" inspired only by what I saw
as an even more implausible proposal (that whole leased F-15/F-16 idea).

I guess one way around these problems would be a more radical proposal, but
one that could serve both US and Aussie needs. That would be an agreement
that put a rotating detachment of USAF B-1B's at some RAAF base, with the
USAF in turn handing off the requisite four aircraft to the RAAF and
agreeing to handle their higher level maintenance in conjunction with our
own detachment's aircraft. The USAF gains another forward operating base in
an area that it does not have much in now, and the RAAF maintains its own
strike capability at minimal cost. Even if we did something like that and
took the aircraft "out of hide" it would likely not be a loss of capability,
as we and they tend to follow the same general course in that part of the
world. Of course, this is all fantasy play--not a chance in hell of
something like that ever actually happening, I'd think.

Brooks



Cheers,

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer