If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAAF releases jet fighter back-up plan
rec.aviation.military added.
"Brash" wrote in message u... They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line. JSF = F-35? The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production, which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22 experience. To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway. Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are getting refuelling capability. These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper. As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego and politics intervene. A really good analysis of the JSF is located at http://tinyurl.com/yvxkn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"JD" wrote in message om... rec.aviation.military added. "Brash" wrote in message u... They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line. JSF = F-35? The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production, which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22 experience. How many Block 60's have you seen offered for "lease"? The only lease deal for F-16's that I know of is the Italian one, for refurbished old F-16 ADF variants. To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway. Again, how many F-15's of *any* type, much less the Tango, have been leased, or offered for lease? Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are getting refuelling capability. These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper. An F-15T is cheaper than what the F-35 is supposed to cost? As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego and politics intervene. But you may get a more realistic one than the lease of late model variants that are the least likely to be offered on lease. Brooks A really good analysis of the JSF is located at http://tinyurl.com/yvxkn |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
JD said the following on 9/06/2004 9:47 AM:
JSF = F-35? The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production, which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22 experience. The RAAF originally selected the F/A-18 over the F16. I don't see them acquiring any F16s. To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway. Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are getting refuelling capability. These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper. The Mustang was proven, modern and cheaper at the end of WWII but it was still outclassed by the latest jet technology. As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego and politics intervene. Isn't the F22 the best. Cost effective - that depends on what the opposing force has. Mustangs would be pretty cost effective if the other side has Sopwith Camels. However, if the other guy is in an F35 then I'd feel more cost effective in an F22. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"JD" wrote in message om... rec.aviation.military added. "Brash" wrote in message u... They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line. JSF = F-35? The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production, which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22 experience. How many Block 60's have you seen offered for "lease"? The only lease deal for F-16's that I know of is the Italian one, for refurbished old F-16 ADF variants. But we have a special relationship. It is something we should be considering. Only a fool thinks that the F-35 will be delivered on time. To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway. Again, how many F-15's of *any* type, much less the Tango, have been leased, or offered for lease? Off hand i don't know, but that doesn't prevent us asking for them. Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are getting refuelling capability. These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper. An F-15T is cheaper than what the F-35 is supposed to cost? Certainly. The latest F-15 is in production for less than half of the production cost of the F-22, which is marginally more expensive than the proposed cost for the F-35. As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego and politics intervene. But you may get a more realistic one than the lease of late model variants that are the least likely to be offered on lease. Granted, but it doesn't hurt to ask and it is a better plan than putting missiles on Orions! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DC wrote in message .au...
JD said the following on 9/06/2004 9:47 AM: JSF = F-35? The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production, which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22 experience. The RAAF originally selected the F/A-18 over the F16. I don't see them acquiring any F16s. Did that have something to do with HMAS Melbourne, or is that a furphy? To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway. Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are getting refuelling capability. These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper. The Mustang was proven, modern and cheaper at the end of WWII but it was still outclassed by the latest jet technology. False analogy. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"JD" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "JD" wrote in message om... rec.aviation.military added. "Brash" wrote in message u... They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line. JSF = F-35? The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production, which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22 experience. How many Block 60's have you seen offered for "lease"? The only lease deal for F-16's that I know of is the Italian one, for refurbished old F-16 ADF variants. But we have a special relationship. It is something we should be considering. I don't think our "special relationship" has much to do with it. As long as LMCO can keep finding *buyers* for the F-16 Block 60 they are not going to be too interested in doing a lease deal with anyone unless it is one that offers them an end outcome as favorable as purchasing does. Purchase price for a Block 60 is over $30 million per--not too awful far from the estimated price range of the F-35. Only a fool thinks that the F-35 will be delivered on time. When is "on time"? Yeah, the originally projected schedule has slipped a year or so, IIRC--no big surprise there. But the USAF, and especially the USMC, are facing a real timecrunch in the future as to replacing some of their older airframes (especially F/A-18 early mods and AV-8B's), so I sort of see a lot of pressure to keep the F-35 schedule in the current ballpark. To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway. Again, how many F-15's of *any* type, much less the Tango, have been leased, or offered for lease? Off hand i don't know, but that doesn't prevent us asking for them. The answer is "none". The only US manufactured combat aircraft currently available for lease are older F-16 versions. The USAF does not have an overabundance of E models just sitting around, so that source is a non-starter. Boeing is going to keep the F-15 line going for as long as they can sell them, but they would be unlikely to agree to a lease deal (especially for the paltry number you are talking about) unless they can plan on recouping a roughly similar profit margin from the deal. What you are proposing appears to be quite a bit different from the Boeing proposal to lease 767's to the USAF, where they have been keen to keep the current assembly line operating; the F-15 production line is in its twilight years ( I doubt there will be much chance of selling new-builds to anyone else after the Singapore selection is done with). Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are getting refuelling capability. These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper. An F-15T is cheaper than what the F-35 is supposed to cost? Certainly. The latest F-15 is in production for less than half of the production cost of the F-22, which is marginally more expensive than the proposed cost for the F-35. Estimates I have seen for the F-35 start at around $38 million (http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-35.htm) and run to $45 million per (http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=777). Cost for an F-15 back in the late 98 was running around $43 million (according to FAS) per, IIRC--the F-15K is costing the ROKAF some $3.2 billion for 40 aircraft, which is around $80 million per copy. So I am not sure your solution is the slam-dunk "cheaper" option that you portray it as being ($80 million per leaves a LOT of expansion room for the F-35 unit cost to expand and still come in under the F-15K). As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego and politics intervene. But you may get a more realistic one than the lease of late model variants that are the least likely to be offered on lease. Granted, but it doesn't hurt to ask and it is a better plan than putting missiles on Orions! 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. Cheers, Michael Kelly Bone Maintainer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian IFR/VFR Flight Plan | gwengler | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | August 11th 04 03:55 AM |
Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? | Matthew G. Saroff | Military Aviation | 111 | May 4th 04 05:34 PM |
RAAF back up to 6 Wedgetails | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 0 | May 2nd 04 05:18 PM |
A-4 / A-7 Question | Tank Fixer | Military Aviation | 135 | October 25th 03 03:59 AM |