Thats actually one of the reasons I can see the F16 being exported, even during the war, its the only plane built at that time with little in the way of advanced materials. The FA18 is a bit more complex, and uses advanced materials, and the F15/F14 is just too complex to build rapidly. One of the reasons why aircraft take so long to build is that it helps with job preservation, and I am not saying that cynically either: By drawing the process out, while they pay more in wages, they can keep the line going longer, allowing for an efficiency in scale that drives over all costs down. If they put the man hours into the line, got the suppliers of other bits and pieces to do the same, its not unreasonable to drop the build time to 5 days: and remember, thats 5 one shift days. You put on 3 shifts a day, and find other ways to cut time, which I am sure could be found, a fighter a day isn't too out of the realm of possibility. The complexity and the addition of advanced materials is why I agree that there will not be any exporting (Maybe the odd one or two FA18 here and there once the carriers start to get trimmed back) of any of the other front line fighter types. F4's? By the bucket load, but 15, 14, and 18? Not likely.

But the last bit is a fair cop: *If* the RAF picks up the 16's before the war kicks off, good deal. If they try it during the war, its pure barney. Too many things that can go wrong when you don't have the time and the assets to fix.

Well I would think that the pilots are a bit more important than machines. Also how may millions does it cost and how many years of training does it take to produce a combat pilot?

I agree, the F-16 is a modern, agile and highly capable tactical fighter, but its not an air superiority fighter/bomber like the F-15, and its neither as expensive or as compex to build, maintain and fly. This is part of the reason I have the RAF flying F-16s in my orbat. I would love to have given the RAF an F-15C wing, put that would be pushing things a bit too far.

Perphaps six months to a year for most countries, but I'd go with six month for the RAF guys. I'd say training the pilots would be the easier task and there are plenty of USAF F-16 units stationed in Europe.

Thats F-16 there Legbreaker ;)

The F-16 was originally designed to be an air superiority fighter -- an aerial dogfighter if you will. It was only later that they turned into a bomb truck and a multirole fighter.

Yes, they certainly are, which is why it's important to keep those highly trained and expensive assets in the air.
Note the "etc"? I'm not talking about just one type of jet aircraft, I'm talking about them all.
If it takes say 500 man hours to build an F-18, 1,000 man hours for an F-22, and 300 man hours for an F-16, I know which one's more likely to see production ramped up in the latter half of 1997. You've got to keep pilots in the air even if it means a downgrade in overall aircraft performance. Chances are the enemy won't have a lot of their more advanced aircraft left either so the reduced performance shouldn't be a major problem.

Well nobody's talking about WW2 levels of production her, but we are talking about wartime production is going to be running a lot higher than peacetime levels, and the US can build things quicker than anybody when its puts its mind to it.

Does anybody have an actual accurate statistic for how many F-16's the USAF has on hand in the mid-1990s? By my reckoning its could be over 1,400 and that's not including aircraft that are being built.

I have the RAF getting the F-16's in 1996, not in the middle of 1997 when the US armed forces might realy have a problem with US war production going to other countries when they need it themselves. Also the F-4 which I have the F-16's replacing is also an American aircraft, as is the Hercules, the Sentry and the Chinook, and the RAF has been flying US aircraft since WW2. RAF pilots are very well trained, highly competent and experienced. I think only US, Israeli and perhaps Australian and Canadian pilots match them in flying hours. The F-16 is one of the most common USAF aircraft stationed in Europe and is also used by many other NATO countries. How hard would it realy be to send RAF Phantom pilots and ground crew on a crash training course to one of the dozen or more air bases across Western Europe which support F-16 operations?

I thought the F-16 is a tactical fighter and the F-15 is an air superiority fighter.

Air superiority being bigger, faster, longer ranged, and the ability to carry a bigger weapons payload, but not as good in a dog fight as an F-16 which is lighter and more agile, hense tactical fighter.

Yes they are going to ramp up F-16 production aren't they? And don't forget there is a whole wing or highly trained pilots waiting in Britain for those F-16's :)

I was thinking about this as well.

In my opinion, there are two factors involved. The first is the increasing global tensions in the first half of the 1990's (I seem to recall there are reference to various bush wars taking place) that culminates in the outbreak of the Sino Soviet War in the summer of 1995 (at least in V1).

The second - and perhaps the critical one for this discussion - is when the Eurofighter can be expected to enter frontline service. The first test aircraft flew on 27 March 1994 and as best as I can tell it was originally scheduled to enter Squadron service sometime in 1997 (before the various delays which RN7 has referred to kicked in and it actually ended up being 2007).

In my opinion valid arguments can be made for the F16 entering RAF service or valid arguments can be made for Eurofighter entering service sooner. However, I find the idea of both being in service less likely.

For example (and following a v1 timeline) British forces are placed on full alert after the outbreak of the Sino Soviet War. Perhaps this is what prompts the Ministry of Defence to review its fighter requirements. At that point I think there are two possible scenarios.

1. Eurofighter is on schedule to commence deliveries in 1997 (or possibly even ahead of its RL schedule if we accept that a continuing Cold War may have reduced significantly some of the delays - IRL I understand German Reunification was one of the contributing factors to these delays). That being the case, with Eurofighter eighteen months away, would the RAF opt to acquire - at considerable expense presumably - a Wing of F16's and all the supporting paraphenlia that goes with that and embark on a training programme for the air and ground crews when Eurofighter is scheduled to enter service in eighteen months or less? Ultimately we don't know what the answer would be but I'm inclined to think that the decision would be taken to soldier on with the Phantom / Tornado option bearing in mind the MoD don't have the foresight to know that WW3 will break out the following year (IRL the Phantom was retired in 1992, but I'm suggesting here that it would remain in service until Eurofighter's arrival in service).

2. Eurofighter is not on schedule to commence deliveries as planned and is going to be delayed by several years (at least). In this scenario then I can see the logic in the Ministry of Defence deciding at that point that soldiering on with Phantoms indefinitely is not an attractive option and opening discussions with the US sometime in 1995 to procure F16's (possibly on some sort of lease basis). Dependent on when the deal is signed this gives the RAF something in the region of a year and a half (maximum) to get their Falcons delivered, carry out the neccessary conversion training and become operational.

So imho I think you can have the RAF operating Falcons or Eurofighters but not both (other than a handful of Eurofighter test planes if you go with the second option).

Cheers

I would agree over the F-16 and Lend Lease is pretty much what Dan proposed on Etranger. I would disagree with only having the F-16 or the Eurofighter and not both, as the F-16s wont be built in Britain, and Britain has a large aerospace industry.

The final assembly line for all Eurofighter aircraft is at Warton, and most of the flight testing is also done at Warton. Components of the Eurofighter are made at Samlesbury

The share of work is as follows:
Britain: Front fuselage, canopy, dorsal spine, tail fin, foreplanes, inboard flaperons, rear fuselage sections
Germany: Main centre fuselage
Italy: Left wing, outboard flaperons, rear fuselage sections
Spain: Right wing, leading edge slats

Much of the work and most of the key components of the Eurofighter are built in Britain. Take Italy and Spain out and redirect the work and I would say the Eurofighter is 75% British made. Also the CAPTOR radar is British, a development of the Sea Harrier FA.2s Blue Vixen radar developed by the then GEC/Ferranti, now part of BAE. The real life EJ200 Eurofighter engine is assembled in Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, with the British part being the combustion system and high pressure turbine and health monitoring system. But the EJ200 is based on the British Rolls Royce XG-40 technology demonstrator engine that was developed from 1984. The T2K Eurofighter is a joint British/German development, but the Germans don’t have a significant aircraft engine manufacturing capability other than what they produces under license or in joint-partnership with other countries. Britain on the other hand does, Rolls Royce is/was the largest maker outside of the US and Rolls Royce’s commercial engine are built in Derby while the Eurofighter engine is built in Bristol.

Even on low production starting in 1996 I would say that Britain could build two a month up until the nukes start flying, so 28 RAF Eurofighters is realistic.

However I never intended the Eurofighter to be fully operational, as 1997 is to early to have a fully functional aircraft in mass production. More likely about a dozen operational aircraft at any one time with another dozen or so under going trials and testing, and replacements for lost aircraft.

I don't doubt that the capability is there for us to have both...I just think that if the Eurofighter is being delivered on schedule - or ahead of schedule - then the powers that be in the MoD would decide there was no need to procure F16's in addition to the Eurofighter (unless one advocates increasing the strength of the RAF by an extra Wing of fighters due to increasing Cold War tensions, which is another matter altogether...if that's the case go for it).

Hence the reason I think I think it would be an either / or scenario...what I'm getting at is that if Eurofighters are coming off the production line at Warton on a regular basis I don't think there would be perceived to be a need to seek an alternative...

Well the doubt about the availability and how many Eurofighters can be produced would probably force the MoD to approach Washington to lease the F-16s. Building 28 Eurofighters in the time frame up to the nuclear war is I think realistic, but their reliability and workability is going to be an issue as all of them are never going to be fully operational due to them being little more than prototypes, and Britain needs a proven and modern tactical fighter to replace the Phantom in the front line in Europe.

For what it's worth, it takes 16 weeks to produce a Eurofighter. You can compare that to 30 weeks to build a Tornado.

The reduction in time isn't based on what aircraft you are making, but the assembly facilities (which were apparently upgraded in '98 for the Eurofighter).

Well by that measurement the Tornado was built at a rate of less than two a year, which means that the 920 Tornados scheduled to be built for Britain, Germany and Italy would have taken nearly 500 years to build since the first Tornado rolled off the production line in 1981.

I don't think these aircraft are produced serially. Multiple birds will be in sequentially greater states of completion on the plant floor at one time. The real figure that's relevant here isn't start-to-finish on a single airframe, but the rate at which the factory cycles them out the door.

- C.

That's 30 weeks per unit. More than one unit can be made at a time with commencement of each aircraft staggered by say a week. Each aircraft would be at a different stage of construction requiring different tools, parts and technicians.
Think of a car factory - they don't focus solely on one vehicle at a time from the first bolt to it rolling out the door....

No it doesn't. That just means the start to finish time is 30 weeks. Nobody said the factory builds only one at a time.

Well obviously not.

Any ideas how many Tornado's and Eurofighters would be built per year.

BTW here is a link to F-16 production..

http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article18.html

Bring on the Tigershark!

Now there was a sweet looking plane, both it and the F-16XL were personal favourites.


F-16XL
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...97-44354-3.jpg

In my campaign backstory (back when I was running a campaign), the F-16XL, called the F-16F Scamp, was available in two-squadron strength and was the steed of the Twilight War's highest-scoring ace, USAF CPT Pamela Wagner.

I just remembered we might of overlooked something regarding the F-16. During 1994-95 the USN retired 14 F-16N's & 4 TF-16N's that they were using for disimiliar combat training (NFWS, VF-43, & VF-45). (see the book "MASDC II AMARC:Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center, Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center") In the T2K timeline do you think these would have been retired ?

Louie

Probably but as soon as the war heated up they'd be stripped for spares ASAP.

The F16N's were pretty stressed out during their days as aggressor trainers. There were serious cracks in the airframes when the USN was finished with 'em.

I like the F-5 a lot and always favored the F-20 Tigershark.

Chuck