|
|
|
#31
03-19-2011, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
South Korea, especially being so near to major Soviet air and naval bases, is another country bady needing modern aircraft. I feel a good argument could be made to dispatch F-16s to the ROKAF. With Egypt, especially during this time frame, being very friendly to the US, as well as controlling the vital choke point of the Suez Canal and with the worsening situation in Iraq/Syria from the RDF Sourcebook might receive their F-16s, if only to help reinforce Saudi Arabia. This would leave the Bahrain order and what was delivered of the Pakistan order (airframes pulled into depot level maintenance and brought up to C/D standards. With 22 on order and 28 on hand, this may give the RAF 2-3 squadrons to replace the Phantom force with. But then there is the additional problem of a line in RDF concerning air battles with Iranian F-16s........  One really gets the idea that General Dynamics went to a 24/7 work week with four shifts running!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. 
|
|
#32
03-19-2011, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox. If you run out of ammo, become a bunker. If you run out of time, become a hero.
|
|
#33
03-19-2011, 11:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
|
|
#34
03-20-2011, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Egypt, Turkey and South Korea are all important to the US in their own way, but in the context of America's relationship with Britain each of these countries are just not as important for a number of reasons. Britain is an indepenent nuclear power with its own nuclear arsenal and nuclear weapons industry, and that on its own makes Britain a far more important ally. Britain's military is of more importance and use to the US than either Turkey, Egypt or South Korea. Its ground and air forces are the key component of NORTHAG and the defence of Northern Germany, Denmark and Norway, and its mobile reactions forces are the best and largest of the European NATO countries. British air bases and British surveillance and communications resources are highly important to the US, and critically important to the US for the defence of Western Europe. Britain also has the second most powerful navy in the western world, with its own fleet of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, and at this time had the best anti-submarine warfare capability in the world. It would be of critical importance to the defence of US arms shipments and reinforcements across the Atlantic, and in destroying Soviet SSBNs. Britain's military and intelligence community is far closer to America than Egypt and Turkey, and despite the large US commitment to the defence of South Korea, the Koreans don't have anywhere near the influence of Britain outside of the Far East or with Washington. Britain is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its relationship with Australia, Canada and New Zealand is probably even closer than their relations with the US. Britain also has close links with many African and Asian countries, and the nations of the Indian sub-Continent which transends East-West rivalry. Britain has territories and military bases across the world which are important to the US, Gibraltar, Cyprus, Diego Garcia and Hong Kong, as well as others which are maybe of not so much importance such as Ascension Island, Bermuda, the Falklands etc. Today and probably in the 1990's Britain had the second largest defence industry in the Western world after America. It can build and design everthing from its own fighter jets, to tanks and nuclear submarines, and along with France it is the least dependent on US technology. The defence industries and technology of Turkey and South Korea just don't compare, while Egypt's is non-discript.
|
|
#35
03-20-2011, 04:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The US is involved in a multi-front shooting war against an opponent extremely well equipped for shooting down aircraft.
A pilot can eject and hopefully float gently to the ground and be recovered. A plane doesn't have a parachute - it can only crash. Replacement planes will be needed desperately, even older models a little less capable than the ones the ejected pilots are used to flying. Nobody is getting any F-16s (or any other combat aircraft) except the USAF and / or Navy / USMC. Other countries will have to fend for themselves.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#36
03-20-2011, 01:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#37
03-20-2011, 03:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Actually, I can see the F16 getting shopped around to other Air Forces, even when the shooting starts. Not the others, like the 15's, and 14's, even the 18's, though that is a maybe.
The F16 was designed, along with the FA18, to be simple, cheap, and easy to build, they wasn't supposed to be overly complex aircraft. The FA18 pushes that envelope, but isn't near as complex as either a F14 or F15. I can't recall where, but I remember it being said that with the F16 that during the design process there was a good deal of effort to build in a capability to be produced in immense numbers in a wartime situation. So, given the slow build up to war, then the warmup act over in China, I can easily see GD and Lockmark being tapped to really ramp up production.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
|
|
#38
03-20-2011, 05:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
How long does it take to build an F-18, etc from scratch?
Simple as it may be (compared to other designs), you won't be rolling them out on a daily basis and I rather doubt anywhere near fast enough to replace losses. We see the Army requisitions tanks etc, so why wouldn't they do the same for more advanced, expensive and difficult to produce aircraft? There's a war on. Supporting your allies with equipment is all well and good, but when your own troops are dying because of a lack of vital supplies, the US people are going to have something to say about it!
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#39
03-20-2011, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A lot of web sites talk about F-16/15/18s going all over the world...in real life, the USAF would be busy bringing squadrons up to wartime strength and struggling to build a reserve of ac. My own best guess is that nobody else will be getting front line aircraft, it would even be doubtful that F-16A/Bs would be sold, they can, after all, be sent into depots for full rebuilds. Older birds like the F-4s would be sold, and ac like the F-5s/F-20s would be the most likely ones sold overseas. I tried to reason out a logical chain that would allow the RAF to pick up F-16s, but the major problem is this is a bird that the Brits do not fly, have no pilots tried to fly it and no support crew trained to maintain. It is very doubtful that the Falcon would ever serve in the RAF. The needs of the USAF/USMC/USN would almost certainly keep all front-line production for their own use. As one previous poster has noted, the Army seized tanks, certainly aircraft can be seized as well.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#40
03-20-2011, 09:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And that's pretty much my point in a nutshell. There's just too much NEED for them within the US military and little to no supporting structure amongst the British or other potential recipients.
With aircraft losses at a conservative one per day for the first six months of the war, that's 180 aircraft in need of replacement. Using one produced per fortnight, there's a serious shortfall of 168 aircraft. Flying against the Soviets is no turkey shoot like Iraq was - losses will happen, lots of them.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#41
03-20-2011, 11:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon. Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
|
|
#42
03-20-2011, 11:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#43
03-20-2011, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#44
03-20-2011, 11:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#45
03-20-2011, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#46
03-20-2011, 11:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
|
|
#47
03-21-2011, 12:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#48
03-21-2011, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
#49
03-21-2011, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#50
03-21-2011, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#51
03-21-2011, 08:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#52
03-21-2011, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#53
03-21-2011, 11:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom
|
|
#54
03-21-2011, 12:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
#55
03-21-2011, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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).
|
|
#56
03-21-2011, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#57
03-21-2011, 05:44 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Clayton A. Oliver • Occasional RPG Freelancer Since 1996 Author of The Pacific Northwest, coauthor of Tara Romaneasca, creator of several other free Twilight: 2000 and Twilight: 2013 resources, and curator of an intermittent gaming blog. It rarely takes more than a page to recognize that you're in the presence of someone who can write, but it only takes a sentence to know you're dealing with someone who can't. - Josh Olson
|
|
#58
03-21-2011, 05:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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....
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#59
03-22-2011, 06:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#60
03-22-2011, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Linear Mode
