Aircraft Carrier Question

[Olefin]

there will always be some fuel depending on what areas you are in - MilGov still has some reserves in the US (see A River Runs Thru It for an example)

and places like the UK, Iran, Saudi, Kenya will still be producing fuel - even in the US there are some refineries still working - but the amount would greatly reduce ops and what can be carried - i.e. there is a big difference between fuel to fly F-15's across the Atlantic versus fly them on limited missions for recon or air support

so you might have enough fuel for limited ops - but if you ever had to surge everything you had that was still operational fully fueled it would be exhaust your fuel for some time to come (i.e. several months to years depending on the area)

and let me be clear - I dont mean that goes everywhere - for most of Europe fuel is a thing of the past and will be for quite some time outside of the UK and France

[Rainbow Six]

I agree with you...I think the relevant point here is that from 1998 onwards in my opinion the front line air forces aren't going to be taking 1960's / 70's era aircraft out of storage sites as it's not so much the lack of aircraft that is limiting operations as the lack of fuel...remaining airbases may well still have small numbers of F16's / Mig 29's / Tornados etc which they are struggling to find fuel for as it is so probably don't need more aircraft - they need the fuel. Iirc there is a reference in the Twilight Encounters supplement to the Soviets still having operational Mig 29's used in a photo recon role - Shutterbug I think it was called.

I think the people thay may be more interested in getting old planes out of storage are more likely to be those in areas well away from the front lines where modern combat aircraft are in short supply, for example US forces in California or Texas, both of whom have access to the required fuel but might be lacking in aircraft to utilise said fuel.

The real winners are those that have the aircraft and the fuel...might be interesting to consider what might have remained in the US at places like Top Gun or the Adversary / Aggressor Squadrons (e.g. VFC 13 at Miramar, VFA 127 at Fallon or VFC 12 at Oceana, all of which I think would have operated the F18 in the T2k timeline.

[Olefin]

as for parts - that was one thing that Frank Frey mentioned was happening in Kenya - that they were using East African craftsmen to basically make parts in a very time consuming fashion for the aircraft and ships they had left operational - explaining why the US would be still having men there in addition to the refinery

by the way - where is the UK's main training facility for the RAF?

[Rainbow Six]

In the T2K timeline there wasn't a central training point; basic officer training took place at RAF Cranwell in Lincolnshire, following which nwly commissioned officers would go on to receive specialised training at another location. For pilots initial Pilot training took place at 1 Flying Training School (FTS) which was at RAF Linton on Ouse in Yorkshire flying Jet Povosts and Tucanos. I believe 1 FTS also did basic pilot training for Royal Navy pilots (the Fleet Air Arm)

Advanced training took place at 4 Flying Training School at RAF Valley in Angelesey, Wales (more famous of late for being where Prince William was stationed as a Sea King pilot). Standard fast jet trainer was the Hawk.

After Fast Jet Training a student pilot would go to an Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) where he would be trained on the jet he would fly operationally. OCU's were located at various RAF stations. In time of War some OCU's would form operational Squadrons. e.g. 229 OCU, which trained students on the F3 fighter variant of the Tornado would become 65 Squadron in time of war.

(Above is more or less from memory and without checking any reference material other than Wiki as I am at work - I do have a book on the 1980's era RAF at home which goes into more detail if there's a specific aspect you're interested in. Also other forum members - I'm thinking especially Sanjuro - may be more knowledgeable than me on the subject)