British Air Power in T2K

[dragoon500ly]

F-16C/D Block 40/42/50/52 production was...

F-16C/D Block 40/42
472: USA (1988-1992)
138: Egypt (1991-2002)
117: Turkey (1990-1995)
060: Israel (1991-1993)
022: Bahrain (1990-2000)
F-16C/D Block 50/52
264: USA (1991-2004)
140: South Korea (1994-2004)
070: Turkey (1996-1999)
064: Greece (1997-1998)
062. Singapore (1998-2002)

Production is on going to the USAF and export customers before and during the T2K period, at least up until the end of 1997. In 1996 its clear that a big war is looming, and the US government is going to have to decide who takes precedence in war production.

We can rule out Singapore as it didn't get F-16s till 1998, while the Greeks went commy and probably would have only recieved a dozen at most. The USAF and Israel are going to get what they want, but is the US going to keep delivering F-16s to Egypt, Turkey and even South Korea when Britain wants an F-16 wing. The simple fact is Britain is America's closest military ally, and more important than even Israel, and whatever Britain wants it gets, even nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

While I do acknowledge the special realitionship inbetween the US and the UK. Look at the strategic situation. With Greek and Turkey going at it, the US has always tended to favor Turkey to an extent, they are, after all, the USs oldest Middle Eastern ally. So the shipment of F-16s to Turkey, especially to counterbalance a communist Greece would go through.

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!

[JHart]

But then there is the additional problem of a line in RDF concerning air battles with Iranian F-16s......

Two options. Chalk it up as a typo and assume they meant F-14s, or F-16s where given to Iran by a nation that used them in exchange for something.

[pmulcahy11b]

But then there is the additional problem of a line in RDF concerning air battles with Iranian F-16s........

GDW was looking at something very old. Iran was originally going to be one of the first export customers for the F-16, but when Khomenei took over, the deal was nixed fast before the Iranians got any F-16s. Their order was going to be big, too -- they were repurposed to the USAF and some European countries.

[RN7]

While I do acknowledge the special realitionship inbetween the US and the UK. Look at the strategic situation. With Greek and Turkey going at it, the US has always tended to favor Turkey to an extent, they are, after all, the USs oldest Middle Eastern ally. So the shipment of F-16s to Turkey, especially to counterbalance a communist Greece would go through.

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!

I don't think Iran ever got any F-16s in realy life or T2K. But certainly Turkey, Egypt and South Korea will continue to get US military supplies, but in the context of US priorities they are not going to be getting real world peacetime orders of F-16C Block 40/50s, which in T2K are going to go staight to frontline USAF squadrons and key allies. They might get a some F-16C's, but more likely will be offered refurbished F-16A's from the Air National Guard or even some F-4s and F5s.

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Rainbow Six]

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.

That sounds like a reasonable idea to me. As a minor nitpick, perhaps it would be better to happen in 1995 than 1996 (As I've said already, I see no problem with the RAF operating F16's. I just question the timescale - I'm not sure how much time it would take to train an entire Wing's air and ground crews on a new aircraft that they have never flown / worked on before)

[Panther Al]

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.

[Legbreaker]

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!

[dragoon500ly]

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!

The final answer is, nobody knows for sure. Modern aircraft being made of exotic materials and expensive electronics...it sure won't be like turning out 24 P-51Ds a day! The best guess for the F-16 is about 15 days from start to finish. How much this could be cut down is up in the air, that's why I crack jokes about GD going to three shifts a day, it really is the only way to produce enough F-16s to match the needs.

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.

[Legbreaker]

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.

[Panther Al]

The final answer is, nobody knows for sure. Modern aircraft being made of exotic materials and expensive electronics...it sure won't be like turning out 24 P-51Ds a day! The best guess for the F-16 is about 15 days from start to finish. How much this could be cut down is up in the air, that's why I crack jokes about GD going to three shifts a day, it really is the only way to produce enough F-16s to match the needs.

*snippage*

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.

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.

[RN7]

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.

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

[RN7]

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.

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.

[RN7]

That sounds like a reasonable idea to me. As a minor nitpick, perhaps it would be better to happen in 1995 than 1996 (As I've said already, I see no problem with the RAF operating F16's. I just question the timescale - I'm not sure how much time it would take to train an entire Wing's air and ground crews on a new aircraft that they have never flown / worked on before)

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.

[RN7]

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!

Thats F-16 there Legbreaker