Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 8/24/2004 11:26:58 AM EST
Say for instance we had a national emergency so great that the number of aircraft we have now needed to be beefed up. This isn't like WWII when we could turn out new hardware left and right. So could some of the aircraft we have recently retired (say as recently as 1990 until present) be restored to duty if need be?

I know we put a lot of F-4's out to pasture in the late 80's and in the 90's. We retired the A-6 and A-7, which I feel could still be capable aircraft. Then there was the F-111 and FB-111. We have retired a bunch of B-52's, with the D models being phased out in 1983 and the G models around 1994 or 1995. But weren't all of those sliced and diced to please the Russians? Now we are phasing out the F-14's also. And it seems I read we have 100 or 200 F-15A's sitting around a warehouse somewhere in case they are needed.

Anyway, it's not that important or that likely we would need them. I am just curious if this is a consideration at all after they are retired and if any of them are maintained at all. I know most end up at Davis-Montham AFB, at least those that aren't sent to museums and what-not. So basically when they are retired, are they just left to rot? Or are they kept in good enough condition that
could they be restored to active duty in a relatively short period of time?

-CH
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 11:28:35 AM EST
Some are actually well preserved in case of TSHTF.
But most are now heaps of aluminum oxide.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 11:36:14 AM EST
I once took a tour of Davis Monthan long before 9/11. I was told that aircraft storage is "graded". There are those that can be restored, but others are just there for spares or scrap. They approach it on an aircraft for aircraft basis. (It was more than enough to make you weep)

The fastest you could restore even the most intact aircraft according to the guy, was two years.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 11:36:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 11:39:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/24/2004 11:40:52 AM EST by ARDunstan]




Link Posted: 8/24/2004 11:42:25 AM EST
If we ever needed the CMP to step up to the plate, this is it........
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 11:52:38 AM EST
I had my pic taken in front of the SR-71 @ Lackland in 1990...that bad girl was yanked down and put back into service soon after. I'd say it depends on the technology of the asset and it's prospective application.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 12:46:11 PM EST
Marana, Az. Same place the Osprey crashed a few years ago. DM AFB also has a very nice collection of MiG's and other interesting items. I doubt they do tours anymore Post-9/11, but it's worth a try to ask.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 12:50:32 PM EST
Most if not all the B-52's at Davis-Monthan are gone now.

The A-6's and A-7's are still there, but for the most part they are junk.
No bombs, tactics, or training on those aircraft has happend in over 10 years.
The A-6's suffer from serious wing cracking problems, and the "good" A-7's were sold to Greece, Thailand and Portugal.

There are 106 F-15A's and10 F-15B's at Davis Monthan.
There are 316 F-16A's, 35 F-16B's and 11 F-16N's sitting at DM.

The entire fleet of F-111's is still there...

And theres about 600 or so various models of F-$'s out there too..........


Link Posted: 8/24/2004 12:51:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 2:23:58 PM EST
The Navy and Marine Corps took all the A6-Es and dumped them in the ocean to rot. some went to be used as displays but for the most part, the A-6's are gone. They did well in the Gulf War and I still don't think they should have dumped them.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 3:17:13 PM EST
Don't they park them out in the open so Russian spy sats can confirm we are obeying treaties and then they get the big gullotine
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 4:34:18 PM EST
Well you also need pilots, ground crews, etc. some of the latest are still relatively quickly serviceable, but realisitically it isn't going to happen.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 4:41:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By twonami:
Don't they park them out in the open so Russian spy sats can confirm we are obeying treaties and then they get the big gullotine



They park them in the open because it would be too expensive to cover them. We don't have treaties about aircraft with the Russians, they are about missiles.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 4:45:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
They park them in the open because it would be too expensive to cover them. We don't have treaties about aircraft with the Russians, they are about missiles.


Wrong. B-1B bombers had to be re-fitted so they couldn't carry nukes...per treaty with the Soviets.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 5:09:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
They park them in the open because it would be too expensive to cover them. We don't have treaties about aircraft with the Russians, they are about missiles.


Wrong. B-1B bombers had to be re-fitted so they couldn't carry nukes...per treaty with the Soviets.



In town here, we have an Air Museum and several years ago they got an F-14. They had to keep it outside so the spy satalites coud see it in place decomissioned.

Bobwrench
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 5:20:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By bobwrench:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
They park them in the open because it would be too expensive to cover them. We don't have treaties about aircraft with the Russians, they are about missiles.


Wrong. B-1B bombers had to be re-fitted so they couldn't carry nukes...per treaty with the Soviets.



In town here, we have an Air Museum and several years ago they got an F-14. They had to keep it outside so the spy satalites coud see it in place decomissioned.

Bobwrench



My BS detector just pegged. Just what treaty did we sign restricting the use of F-14s? Hmm? I'll bet you a new quarter you can't find a treaty that restricts F-14s because it doesn't exist.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 5:28:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/24/2004 5:28:35 PM EST by ARDunstan]
To be fair, F-14s CAN be made to carry tactical nukes.
Just about every US fighter can.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 5:34:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
To be fair, F-14s CAN be made to carry tactical nukes.
Just about every US fighter can.



And the treaty restricting F-14s is?

B-1s were covered by treaty. I think B-52s were at one point. They either had to be converted or verified destroyed, IIRC. And B-2's I would bet are covered by treaty.

I have never heard of a treaty that required tactical aircraft to be displayed.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:09:32 AM EST
im sure overflights of the podunk michigan air museum are a top scheduling priority for the always in demand sattelite assets.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:26:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 4:27:14 AM EST by klutz347]
Taken this past April at Davis Monthan AFB.




Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:32:32 AM EST
I think one day we are going to count our lucky stars we mothballed these planes. If not for the actual planes, for the ability ro reverse engineer them.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:36:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 4:40:23 AM EST by Winston_Wolf]
... IIRC, I remember hearing that the Air Force is actually mothballing several Lockheed F-117A Nighthawks soon (if not already)

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:37:56 AM EST
Man, look at all of those B-52's. What a sad sight. Just think of all the carpet bombing those babies could do if still in service. I wish we could have hung on to the G models, even if they were given a no nuke capability, just because they can haul so damn much iron. It would be nice to at least have had one wing of them left, preferably with the big belly treatment of the Vietnam era D model. That would bring the total of 500 lb bombs up from 51 to 108! What a magnificent aircraft, even if it is over twice as old as I am.

It's hard to believe all of those F-4's, F-14's, F-15's and F-16's are out there. You'd think foreign buyers would have gobbled those up. I mean even though the F-14's, as well as early F-15's/16's aren't as capable as current models, they are still damn fine airplanes and better than the MiG-21 and 23 aircraft so many nations operate as frontline aircraft. Oh well, it might be just as well. No sooner than we arm someone we think we can trust til we'd have to fight the bastards. LOL.

Thanks for the shots and comments guys. I realize all the problems with maintaining these aircraft, as well as parts and supplies....and lack of crews. I guess a part of me hates to see them go and would feel much better knowing they are out there standing guard, like the Minutemen of old, waiting to be called back into duty if the excrement ever hits the fan. We've still got lots of birds, but if a serious, all out regional or world conflict was to break out, it would be nice knowing we have something fairly modern to use as replacements or to complement our current aircraft, simply because complex and hugely costly birds like B-2's, F-22's, etc would take forever to build and would not be affordable in any large numbers. But what I'm talking about is more or less a real SHTF sort of situation where the world is just boiling over. Hopefully if we ever see that happen again (actually, hopefully we never see it at all), we'll have allies who will be helping us. But with "old Europe", I never count on it. Hehe.

-CH

BTW, those F-111's still kick-ass in my book! A shame to see those babies sit and rot as well.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:39:11 AM EST
all of those are just laying around rotting, it sucks....
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:42:05 AM EST
how do they make them mouse proof?
it would seem mice chewing on wiring would cause the most damage (once they are cocooned
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:43:42 AM EST
Mice? In the Arizona Desert?
One word....Rattlesnakes!


Originally Posted By hk940:
how do they make them mouse proof?
it would seem mice chewing on wiring would cause the most damage (once they are cocooned

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:47:11 AM EST
BzzzT!
WRONG!!

There are 180 A-6E's out in the boneyard, and there are 18 KA-6D's out there.

The majority of the A-6 fleet was dumped off the coast of Florida, most of those were A-6's that were supposed to get the composite wings.



Originally Posted By mpearcex:
The Navy and Marine Corps took all the A6-Es and dumped them in the ocean to rot. some went to be used as displays but for the most part, the A-6's are gone. They did well in the Gulf War and I still don't think they should have dumped them.

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:53:48 AM EST
F-16s in mothballs? What the heck??? I had no idea. I figured mothballing was only for really old planes (or retired lines, like the Corsair II and the like).

I figured you were asking about the ones sitting outside VFW halls ... They don't look very airworthy right now.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 5:03:18 AM EST
What is that white crap on some of those planes? I notice that on the planes it's used on (like those 16's) most of the fuselage and canopy is covered. Is that something to just protect them somewhat from the sun and whatever elements there is out there?

They look like they've been jizzed on by a pRon star or something!
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 5:09:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By twonami:
Don't they park them out in the open so Russian spy sats can confirm we are obeying treaties and then they get the big gullotine



They park them in the open because it would be too expensive to cover them. We don't have treaties about aircraft with the Russians, they are about missiles.



SALT II addressed limits on heavy bombers and even defined these to include US B-52 and B-1 bombers. The B-52's were out there for the Russian satellites to confirm compliance. This information is freely available on the internet.


Link Posted: 8/25/2004 5:12:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 5:13:30 AM EST by KA3B]
That's Spraylat.
www.spraylat.com/

It's a two-part water-based protective coating.
It does three things:
1. Creates an air-tight seal.
2. Prevents corrosion.
3. Reflects UV rays and lowers the inside temp.

These are a couple shots of an entire LC-130F (minus props and engines) getting a Spraylat coating.







Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
What is that white crap on some of those planes? I notice that on the planes it's used on (like those 16's) most of the fuselage and canopy is covered. Is that something to just protect them somewhat from the sun and whatever elements there is out there?

They look like they've been jizzed on by a pRon star or something!

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 5:16:40 AM EST
I'm in disbelief at all the F-15s and F-16s in the boneyard. Wow. I'm sad over the F-4s, the fact that we have their replacements in the yard already is shocking.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 5:29:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 5:31:00 AM EST by KA3B]

There are 106 F-15A's and10 F-15B's at Davis Monthan.
There are 316 F-16A's, 35 F-16B's and 11 F-16N's sitting at DM.



I hate to say it, but most of those F-16's are junk. Not JUNK mind you.
They have some serious airframe problems.
It would cost too much to fix them (at this point in time), and even if they were fixed you would have an F-16A that can't carry the same weapons that the newer F-16's can, plus they are lacking in the avionics and in order to meet the USAF's goal of a common engine they would need to be reengined.

The nations that would buy them are nations that we don't sell advanced weapons to.
The nations that we do sell F-16's to buy new F-16's.

Besides, we would be kicking Lockheed in the balls if the DOD were to put a bunch of refurbished F-16's on the market.
Lockheed wants to be able to sell NEW F-16's with no competition.

Here's a good one - The Navy's F-18's are wearing out faster than the Super Hornet can replace them. The Navy is spending an assload of money right now to replace the center barrel of the fuselage. The F-18 was "supposed" to be a cheap "throw-away" aircraft, much like the F-16 is.

The F/A-18 Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP) will assess the structural condition of the F/A-18 fleet in order to determine what structural modifications are necessary to extend theaircraft designed service life and allow it to achieve inventory requirements.

The Resource Sponsor (N78) has indicated an urgent need to assess the structural condition of the F/A-18 fleet to determinewhether the structural condition supports OPNAV Tactical Aircraft inventory requirements through fiscal year (FY) 2020.

It is known that F/A-18 aircraft built prior to Lot 18 are limited to 78% of their design fatigue life due to structural cracking in the section of the fuselage known as the "Center Barrel".

The Center Barrel Replacement Plus (CBR+) program eliminates structural life limitations causedby cracking in the Center Barrel.

The airframe structure also has the following structural limitations, both of which must be addressed to extend the designed service life of the aircraft.

The F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft structure will also be assessed to determine the life limit on landings for all four models of types for aircraft lot 8 and above aircraft.

Currently the aircraft structure is limited to 8300 landings.

The goal of the SLAP program will be to identify critical structure to allow total landings to be increased to 14,500.

This increase in total landings would allow the F/A-18 A/B/C/D to meet OPNAV Tactical Aircraft inventory requirements through fiscal year (FY) 2020.


Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
I'm in disbelief at all the F-15s and F-16s in the boneyard. Wow. I'm sad over the F-4s, the fact that we have their replacements in the yard already is shocking.

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 5:50:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 5:54:22 AM EST by Charging_Handle]
Those F-16N's sure didn't last long. Those Top Gun instructors must have really wrung them out good while they had them!

What pisses me off is the fact that Top Gun no longer even has any dissimilar aircraft for their adversary units....that is, if they still even have Top Gun or adversary units. I feel this is very unfair to our pilots, because uf true, they are basically back at the point they were in Vietnam before Top Gun. In those days, pilots just flew against each other, often in the same types of aircraft that have the same performance ability. Phantom pilots who flew against squadron mates in F-4's were not prepared to meet small, fast and more agile aircraft, especially considering the ROE and the fact they had no gun and that most of the missiles of the period sucked.. Of course Top Gun corrected the training problem and American ingenuity the other.

But it still troubles me greatly that those aircraft were withdrawn from service (because of structural issues...the Top Gun instructors flew the wings off literally I guess...lol) and not replaced them. The F-16N was a very good adversary and simulated the MiG-29 and other advanced maneuverable aircraft very well.

Does the USAF suffer the same issues too or is this mostly the USN/USMC caught with worn out adversary aircraft and no funding for new ones?
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 5:54:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 5:55:17 AM EST by KA3B]
Pakistani F-16 Jets Going to U.S. Navy, USAF
Charles R. Smith

Thursday, June 13, 2002
Fighters Find New Top Gun Home After 10 Years

The U.S. Navy "Top Gun" school, long neglected and nearly disbanded during the Clinton years, is finally getting some new life. The Naval Air Station at Fallon, Nev., is slated to obtain 14 of 28 F-16 Lockheed-Martin Fighting Falcons originally sold to Pakistan.

The 1992 sale of the 28 Falcons to Pakistan was canceled during the last days of the Bush Sr. administration because Islamabad had openly purchased nuclear weapons technology from China. The sudden appearance of Chinese nuclear-tipped M-11 ballistic missiles brought a swift embargo of U.S. arms sales on Pakistan, including the previously ordered F-16 Falcons.

The 28 Falcons were mothballed, sitting for nearly a decade in the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Maintenance Regeneration Center at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The Block 15 A and B models are upgraded with advanced Head's Up Displays (HUDs) avionics and improved engines intended for foreign military sales.

In June 2002, the Bush administration determined that 14 of the 28 Falcon jet fighters should be turned over to the Navy's Top Gun school and serve as part of the adversary squadron. The F-16s are slated to replace aging F-18 and F-5 jets at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center.

All 28 of the F-16 jets have had their Pakistani star and crescent moon insignia painted out and engines reconditioned. The remaining 14 F-16 Falcons are slated to be transferred to Edwards Air Force Base to serve with the 412th Test Wing as chase planes. The planned transfer of the ex-Pakistani F-16s to the U.S.A.F. has run into opposition from a variety of sources.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/12/154700.shtml




Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Those F-16N's sure didn't last long. Those Top Gun instructors must have really wroung them out good while they had them!

What pisses me off is the fact that Top Gun no longer even has any dissimilar aircraft for their adversary units....that is, if they still even have Top Gun or adversary units. I feel this is very unfair to our pilots, because uf true, they are basically back at the point they were in Vietnam before Top Gun. In those days, pilots just flew against each other, often in the same types of aircraft that have the same performance ability. Phantom pilots who flew against squadron mates in F-4's were not prepared to meet small, fast and more agile aircraft, especially considering the ROE and the fact they had no gun and that most of the missiles of the period sucked.. Of course Top Gun corrected the training problem and American ingenuity the other.

But it still troubles me greatly that those aircraft were withdrawn from survice (because of structural issues...the Top Gun instructors flew the wings off literally I guess...lol) and not replaced them. The F-16N was a very good adversary and simulated the MiG-29 and other advanced maneuverable aircraft very well.

Does the USAF suffer the same issues too or is this mostly the USN/USMC caught with worn out adversary aircraft and no funding for new ones?

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 6:00:13 AM EST
The F-16N and F-16N aircraft were based on F-16 Block 30E models, and were all built during 1987/1988.

They were optimized for one thing only: the Dissimilar Air Combat Training mission.

The airframes were made lighter, and they were strengthened to cope with the continuous high-G loads associated with air combat manoeuvring. To save weight, the F-16N was fitted with the less cabable but lighter APG-66 radar of earlier F-16A/B models, the M61 A1 internal gun was removed, and all provisions for external stores were removed.

All F-16Ns used the General Electric F110-GE-100 engine. TF-16N models are identical to F-16Ns except for the addition of a second seat.

Despite the fact that (T)F-16Ns were strenghtened, the airframes were experiencing metal fatigue before the end of their operational lifetime.

This resulted in their premature withdrawal from service.

In 1991, the Navy temporarily grounded its F-16 fleet. The adversary training mission was more and more shifted to F-14s and F-18s.

Finally, in 1994, the US Navy announced the retirment of the (T)F-16N fleet; the last F-16N arrived at Davis-Monthan AFB in January 1995.



Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Those F-16N's sure didn't last long. Those Top Gun instructors must have really wrung them out good while they had them!

What pisses me off is the fact that Top Gun no longer even has any dissimilar aircraft for their adversary units....that is, if they still even have Top Gun or adversary units. I feel this is very unfair to our pilots, because uf true, they are basically back at the point they were in Vietnam before Top Gun. In those days, pilots just flew against each other, often in the same types of aircraft that have the same performance ability. Phantom pilots who flew against squadron mates in F-4's were not prepared to meet small, fast and more agile aircraft, especially considering the ROE and the fact they had no gun and that most of the missiles of the period sucked.. Of course Top Gun corrected the training problem and American ingenuity the other.

But it still troubles me greatly that those aircraft were withdrawn from service (because of structural issues...the Top Gun instructors flew the wings off literally I guess...lol) and not replaced them. The F-16N was a very good adversary and simulated the MiG-29 and other advanced maneuverable aircraft very well.

Does the USAF suffer the same issues too or is this mostly the USN/USMC caught with worn out adversary aircraft and no funding for new ones?

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 6:06:09 AM EST
Whoo hoo! Good news about Top Gun!

Leave it to Bush Sr to do the right thing, Clinton to fuck up and screw the military again, then GWB to have to fix that which has been screwed up.

And some people have the nerve to ask me why I won't support Kerry? Shit. I think I'll punch the next bastard that asks me that right between the eyes. No way will I ever support anyone who purposefully degrades our military and endangers our military personnel by seeing to it they don't get equipment they need.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 6:35:15 AM EST
If you can't believe the F-16's being parked then how about...




or
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 7:55:22 AM EST
Yeah, I think the decision to park those B-1B's was nuts. Thankfully, they only did that to a few of them. Can't remember the exact reasons, but I think at least 3/4 of those built are still in service. Still, that's a lot of capability to have just sitting around getting a tan.

I can understand the C-141's being retired, as they were just simply worn out. Those things have been around a very long time and considering the heavy loads they are asked to pack around the world, it's no wonder they have had wing stress issues.

I just hate to see so many aircraft retired, particularly the F-111's, the A-6, A-7, F-14, F-15, F-16, B-52 and B-1, considering they are not all being replaced by something else. Therefore our total force keeps dwindling and dwindling. But cost is a major factor. I just fear that by 2050, the only air power we'll have will be a squadron of Cessnas! At the rate we're going, that's all we'll be able to afford. By going smaller we have also grown more capable in what the aircraft can do. But still, in a large widespread war, numbers have a place.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:38:06 AM EST
Hi all,
A few comments.

The B-52s were covered under treaty, one of the ways you could tell the B-52H from teh G model was at the wing root. The wing root fairing could be picked up on satelite for counting purposes as the H model was a cruise missle shooter.

Davis Montham is incredible, I was there last December looking around, lots of hardware.

I was sailboat racing out of San Diego and one of the guys on the crew was in the Navy. As we passed the Naval Air Station at Coronado, he pointed out he "max time" F18s and F-14s that were grounded. It was pretty wild because they were still flying some A-6s that were at least 20 years older than the "old" F-18s.

Dez
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:56:37 AM EST
It's gotta be a crime to have those B-1Bs in the boneyard.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:16:32 AM EST
A-6's haven't flown in almost 10 years.
You might have seen EA-6B's.

The last EA-6B's rolled off the Gruman assembly lines in 1991, so the newest are less than 15 years old.

EA-6B's are not supersonic pointy-nosed after burner powered 9g aircraft.
They do not fly "fighter based" ACM or DCAM.
They do not drop bombs or shoot guns.
They do not do low level.

The EA-6B is also having major structural problems, new composite center wing boxes are being made for them right now. Much like the A-6E.
A lot of the airframes are under g limiting restrictions.

The EA-6B is still flying as there is no aircraft that is currently in the US military inventory that can do the same job that it can.
It also benifits from the cash cow that is the USAF.
The program money that the USAF used to spend on the EF-111's and a portion of the F-4 Wild Weasel program is funnelled into the US Navy's EA-6B program.

There are no EA-6B's in the bone yard. There is only one EA-6B that is a static display aircraft, and that's located on board NAS Whidbey Island. You better believe that the airframe types "borrow" hard to get stuff off of that display aircraft when they need to.




Originally Posted By mdezdez:
Hi all,
A few comments.

The B-52s were covered under treaty, one of the ways you could tell the B-52H from teh G model was at the wing root. The wing root fairing could be picked up on satelite for counting purposes as the H model was a cruise missle shooter.

Davis Montham is incredible, I was there last December looking around, lots of hardware.

I was sailboat racing out of San Diego and one of the guys on the crew was in the Navy. As we passed the Naval Air Station at Coronado, he pointed out he "max time" F18s and F-14s that were grounded. It was pretty wild because they were still flying some A-6s that were at least 20 years older than the "old" F-18s.

Dez

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:20:23 AM EST
I drive past Davis-Monthan AFB fairly regularly and it's a cryin' shame to see all those beautiful warbirds just sitting there idle.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:24:05 AM EST
No, the crime was when the B-1's were built the entire spare parts portion of the program was underfunded and then cut.
No, they can not restart the B-1 production line or build more spare parts (for most of the major systems/subsystems/airframes) as the tooling, machines and jigs have long since been destroyed.

The USAF could keep all of the B-1's flying if they wanted to, all it takes in money.


Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
It's gotta be a crime to have those B-1Bs in the boneyard.

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:33:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

What pisses me off is the fact that Top Gun no longer even has any dissimilar aircraft for their adversary units....that is, if they still even have Top Gun or adversary units.
Does the USAF suffer the same issues too or is this mostly the USN/USMC caught with worn out adversary aircraft and no funding for new ones?



The Marine Corps only adversary squadron - VMFT-401 in Yuma AZ - flies F-5 E/F models and have recently replaced some of the older ones (some of which flew with the S. Vietmanese air force) with newer F-5's from Switzerland.

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:53:18 AM EST
Sad...very sad
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:42:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By klutz347:
If you can't believe the F-16's being parked then how about...
img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/klutz347/ArizonaTrip038.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/klutz347/ArizonaTrip043.jpg


or
img.photobucket.com/albums/v443/klutz347/ArizonaTrip039.jpg



I don't know the latest on this, but I have heard that thanks to the outstanding performance of the B-1's in Afghanistan and Iraq that they are going to pull allot of those out of the bone yard and put them back into service. I hope this is true. The B-1 is the best bomber we have. With the B-52 being a close second.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 3:36:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
I don't know the latest on this, but I have heard that thanks to the outstanding performance of the B-1's in Afghanistan and Iraq that they are going to pull allot of those out of the bone yard and put them back into service. I hope this is true. The B-1 is the best bomber we have. With the B-52 being a close second.


I hope your rumor turns out to be true. I love that plane. Best looking aircraft ever produced.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 3:54:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By phatmax:
I think one day we are going to count our lucky stars we mothballed these planes. If not for the actual planes, for the ability ro reverse engineer them.



That's just about the most chilling and sobering statement I've seen on this board.
Top Top