"JD" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
"JD" wrote in message
om...
rec.aviation.military added.
"Brash" wrote in message
u...
They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line.

JSF = F-35?

The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
experience.

How many Block 60's have you seen offered for "lease"? The only lease
deal
for F-16's that I know of is the Italian one, for refurbished old F-16
ADF
variants.

But we have a special relationship. It is something we should be
considering.

I don't think our "special relationship" has much to do with it. As long as
LMCO can keep finding *buyers* for the F-16 Block 60 they are not going to
be too interested in doing a lease deal with anyone unless it is one that
offers them an end outcome as favorable as purchasing does. Purchase price
for a Block 60 is over $30 million per--not too awful far from the estimated
price range of the F-35.

Only a fool thinks that the F-35 will be delivered on
time.

When is "on time"? Yeah, the originally projected schedule has slipped a
year or so, IIRC--no big surprise there. But the USAF, and especially the
USMC, are facing a real timecrunch in the future as to replacing some of
their older airframes (especially F/A-18 early mods and AV-8B's), so I sort
of see a lot of pressure to keep the F-35 schedule in the current ballpark.



To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.

Again, how many F-15's of *any* type, much less the Tango, have been
leased,
or offered for lease?

Off hand i don't know, but that doesn't prevent us asking for them.

The answer is "none". The only US manufactured combat aircraft currently
available for lease are older F-16 versions. The USAF does not have an
overabundance of E models just sitting around, so that source is a
non-starter. Boeing is going to keep the F-15 line going for as long as they
can sell them, but they would be unlikely to agree to a lease deal
(especially for the paltry number you are talking about) unless they can
plan on recouping a roughly similar profit margin from the deal. What you
are proposing appears to be quite a bit different from the Boeing proposal
to lease 767's to the USAF, where they have been keen to keep the current
assembly line operating; the F-15 production line is in its twilight years
( I doubt there will be much chance of selling new-builds to anyone else
after the Singapore selection is done with).


Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
getting refuelling capability.

These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.

An F-15T is cheaper than what the F-35 is supposed to cost?

Certainly. The latest F-15 is in production for less than half of the
production cost of the F-22, which is marginally more expensive than
the proposed cost for the F-35.

Estimates I have seen for the F-35 start at around $38 million
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-35.htm) and run
to $45 million per (http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=777). Cost for an
F-15 back in the late 98 was running around $43 million (according to FAS)
per, IIRC--the F-15K is costing the ROKAF some $3.2 billion for 40 aircraft,
which is around $80 million per copy. So I am not sure your solution is the
slam-dunk "cheaper" option that you portray it as being ($80 million per
leaves a LOT of expansion room for the F-35 unit cost to expand and still
come in under the F-15K).


As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego
and politics intervene.

But you may get a more realistic one than the lease of late model
variants
that are the least likely to be offered on lease.

Granted, but it doesn't hurt to ask and it is a better plan than
putting missiles on Orions!

If the RAAF really had its back to the wall in terms of replacing the F-111
with a similarly capable strike platform in the near term, and leasing is
the way you want to go, I'd suggest that a more realistic way of taking
advantage of that "special relationship" would be to talk the US into
loaning (or leasing at nominal/symbolic rate) about four B-1B's. That way
you only require a minimum of 16 rated aircrew (and IIRC keeping aircrew for
the current F-111 fleet has been a significant problem) to keep them mission
capable, and each one hauls a lot of munitions. Getting an older aircraft
like that at good terms would be a lot more likely than your F-15T at
similarly good terms option, IMO. Scratch the F-16 proposal at the get-go;
keep your F/A-18's flying and updated until the F-35 is available.

Brooks