Forum: Off-topic

The Royal Australian Air Force (my home country's air force) has the make-do mentality of keeping aircraft in service well past their use-by date, in this case, the F-111 Aardvarks purchased form the United States.

They have been upgraded to keep them in service to the 2020s.

Wonder why the United States Air Force doesn't normally follow this practice as routine, e.g they should have kept F-4s and F-111s in service until 2015, even when the F-15E Strike Eagle enteres service.

They are already doing so with their B-52s, planning to retire them in 2040.

Maybe the only time they should retire a class of aircraft is when some start to break up mid-flight.

Or is it because certain types of aircraft have a longer or shorter lifetime than others?

No wonder some foreign air forces have kept obsolete aircraft in service past their use-by dates.

F-16.net Sponsor

Aircraft don't have "use-by" dates, they're not cartons of milk, but they do have limiting factors such as stress on the airframe that can cause failures. The longer an aircraft is in service, the more it costs to keep the plane flyable--and more hours in the shop to do the maintenance. Sooner or later, the plane gets too expensive, and instead of using money to keep the planes in the air, they use the money to get new planes.

There is also the fact that technology improves continuously, the F-4 wasn't designed with that much growth potential, its original design was for an interceptor--and while it grew into a multirole aircraft, there probably were some growing pains. Nowadays, the market has gone away from single-role jets like fighters and attackers, into multirole aircraft designed from the start to have guns, maneuverability, and a wide range of armament from the get-go.

The F-4s were tired old birds by the time their service was done.

I can't speak much on the 'Vark but, as for the Rhino, they were replaced because the F-15 and F-16 outclassed them. The F-4 design was obsolete, and with the F-15 and F-16 more than making up for the shortcomings of the older jet. it was retired. The F-4's last mission, SEAD was taken over by the F-16, which being more maneuverable than the F-4, is better. Also two aircrew were required for both the F-4 and the F-111, while the F-15E retains the WSO, the other two aircraft that overtook the F-4 only have a single-place cockpit.

The Varks were taken out of service because they weren't really suited to the Post-Cold War world, and again, newer, more capable designs took over where the Vark left off. While some can argue that the Spark Vark (EF-111) was needed to give the USAF an EW capability of their own. the jets were big, and after the recession, I'd think the USAF will look into regaining this capability for themselves.

Now the B-52s are a different story, they're the oldest planes in the USAF, but since there isn't a plan on the table for their replacement, they will continue to serve. The XB-70, B-1, and B-2 programs all had an aim to retire the Stratofortress, but the XB-70 got nixed, the B-1A got redesigned, and the B-2 isn't around in big enough numbers.

As for why the RAAF still flies Varks? I think I heard something about the RAAF retiring them in favor of the Hornet.

The USAF aircraft have seen a lot more combat than those of the RAAF, and high-stress maneuvers aren't good for an airframe.

You tend to see older aircraft in less-prosperous countries for a few reasons (not all but some):
1. Lack of economy--they'll take as much as they can get for as cheap as they can get it
2. That same lack of economy may also translate into less money for fuel, which means the jets spend most of their time on the ground, which means less stress on the airframe.
3. Lack of enemies: if there's nobody that is threatening a country, there is no need for a modern air force (think Israel as the reverse of this)

For example, I believe The Gambia still has a grand total of one Su-25 as their entire air force--but they don't have a need for a big air force since they don't have that big of a population or any significant enemies.

This should be a good primer, and I'm sure someone else will come along and discuss further. They will probably have more/better things to say on this, as I may have incomplete/wrong info.

78\/
307

PS. I think there might already be a thread about this topic

ptplauthor wrote:

Now the B-52s are a different story, they're the oldest planes in the USAF,

Actually the KC-135's are older than the B-52's. The oldest in service KC-135's were built in 1956, while the H model Buffs were built starting in 1960. There are hundreds of -135's that are older than the oldest B-52H

I think the Aussies were smart to keep flying the -111. We should have kept flying ours. They were HUGELY successful in the Gulf so I don't buy the 'Cold War is over' mentality and I think their retirement was more politics than age. I don't know about the other -111s but the FB-111/F-111Gs that I worked flew pretty well without a lot of maintenance downtime and had recentley received a Billion dollar Avionics upgrade just before they were retired. In fact the Aussies bought a couple of dozen of our G models for their own use. Sorry, their retirement has been a bitter pill for me to swallow.

Quote:

Actually the KC-135's are older than the B-52's. The oldest in service KC-135's were built in 1956, while the H model Buffs were built starting in 1960. There are hundreds of -135's that are older than the oldest B-52H

True, and they are one of the hardest working jets (and crews) in the Air Force. They (and the Herky Birds) have still seen a lot of time in the air, and while the tankers and transports don't go downtown, they still get handled roughly, I'd imagine. The Herky Bird proved to be a better design, when it came time to design the successor, and the Stratotanker hasn't been retired because of all the bungling with the successor.

I agree, the Varks the RAAF has should serve until there is a worthy successor for their needs. They might have been retired from the USAF because they saw the capabilities as redundant with the F-15E and the F-16. Probably streamlining their capabilities.

But are obsolete aircraft still useful in modern combat?

Plausible.

e.g. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) operated obsolescent F-86 Sabres (E, F and Canadair-built models) from the '50s or '60s until they retired them in 1980.

The Albanian Air Force operated Shenyang J-2s (Chinese built MiG-15s) until all their planes were grounded.

The Vietnam People's Air Force used their MiG-17s to good effect against USAF Thuds and Rhinos.

Every existing MiG-21 operator still finds the rocketship useful after five decades.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force still operates F-14A Tomcats that have not been upgraded since the Iran-Contra Affair.

Quote:

The Albanian Air Force operated Shenyang J-2s (Chinese built MiG-15s) until all their planes were grounded.

Well, take your pick as to the reason....

Quote:

1. Lack of economy--they'll take as much as they can get for as cheap as they can get it
2. That same lack of economy may also translate into less money for fuel, which means the jets spend most of their time on the ground, which means less stress on the airframe.

This may be a different situation (can't remember when the embargoes went into effect.)

Quote:

e.g. The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) operated obsolescent F-86 Sabres (E, F and Canadair-built models) from the '50s or '60s until they retired them in 1980.

Quote:

The Vietnam People's Air Force used their MiG-17s to good effect against USAF Thuds and Rhinos.

If it works, why would they take a different aircraft--remember the Farmer and Fishbed were designed as interceptors (though they were capable in a dogfight--remember they had cannons), missiles with men in them.

Quote:

Every existing MiG-21 operator still finds the rocketship useful after five decades.

Not every--Russia took them out of service IIRC. The MiG-21 is an example of a good jet, Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich hit a winner with the -21. A lot of those countries don't need a newer plane because most don't have much in the way of enemies or are impoverished that it would take a sizeable chunk of their economy to procure new aircraft. Some of those countries may not buy new aircraft because they fear an uprising that will topple the government for spending money on military things that will spend most of their time on the ground or doing parades when the money would have been better used to fix the civilian problems.

Quote:

The Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force still operates F-14A Tomcats that have not been upgraded since the Iran-Contra Affair.

If the IRIAF still has F-14s flying, it's due to indigenously designed parts, there's a slim chance there ain't something vital broke on those jets. With the US embargo in regards to Tomcat parts sales, I'd guess the F-14s engines are about kaput.

And since the USAF is planning to retire the F-15C/D Eagles from operational service in 2025, would you be uncomfortable flying a plane much older than you because it would risk breaking up pulling high G maneuvers in the middle of a dogfight?

Forum: Off-topic

Keeping combat aircraft in service past their use-by date