Purchase of equipment

God Bless USA

New Member
Would a country be better off buying a type of military equipment over the number of years it is suppose to last? Say the USAF needs 2000 fighters. The fighters have a life span of 21 years. Say you buy 98 per year (a few extra over 21 years for experiments, accidents, etc.). Wouldn't you be able to keep up with technology and keep you average age of your equipment low? I'm not just saying fighters but all the equipment the military needs.
 

God Bless USA

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
It buys them in large lots at the beginning of production. That is why right now the average age of the USAF fighters is so high. Take the F-15 Eagle (A&B models) for instance it was first produced in the early 1970"s. Next came the F-15 Eagle C&D models in 1979. They produced large amounts at the beginning of a program and if it successful (which the F-15 Eagle sure was) as years go by they produce fewer. What happens is what we have now a fighter fleet with a high average age.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Take the F-15 Eagle (A&B models) for instance it was first produced in the early 1970"s. Next came the F-15 Eagle C&D models in 1979.
Yes?

A/B:
- 1973: 23x F-15A, 7x F-15B (30)
- 1974: 56x F-15A, 6x F-15B (62)
- 1975: 62x F-15A, 10x F-15B (72)
- 1976: 111x F-15A, 19x F-15B (130)
- 1977: 93x F-15A, 15x F-15B (108)
C/D:
- 1978: 83x F-15C, 14x F-15D (97)
- 1979: 67x F-15C, 11x F-15D (78)
- 1980: 105x F-15C, 8x F-15D (113)
- 1981: 37x F-15C, 5x F-15D (43)
- 1982: 31x F-15C, 5x F-15D (36)
- 1983: 34x F-15C, 5x F-15D (39)
- 1984: 31x F-15C, 5x F-15D (36)
- 1985: 39x F-15C, 3x F-15D (42)
- 1986: 38x F-15C, 2x F-15D (40)

(probably missed some, take em as rough numbers)

Both A/B and C/D have in common that there was one year in which a large number was delivered, however that's not really at the start. In particular with A/B, it's the other way around.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Something to think about is that if you deliver brand new aircraft over the whole expected life of the purchase, then the last aircraft delivered would be brand new and yet unable to be used as they would be obsolete. Sure avionics can be upgraded but the basic structure and design can become generationally obsolete (eg gen 4 vs gen 5 fighter aircraft). A more usual approach is that laid out by Kato, deliveries normally follow the F15A/B model where they are delivered over a number of years but normally not right before they are programmed to be replaced.
 

God Bless USA

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Great stats by kato, thank you! The only problem to me though is like the F-15 C/D Eagle. They stopped in 1986. Then when a replacement aircraft is going through the development to production stage it seems there is always delays. This increases the average age of the aircraft.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Great stats by kato, thank you! The only problem to me though is like the F-15 C/D Eagle. They stopped in 1986. Then when a replacement aircraft is going through the development to production stage it seems there is always delays. This increases the average age of the aircraft.
I don't see a problem. F-15C production ended, but they were already tooling up for F-15E production. The gap in deliveries was short, & the production line was never really idle.
 

God Bless USA

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
The F-15C Eagle if a fighter. The replacement for the is the F-22 Raptor. The F-15E Eagle surves a different role than the 15C. I don't understand politics. The Airforce wants more F-22 Raptors but will they get them?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The USAF might get a few more F-22As, but not many. As I have noted before, none of the six organizations have given the green light to produce Raptors with a multi-year program. Thus Congress votes for their production every year. All it takes is a no from Congress, and the program will end, the construction line will close. No business can keep a line open if there are no aircraft to build. Keep in mind there have been many problems with the Raptors, these problems and the costs overrun have not helped the situation any at all.

These six organizations weren't created to stop the Raptor either, most would probably like to buy more Raptors, but there are constraints, I don't think any of these organizations will ever white wash problems. Why? They are our watch dogs. Once the watch dogs become complacent, we might as well stop being a independent nation.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
This reminds me of a story. After the US Civil War, the US Navy was as large and as new as ever. With so many ships, many were scrapped. No new ships were built, older ships were rebuilt.

America had its eyes focused on Manifest Destiny, the winning of the West. This was Army focused, and the Army received the lion's share of our funding.

Fast forward twenty years. During the past twenty years we let our navy rot. By this time our missionaries had reached Samoa. Steam ships were replacing sailing vessels. Ironclads were replacing wooden vessels. Since the steam ships were fueled by coal, none of the steam ships could steam to Asia without a refueling stop. To make a long story short.

At that same time Germany was expanding its influence, our missionaries and German marines conflicted at Samoa, the other islands had already fallen to European conquests, besides Hawaii which has another story.

German marines burned down American missions, and British businesses. Outraged America sent three wooden hulled square rigged steamers. The Germans sent three ironclads. Not to be ignored the British sent their armored ship, Calliope.

A large typhoon strikes the islands, not once but twice, as it made a U-turn. The British ship rode the storm out at sea, the Germans and the Americans played a game of chicken, refusing to leave. After the storm all three of the German ships and all three of the American ships dragged their anchors, struck, and sunk on the reefs.

The British ship returns after the storm. The British win again. Aware that the US and Germany would need a coaling station in the Pacific, the British split Samoa three ways. That is how the US gained American Samoa. The British were more interested in keeping the Germans and the Americans out of their other Pacific territories.

We didn't buy, we didn't win, nor did we annex American Samoa.

Furthermore, the US Navy was down to less than 20 ships. Those three ships at Samoa were our Pacific fleet, all of it. It didn't take long before the cries went out, where is our fleet? America started to build its new steel navy, the navy which within ten years won the Spanish-American War.

The moral of the story from a military point of view is its not a good idea not to buy warships over a period of twenty years, by then the fleet will be obsolete. The US couldn't do so during the late 1800s, and we can't do so now in the twenty-first century.
 
Top