Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not Sell Some Of The "stuff" On Davis Monthan?  
User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Hi A.netters, I don't know if this has been discussed before.

I think I would be a great idea for the DoD to have an extra income (and also for aviation enthusiasts  ) to sell some of the stuff on Davis Monthan.

They could demilitarize some of the F15's, Phantoms and I'm even thinking of the C-130's and sell them off.

They would save the cost of having them stored, plus they also could provide maintenance so they can have some kind of income.

Seeing the photos on A.net and also looking on google earth ( as of Nov.10' ) I see 100+ C130's, 70+ F15's, 110+ Phantoms etc...

I'm pretty sure they would find some buyer!!

Cheers
R.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6024 times:

About half the airplanes stored at DM are 'on hold' for possible return to the US fleet, some 15% are used to harvest parts, and 10% are on hold for FMS. That leaves about 25% of the aircraft available for sales, but many are just to worn out to be flown ever again and will be scrapped. Some aircraft do get sold, mostly as water tankers to fight wild fires. But those airplanes need an FAA certification to be able to legally fly.

User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5985 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting 4tet (Thread starter):
They would save the cost of having them stored, plus they also could provide maintenance so they can have some kind of income.

Hello Roger,

Aircraft are stored at DM for a number of reasons, but one of the key ones is for reclamation of parts to keep other aircraft in the fleet flying. As most parts on an aircraft, especially a military aircraft are limited in availability, this process can provide a cost effective solution. For example, it is apparently cheaper in many cases to keep, salvage, inspect and approve a part from one of these aircraft than to try and source new original parts from the manufacturer. This is especially significant since by the time aircraft start arriving at DM, the type is likely to have been out of production and manufacturers are likely to have either stopped making parts or changed to newer (different) ones which may not be compatible. New parts are more expensive than reclaimed ones in any case. I understand that this processing at DM saves the US taxpayer significantly more money in reduced costs than it takes to run the place, so in effect, it already makes a healthy profit.

Older models of a type still often share many, many parts in common with their newer, upgraded sisters. A good example of this is the number of civilian Boeing 707 aircraft stored there for many years. These are used as parts sources for the 135 fleet. I'll bet this was a pretty cost effective investment on the Air Forces part.

Of course many aircraft are also stored for shorter periods before being rotated back into service and some are sold to other air arms, especially less weaponised vehicles such as light transports, trainers and helicopters. The dry atmosphere and suitable protection techniques ensures storage corrosion is minimal.

This is probably one of the most 'green' places in the aviation industry, where the environmental three 'R's - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - are followed to to the ultimate level!

An interesting place, I'd love to visit one day.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5821 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
About half the airplanes stored at DM are 'on hold' for possible return to the US fleet, some 15% are used to harvest parts, and 10% are on hold for FMS.

I think is fairly possible that most of that half 'on hold' won't be back to service, so assuming this maybe it would be even more profitable to sell them and with that money buy spares for other aircraft (In the case of the F15's for example).

Then comes the F4's that are fully retired in almost every NATO ( I think Germany is retiring them on 2012 ) except Japan, who's looking for a replacement. Then it makes no sense IMHO to store them then, because I don't think they're coming back to service with the F14, F16, F18, F22 still in service ( JSF? ), all much more capable than the F4. They're very well stored, see this photo ( http://www.panoramio.com/photo/27407366 ).

So, could I arrive to DM and for example 'ask' for an F4 ? ( If I had the money obviously, lol)

Salut
R.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Quoting 4tet (Reply 3):
So, could I arrive to DM and for example 'ask' for an F4 ?

It may be easier for you to purchase a Mig 25.  

Some F-4s are reincarnated as target drones . . . a really short second life I'd say.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKPHXFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 413 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

Quoting 4tet (Reply 3):
So, could I arrive to DM and for example 'ask' for an F4 ? ( If I had the money obviously, lol)

I recall when the USN retired the F-14 from active service (2005?) that Iran asked somewhat nicely if they could use them for spare parts as they have been flying F-14As from the days of the Shah. I believe the US said "not just no, but HE!! NO!"

So I think it will be a while yet before they release F-4s or F-14s for civilian use though it's not unheard of for former fighter planes converted to civilian use. But boy, could you imagine the fuel costs for either an F-4 or F-14? Although, such as with Hummers, if you can afford to buy one, fuel usually isn't a major cost factor.  


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2112 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5636 times:

Quoting KPHXFlyer (Reply 5):
So I think it will be a while yet before they release F-4s or F-14s for civilian use though it's not unheard of for former fighter planes converted to civilian use. But boy, could you imagine the fuel costs for either an F-4 or F-14

There already is a civilian F-4... the Collins Foundation has one. Unless you acquire an Iranian F-14 you will never see a civilian flying F-14... the CIA/US Government made sure of that.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 6):
There already is a civilian F-4... the Collins Foundation has one. Unless you acquire an Iranian F-14 you will never see a civilian flying F-14... the CIA/US Government made sure of that.

Does really make sense to stop civilians from buying F14 since its technology its pretty obsolete vs. 4th and 5th generation fighters?

They could demiliterize them "just in case"

Editing: Plus, economically, some (I don't know, let's say 1M or 2M for a F4?) at 3% - 4% interest, annually it's between 30k - 80k so you can certainly buy some parts with that I suppose

[Edited 2010-05-26 16:09:14]

User currently offlineKPHXFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 413 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

Quoting KPHXFlyer (Reply 5):
There already is a civilian F-4... the Collins Foundation has one.

I didn't know that, thanks!

Iran also flies F-4s...do you know if the US government put similar restrictions on mothballed F-4s as the F-14s?


User currently offlineKingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5516 times:

All the US's F-14s outside of a museum have been destroyed as a means to prevent Iran from getting spare parts. So as a result the only ones that could be "civilionized" would have to come from Iran.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting 4tet (Reply 3):
Then comes the F4's that are fully retired in almost every NATO ( I think Germany is retiring them on 2012 ) except Japan, who's looking for a replacement. Then it makes no sense IMHO to store them then, because I don't think they're coming back to service

The F-4 is still flown by Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and Greece, too.


User currently offlineboeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):

The F-4 is still flown by Israel
, Turkey, Egypt, and Greece, too.

Israel no longer flies the F-4. You can add Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea Air Force and of course the USAF into that list though.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4972 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I see that one of the F-4's has been earmarked for a museum in the Netherlands. I imagine several others will go the same way with the QF-4 program winding down and Germany retiring their F-4's soon. Don't know when the other nations plan to finally withdraw theirs, but there are still a few years worth of 'spares duty' required from the desert F-4's yet.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 4949 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
It may be easier for you to purchase a Mig 25.

I suppose the point then would be the spares and the manteinence, much difficult than the F4 in the western countries.

Could the F4 became the 'new' L-39? I mean in terms of private users that fly them, for aviability and easy to find spares, the large number built ( 5000+ ), and the 'low price' ( US$2.4 million when new as per wiki )


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Also for example the US DoS has just ordered 120 remanufactured SeaKings, which are also coming from AMARC. new Zealand has taken delivery of 10 Seasprites in the past few months as well, and stred F-16s will be the source of Romania's 24-unit order, if it ever goes through. Italy did a similar thing with their F-16As, though they've managed to destroy 5 so far.

I personally think older F-16A/Bs should be used in the CONUS by ANG units, most in storage have far fewer airframe hours than active -C models. There's a stink here because the Buckley AFB units are flying ones beyond their normal lifespan (8000 hours).



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

I wish they would allow some Stored Aircraft to be sold. I would love a TA-4 or a HH-3H. In fact they had a huge sell off of TA-4's and A-4M's and in the govt. Auction stie 100 percent of the aircraft had to be reduced to no more then 12 inch squares. I know they are affraid of selling Tactial Aircraft off, for fear that someone will sell them overseas, but you can buy and import anoher country's Tactial aircraft ( The Sea Harrier in VA and the EE lightining and the Drakens and Migs and Su's that have shown up) but you can't get a TA-4 here. Also on the Tomcats the scuttlebutt was the DOD was affraid of letting some end up in overseas museums for fear of that some items would be sold off, even though most Tomcats in US were gutted real bad for fear of Tomcat parts showing up on eBay and going overseas. The funny part is most Warbirds that were sold off made it out of the scrapping that went on after WWII and are great reminders of our Avation History, but sadly we will never see a bunch of Jets flying from the 80's Flying the same way. I do hope a few more A-4's and F-4's make it out intact and a Intruder or Prowler, a Corsair II and a Viking and F-15 , F-111 and even a few C-141's make it out one day. Can you imagine 20 years from now a Fly by with a A7, F-4U at a airshow.   Oh and I forgot the Collings guys are trying to get a F-105D flying  

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Not Sell Some Of The "stuff" On Davis Monthan?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Is The US In Possession Of The Mig-29? posted Mon Dec 11 2006 10:05:02 by B737-112
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 06:15:08 by ERAUMcDlover
Impact Of The Pentagon's Tanker Decision On Brac? posted Sat Jun 4 2005 04:08:53 by STT757
C-5: People Looking Out Of The Roof Hatch, Why? posted Sun Jul 4 2004 01:21:00 by Sabena332
Why Not Keep The F-14 As A Full Time Bomber? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 06:20:01 by CX747
Why Not Keep The F-14? posted Mon May 20 2002 21:42:55 by CX747
Davis Monthan, 1966-68 posted Sat Mar 27 2010 12:18:15 by GDB
Korean War Exhibit At The National Museum Of The U posted Sun Feb 21 2010 17:41:59 by broke
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why Not A Dedicated Tanker Design For The Usaf? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 04:20:46 by Dandy_don
Is The F-22 Necessary, Why Not Newer F-15? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 06:15:08 by ERAUMcDlover
Impact Of The Pentagon's Tanker Decision On Brac? posted Sat Jun 4 2005 04:08:53 by STT757
C-5: People Looking Out Of The Roof Hatch, Why? posted Sun Jul 4 2004 01:21:00 by Sabena332
Why Not Keep The F-14 As A Full Time Bomber? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 06:20:01 by CX747
Why Not Keep The F-14? posted Mon May 20 2002 21:42:55 by CX747
Aircraft Used In The Assault On Osama Bin Laden posted Mon May 2 2011 10:12:44 by tugger

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format