If 140 F16’s are too much for the ROK defense budget to support, maybe the ROKAF should cut back to half that number and then concentrate on keeping that half 90% operational

Actually the ROKAF should have consolidated its fighter force around the F-15 and F-16 while at the same time phasing out its ageing F-4Es and F-5E/Fs. This way it could have concentrated its
maintenance budget on its most modern and capable
fighters instead of spreading out its resources.

When the 140 KF-16s were bought by the ROKAF, they
were to replace F-4s and F-5s. They did replace
2 F-4 squadrons and 1 F-5 squadron, but for some
reason or another they didn’t replace the other
4 F-5 squadrons. Instead the ROKAF chose to maintain quantity over quality, which has led to the current crop of problems.

Of course if the ROKAF can’t handle its F-16s, then there is the Gripen. The Swedes designed the Gripen so that it can be maintained and serviced by poorly trained conscripts, this combined with the fact that it is a high performance fourth generation fighter with network centric capabilities, makes it a perfect fighter for the ROKAF.

Of course I don’t know USAF operational readiness reporting standards and procedures, but I assume that the US commanders concerned are expected to maintain a 90% operational readiness rating; if the USAF is like the US Army used to be, the operational readiness status of the aircraft will have to be reported in writing daily (5 times per week).

Any extraordinary change in status for some reason (ie a defective part is found common to all the aircraft) will initiate extraordinary action by the units concerned (Cdr USFK and his staff is notified, USAF initiates emergency resupply from CONUS to fly in spare parts, maint crews go to a 24/7 shift schedule until the problem is fixed).

I presume ROKAF officers have extensive experience with their USAF counterparts and USAF standards, to include much joint training. So why would they take such an extraordinary risk with current operational readiness?

Either they didn’t know, which doesn’t say much for their operational readiness reporting system, or they knew and deliberately chose to take the risk anyway. Perhaps they robbed Peter to pay Paul, confident that in the event of any real emergency they’d have enough weeks of advance warning to request emergency resupply/assistance from USAF?

If that’s what it was/is, let’s hope that if the balloon ever goes up in Korea that the USAF isn’t over-committed with its own F16’s and their support systems to some crisis elsewhere in the world — and unable to respond to ROKAF needs rapidly enough.

Of course this is just speculation on my part, still it’d be interested to know the actual facts. Since all this is highly confidential I doubt that we will ever know, unless some intrepid ROK reporter does more digging.

If 140 F16’s are too much for the ROK defense budget to support, maybe the ROKAF should cut back to half that number and then concentrate on keeping that half 90% operational. That way ROK citizens will know exactly what they have available, in the event of war (unthinkable though such a war might be).

The Korea Times article refers to a total of 140 F-16 models in ROKAF, mentioning that over 50 of these have been grounded for inspection of maintenance defects.

“….the Air Force has grounded more than 50 KF-16s to inspect for engine defects, while the Board of Audit and Inspection is investigating it regarding the maintenance fiasco.

According to the document, the Air Force used 125.2 billion won of maintenance budget for the development of KF-16 aircraft and T-50 supersonic trainers. It also used 122.4 billion won for relief efforts including the repair of an air base in Kangnung, Kangwon Province, hit by a typhoon in 2002.

Due to budget strains, Air Force engineers replaced problematic parts with ones from other aircraft, it said. As a result, the operational aircraft rate fell from 89.3 percent in 2000 to 77.8 percent in 2006.

Four KF-16 fighters have crashed since South Korea acquired the U.S.-made planes in the 1990s. The Air Force now has about 140 KF-16s _ each costing $43 million to produce and more than $720,000 annually to maintain, Air Force officials said.”

That’s a significantly low operational readiness rate…

2.3 trillion!!!! That’s an amazing allegation, even for CBS news.

And I see the date on the link is Jan 2002! So this alleged 2.3 trillion loss must have occurred prior to the Iraq invasion, though the time frame for when this alleged loss occurred is rather conveniently omitted.

I think the annual US defense budget total is only around half a trillion; the Bush administration had only been in power less than a year at the time of this story, so presumably the majority of the loss has to be looked for in previous administrations.

I’ll bet you’ve been saving up this link for quite some time, waiting for an opportunity to use it. Does your publication of it now constitute a retroactive endorsement of its source — the now-departed SecDef Rumsfeld?

From what I’ve seen of your comments here, such an endorsement might also constitute a “trillion-dollar” story.

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 29, 2002
——————————————————————————–
The Pentagon. (AP)

(CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy,” he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

“In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death,” he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11– the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, “my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending.”

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted…..

Nope, she hasn’t.

at least the money missapropriated by the pentagon isn’t going to its enemy - and the enemy of its allies. From the article in question:

“…diverted…for other purposes such as the development of fighter jets and relief activities between 2000 and 2005…”

Relief activities means North Korea. The NK regime uses relief aid (particularly the no-strings-attached South Korean Sunshine variety)to strengthen its regime. See:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwar.....4152_0.htm