"Obsolete" planes still dishing it out

[Gixxerman]

Early (C D version Me/BF) 109's used in the 1st night fighter units?

 

[yulzari]

Arado 68 biplanes used as night fighters 1939/40.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

This aircraft was neither obsolete or obsolescent

RC, Admittedly the PBY was subject to a number and variety of pre- and wartime upgrades which would suggest an aircraft in tune with its era, but with a first flight in early 1935, it could hardly be called state of the art. The fact that, like it's distant naval cousin, the venerable Swordfish, it soldiered on throughout the war would seem to be a prime example of an elderly aircraft still able to 'dish it out.' Also, the many more modern platforms that were introduced to 'replace' it but could never quite manage to do so is, in MHO, a testament to this old bird simply finding a perfect niche other more modern aircraft just weren't suited to fill.

 

[nuuumannn]

Virtually everything the RAF operated post-war! Meteors, Vampires, Hunters, Shackletons, Vulcans, Victors, Lightnings, Buccaneers, Ansons, Canberras... it's just the real useful stuff, like the Harrier that they retire prematurely!

 

[parsifal]

ouch, thats harsh

 

[GregP]

They retired the F-14 prematurely, but they did it.

They reired the Hellcat prematurely, but they did it.

They retired the Bearcat prematurely, but they did it.

I think they should have kept the F-86 around longer, too.

 

[buffnut453]

it's just the real useful stuff, like the Harrier that they retire prematurely!

The only premature part about the Harrier's retirement was related to the delay in delivering the QEII-class carriers. There is no need for STOVL in the RAF today. An early decision to go with the CTOL F-35C would have reduced the complexity/cost of the initial QEII design by removing the need to provide both ramp or catapult options. It would also have reduced the F-35 programme costs and complexity by effectively removing the need for the F-35B which is less capable and more complex than the A or C variants. Given these factors, both the QEII and F-35 might have been closer to their delivery schedules and the MOD might have had enough spondooleys to fund the Harrier mafia for a few more years, hence removing the FAA's current capability gap entirely.

 

[nuuumannn]

There is no need for STOVL in the RAF today.

I can't agree or disagree with that, but you might be missing the point behind the Harrier; not only was it capable of STOVL, but it was a very good combat aircraft, one that with the ever dwindling capability of the British armed forces wouldn't be the poorer had it kept it. By the way, that comment was a little flippant, I know, tinged with a pinch of truth, however. How many of the aircraft I listed served with the RAF for much longer - for whatever reason - than was originally intended when they entered service, owing to the situation the RAF and FAA has found itself as a result of retiring the Harrier?

Greg, when the US armed forces retired all the aircraft you listed it did not leave a capability gap quite like that which retiring the Harrier did.

 

[GrauGeist]

"They retired the F-14 prematurely" - With the mission-capable F-18's introduction, the larger and more expensive Tomcat was no longer nessecary.

"They reired the Hellcat prematurely" - Towards the end of it's service, it was living in the jet age and the Skyraider was far more capable in the GA role.

"They retired the Bearcat prematurely" - Same as the Hellcat.

"I think they should have kept the F-86 around longer" - As a second generation jet, it was living at the Mach envelope while the next generation jets were exceeding it's abilities. Even though it proved it's worth time and again as a very capable fighting platform, it's time in the sun had come and gone.

 

[buffnut453]

I can't agree or disagree with that, but you might be missing the point behind the Harrier; not only was it capable of STOVL, but it was a very good combat aircraft, one that with the ever dwindling capability of the British armed forces wouldn't be the poorer had it kept it.

I don't disagree that the Harrier was a good combat aircraft but, unfortunately, with the exception of the afloat role, Tornado can do everything that the Harrier did, hence my comments about smarter decisions to reduce complexity/cost of both QEII and JSF. Had those intelligent decisions been made, there might not have been any capability gap afloat. Sadly, maintaining multiple aircraft that all perform similar roles is just not affordable.

 

[GregP]

The Harrier was a good aircraft, and its retirement DID leave a capability gap. I believe STOVL capability will prove useful in today's world, but am not sure the F-35 should be the one to do it. Going with the original concept of the Super Harrier might have been a better choice. Of course, funding the TSR-2 would also have made the Jaguar unnecessary, too.

Graugeist, it is funny you should think the F-86 was past reirement age since only 10 years later an older jet many thought was obsolete was fast being reappraised as a very potent dogfighter in Viet Nam. I'm speaking of the MiG-17 of course. The Hellcat and Bearcat were both powered by the R-2800, were in service and PAID FOR, and could have given good service for many more years. Let's say we disagree and leave at that.

In the event, we know what happened. I simply believe it was the wrong choice, though it did not leave a capability gap except maybe in the sheer volume of close air support available in a pinch.

 

[woljags]

a26 re used in Vietnam and vickers valentia in Africa at the start of ww2 come to mind when thinking of this thread

 

[GregP]

The A-26 is an often overlooked plane that was and remains quite capable in some missions. Today, it would be best if re-equipped with truboprops, but the few remaining flyable are still formiidable in their capabilities. If flew in WWII, the Bay of Pigs, Korea, and Viet Nam. Quite a record for only a few aircraft.

 

[nuuumannn]

I don't disagree that the Harrier was a good combat aircraft but, unfortunately, with the exception of the afloat role, Tornado can do everything that the Harrier did,

Well, not everything. The Harrier offered flexibility that the Tornado could not match. Nevertheless, like you said, the reason was cost. I understand why they did it, I just don't think it was the best decision.

Of course, funding the TSR-2 would also have made the Jaguar unnecessary, too.

The TSR.2 was a different kettle of fish, and yes, it did leave a capability gap that was eventually filled with the acquisition of Buccaneers (see my ealier post about obsolescent aircraft dishing it out - Buccs were retired in the early '90s) and Tornadoes. Ironically, the circumstances that led to its creation; the rush of the British companies to produce a design to fulfil the Canberra replacement spec because of the 1957 White Paper ensured that it became a monster, a greater entity than the original Canberra replacement spec stipulated, when what the RAF could have had was a Tornado 15 years earlier - less capable than the TSR.2, but sustainable and not likely to incur the suspicion of the Treasury.

The Jaguar was borne out of a common fast jet trainer requirement for France and the RAF, but by default became a strike aircraft - and a very good one, although it was often said that Jaguar was the only strike aircraft that counted its take-off run in its combat radius!

 

[GregP]

Let's see, if I recall correctly, they said of the F-105 Thundrechief:

"If they made a runway that went all the way around the world and joined itself, Republic would make a plane that couldn't take off from it on a hot and humid day!"

The first thing any F-105 flight in Viet Nam did after takeoff and join up was to hit a tanker! The first thing they did after coming off target was to search for a tanker.

An F-105 without tanker support wasn't much of a warplane, but it DID use fuel like a small creek!

 

[Johnny .45]

I don't think I can add anything specific to the list that hasn't already been added, whether obsolete or obsolescent, but I would like to add that I'm always a little annoyed at people who pay too much attention to the "numbers" regarding aircraft, and ignore aircraft that aren't the cutting edge. There were so many older, slower types performing yeoman work in WWII that never get a fraction of the attention their contributions deserve. Everyone has got posters of the Lancasters and P-51's and B-17's and F6F's hanging up, while to contributions of the unsung are only of interest to a minority. No one would give a spit about the Hurricane if it hadn't been for the Battle of Britain. The Sunderland was crucial to taking out the U-boat threat (as was the B-24, among all its other achievements). The B-48 did good work patrolling the US coast line. The Hs 123 was slogging it out in Russia until the end, and the F4F Wildcat did all the hardest fighting in the Pacific; the F6F really just mopped up a lot of untrained and outnumbered Japanese pilots in inferior aircraft.
Not that the famous types didn't do their share, just that there are so many types you never hear about at all. Thousands or men flew in these aircraft, or worked on them. To a PV-2 Harpoon pilot, his plane was very important to the war effort. He spent hours patrolling over open ocean, looking for U-boats to destroy. Just by being there he forced them to be more cautious and hurt their effectiveness, even if he never got a chance to drop a depth charge on one. He put in his hours just as much as a guy flying a P-51 over Germany, looking for a fight with the Luftwaffe, and flying combat of any sort is dangerous. Men were killed flying transports; patrol planes disappeared over the ocean. They gave their lives just as much as anyone shot down in a dogfight, or any bomber crewman who went down in flames over Berlin. Same is true of men flying aircraft like the Wellington or the Hampden, flying "easy" targets over France...an "easy" target in an aircraft like the Hampden is almost as dangerous as flying to Berlin in a Lancaster!

 

[GregP]

The B-48 didn't fly until 1947 and never made it into service.

Maybe you're thinking of the B-18? It was the first American plane to sink a U-boat, if I recall correctly. And the 4 IS right over the 1 on the keypad.

 

[GrauGeist]

Graugeist, it is funny you should think the F-86 was past reirement age since only 10 years later an older jet many thought was obsolete was fast being reappraised as a very potent dogfighter in Viet Nam. I'm speaking of the MiG-17 of course. The Hellcat and Bearcat were both powered by the R-2800, were in service and PAID FOR, and could have given good service for many more years. Let's say we disagree and leave at that.

We could say "that we disagree and leave it at that" for the final word and shut down any debate, but that's not the point of a discussion, is it? (unless it's with my ex...and then it's a lost cause)

Sure, the R-2800 was paid for (along with a massive pile of other hardware) but unless you're willing to run a Model T at the Indy 500 against modern types, you have to look at the performance/risk factor involved.

It would be like me saying "well, why don't we send the Me262 to Korea, since it's shot down more aircraft than any other jet". The Hellcat and Bearcat were on the tail end of a war of a different time. The great fighters of the 1930's were being outclassed by the fighters of the 1940's and so it was with the fighters of the 1940's being outclassed by the fighters of the 1950's.

The Mig-17 was of a different school of thought, it performed well at lower speeds and it took a little work by the F-100 drivers to deal with that. On the otherhand, the MiG-19 threat was dealt with by other tactics. This diversity was something that certainly sounds familiar from a war only 5 years earlier, right?

So what it boils down to, is the prop jobs were on their way out and the F-86, as attractive as it was, lived on borrowed time as technology advanced.

 

[GregP]

OK, we disagree.

But that's OK. I understand your point of view and can agree with some of it, but all not in the end.

Still, we already know what happened, and your point of view won out.

Maybe it should have and maybe it shouldn't have. Alternate histories are fiction (and maybe make for a good novel), so we are left with yours.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Mig-17 was of a different school of thought, it performed well at lower speeds and it took a little work by the F-100 drivers to deal with that. On the otherhand, the MiG-19 threat was dealt with by other tactics. This diversity was something that certainly sounds familiar from a war only 5 years earlier, right?
.

The F-100 may have shot down the first Mig-17 of the Vietnam war, but that's the only Mig shot down by a F-100.

Most of the Migs were shot down by F-4s, flown by both the Navy and USAF over N.Vietnam, but quite a number were brought down by the old lead sled F-105 also.

I won't deny that the F-105 was a thirsty aircraft, but it combat radius and ferry range was several hundred miles more than a F-4.

I was at Seymour_Johnson AFB, N.C. when TAC was transitioning from the F-105, to the F-4. One of the pilots was heard saying, no matter how long you made a runway, Republic would make a aircraft that needed 50 more feet.