"Obsolete" planes still dishing it out

[Glider]

Regarding the RAF I always thought that the Jaguar was retired well before its due date. It never had the publicity the Harrier had, but it was in service in roughly the same time scale and was a much better strike aircraft than the Harrier. At sea the RAF harrier gave a strike component that was missing but it didn't fit the Naval requirement. The RAF Harrier was retired when it should have been and I would say that the money spent on the last updates was wasted as it still had a poor payload range profile, improved yes, but still limiting.

I would agree that the Sea Harrier was retired before it should have been. It was still a capable fighter capable of taking on the best, and the first requirement of an aircraft carrier is to carry fighters to protect itself and the shipping around it.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

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

Considering the F-14D was a super-cruiser before the F-22 and with legs to match, and AFAIK the aircraft could have been updated with modern avionics, I have to agree. Hated to see it go.

They reired the Hellcat prematurely, but they did it.

Not sure about this. I believe the Hellcat soldiered on in the reserves into the mid-50's but how useful would it have really been to the USN of the late 40's and early 50's?

They retired the Bearcat prematurely, but they did it.

As much as I love the F8F, wasn't it analogous to the purest and most ideal form of the buggy whip, developed just before the advent of the automobile?

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

We could have seen so many more instances of its greatest, most memorable contribution to Western culture and freedom: The type's typically fruitless attacks on giant movie monsters.

Wasn't the F-100 simply an F-86 upgrade to accommodate the new P&W J-57 engine? Like the F6F, didn't the NA F86/FJ enjoy a reasonably long post-USAF/USN life in foreign garb and in the Air Guard?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

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

I appreciate the advance in avionics and maintenance advantages vs the expense of the F-14 but in this case the USN replaced the F-14 with an aircraft (F-18A) that significantly changed the duty cycle of its aircraft carriers for the worse. With the roughly coincidental demise of the KA-6 (and earlier KA-3), the carrier's offensive reach was markedly reduced. IMHO, it was a poor bargain that was based as much on politics as real technology advances and cost reduction. Seems to me it's taken roughly a decade of development to bring the F-18 (in its E/F variant) to come near where the F-14 was when it retired.

 

[buffnut453]

Regarding the RAF I always thought that the Jaguar was retired well before its due date. It never had the publicity the Harrier had, but it was in service in roughly the same time scale and was a much better strike aircraft than the Harrier.

Not entirely sure I agree with your last statement. The Harrier took over from the Jag flying over northern Iraq because the Jag struggled to get airborne on hot days. That said, the Jag GR3 was certainly a cost-effective capability enhancement over teh GR1 - certainly WAAAYYYY cheaper than any upgrades to the Tonka or Harrier.

 

[GrauGeist]

Wasn't the F-100 simply an F-86 upgrade to accommodate the new P&W J-57 engine? Like the F6F, didn't the NA F86/FJ enjoy a reasonably long post-USAF/USN life in foreign garb and in the Air Guard?

The F-86 in foreign service saw the last type retired by the Bolivian or Argentine Airforce in the late 80's or early 90's (this is off the top of my head, can easily be clarified) but in U.S. service, the last F-86 was retired in the 1970's from ANG assignment.

 

[GregP]

Hi oldcrow,

I tend to agree with you. The F-18 can carry about 60% of the bomb load of an F-14, about 60% as far at about 80% of the speed.

So, with the F-18, we deliver less bombs (or more aircraft) to a target not as far off, take longer to get there and need more tankers to get the thing home.

On the plus side, the avionics in the F-18 are much nicer to operate and are more capable than the F-14 avionics.

All in all, I'd much rather have upgreded the F-14D and stayed with it, assuming the airframes were good to go. I am not aware of airframe issues with the wing pivot, but I suppose that's possible. With the F-14D, the plane finally got the engines it was designed for, and the performance was outstanding. A major avionics upgrade might have been just the ticket. Hey, we're still flying F-15's of about the same vintage.

As for the F-86. I'm talking about front-line retirement. We DID keep many in guard and reserve units for a long time, but their numbers were declining in main stream Air Force beginning in 1954 up through transition out of active USAF service later. Yes, Sabres did serve in front-line units into the 1990's, with the last front-line Sabres being in Bolivia. I was speaking of front-line USAF service above.

I'm lucky since the museum where I volunteer operates an F-86F on a regular basis and I'm currently working on an F-86 restoration for a private owner. It is coming along nicely. It started life as a Canadair Sabre Mk 6, but we are converting it to have a slatted leading edge. We are fitting US-made slats to a Canadian Sabre, but also had to make new lower skins for the leading edge since the auilliary tanks on a Sabre Mk 6 (basically an F-86E with more thrust) are about two feet inboard of where the aux tanks are on an F-86F. Since the main wing is pure F-86E, it made sense to switch the leading edges to match the main wing.

Basically there are four wings on the F-86 line. There is a short wing and a long wing, both of which can have a slatted or unslatted leading edge. The short wing is easy to tell since the aileron goes out to the wingtip. If the aileron stops before the wingtip, then it is a long wing. The slats are pretty self explanatory. Right now we are trying to get new bearings for the slats.

 

[Shortround6]

Last US F-86 (FJ-4) came off the production lines in 1958 which is a pretty good run for a late 1940s aircraft. Of course there wasn't much left of the original Sabre design by that time. Sabres in foreign service lasted well into the 70s in some nation's air forces.

to get back somewhat of the original question however, I believe there is a difference in "dishing it out" and flying patrols in relatively quite sectors.

The US flew Coastal patrols with such aircraft as the Grumman Widgeon

And the Sikorsky S-39

They provided a valuable service, freeing up better planes to be used in"hot" zones and their crews spent many a cold, uncomfortable hour on those patrols ( and the Widgeon had a negative climb rate with one engine gone) in dangerous circumstances bu they were hardly "dishing it out".

 

[GregP]

For "dishing it out," it's hard to beat the Douglas Skyraider's load out. It could orbit overhead for over an hour and hit with something on every pass!

 

[gjs238]

Hi oldcrow,

I tend to agree with you. The F-18 can carry about 60% of the bomb load of an F-14, about 60% as far at about 80% of the speed.

So, with the F-18, we deliver less bombs (or more aircraft) to a target not as far off, take longer to get there and need more tankers to get the thing home.

On the plus side, the avionics in the F-18 are much nicer to operate and are more capable than the F-14 avionics.

All in all, I'd much rather have upgreded the F-14D and stayed with it, assuming the airframes were good to go. I am not aware of airframe issues with the wing pivot, but I suppose that's possible. With the F-14D, the plane finally got the engines it was designed for, and the performance was outstanding. A major avionics upgrade might have been just the ticket. Hey, we're still flying F-15's of about the same vintage.

As for the F-86. I'm talking about front-line retirement. We DID keep many in guard and reserve units for a long time, but their numbers were declining in main stream Air Force beginning in 1954 up through transition out of active USAF service later. Yes, Sabres did serve in front-line units into the 1990's, with the last front-line Sabres being in Bolivia. I was speaking of front-line USAF service above.

I'm lucky since the museum where I volunteer operates an F-86F on a regular basis and I'm currently working on an F-86 restoration for a private owner. It is coming along nicely. It started life as a Canadair Sabre Mk 6, but we are converting it to have a slatted leading edge. We are fitting US-made slats to a Canadian Sabre, but also had to make new lower skins for the leading edge since the auilliary tanks on a Sabre Mk 6 (basically an F-86E with more thrust) are about two feet inboard of where the aux tanks are on an F-86F. Since the main wing is pure F-86E, it made sense to switch the leading edges to match the main wing.

Basically there are four wings on the F-86 line. There is a short wing and a long wing, both of which can have a slatted or unslatted leading edge. The short wing is easy to tell since the aileron goes out to the wingtip. If the aileron stops before the wingtip, then it is a long wing. The slats are pretty self explanatory. Right now we are trying to get new bearings for the slats.

RE: F-14
Then there is the naval interceptor/fleet defense task.
When the F-14 was retired, so were the Phoenix missiles.

 

[GregP]

Yea, the Phoenix was WAY too expensive for target practice, and there is little available public data on how the electronics in them aged. I've often wondered if the Phoenix helped precipitate the demise of the F-14. Of course, the Phoenix was a holdover from the not-proceeded-with fighter version of the SR-71, the A-11 or A-12 / YF-12 as the case may be.

Anyway, the Phoenix was developed by Hughes to be the A11/-12's offensive punch. The plane didn't survive but the missiles did!

Go figure. I wondered back then whether adding the Phoenix to the F-14 would result in the premature demise of the F-14. I think it died prematurely, but have no personal knowledge of whether the Phoenix played a part in that since the aircraft WAS recinfigured to take conventional standard USAF missiles along with the Phoenix. It remains interesting, just as the superconic drone does, too, but there is little factual written about it that is public knowledge.

 

[GrauGeist]

Just a quick note: the Archangel A-11 design was the one before the accepted and produced A-12 design.
The YF-12A was the only armed version and only three were produced. The YF-12C was the "smoke screen" designation for the SR-71 and actually didn't exist. (the SR-71 was developed from the A-12)
They produced more D-21 supersonic drones (38) than they did M-21 motherships (2) and if memory serves me right, the Pheonix was an advanced design project from the AIM-47 Falcon, which was for the F-108 and YF-12, not the later AIM-54 Pheonix

 

[GregP]

Hi Graugeist,

I think not and so does President Johnson.

The YF-12A started life as the A-11 at first flight. The A-11 design and the A-12 design were just about the same and designation got very loose.

I distinctly recall the A-11 designation at the time as it morphed into the A-12 designation. I believe it changed after the first flight from A-11 to A-12.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGxLbqnDKJU

It is possible this was deliberate misinformation since they were very into that at the time. It all started out as "Gusto" and morphed into "Oxcart." They had two Archangels, the Fish, the A-7 thru A-11, and then went to the A-12 and the Kingfish.

But when the first flight happened, it was called the A-11. After that it became the A-12 and then YF-12, the "Y" meaning service prototype as it has for years. A later aircraft was the YF-12A and was the fighter candidate that was not selected for production, but they DID make some of them and flew them.

That is according to Bob Guilliland, the first test pilot of the aircraft. He sometimes speaks at our presentations.

There was only one Phoenix missile, and it was developed for the A-11 / A-12 / YF-12 / YF-12A by Hughes. It was deployed on the F-14 and no other aircraft as far as I know since the YF-12A was never introduced operationally. The prototypes of it remained capable of carrying and using the Phoenix until they were retired. I often wonder if they ever scored a real satellite shootdown.

Hey Graugeist, why don't you come down and visit the Planes of Fame in Chino and say high some Saturday? Why not take a flight and come to our airshow the first weekend of May? I guarantee it will be a good one, and we can get some insider looks at the planes.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well, I don't like to say this, but you're wrong. The A-11 had a single vertical stabilizer and underslung engine fairings. The A-1 through A-11 existed on paper. The A-12 design was approved and developement began. There is no deliberate misinformation, no smoke and mirrors, this is simply how it is. A-1 through A-11 were on paper. Period.

Now the Pheonix could not have been developed for the A-12 as it had no weapon bay, neither did the SR-71, only the YF-12 had a weapon bay. And the AIM-47 Falcon was designed for it AND the F-108 project, not the Pheonix...this was developed after the Falcon. The AIM-54 was intended for the F-111 and ended up aboard the F-14.

I am sure that you listen to some interesting people, Greg, but any of the personel involved with these programs saw your misinformation, they would surely correct you as well.

 

[GregP]

Hi Graugeist,

The President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. If he says it is the A-11, then they revise the documents to read A-11 - and he did. You can clearly see the A-11 in the video clip I posted and it has two vertical tails and looks identical to the A-12. C'mon ... watch it. I KNOW what the drawings say, and they may indicate what was supposed to be, but the President changed that in a news conference and the paper A-11 was never built.

The Phoenix was designed for the airframe that was called both the A-11 and the A-12 / YF-12 / YF-12A.

Sorry, but we've had Lockheed test pilots that flew the A-11 / A-12 / YF-12A / SR-71 confirm it. I don't want to throw any mud at all, but I believe them over your post. There were 13 A-12's. First flight was 26 Apr 1962 and the last operational A-12 flight was 8 May 1968. And they carried the Phoenix missile per multiple A-12 pilots that have given talks at the Planes of Fame. First-hand information from the pilots that flew them. That's good enough for me.

Since there were 13 built and 5 lost, there are 8 examples around the country where you can verify they had missile-carrying capability. Palmdale, CA, BYC, Los Angeles (California Science Center), and others. Of these, the L.A. location is probably closest to you.

The video evidence is pretty convincing, don't you think? A picture or moving picture is worth 1,000 words, so my words are too many here.

 

[GrauGeist]

Greg, I don't care if the CinC called it a green tree frog. The A-11 was never built and the YF-12 is the only armed version (4 weapon bays) for the few designated airframes. For which the AIM-54 was developed. The Pheonix came later as developed from the Falcon for the F-111B, ultimately ending up being deployed aboard the F-14; which came AFTER the YF-12's development.

This thread has been hijacked enough with this nonsense...this is a forum for the exchange of information, but it is also a place where people come to learn. I would like to see people learn the right information.

 

[Greyman]

I've heard a convincing rant from a retired USAF F-16 pilot that the Tomcat was kept in service much too late as it was. Summing up:

- big fat money chewer with the fuel economy of the carrier that it launches from
- based around a radar that was next to useless in look-down
- only advantage in a fight was its ungodly lift letting it get down to low speeds that most jets wouldn't dare to go to
- when used 'properly' put the plane so low on energy the pathetically weak engines rarely allowed it to recover which is why pretty much anything made after 1970 could crush it in air combat
- pathetically low operational readiness
- from about the mid 80's onward it cost as much in a year to keep them up and running as it would have to replace them

but ...

- looked pretty for recruitment opportunities

 

[FLYBOYJ]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/LockheedA-11.jpg/260px-LockheedA-11.jpg

The A-11 was a design concept that eventually led into the A-12 and later SR-71. It was very common during that period to mis-identify these aircraft and sometimes it was done on purpose.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've heard a convincing rant from a retired USAF F-16 pilot that the Tomcat was kept in service much too late as it was. Summing up:

- big fat money chewer with the fuel economy of the carrier that it launches from
- based around a radar that was next to useless in look-down
- only advantage in a fight was its ungodly lift letting it get down to low speeds that most jets wouldn't dare to go to
- when used 'properly' put the plane so low on energy the pathetically weak engines rarely allowed it to recover which is why pretty much anything made after 1970 could crush it in air combat
- pathetically low operational readiness
- from about the mid 80's onward it cost as much in a year to keep them up and running as it would have to replace them

but ...

- looked pretty for recruitment opportunities

And I've heard F-14 drivers say sweet things about the 16 as well (Datsun short bed, BB hauler, tinker toy). Unless that 16 driver did a navy exchange and had a chance to fly the Tomcat, take those statements with a grain of salt. I'd say the same thing about a 14 driver with remarks about the 16...

Now I did work with guys when I was in the USNR who came out of F-14 squadrons, they told me the -14 were labor intensive pigs. There were logistics issues during the 1990s in the USN and it effected all out of production aircraft.

 

[GregP]

Let's say we disagree on the A-11 part. I was around when it was introduced as the A-11 in the news and on TV. Since I was an airplane nut from an eralya ge, I distinctly rmember the designation plus Lyndon Johnson calls it the A-11 in the video above.

So you guys can call it whatever you want to call it. To me it will always have started life as the A-11 during public unveling, became the fighter version as the A-12 / YF-12 / YF-12A, and made production in the unarmed recon SR-71 version. It is retired now, so it doesn't really matter, but I'll take the word of the Commander in Chief any day, especially since it meshes with my memory.

So THIS obsolete plane could dish it out in the fighter form, but isn't still doing it.

Probably the oldest western dog still dising it out are the Turkish F-4's. The oldest Eastern-block dog still dishing it out is probably a MiG-17 still in service somewhere. I am not aware of any Skyraiders still in military service. Argentian still has some FMA IA 58 Pucara's flying of 1969 or so vintage, and I'm sure there are still some miliatary DC-3's flying ... though they are hauling and not "dishing it out," so to speak. There HAS to be some Macchi 326 still flying somehwere in military service, maybe South Africa.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hello, Greyman, If I may add 2 cents:

I've heard a convincing rant from a retired USAF F-16 pilot that the Tomcat was kept in service much too late as it was. Summing up:
- big fat money chewer with the fuel economy of the carrier that it launches from

F-14 have had 2 jet engines. That would mean half the fuel economy of most of 1-engined jets, and about as good as most 2-engines jets.

- based around a radar that was next to useless in look-down

Comparing radars from F-16 and F-14, and taking into accounts year that radars were installed, F-14 have had vastly better radar than F-16.

- only advantage in a fight was its ungodly lift letting it get down to low speeds that most jets wouldn't dare to go to
- when used 'properly' put the plane so low on energy the pathetically weak engines rarely allowed it to recover which is why pretty much anything made after 1970 could crush it in air combat

We might never know the truth how well F-14 was suited for dogfight. The engines in F-14B and D were excellent, seems that F-16 driver does not make distinction between TF-30 and F-110.

- pathetically low operational readiness
- from about the mid 80's onward it cost as much in a year to keep them up and running as it would have to replace them

Without the numbers on how big the operation readiness was indeed for the F-14, how big were the costs, how much would cost to replace them, and in what years, such sweeping statements belong to hangar talk.

but ...

- looked pretty for recruitment opportunities

F-14 was a looker.