How can you extend the Lifespan/combat usage of certain aircraft

[MaverickSawyer]

Because they couldn’t fit the fully assembled F135 engine into the Greyhound.

Instead of making a suitable next-gen Greyhound using parts from the E-2D program, they opted to make use of an aircraft that cannot fly as high, as fast, or as far as the Greyhound, will have zero parts commonality with any other aircraft deployed on a Nimitz or Ford-class carrier, and is subject to being grounded without warning for months at a time.

But hey, we can do COD runs directly to any ship in the CSG without needing to do VERTREP! *Sarcastic excited grin*

 

[Monk78]

F-101 turn into a conventional fighter bomber , by time Vietnam heats up it first supports F-105 and then is passed down to smaller mostly non NATO friendly states as part of assistance programs

 

[Monk78]

United States decides to counter the Soviet “ mig diplomacy” providing outdated combat aircraft to countries free of charge with lots of spares provided they do not turn to socialism.
Concerned about introduction of sophisticated mach 2 fighters, commonly approved aircraft are F84F F100 F86F F5A A4 and they soldier on in the third world countries until the late 80s.
This is helpee by not exporting any third or fourth generation aircraft to any of the non-nato countries barring a few
like Australia and Canada

 

[Driftless]

Any second act of a technologically adapted A-5 Vigilante (II)?

 

[CV12Hornet]

F-101 turn into a conventional fighter bomber , by time Vietnam heats up it first supports F-105 and then is passed down to smaller mostly non NATO friendly states as part of assistance programs

This is called the F-101B.

Any second act of a technologically adapted A-5 Vigilante (II)?

The Australians were damn close to buying it, but they elected to wait out the F-111's development period instead. An RAAF with Vigilantes is likely to keep them in service until at least the 90s.

No chance in USN service, though. Too damn big, too damn specialized for nuclear strike.

 

[alspug]

The number of airframes that could be improved and kept combat viable is limited only by two things. The first is politics and the second is fatigue life.

The structure of the 1950's and 1960's bombers for example is one of over engineering if the B52 and Vulcan's are taken into account. Then you look at the role the aircraft fulfills and it's capability. Then you need to look past the inherent limitations of the average aeronautical engineers imagination. By this I mean finding new rolls and capabilities that otherwise do not exist. Below I will quickly go through the B52 combat capabilities and expected uses.

First you have the B-52 as a long range strategic nuclear bomber using high altitude and armed with a tail gun turret equipped with 4 50 cal machine guns. Onboard EW and Chaff dispensers would enable strategic penetration though losses would have been high.

Then the B-52 started getting modified to enable the launch of the AGM 28 Hound Dog nuclear armed strategic missile. From what I learned about this weapon it would have enabled the destruction of PVO and SAM batteries to enable the deployment of Gravity Bombs with megaton yields. Flight was still at high level but launch was 5,000ft min. Range from 400 to 800 miles depending on altitude,

Later the SRAM missile was developed, and it enabled the B-52 to carry up to 20 missiles each with a range of 35 to 100 miles at Mach 3. All nuclear armed. In addition the B 52 could still carry Gravity bombs. This meant a B 52 could literally burn through the defences with nuclear missile launches and then fly home. Fratricide would be an issue but the SIOP would minimise that. My understanding from non classified reading is that literally half the bombs and missiles carried on a B-52 could be expended on targets not expected, ie pop up threats and the SIOP would still work. Interestingly the mobile ICBM programs resulted in the B-2 program and it's LPI ground search radar.

The B-52 was continually upgraded in terms of EW and Jamming capability. The last few versions of the B-52 introduced naval strike missions and then cruise missile deployment to remain outside of air defence zones.

Now the B-52 has gotten new engines and radar with some interesting capability should the USAF decide to make use of it. Namely the ability to arm the B-52 with literally any weapon in the inventory they want. IE anti-radar missiles, glide bombs, modify the bomb-bay to carry SDB and load a single BUFF with 200 of them and launch at a target 100 miles away lol. Literally the weapons computers are present and the radar can provide target data for any weapon you can imagine and the BUFF can carry 70,000lb of weapons. This indicates 240 GBU 39 could be carried if the racks can be created to allow this. Thats insane. Anyway I digress, the B-52 is capable with airframe repair, inspection and avionics upgrade of continuing to be useful.

The Vulcan bomber was every bit as capable of being kept in service as the B-52 but had no political will or finances to do so.

As for other potential aircraft.............most of the bomber and strike aircraft of the 1960's had airframes capable of long-term service with sufficient engine and avionics upgrades. Some could have been coated with radar absorbing materials to greatly reduce radar signature and become a fighter sized target as opposed to a bomber etc.

The A-6 was due for a major upgrade and the A-12 project took the funding. That project also ruined the Super Tomcat program.

The Bristol Buccaneer had several potential upgrades that could have kept it viable for a further 20 years.

The F-111 and Panavia Tornado both suffered from fatigue limitations but wing replacement and avionics upgrades would have kept them current.

The real question is money and political will.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The Fairey Gannet gets the planned A.E.W.7 upgrade and is far enough advanced that when the new carriers are cancelled it's continued with to serve as the RAF's A.E.W until the Nimrod A.E.W 3 is ready for service. As this never happens in continues in service until at least 1986 and more likely into the 1990's when worn airframes force the aircraft's withdrawal from service. The Radar systems are then moved into business jets to serve as a stopgap for another 15 years.

 

[muskeg13]

What about keeping the A-7 Corsair in service a bit longer. It had a well-deserved reputation of being one of the finest CAS/attack jets in the pre-smart weapon era as the most accurate iron bomb delivery system. It was replaced in US service by the F-16, A-10 and later I believe, the F/A-18, but at least initially, weren't there some missions where the A-7 would have outperformed its successors?

 

[Monk78]

What about keeping the A-7 Corsair in service a bit longer. It had a well-deserved reputation of being one of the finest CAS/attack jets in the pre-smart weapon era as the most accurate iron bomb delivery system. It was replaced in US service by the F-16, A-10 and later I believe, the F/A-18, but at least initially, weren't there some missions where the A-7 would have outperformed its successors?

It was cheaper and less inflammatory than selling 4th generation fighters
Personally, I think most non NATO countries who got F-16 should have gotten the A7
Selling all these countries, the fighting falcon, unnecessarily escalated , the arms race

 

[Captain Jack]

Any second act of a technologically adapted A-5 Vigilante (II)?

The Vigilante holds a special place in my heart, but unfortunately the linear bomb bay really restricted it. As I understand it the bay was structural too, so it couldn’t be easily modified. That’s the core problem

There was an improved version of the Vigilante, the A-5B, that added additional external hard points under the wings (the A-5 actually had one under each wing but they were unused). It also introduced the fuel “hump” seen on the RA-5C. Some were built, but modified into RA-5Cs before entering service. Additionally, North American’s proposals for tri-motor Vigilante derivatives added up to 6 belly hard points (for carrying Phoenix missiles, interestingly).

So, if we can somehow get the A-5 to enter service with those extra hard points right out of the gate I think it might have enough extra utility to keep flying. The nuclear strike role is out, of course. But this hypothetical Vigilante would be able to do both the RA-5C’s recon role and be a carrier borne quasi F-111 in the long range conventional strike role. Maybe a passable interceptor too, but that might be pushing it. I, maybe overly optimistically, think that would be enough to keep the Vigilantes flying longer than IOTL.

Another, less exciting, option:
The US has less severe post-Vietnam budget cuts for whatever reason and the RA-5Cs squeak through. As far as I know their actual performance was completely satisfactory, it was just the expense of operating them at a time of restricted budgets that did them in.

There were perennial suggestions to re-engine the A-5 and its derivatives with a variant of the J58 engine. The Vigilante was apparently a difficult plane to re-engine due to the design of the engine box, but North American seems to have thought it was possible. Maybe that goes ahead in this timeline (a man can dream).

 

[CV12Hornet]

It was cheaper and less inflammatory than selling 4th generation fighters
Personally, I think most NATO countries who got F-16 should have gotten the A7
Selling all these countries, the fighting falcon, unnecessarily escalated , the arms race

Are you ever going to back up this assertion with anything other than your own opinion?

 

[Monk78]

The Vigilante holds a special place in my heart, but unfortunately the linear bomb bay really restricted it. As I understand it the bay was structural too, so it couldn’t be easily modified. That’s the core problem

There was an improved version of the Vigilante, the A-5B, that added additional external hard points under the wings (the A-5 actually had one under each wing but they were unused). It also introduced the fuel “hump” seen on the RA-5C. Some were built, but modified into RA-5Cs before entering service. Additionally, North American’s proposals for tri-motor Vigilante derivatives added up to 6 belly hard points (for carrying Phoenix missiles, interestingly).

So, if we can somehow get the A-5 to enter service with those extra hard points right out of the gate I think it might have enough extra utility to keep flying. The nuclear strike role is out, of course. But this hypothetical Vigilante would be able to do both the RA-5C’s recon role and be a carrier borne quasi F-111 in the long range conventional strike role. Maybe a passable interceptor too, but that might be pushing it. I, maybe overly optimistically, think that would be enough to keep the Vigilantes flying longer than IOTL.

Another, less exciting, option:
The US has less severe post-Vietnam budget cuts for whatever reason and the RA-5Cs squeak through. As far as I know their actual performance was completely satisfactory, it was just the expense of operating them at a time of restricted budgets that did them in.

There were perennial suggestions to re-engine the A-5 and its derivatives with a variant of the J58 engine. The Vigilante was apparently a difficult plane to re-engine due to the design of the engine box, but North American seems to have thought it was possible. Maybe that goes ahead in this timeline (a man can dream).

How about exporting them to Japan , Iran and Saudi Arabia as a Cadillac of all strike fighters?

 

[CV12Hornet]

How about exporting them to Japan , Iran and Saudi Arabia as a Cadillac of all strike fighters?

Japan neither wants nor needs such a plane, the Saudis aren’t interested at this point in their history, and neither is Iran.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

How about exporting them to Japan , Iran and Saudi Arabia as a Cadillac of all strike fighters?

Japan had no need for an offensive weapon like the Vigilante, as they had the F-4EJ to fill any role the Vigilante would have been able to perform, and then some.

The biggest problem with the Vigilante is that it’s essentially the B-58 of naval aviation. It’s sleek, fast, powerful… and dreadfully focused on a single mission. The only saving grace for it was that they could turn it into a recon platform.

 

[DougM]

Aircraft the US should have kept around
A-6. USN is still missing a good strike aircraft. The F-18 is a jake of all trades that has issues. And improved A-6 would still be useful
S-3 We may someday regret not having a dedicated sub hunter.
F-14. Once again the F-18 is a compromise aircraft. Something like the Super Tomcat would be useful. If we get into a major fight we may regret this one the most as the defense of the Carriers is not what it should be.
F111 or build one of the “Bomber” versions of the F22 or F23 that have been proposed. the Constant reliance on multi roll fighters has its limitations,

As for extending aircraft. Yes some older aircraft were short term but in the US many combat aircraft in the US have bern flying for 50+ years.

B-52,
B-1
C-5
C-130
E-2
F-15
F-16

The B-2 first flew 35 years ago
The C-17 First flew 33 years ago.
The F-18 Superhornet is 29 years
The F-22 first flew 27 years ago
The F-35 first flew 18 years ago.

We are EXTREMELY slow today in developing and deploying Aircraft.
And Russia and pretty much all other countries are just as bad.

If an airplane was flying when the F-15 first flew that was as old of a design as the F-15 is today then you would be flying a 1920 Biplane.
Technology was new back then we had to learn a lot. But if you look at aircraft flying today Ignoring the stealth aspect, they are not significantly different then an F-16 that first flew 50 years ago. We have just been “perfecting” them.

But we DID have to get to that point where we had learned enough. We see this with most technology today. TVs, PC,s, Cell phones. etc. We seldom see a ”radical” change anymore. If we design a new Passenger plan it will look much like what we have. If we had to replace the C-130 it would look like a fatter version if what we have. Look at the C-17 it is not exactly radical compared to the C-5 or the C-130 or the C-141.

I mean does the US have a military aircraft that wasn't at least on the drawing board if not flying when its pilot was born?
Even the F-35 derived from the JSF program that started 31 years ago.

So frankly i am not convinced that you can reasonably Extend the life spane of many US aircraft. With the exception of those listed at the start of this. And even those should only still be around because of the failure to build a replacement. The A-6 SHOULD have been replaced, the problem it the A-12 imploded.
The F-111 should have been replaced by something probably of the the F-22 or F-23 bomber versions,
The F-14 Super Tomcat which should have been built was almost a whole knew aircraft. Close to what they did with the F-18.
Or it should have seen a navy version of the F-22/23 or some other high end Air superiority fighter built.

The aircraft that made sense to keep around and upgrade were. But to keep around aircraft like the F-4? sorry no. The F-4 was a product of its time and we learnt a lot more after it was built. Keeping it flying longer makes no more sense then keeping a P-51 as an airforce Intercepter/Fighter in 1965.

The truth is not that these older aircraft should have been extended. the Truth is we are flying to old of aircraft today simply because it is to expensive to replace them. Does anyone trully think that if we really tried we could not build a replacement for the B-52? or even the F-15 or F-22? of corse we can. But the military manufacturers are 100000% out of control and that on top of the complexity of these new aurcraft makes them to expensive to built.

We have a topic discussing the M-4 Sherman right now and if it should have been replaced. And i think its key lesson will someday become key in Aircraft. And that it was Both Good enough to win enough fights to win the war, AND cheep/easy enough to build so we could have enough to fight the war with. Today we have lost track of that. And heaven help us if that day comes and the other side got the mix right.

Now i will give you. ONE thing about keeping the older aircraft. Perhaps we should have updated them to have a cheep backup for use buy national guard and to maybe keep more companies around. But by the time the teen series entered production they were expensive enough that congress didnt want to pay fo r. them so it was either upgrade the F-4 OR buy the F-15. and if that was the only options we had then we made the right call. And upgraded F-4 in 2000 would be junk compared to an F-15 much less an F-22 or any of the forighn fighters of that generation. Frankly it was not great in 1970 and even better radar and engines cant change that the design was outdated.

 

[Blue cat]

Now there are a large number of aircraft that either saw production and usage but never saw combat usage with limited lifespan or were fully developed but canned before seeing service.

Please please please don't let this turn into the ten trillionth thread about the Arrow.

The first aircraft I was thinking of was the B47. An interesting aircraft that saw heavy peacetime usage as a SAC nuclear bomber or as a platform to develop into specialized variants (like recon and ELINT). But the plane never saw combat usage and I'm not sure how capable of conventional warfare the OTL design was. In OTL it ended up getting replaced by the larger and longer ranged B52 or for the shorter medium/interdiction role by the F-111/FB-111. So how long can the B47 last in service? How much potential for usage in conventional operations would the OTL platform have and how could it be expanded.

Another favorite is the A2 Savage (and it's unproduced improvement the Super Savage). How can it last longer in service and be used for conventional roles

How could the A3 (and it's USAF variant the B66) see longer term service (beyond usage as a specialized variant platform) and in a combat role?

Maybe the F20 could have actually entered service, perhaps the Cold War doesn’t end and there are not as many used F16’s available to non NATO / core US allies ? Or perhaps the US wants a second land based light weight fighter just because (higher defence budgets, desire to diversify production or ?? )

 

[Blue cat]

I've heard a little about the CF5. Namely that it was a public works project to keep Quebec in Canada that was pretty useless. Ive wondered for a while why they weren't used for Canada's commitment to European NATO at the time. Sure in Canada their range and avionics might not be viable. But in Western Europe a relatively short ranged but moderately armed light fighter capable of providing CAS/short range attack/interception and operating from Roadways and rough fields. Still not a F4 but it seems like an obvious niche for the Canadians.

I seem to recall reading that Canada trialed the CF5 in Central Europe and (not surprisingly in my view) decided it wasn’t capable enough. I also recall they were intended for deployment to Norway until CF18 entered service in sufficient numbers (or the Norwegian commitment was ended ?)

I also recall reading that they were considered available for use in or over Canada in an “Emergency.” I believe the flew during the Oka event in a
photo recon role.

 

[Blue cat]

Now there are a large number of aircraft that either saw production and usage but never saw combat usage with limited lifespan or were fully developed but canned before seeing service.

Please please please don't let this turn into the ten trillionth thread about the Arrow.

The first aircraft I was thinking of was the B47. An interesting aircraft that saw heavy peacetime usage as a SAC nuclear bomber or as a platform to develop into specialized variants (like recon and ELINT). But the plane never saw combat usage and I'm not sure how capable of conventional warfare the OTL design was. In OTL it ended up getting replaced by the larger and longer ranged B52 or for the shorter medium/interdiction role by the F-111/FB-111. So how long can the B47 last in service? How much potential for usage in conventional operations would the OTL platform have and how could it be expanded.

Another favorite is the A2 Savage (and it's unproduced improvement the Super Savage). How can it last longer in service and be used for conventional roles

How could the A3 (and it's USAF variant the B66) see longer term service (beyond usage as a specialized variant platform) and in a combat role?

Given more money maybe the USAF keeps a small fleet of F111’s in service much longer (maybe some of the F111F’s get rebuilt and re engined in the 1990’s.) Perhaps the USAF wants to keep a modest fleet of dedicated theatre low level strike air craft as a hedge. In a continued cold war there might have been a desire to keep the F111’s in service for the nuke missions (perhaps vis a vis arms control treaties so the F15E’s were not “counted“ as theatre nuclear strike assets ?)

 

[Locke01]

Any thoughts from anyone about the SR-71 as a potential candidate for an extended career?

 

[CV12Hornet]

F-14. Once again the F-18 is a compromise aircraft. Something like the Super Tomcat would be useful. If we get into a major fight we may regret this one the most as the defense of the Carriers is not what it should be.

The F-14 is expensive overkill for the post-Cold War threat environment, particularly in air to air.

The F-111 should have been replaced by something probably of the the F-22 or F-23 bomber versions,

It was. That's what the Strike Eagle is.