Non US designed Aircraft in servive with the USAF/USN/USMC

sharlin

Banned
Hrmm..Buc could act as this TL's version of the Intruder, its faster, slightly shorter legged and carries a smaller warload but the speed could be a good selling point.

You could use the Vulcan alongside the B-52, have it as the 'lighter' bomber of the USAF instead of the B-47 and B-58?
 

wietze

sharlin said:
Hrmm..Buc could act as this TL's version of the Intruder, its faster, slightly shorter legged but carries a bigger bomb load.
Click to expand...

and has a multipurpose bomb bay, that can take an ECM suite or additional fuel instead of bombs. furthermore, it is pretty much the lowest operationally flying plane (lol any lower and it digs tunnels/ is a submarine).

another cool thought, the Yak-141 supersonic V/STOL fighter
 
Pangur

Pangur

Donor
That crossed my mind when I read the post. I was of doing a quick check on the Buc and A-6. The legs might not be that big a problem as the US manufactured version may for the purposes of this discussion be modified to add range as one example
 

sharlin

Banned
Pangur said:
That crossed my mind when I read the post. I was of doing a quick check on the Buc and A-6. The legs might not be that big a problem as the US manufactured version may for the purposes of this discussion be modified to add range as one example
Click to expand...

Indeed they could alter it, lengthen it for example or put different engines on it to increase the range or give it bigger tanks or hell give it slipper tanks.
I'd say the Vulcan could definately do a better job than the B-58, but then again so could a paper plane designed by a donkey.
 

Sior

Banned
Rotodyne instead of the V 22 Osprey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

561dab08aa94871f92c9e330f401029a.jpg
 

historyfool

In general I think niche-aircraft is the only real chance. Anything where there is a realistic US rival is going to fail, just like the Airbus tankers.

VTOL is one of the areas where I can see a serious chance. Harrier and Rotodyne have already been mentioned. Then there is the Do 31 which outclasses the V-22 in most regards and first flew during the late 60s. Fully developed it was cancelled due to the costs, both building and operational, but they would be much less of a problem for the US than for Germany. (NASA tested and liked it, but did not see enough reason for it to finance it alone)
 

USN vet

RamscoopRaider said:
OTL

Currently the US military has these foreign designed aircraft in service
Airforce

  • 2 C-144 (CN-235-100M) Spain
  • 14 C-146A (Dornier 328) Germany
  • 20 Diamond T-52 (Diamond DA40) Canada
  • 19 Pilatus U-28 (Pilatus PC-12) Switzerland
  • 10 PZL C-145 Skytruck (PZL M28) Poland
  • 3 de Havilland Canada UV-18 (DHC-6 Twin Otter) Canada
Army

  • 2 C-31 Troopship (Fokker F-27 Friendship) Netherlands
  • 5 EO-5 (De Havilland Canada Dash 7) Canada
  • 6 DHC-6 Twin Otter Canada
Coast Guard

  • 18 HC-144 Ocean Sentry Spain
  • 101 HH-65 Dolphin France
If you count drones add

  • 20 RQ-5 Hunter Israel
  • 15 CQ 10 Snowgoose Canada
Click to expand...

Forgot a couple. The Navy's T-45 trainer (BaE Hawk) and the T-6 Texan II (Americanized Pilatus PC-9).
 

Landshark

The Air Force and Air National Guard also have a number of C-27 Spartans made by Alenia in Italy, they're replacements for C-23 Sherpas built by Shorts in the UK.
 

Crowbar Six

The C23's were originally used by USAFE to move F100 and F110 engines (mainly) around Europe either to/from servicing depots or spares back to the squadrons.

When the USAFE drew down there was no longer a need for it so they went to the Army.

The C27's were used for transport duties in theatre where a C130 or C17 would have been overkill. They also have excellent short field performance and are very agile. I have seen one looped and rolled at an air show.

With the end of troop ops in Iraq and Afghanistan the USAF is trying to bin them with almost indecent haste by either dumping them with the ANG or sending them to the boneyard for storage, some were going straight from the manufacturer to Monthan Davies AFB. The US army and congress are not impressed.

The USN did look at the Bucc, but in the Mk1 it was underpowered, it wasn't a serious look and they decided to stick with the A6. The Spey which powered the Mk 2 was pretty economical for a 60's military engine and it was used on the USAF A7D's and USN A7E under licence as the Allison TF41
 
Last edited:

Sior

Banned
sonofpegasus said:
If You are considering the Rotodyne, and the Kestrel then how about completing the package with the AW.681/HS.681 STOL/VTO Transport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_AW.681 Also the Rotodyne would have been so much more practical with a Chinook like rear ramp in place of the clanshell doors, prehaps that could be an American modifictation retrospectively adopted by the Brits!
Click to expand...
th

http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/Airfix_1_72_Fairey_Rotodyne_04002__about1069.html&start=30
 

AdA

A US built Saab Draken adopted by the USAF instead of the Phantom. It could be sold almost to everyone, not being restricted by Swedish export policies.
 

jahenders

Banned
Using foreign aircraft for niche roles makes sense. Why go through a whole design/procurement effort for 20 planes if some fairly friendly country already has great ones in that role?

Pangur said:
Well now! Talk about standing corrected:D Small numbers of each but a far longer list than I would have expected. One things which stands out is that they seem to be niche aircraft
Click to expand...
 

jahenders

Banned
While that's true and one big reason we don't have more foreign designed aircraft, it depends on how the agreements work. We have tens of thousands of jobs, and billions in taxes, in the US from people building Hondas in Kentucky and such. You could develop a similar situation with people in Michigan building Swedish or English planes.

sharlin said:
In reality you'd need a different industrial/military complex to be willing to take anything but home grown designs for the USA. Building another nations aircraft saves money yes but that means less jobs etc and less funding for senators who need cash.
Click to expand...
 

wietze

jahenders said:
While that's true and one big reason we don't have more foreign designed aircraft, it depends on how the agreements work. We have tens of thousands of jobs, and billions in taxes, in the US from people building Hondas in Kentucky and such. You could develop a similar situation with people in Michigan building Swedish or English planes.
Click to expand...

and you could say, that the money you don't have to spend on development, you can use to build more of the planes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top