The Geriatric Air Force - Slightly Used

[blue520]

Are there any tanker conversions or proposals for the production DC-8?

A quick glance at Wikipedia entry yielded these: Douglas did try to entre the DC-8 for the tanker project circulated in 1954, but the USAF ordered the KC-135 before Douglas could complete their bid.

Probe-and-Drogue tankers should be relatively straightforward to convert though, as is adding a refuelling probe to an aircraft that is previously incapable of midair refuelling.

How ever there was a large number of design changes between the tanker project period and the first production DC-8, I was thinking of any later proposals.

The question I should have asked is "Are tanker conversions simple enough to be outside rule 7?".

[Bryan H.]

Would the USN really part with a nuclear-powered vessel to Geriatria? It's hard to imagine.

Speaking of political realities, could Geriatria acquire Japanese hardware (of any sort), i.e. does the real-world Japanese embargo on arms sales apply in this whiff world?

Well, she was launched in 1961 so she is an older vessel - theoretically, not too much technology transfer.  Nuclear-propulsion is a military application of peacefully and widely used civilian nuclear-power.  If I recall correctly, the US has "aided" France & the UK in the design of ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads and nuclear-powered subs as early as the 1950's, 60's & 70's.  Also IIRC, through "dual-key" arrangements Germany, Canada, Italy, Turkey and other NATO nations have had access to American short & medium range nuclear missiles.  I don't know how much real control the host nations had over these powerful assets but there was some sort of agreement that was suitable for everyone.

I think the nuclear-propulsion hurdle is a lower standard of technology transfer than missiles or other advanced systems.  I suspect (although I don't know for certain) that the biggest issue for exporting nuclear-powered warships is cost (nuclear power ain't cheap - particularly in a new ship);otherwise, why haven't trusted nations like Japan, Germany, Australia, Italy, etc bought nuclear-powered vessels.  Most navies aren't able to swallow the expense of nuclear-powered ships.  However, I'm hoping that the Long Beach will be more affordable as it is "used" equipment.  It may be, that the cost of 1) the ship + 2) refit/conversion + 3) the annual maintanance, manpower, upkeep, etc. + 4) refuelling and all of the other expenses make the Long Beach cost prohibitive even if it is purchased at a lower, "used equipment" cost.

Bryan        

[dy031101]

The question I should have asked is "Are tanker conversions simple enough to be outside rule 7?".

I'd think so if you stick with the Probe-and-Drogue method.

=========================================

Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

Army

Leopard 1 MBT upgraded with T-72M1 Moderna turret and improved hull armour (it is said that a T-72 turret was indeed mounted on a Leopard 1 hull for trials, so I take it as a fair game)

=========================================

Random thoughts:

To create a nominally "Europe-centric" Mk.1 list, I might swap out the Phantom and Seasprites in the future and put them in my upcoming Mk.2 list instead- trouble is, I'll need to find a replacement for the Seasprites now......

Comments, answers to any and all of the as-of-yet-unanswered questions, and suggestions (well I think that covers every category of replies) are welcomed.

[Weaver]

Would the USN really part with a nuclear-powered vessel to Geriatria? It's hard to imagine.

Speaking of political realities, could Geriatria acquire Japanese hardware (of any sort), i.e. does the real-world Japanese embargo on arms sales apply in this whiff world?

Well, she was launched in 1961 so she is an older vessel - theoretically, not too much technology transfer.  Nuclear-propulsion is a military application of peacefully and widely used civilian nuclear-power.  If I recall correctly, the US has "aided" France & the UK in the design of ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads and nuclear-powered subs as early as the 1950's, 60's & 70's.  Also IIRC, through "dual-key" arrangements Germany, Canada, Italy, Turkey and other NATO nations have had access to American short & medium range nuclear missiles.  I don't know how much real control the host nations had over these powerful assets but there was some sort of agreement that was suitable for everyone.

I think the nuclear-propulsion hurdle is a lower standard of technology transfer than missiles or other advanced systems.  I suspect (although I don't know for certain) that the biggest issue for exporting nuclear-powered warships is cost (nuclear power ain't cheap - particularly in a new ship);otherwise, why haven't trusted nations like Japan, Germany, Australia, Italy, etc bought nuclear-powered vessels.  Most navies aren't able to swallow the expense of nuclear-powered ships.  However, I'm hoping that the Long Beach will be more affordable as it is "used" equipment.  It may be, that the cost of 1) the ship + 2) refit/conversion + 3) the annual maintanance, manpower, upkeep, etc. + 4) refuelling and all of the other expenses make the Long Beach cost prohibitive even if it is purchased at a lower, "used equipment" cost.

Bryan        

Well the nuke users in that list are all NATO members and Geriatria isn't. You're right that the sheer cost of nuclear propulsion is a huge barrier, but equally, I don't see anyone too keen on exporting nuclear submarine technology outside the big power-blocks either: 3rd world navies have had to laboriously develop it themselves, if at all. Another factor would be the specialised maintenance facilities needed by nuclear propulsion. Geriatria will either have to build it all for themselves (for one ship) or send the ship back to the USA every time it's reactors need maintenance and/or refuelling. If they do it themselves, how do the new cores get to Geriatria to be fitted?

[Logan Hartke]

From what I can see, I'd say the Seasprite is in, just not the new-built SH-2Gs.  SH-2Fs brought up to SH-2G standard is fine with me, however.


The TAM likewise looks fine since those were assembled from stored parts.  If that looks like it wasn't the case, it gets disqualified.

=========================================

Random thoughts:

How much can I up-gun the AC-119?  I'm thinking along the line of the proposed AC-27 Spartan......
I'd say nothing over the original 40mm caliber.  Other than that, I'm fine with it.

Also, would the 40/20 rule apply to private contractors servicing my military- for example, commercial tanker services like Omega?
Yes, private contractors under contract with your country are subject to the same restrictions.

DC-8 can serve as a basis for a variety of combat-support platforms: AEW&C, tanker, ECM, and etc.
That's fine with me.

I can't resist thinking of a refurbished Boeing 727 (adding a refuelling probe wouldn't count as a major modification, would it?) as a transport for the head of state and other VIPs after Bryan H. presented his country as a constitutional monarchy (I may or may not follow suit)......
In my opinion, the 727 is a great option for this.

Now onto army tanks...... the M60A1/A3 has a seperate sight for the commander...... does it allow the commander to acquire target and then pass it to the gunner, allowing the tank to, in rapid sequence, shoot at two targets without needing to acquire each one sequentially?

Finally, how do you look at the twin 20mm cannons of the T-72M1 Moderna tank?  I thought that these would be pretty handy in dealing with gunmen hiding in higher floors of a building during MOUT scenarioes...... but am I correct in thinking so?
The T-72 is out because of production dates.

I was thinking...... having been experienced in peacekeeping operations, maybe the gendarmes would have contributed some thoughts on having some features suitable for MOUT incorporated into their fighting vehicles......

=========================================

I found most dedicated gunships to be either still in production or related to utility designs that are still in production...... another candidate I am interested in is the Alouette III (I might end up writing different versions of the list...... and I like the Airfox and Alpha XH-1......), but HAL is said to be still delivering Chetaks as late as 2002...... are they brand-new or re-built?

They're rebuilds.  I think the Chetak is a great choice.

Was there ever a decision made on if the 707 was in or out?
I don't know.  I say out, because some people are saying some were new-built after 1990.  I want keep it out to make this a bit more interesting anyway.

With the F404 F-4, is it still possible within the rules seeing it is a limited proposal as part of a greater paper report by McDonnell? If it is how modern a F404 can be contemplated?
No, F404 is out if all we have is the McDD report.  They didn't look seriously at it, and I can't see that anyone else did, either.

In looking at the Israeli Nammer modification for the Mirage III & 5, was at any stage was the PW1120 offered as an upgrade engine or was it only offered on the later offered proposed new builds. More simply is it ok to fit an PW1120 as part of a Nammer upgrade to a Mirage III or 5?   
No idea.

If the 707 is out any one have thoughts on a jet tanker and a modern AEW&C?

The VC-10 is one candidate for a jet tanker.
I say that a few other ideas are the KA-3B and the KC-97J.

dy031101 has put forward the DC-8 for both. Under the upgrade rules is it ok to the fit later E-3 modernisations or is it stuck at the early 1970's development level? The DC-8 was the alternative in the selection against the 707 that led to the E-3. Also were there any later AEW&C proposals for the DC-8? PHALCON?
Are there any tanker conversions or proposals for the production DC-8?
I don't know what has or hasn't been proposed for modern conversions.  I'd say that, based on the original AWACS proposal, the DC-8 with radome could be upgraded to current E-3 standards.

With the 727, again were there any tanker conversions or proposals? Also the same with AEW&C? (I am thinking possibly PHALCON again)

The Sikorsky S-61 Sea King might be useful as a maritime AEW platform (any comments to a different choice or the most capable version), along with an S-2 Tracker AEW upgrade (Brazil).   
Both of those should work.  I was planning on the S-2 TurboTracker with balance beam radar, myself, like Brazil.

That being said, what if the item is derived from the rule violators, not the other way around?  I'd have liked to include the Tu-126 in one of the versions of my list, but the Tu-126 is based on Tu-114, which is derived from the Tu-95 (unlike the rule-violating Q-5, which is derived from the rule-compliant J-6).
What does everyone else think?  I'm fine with Tu-126 and Tu-114, but not the Tu-95 or Tu-142.  I think they're much more different from each other than the 707/C-135 family.  What do others think?

(If 707, KC-135, and KC-10 are out...... is anyone willing to entertain the idea of partially re-engining jet-boosted KC-97Ls with turboprops for a boom-equipped tanker?  Anyway......)
That's fine by me.  Stick to actual turboprops proposed for the C-97 series, though.

I feel tempted to ask if reverse-engineering engines would be okay, but there might be a possibility of going into a debate similar to the F404 v.s. F414 one if tuning-up the engine beyond existing specifications should prove tempting......
I'm fine with the RM12 instead of the F404, for example.  It's 60% F404 and has almost identical dimensions in every respect, as shown earlier.

Would the USN really part with a nuclear-powered vessel to Geriatria? It's hard to imagine.

Speaking of political realities, could Geriatria acquire Japanese hardware (of any sort), i.e. does the real-world Japanese embargo on arms sales apply in this whiff world?

I say yes to Japan, but let's try to keep nuclear ships out of this.

The question I should have asked is "Are tanker conversions simple enough to be outside rule 7?".

Probe & drogue, sure.  You can put a couple of refueling pods on a Transall C-160 and use it as a tactical tanker, but I think you need to at least show there was a proposal for the boom modification.  I think the DC-8 qualifies for the boom based on the early proposals.

Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

Army

Leopard 1 MBT upgraded with T-72M1 Moderna turret and improved hull armour

(To create a nominally "Europe-centric" Mk.1 list, I might swap out the Phantom and Seasprites in the future and put them in my upcoming Mk.2 list instead- trouble is, I'll need to find a replacement for the Seasprites now......)

Both of those sound fine.  The Seasprites can be replaced by the Alouette II and III in most roles, I think.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

I'd say nothing over the original 40mm caliber.  Other than that, I'm fine with it.

The heaviest I would ever go is the Bushmaster IV for 40mm/L70 Bofors ammunitions, but with the notion of me never realizing the AC-119 ever being armed with anything bigger than the 20mm Vulcan guns, I'd be more than happy if I can settle with the Bushmaster II.

The T-72 is out because of production dates.

I'm only interested in the turret.

They're rebuilds.  I think the Chetak is a great choice.

Makes my life a whole lot easier.    So do the clearances of Tu-126 and Alouette III.

That's fine by me.  Stick to actual turboprops proposed for the C-97 series, though.

P&W T34 turboprops were tested on the YC-97J.

[Logan Hartke]

I'd say nothing over the original 40mm caliber.  Other than that, I'm fine with it.

The heaviest I would ever go is the Bushmaster IV for 40mm/L70 Bofors ammunitions, but with the notion of me never realizing the AC-119 ever being armed with anything bigger than the 20mm Vulcan guns, I'd be more than happy if I can settle with the Bushmaster II.

You're probably right about that.  Just to be safe, how about no guns 35mm and over and no guns (regardless of caliber) over 200kg for the AC-119?

Anyone have a problem with that?

Also, no gunship conversions of airframes not proposed for the job with weapons caliber greater than 20mm.  That seem fair?

Cheers,

Logan

[Bryan H.]

Well the nuke users in that list are all NATO members and Geriatria isn't. You're right that the sheer cost of nuclear propulsion is a huge barrier, but equally, I don't see anyone too keen on exporting nuclear submarine technology outside the big power-blocks either: 3rd world navies have had to laboriously develop it themselves, if at all. Another factor would be the specialised maintenance facilities needed by nuclear propulsion. Geriatria will either have to build it all for themselves (for one ship) or send the ship back to the USA every time it's reactors need maintenance and/or refuelling. If they do it themselves, how do the new cores get to Geriatria to be fitted?

Geriatria has rebuilt her shipyards but right now they're better equipped for cruise ships, freighters, fishing vessels and sail yachts - nuclear core replacement is out of our league at this point. 

Geriatria will wait until 2020 and buy some Ticonderoga class CG's.  We will include Ticonderoga's in the negotiations over the basing right for US forces.  The AEGIS system will have to wait & land-based air defense missiles will have to work for now.  Properly outfitted Spruances will be adequate for surface warfare and carrier escort (ex-Clemenceau) duties.

Bryan 

[dy031101]

Just to be safe, how about no guns 35mm and over and no guns (regardless of caliber) over 200kg for the AC-119?

No problem whatsoever.

(I think I'll stay out of any argument over the second rule addendum although personally I have no problem with it, either.)

Right now I see four three choices:

1. pay Sargent Fletcher Inc. to finish development of the advanced 27mm gunpod for my tactical fighters and re-arm the AC-119s with the same 27mm cannons.

2. swap out the Phantoms for MiG-23s/23BNs/27s and re-arm the AC-119s with GSh-6-30   or GSh-2-30 guns......

3. swap out the Phantoms for SAAB 37s and re-arm the AC-119s with Oerlikon KCA guns.

4. wait until my army vehicle armaments can be fully worked out.

I'm fine with the RM12 instead of the F404, for example.  It's 60% F404 and has almost identical dimensions in every respect, as shown earlier.

Can I take it as if reverse-engineering engines is fine so long as the engines are built as-is, not changed into a super powerplant whose use virtually violates Rule #7?

Or should I at least pay some lip service to the idea of "just taking wrecked engines and fixing 'em"?

I know this is from a couple of pages back but have been looking into the T-54/T-55 family and came across this web page http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/chimbtt69ii.htm which states the Type 69-II production was from 1974 to 1988. Also the Type 69 wikipedia page list the Iraqi variants as upgrades.

I just found out that Romania was still coming up with new versions of their T-55 derivatives well into the 80s.  Does anyone know the duration and the nature (again, new-build v.s. upgrade) of their production?

=========================================

Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

I'm under the impression that of all new-generation WVRAAMs, IRIS-T is has the longest range at 25km (previously I thought the ASRAAM is at 18km) and would like to equip my supersonic fighters with it, with the navy's Viggens being the first to receive the missiles; G.91R has a secondary air defense duty with AIM-9L/M-class weapons.

Air Force

Tu-126 (AEW&C replacing the originally-specified SP-2H AEW; upgraded with Phalcon system)

Tu-114 (some Probe-and-Drogue tankers, others ELINT/ECM)

Saab 37 Viggen (replaced the originally-specified Phantoms; majority being JA-37 fighters upgraded to the newest standard, and if there's a possibility of adopting the fire control radar to fire Meteor AAMs in the future......; and the obligatory trainers, too)

AC-119s will be upgunned with 3~4 Oerlikon KCA cannons

Navy

Il-38 (ASW/Ocean-patrol replacing the originally-specified SP-2H ASW; brought to SD standard)

Saab 37 Viggen (AJS-37 in maritime roles)

Army

Gepard AA tank (with Stinger SAM add-on)

Leopard 1 GCT AU-F2 155mm SPH

Leopard 1 TOS-1 220mm Artillery Rocket (for the same reason as my MBT choice)

=========================================

Random thoughts:

I used to ask questions in the General Modelling section about how one might rehabilitate mothballed WWII-vintage AFVs to some kind of fighting shape...... I thought this might be a good chance to really have fun with the idea (if I knew enough about specifications of modern weaponries, that is).  I probably won't make those ideas specific to any version of my list......

Does anyone know the turret ring diametres of LCTS-90, CT-CV, CV90-120, and Leopard 2 turrets respectively?

[dy031101]

I'm surprised no-ones gone for F-106s or Lightnings yet, to be honest.

I had thought about making F-102s and F-106s competitive for modern air combat before......  How much of an upgrade did the Swedish Rb 27 represent over the AIM-26B, if at all?

Short of coming up with a WVRAAM that didn't enter production (what-if successor of XAIM-4H)...... perhaps the internal carriages can be modified for carrying the Russian R-60 missiles, and BVRAAMs can be carried under the wings (unfortunately, in place of the drop tanks...... maybe we can try testing weapon-carrying supersonic tanks taken from the Mirages on the Century Deltas......)

[gunfighter]

Lightnings? what for??? gate guarding? 

[dy031101]

The Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar is claimed to be designed to generate minimal aerodynamic effect...... how much of truth is there to it?

Or maybe I should just ask point-blank if I can put the "Top Hat" radar into the Dassault Mercure to make an AEW plane...... or would that be considered as a major airframe modification?

[Weaver]

I'm surprised no-ones gone for F-106s or Lightnings yet, to be honest.

I had thought about making F-102s and F-106s competitive for modern air combat before......  How much of an upgrade did the Swedish Rb 27 represent over the AIM-26B, if at all?

Short of coming up with a WVRAAM that didn't enter production (what-if successor of XAIM-4H)...... perhaps the internal carriages can be modified for carrying the Russian R-60 missiles, and BVRAAMs can be carried under the wings (unfortunately, in place of the drop tanks...... maybe we can try testing weapon-carrying supersonic tanks taken from the Mirages on the Century Deltas......)

Wouldn't any attempt to upgrade the -106 to modern capability violate the rule about mods having to have been proposed in the real world? We talk about modded -106s on here all the time, but AFAIK, the most "modern" proposed mod in the real world replaced all the Falcons with a couple of Sparrows: hardly a modern loadout.

[dy031101]

Wouldn't any attempt to upgrade the -106 to modern capability violate the rule about mods having to have been proposed in the real world? We talk about modded -106s on here all the time, but AFAIK, the most "modern" proposed mod in the real world replaced all the Falcons with a couple of Sparrows: hardly a modern loadout.

IIRC, avionics upgrade and the use of modern ordnances would fall under Rule #6 but not Rule #7, which in this case concerns major aerodynamic modifications.

[gunfighter]

Why going for F106s if you can order phantoms? I think the delta is quite limited in her capabilities, even if you fit sparrows.