The Geriatric Air Force - Slightly Used

[Bryan H.]

This is a work in progress...

Royal Geriatria Air Force – order of battle

Type:                                          Number:
A-4x/TA-4x Super Skyhawks            275/25
Super Mirage F.1E/F.1Bs                  275/25
A-7x/TA-7x Super Corsair II's           45/5
F-4x/RF-4x Super Phantom 2000's     75/25
F-111x/EF-111x                             45/5
MB.326                                         50
Cessna M150                                 50
S-3B/ES-3B Viking                          20/5
SP-2x Super Neptune                      25
DHC-5 Buffalo                                25
OV-10x Super Bronco                      25
CH-46                                          25
Sikorsky S.61 SeaKing                     50
Alouette II                                    50

Royal Geriatria Army

Number:      Type:                                                                       
2500           BTR-60 APC (w/Israeli Saymar upgrades) & variants     
750             M60 MBT (w/ a combination of M60-2000 & M60T upgrades)
75               AML-90 Recon Car (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
25               AML-60/20 Recon Car(w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
100             M3 APC (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
500             Marder 1A5 (w/ a combination of E4 Kuka turret & proposed Canadian upgrades)
I'll continue to work on treaty safe SP Arty & other armored vehicles

Next the Royal Geriatia Navy...

& happy modeling, Bryan

[blue520]

Does anyone know when the PRC's production of Type 69 (which is a derivative of their T-54 copy) MBT lasted into?

Wikipedia claims that production of a 125mm-gun-armed variant for Iraq lasted into 1991, but I'm not sure if those are newly-built or upgraded......

Well just in case anyone is interested in T-54/55......

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. 

The main reason I was looking was the Israelis conversion of T-54/T-55 tanks into heavy armored personnel carriers (Achzarit).     

[Bryan H.]

Did production of the Leopard 1 (and variants) end in the 70's or 80's?  I think the Leopard 2 started in the mid 80's - did production of the Leopard 1 end at that time?  If so, the Leopard 1 would definitely be on my list.

Bryan

[blue520]

The last new Leopard 1's seem to be Leopard 1A4's for Greece delivered from '81 to '84.

Also with the Leopard 1A5 (conversions from the 1A1A1) the new turret had an option (that was not taken up) to fit the 120 mm gun of the Leopard 2. Also there was a prototype 1A6 (converted from an 1A1A1) that had an up-armoured turret and the 120 mm.

If you are looking for self propelled anti aircraft guns there is the Gepard and the Marksman anti aircraft system was offered as a conversion possibility.
 

[Bryan H.]

Great!  It appears that the GCT AUF2 155mm SP Arty was also proposed or tested on the Leopard 1.  So the Leopard 1 is definitely on the list.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCT_155mm  One question, do Western/NATO 155mm artillery fire a common round; or do French 155mm artillery fire different shells from American or British or German, etc... 

Bryan

[Weaver]

Great!  It appears that the GCT AUF2 155mm SP Arty was also proposed or tested on the Leopard 1.  So the Leopard 1 is definitely on the list.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCT_155mm  One question, do Western/NATO 155mm artillery fire a common round; or do French 155mm artillery fire different shells from American or British or German, etc... 

Bryan

Don't hold me to this, but I think the French ammo is different to NATO.

[blue520]

The French have their own ammo but a lot of the weapons seem to be able to fire NATO standard ammo as well.

"The AU-F1 fires all NATO-standard 155mm artillery rounds" Pulled from here. That should extend to the GCT AUF2 also.

Just out of interest, while looking around I noted the GCT can fire the US Copperhead guided projectile. 

[dy031101]

I just remembered that there was a Franco-Slovak project centred around a derivative of Leclerc tank turret for upgrading M60 and Leopard 1.

Although I don't know how to look at the paragraph stating the armour protection was reduced compared to stock Leclerc turret to save weight.

[Bryan H.]

I have some organizational questions.  

I'm envisioning that the defense forces will rely greatly upon the skill of the citizens as marksmen (think Switzerland citizen-soldiers/militiamen).  The bulk of the Army will be light infantry (both regulars & reserves) just because, equipment-wise, it is easier to form these units.  Under the current circumstances and treaty constraints "light horse" infantry units might also be in order.  

However, in planning and equipping the armored (heavy) component are their any ratios that are typically followed.  For example, how many APC/IFV's to tanks?  How many wheeled armor to tracked armor?  How many SP Artillery to APC's & Tanks?  How many bridgelayers, recovery vehicles & combat engineer vehicles?  How many SP AA Guns to SP AA Missiles?  How many reconnaisance vehicles or assault guns/mobile gun systems?

Thanks & Bryan

[blue520]

One air craft that I had forgotten about that may be useful in a ground-attack/close-air-support and jet trainer role would be the Skyfox (modification of a T-33 trainer). It would be nice to be able to fit a fixed GAU-13 cannon and ammo drum to create a mini A-10, but that would be out side the rules. How ever it would still be a effective and cost efficient aircraft.

[Weaver]

One air craft that I had forgotten about that may be useful in a ground-attack/close-air-support and jet trainer role would be the Skyfox (modification of a T-33 trainer). It would be nice to be able to fit a fixed GAU-13 cannon and ammo drum to create a mini A-10, but that would be out side the rules. How ever it would still be a effective and cost efficient aircraft.

An aircraft that raises another awkward question: at what point does a "conversion" morph into a "new-build using a few 2nd hand components"?

[Weaver]

Leanders are in, and earlier Vosper frigates (Mk.5, possibly Mk.7?) should be in too.

All Vosper frigates would qualify, I think. Last type 21 was comissioned in 1978, while the last Vosper Mk.10 for the Brazilian Navy was comissioned in 1980.

Yep  - my bad: didn't read the rules properly. I thought ships had the same 1970 cut-off as the rest.

The rules say ships must be launched before Jan. 1st 1980. Now the two Mk.9s for Nigeria were launched well before that , but only commissioned in mid 1980, after the deadline. The difference between "launch" (i.e. "first splash") date and "commissioned" (i.e. "finished") can be highly variable. Some ships are launched as little more than floating shells and then spend years alongside being fitted out. Others are built in extensively pre-equipped sections and don't hit the water until they're within months of being complete. 

[blue520]

One air craft that I had forgotten about that may be useful in a ground-attack/close-air-support and jet trainer role would be the Skyfox (modification of a T-33 trainer). It would be nice to be able to fit a fixed GAU-13 cannon and ammo drum to create a mini A-10, but that would be out side the rules. How ever it would still be a effective and cost efficient aircraft.

An aircraft that raises another awkward question: at what point does a "conversion" morph into a "new-build using a few 2nd hand components"?

In the case of the Skyfox (taking information from the wikipedia page) about 70% of the air frame was retained, if it was less than lets say approximately 40 to 50% I would not have suggested it.  What do people think is a good cut off?

[Logan Hartke]

An aircraft that raises another awkward question: at what point does a "conversion" morph into a "new-build using a few 2nd hand components"?

In the case of the Skyfox (taking information from the wikipedia page) about 70% of the air frame was retained, if it was less than lets say approximately 40 to 50% I would not have suggested it.  What do people think is a good cut off?

As long as you use the original airframe, I'm fine with it.  If pressed, I'd say at least 30% of the airframe has to be original.  For example, I'd be fine with the UH-1N/AH-1W --> UH-1Y/AH-1Z upgrade if it fit the timeline (which it doesn't).  Any more than that and customers usually go with new production anyway (as the USMC has), which would disqualify it regardless.

The Skyfox is fine with me, but not with an internal GAU-8 unless it really was proposed.  A gun that big on an airframe that small and I'd call that a major airframe modification.  Still, with gun pods and modern missiles, I think that's a good, cheap ground-attack solution.

For the launch date, I agree, some ships take forever to be commissioned, but by the time a ship is launched, the design is usually pretty well locked down, which is the main thing for me.  Also, once launched, a ship begins to be subjected to the effects of the sea and time, even if not commissioned.  Besides, commissioned can be just as "squishy" a date, so launch date was a concrete way of doing things.


There have been some good ideas, so far.  Anyone considered the Mi-6 yet for a helicopter?

For vehicles, the OF-40 and related Palmaria on OF-40 hull would be good options, I think.  I know the Palmaria turret was put on the TAM hull, but I don't think that counts, as it's a different vehicle.

What do you guys think?

Cheers,

Logan

[elmayerle]

Skyfox would probably go best with two or four 20mm or 30mm revolver cannon.  Remember, we're still dealing with a not overly large airframe here.  Remember, it's still a stretched and much modified F-80.