The Geriatric Air Force - Slightly Used

[blue520]

The F414 is smaller in length and diameter than the J79, Spey Mk 202 & also the PW1120, also there was a proposed modernisation (McDonnell Douglas) for the F-4 that induced the F404 as one of the options.    

I'm interested in the existence of a F404-powered F-4 upgrade proposal......

Went looking & I can't seem to find the web site (think it has gone or I am having a bad web search day) that had it when I was looking for info on mods for the F-4 in the later years about 6 to 12 months ago. It contained only a note or two about the F404. It was bits & pieces about a whole pile of paper modernisation proposals & other proposals (not just F-4), the F404 one stuck in my head due to it being an interesting proposal, as I assume the F404 at the time would have just a bit less power with/with-out afterburner than the fitted J79.

The only scrap of information on the web I can find at the moment is just a mention in a post on Secret Projects Forum (Advanced Phantom Projects in Postwar Aircraft Projects), I am going to continue looking.

[elmayerle]

I rather suspect that thoughts of re-engining the F-4 with F404s were somewhat squashed by concerns over what effect such efforts would have on F-18 procurement.  Notice, I didn't say whose concerns.

[dy031101]

Was the SH-2G Super Seasprite newly-built or re-manufactured from decommissioned SH-2F?  If the T58 turboshaft (used by the SH-2F) is used by so many other helicopter types, would I be better off trying to have the SH-2F's engines tuned to GE-16 standard (than, say, introducing the T700 for the SH-2G) for the sake of performance?

[Logan Hartke]

One question about the rules, with the "or ships over 1000 tonnes (empty)" and 5 No ships launched after January 1st 1980.
Are armed ships less than 1000 tonnes launched after the cut off permissible? 

The 1000 tonnes is a Coast Guard limitation until 2010.  Only the 30 year old ship rule applies after 1980, but it applies to all armed ships.  So, no worries about about tonnage, but still for the age.

As far as I can gather the brief '90s production was finishing of units in storage from when the original production was halted. Think it would fit no longer in serial production.

That would be fine with me, then.  Have a source for that?

In a similar vein, what about the Mk71 8" naval gun?  Although, a prototype was tested, it never went into production.  Any Mk71 guns would have to be new production.  Would new Mk71 8" guns be OK?  To the best of my knowledge, the fore deck of the Spruance class was designed to carry the weight of the Mk71.  If the turret is OK under the treaty, I might see if I can buy a few.

I would say that, as long as it's the same turret ring diameter and the ship you intend to use it on is at least as large or larger than the Forrest Sherman-class, I'm fine with it.  Otherwise, I'd say that is an extensive hull modification to brace for that and you'll need to show me that it was really proposed.

That sound fair to you?

On the subject of naval refits, another question:

Many naval refits of system A for system B are generic, i.e. not linked to a particular ship type. Do these fall foul of the rule that says any upgrade must have been proposed in the real world or not? What got me thinking was the "standard" upgrade of 1 x Exocet MM38 to 2 x Exocet MM40s. Aerospatiale will, in principle, supply this to ANY Exocet user, but AFAIK, it was never specifically suggested for say, an Exocet Leander or a County.

Again, as long as it's not a major hull modification like trying to drop Aster 30s into the hull of a Fletcher, I'm fine with it.  You start digging in the innards of a ship with shipyard cranes and you'll need to present some evidence of a real world proposal.

Would it be permissible inside the rules to modify any aircraft with an engine that has never been proposed for that aircraft, that is smaller in length and diameter than the original engines and a proposed modification engine, also the engine it was developed from was proposed as an modification and the amount of changes would be similar. In this case the aircraft in question is the F-4 and I am wondering about fitting F414s to it. The F414 is smaller in length and diameter than the J79, Spey Mk 202 & also the PW1120, also there was a proposed modernisation (McDonnell Douglas) for the F-4 that induced the F404 as one of the options.   

No, it's not permissible.  We've been over this already.  The F414 =/= F404.  We went over this when Brian H tried to turn the A-4 Skyhawk into a Gripen NG.

Was the SH-2G Super Seasprite newly-built or re-manufactured from decommissioned SH-2F?  If the T58 turboshaft (used by the SH-2F) is used by so many other helicopter types, would it be worthwhile to introduce another engine type (namely T700 turboshaft used by the SH-2G) for the sake of performance?  Or would I be better off trying to have the SH-2F's engines tuned to GE-16 standard?

(Of course I still have to see if SH-2G doesn't disqualify the Seasprite helicopter line altogether......)

Both.  I know the New Zealand birds (five total) were new-build and the Aussie ones were remanufactured.  I also know that at least six US SH-2Gs were also new-build.  I know that the Polish aircraft were delivered from old US stocks and at least some of the Egyptian aircraft were also from US stocks (including some of the original new build US SH-2Gs).  I don't know about the rest of the Egyptian SH-2Gs, does anyone else?  I say if only the eleven aircraft were new-builds, we allow the older Seasprites in.  I think that if we hit one dozen or more new-builds, it may need disqualified.  What does everyone else think?

Cheers,

Logan

[Weaver]

In a similar vein, what about the Mk71 8" naval gun?  Although, a prototype was tested, it never went into production.  Any Mk71 guns would have to be new production.  Would new Mk71 8" guns be OK?  To the best of my knowledge, the fore deck of the Spruance class was designed to carry the weight of the Mk71.  If the turret is OK under the treaty, I might see if I can buy a few.

I would say that, as long as it's the same turret ring diameter and the ship you intend to use it on is at least as large or larger than the Forrest Sherman-class, I'm fine with it.  Otherwise, I'd say that is an extensive hull modification to brace for that and you'll need to show me that it was really proposed.

That sound fair to you?

I've seen any number of references to the fact that the Kidd class was designed to take the Mk.71: it's the reason why the forward Mk.26 launcher has a smaller magazine than the aft one. Not sure about the basic Spruance. I very much doubt that the turret ring is the same size, but swapping the deck panel for a different one would be a tiny part of re-fitting the entire magazine, etc...

On the subject of naval refits, another question:

Many naval refits of system A for system B are generic, i.e. not linked to a particular ship type. Do these fall foul of the rule that says any upgrade must have been proposed in the real world or not? What got me thinking was the "standard" upgrade of 1 x Exocet MM38 to 2 x Exocet MM40s. Aerospatiale will, in principle, supply this to ANY Exocet user, but AFAIK, it was never specifically suggested for say, an Exocet Leander or a County.

Again, as long as it's not a major hull modification like trying to drop Aster 30s into the hull of a Fletcher, I'm fine with it.  You start digging in the innards of a ship with shipyard cranes and you'll need to present some evidence of a real world proposal.

Actually, dropping Aster boxes into/onto a Fletcher would be the easiest part: what would kill you is finding the volume, power supply and cooling for all the computers and radars you'd need to control them. It is doable though: Taiwanese Gearings (?) had ASROC and containerized Standard ARM fitted to them.

[dy031101]

I rather suspect that thoughts of re-engining the F-4 with F404s were somewhat squashed by concerns over what effect such efforts would have on F-18 procurement.  Notice, I didn't say whose concerns.

If re-engining with the F404 was indeed proposed...... I won't go for the F414, but if it's F404-GE-IN20......

If not then the PW1120 I'll stick with.

I know that the Polish aircraft were delivered from old US stocks and at least some of the Egyptian aircraft were also from US stocks (including some of the original new build US SH-2Gs).  I don't know about the rest of the Egyptian SH-2Gs, does anyone else?  I say if only the eleven aircraft were new-builds, we allow the older Seasprites in.  I think that if we hit one dozen or more new-builds, it may need disqualified.  What does everyone else think?

Cheers,

Logan

I don't know how credible the Federation of American Scientist and Global Security websites are, but both claim the first ten Egyptian machines to be ex-USN examples.

And I found this saying these are remanufacutred from SH-2Fs.

I also remember seeing a claim that Egypt later acquired (IIRC) five additional ex-USN airframes, with three of them being used as a source for spare parts.  Unfortunately I made the mistake of not marking down that claim and now have not been able to locate it again......

I think I'll operate under the impression that T58-powered Seasprite is fine for now.

Has anyone seen any problem with the rest of my list?

[blue520]

As far as I can gather the brief '90s production was finishing of units in storage from when the original production was halted. Think it would fit no longer in serial production.

That would be fine with me, then.  Have a source for that?

TAM - Found one on line "In 1994 the Army needed replace their obsolete upgraded Sherman and the goverment authorised the finishing of 46 TAM VC and 40 VCTP in storage in TAMSE" from www.army-guide.com.

SH-2 - I think the older Seasprites are fine, but any one could show it went to 13 or 14 then it should be out.

dy031101 at this point in time your list looks fine, about your Gnat/Ajeet questions have a look at http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html#m3 it lists the significant changes and also that ten Gnats were upgraded to Ajeet standards.

[dy031101]

The only scrap of information on the web I can find at the moment is just a mention in a post on Secret Projects Forum (Advanced Phantom Projects in Postwar Aircraft Projects), I am going to continue looking.

I asked Mark Nankivil, who posted the various conformal fuel tank proposals there, for further info, which he kindly provided.  You can return to that thread for the attached report.

Looks like only PW1120 and improved J79 were seriously studied in depth...... which might jeopardize the chance of F404-powered Phantom II+ conforming the Rules (I don't think they thought about the necessary fuselage modifications beyond how to mount the engines)...... dang.

Actually, dropping Aster boxes into/onto a Fletcher would be the easiest part: what would kill you is finding the volume, power supply and cooling for all the computers and radars you'd need to control them. It is doable though: Taiwanese Gearings (?) had ASROC and containerized Standard ARM fitted to them.

The Gearing class vessels didn't have enough volume for even the smaller Mk.22 launcher, so the ROCN used box launchers on them- those are surface-to-air missiles, not the anti-ship-oriented ARMs.  All those computers and rapid-firing guns did displace the ASROC reloads though.

Come to think of it, smaller VLS (like the Mk.48) might be dropped onto or even into that space...... but whatever the case, I think ESSM is as good as it'll get......

dy031101 at this point in time your list looks fine, about your Gnat/Ajeet questions have a look at http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html#m3 it lists the significant changes and also that ten Gnats were upgraded to Ajeet standards.

Didn't notice that second part...... thanks.  The Mk.1 list is adjusted accordingly.

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

Random thoughts:

How much can I up-gun the AC-119?  I'm thinking along the line of the proposed AC-27 Spartan......

Also, would the 40/20 rule apply to private contractors servicing my military- for example, commercial tanker services like Omega?

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

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)......

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?

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......

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

Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

Air Force

Mirage IV (bomber; maybe a few converted for strategic reconnaissance instead of Mirage 50?)

An-22 (strategic airlifter, if Allied and chartered assets cannot fulfil the need of shipping mechanized peacekeepers overseas)

Army

AH-2F Sprite (gunship conversion of refurbished SH-2F with engines souped up to T58-GE-16 standard, minigun turret of the HH-2C, updated avionics of the Super Seasprite, ordnance racks adapted for rocket and ATGM carriage, and up-to-date self-protection systems; maybe some armour protections and/or an extra pair of crew-served .50 cal. MGs like the Australian Bushranger gunships)

Comments, answers to above questions, and suggestions are welcomed.

[Bryan H.]

In a similar vein, what about the Mk71 8" naval gun?  Although, a prototype was tested, it never went into production.  Any Mk71 guns would have to be new production.  Would new Mk71 8" guns be OK?  To the best of my knowledge, the fore deck of the Spruance class was designed to carry the weight of the Mk71.  If the turret is OK under the treaty, I might see if I can buy a few.

I would say that, as long as it's the same turret ring diameter and the ship you intend to use it on is at least as large or larger than the Forrest Sherman-class, I'm fine with it.  Otherwise, I'd say that is an extensive hull modification to brace for that and you'll need to show me that it was really proposed.

That sound fair to you?

I've seen any number of references to the fact that the Kidd class was designed to take the Mk.71: it's the reason why the forward Mk.26 launcher has a smaller magazine than the aft one. Not sure about the basic Spruance. I very much doubt that the turret ring is the same size, but swapping the deck panel for a different one would be a tiny part of re-fitting the entire magazine, etc...

From page 377 of US Destroyers by Norman Friedman,
" As built, the new destroyer (the Spruance, DD963) presents an impressive, if appearently, underarmed, profile, with a pair of 5-in./54LW guns, ASROC (with the unusually large magazine capacity of 16 reload missiles), PDMS (not installed at first), two LAMPS helicopters, and the usual pair of triple Mk 32 tubes.  Provision has been made for CIWS and for chaff launchers, both antimissile defense countermeasures, and Harpoon (in canisters) has been added.

The basic design provides for both modernization and an AAW conversion (i.e. to DDG).  In the former version, the forward 5-in./54 was to be replaced by a lightweight 8-in./55, and 8 Harpoons in canisters were to be added, as well as CIWS.  A Mk 26 Mod 0 launcher would replace the ASROC pepperbox, with no loss of rounds (24 in. magazine vs. 8-inch box plus 16 stowed).  However, their would clearly be a capability to use the Mk 26 for AAW weapons.  Conversion would entail, in addition, a Mk 26 Mod 1 in place of the PDMS aft; a new gun fire control system; a continuous wave illumination; and an SPS-48 radar in place of the less capable SPS-40B of the basic ship."

It appears that the Spruance class was intended to be somewhat modular in nature; hence, the different outfit of the Kidd class. The 8"/55 gun capability was built in; although, not followed through with by the USN.  The Mk71 8" gun looks like a go and quite a few other upgrades might also be possible.

Here's a link with a few more details.  The idea of an AEGIS Long Beach modernization with the Mk71 8" gun sounds pretty good.  I'll have to check references on that one.  Maybe, I can reserve the ship after the USN retires her.   http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm

Bryan

[Bryan H.]

Army

AH-2F Sprite (gunship conversion of refurbished SH-2F with engines souped up to T58-GE-16 standard, minigun turret of the HH-2C, updated avionics of the Super Seasprite, ordnance racks adapted for rocket and ATGM carriage, and up-to-date self-protection systems; maybe some armour protections and/or an extra pair of crew-served .50 cal. MGs like the Australian Bushranger gunships)

Comments, answers to above questions, and suggestions are welcomed.

I thought of the SeaSprite but was concerned there might not be enough airframes for all the possible applications.  How much production was there?  When was the second production run?  Other than those two question marks - the H-2 would be a great Helicopter Gunship conversion + maybe a few for the typical navy missions.

Bryan

[dy031101]

I thought of the SeaSprite but was concerned there might not be enough airframes for all the possible applications.  How much production was there?  When was the second production run?

I don't know for sure, but there seems to be quite a lot of airframes of earlier models produced (190 UH-2As/Bs before conversions and attritions)...... I guess we can always spend some more money to get them ready.

Right now my requirement for the Seasprites is primarily for army/marines gunships and ASW platforms (in case I end up writing ships that can't take the Sea Kings into my list in the future)......

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?

[blue520]

Was there ever a decision made on if the 707 was in or out?

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?

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?   

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.

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?

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).   

Any others?

       

[Bryan H.]

Norman Friedman comes to the rescue again...  From US Cruisers pg.422 discussing Strike Cruisers (CSGN) proposals for either new construction or conversion of the USS Long Beach

"There was one other attempt ot provide a strike cruiser.  The Long Beach was proposed as a basis for reconstruction, with a suit close to that of the CSGN: two Mk 26 Mod 2 launchers, Harpoon cannisters forward of the bridge, a Tomahawk right aft, and two 8-in/55 lightweight guns.  Her SQS-23 sonar would have been upgraded to an SQQ-23 (two dome passive/active) configuration.  Congress allocated $371 million in FY 77, expecting to add $164 million in FY 78 and $248 million in FY 79.  However, President Ford canceled the program shortly before leaving office, and instead the Long Beach was modestly overhauled in 1980-82."  http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis1.jpg

Also, on page 414 is an artists conception of a Long Beach CSGN w/AEGIS presumably one of the various conversion proposals.  The notes for the illustration say,
"The Long Beach was proposed for conversion to an Aegis missile cruiser.  Reportedly the project was dropped because it would have diverted funds from new-construction ships such as the Ticonderoga.  This is the official sketch of the proposal, showing the SPY-1 arrays on the fore and aft sides of the single superstructure mass, with one 8-in/55 lightweight gun forward of the Mk 26 missile launcher.  Harpoon antiship missiles and Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles would have been fired from the fixed cannister launchers.  The radome would have accommodated a Mk 86 gunfire control system for the 8-in gun."  http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis2.jpg

The links are from Secret Projects forum http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=813.0

It looks like the Long Beach conversion had progressed (at least $371 million of design studies worth, in 1977 dollars) a great deal before the project was cancelled for political reasons.  A refitted and thoroughly modernized AEGIS Long Beach strike cruiser would be a great asset.  As a carrier escort, flagship or for theatre level missile defense with the AEGIS/Standard missile combo, the Long Beach looks very desirable.

& happy modeling, Bryan

[dy031101]

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.

If I interpret Logan's examples correctly, items that are somehow related but not strictly part of the families of rule violators would be up to individual participants (MiG-21MF/21bis, if you really want to although Logan personally wouldn't, and MiG-19/J-6 are okay, but definitely not J-7 and Q-5, both of which are still in production after 1990).

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).

(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......)

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......

The original list has been tentatively named Mk.1  

[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?