The Geriatric Air Force - Slightly Used

[elmayerle]

A 727 with either three upgraded JT8Ds (JT8D-217s on the sides and a cropped-fan version in the center to deal with the airflow and size restrictions of the center duct) or two larger engines would not only work for the AEW and VIP (C-22, anyone?) roles, but the provisions were always there, even if not used, for a tanker version.  If you needed one that could get out of tighter airfields, the 727-200 wing on the shorter 727-100 fuselage with the upgraded engines should work well.  If you go with the JT8D-powered 737-200 for some roles where a larger aircraft is unncessary, then sticking with the JT8D for the 727 variants wouldn't be a logistics problem.  I know Boeing studied stretched 707s to match the DC-8 Series 60 and 70 aircraft, but never actually built any; would these be appropriate aircraft for conversion and use under the rules?

[Just call me Ray]

A 727 with either three upgraded JT8Ds (JT8D-217s on the sides and a cropped-fan version in the center to deal with the airflow and size restrictions of the center duct)

There is a thing called the "Super 27" that replaces the outboard engines with JT8D-217s. A cropped-fan version would be kind of pointless though since that's just basically a JT8D-15 anyway.

[elmayerle]

Well, there is something of a difference as fan blade aerodynamics has improved greatly over the years and successive developments of the JT8D have improved the efficiencies of the high-pressure compressor and the hot section.  The overall idea is to bring all three engines up to teh same standard with the fan section being the only difference.  Yeah, there'a a lot of "little things" but they do add up.

[dy031101]

I think 737 is still being produced today.

727 has provision for a tanker version?  You mean as in being seriously studied?  As a boom tanker or just plain probe and drogue one?

If you needed one that could get out of tighter airfields, the 727-200 wing on the shorter 727-100 fuselage with the upgraded engines should work well.

Now that might be the reason to incorporate the 727 in my Mk.2 list.  Thanks for the info  

The alternative AEW proposals from blue520 are sounding better by the minute.  I had considered the 727 as a VIP transport but little else.

[Just call me Ray]

Well, there is something of a difference as fan blade aerodynamics has improved greatly over the years and successive developments of the JT8D have improved the efficiencies of the high-pressure compressor and the hot section.  The overall idea is to bring all three engines up to teh same standard with the fan section being the only difference.  Yeah, there'a a lot of "little things" but they do add up.

Why not go with entirely different engines then? Even the -200 series is considered fuel thirsty by modern standards. You could put V2500s on the sides like they do with the MD90s, or the BMW 715 engines on the 717. And you could put a lot of different smaller turbofan engines in the middle nacelle or even plug it up alltogether since the V2500 has more than enough thrust for two.

[dy031101]

Why not go with entirely different engines then? Even the -200 series is considered fuel thirsty by modern standards. You could put V2500s on the sides like they do with the MD90s, or the BMW 715 engines on the 717. And you could put a lot of different smaller turbofan engines in the middle nacelle or even plug it up alltogether since the V2500 has more than enough thrust for two.

Alternate timeline rules:

7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades

If an engine fit is proposed, it'd be a go; otherwise we can't use it.

[Bryan H.]

Just a thought: if other nations are still using eligible hardware, can we "bribe" them to retire it early so we can use it? That is to say, if Jordan doesn't want to part with it's newly-upgraded Chally Is, can we pay them Leo IIA6 or Leclerc unit prices in order to free them up?

I've kind of been thinking of something similar.  Basically, Geriatria might pay for design work and even "production" of the modernization on existing combat systems (air, land or sea) so that when the deadline changes the system is ready.  For instance, the F-14 has been fully retired but under the treaty conditions Geriatria won't be able to have them until 2020.  Geriatria might propose to the US that the retired airframes be "reserved" or stored in useable condition for until January 1, 2020.  It might also contract to have the aircraft run through a reconditioning and modernization program prior to actually taking them; so that when 01/01/20 rolls around the Geriatria AF can take posession of fully modernized, reconditioned and ready to go F/A-14D Super Tomcat 21's.

For aircraft: I'm thinking in "ultimate" terms; as in, the "ultimate" A-7 or "ultimate" A-4, etc...  Absolutely max out the performance and military effectiveness of these older types.

I've been thinking about some of the logistic problems involved with keeping some of the older types running.  I'm leaning toward limiting the number of airframe types (at least for the "major" roles), limiting the number of engine types and only buying types where 100+ airframes are available for spares support (apart from the operational airframes).  I'm going to try to follow similar guidelines for the Army and Navy.

On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

Bryan

[dy031101]

On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

Well they could always call in Chinooks to move their 105mm...... I guess those who use the pack howitzers do so because moving around on difficult terrains is more often than not a necessity.

[Bryan H.]

On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

Well they could always call in Chinooks to move their 105mm...... I guess those who use the pack howitzers do so because moving around on difficult terrains is more often than not a necessity.

Since, helicopters seem to be one of the harder categories of aircraft to find suitable treaty approved types; some 75mm & 105mm pack howitzers might be in order.  After all, the treaty says nothing about production of towed artillery - we'll just buy blueprints, tooling and license rights for the 75mm pack howitzer and some version of 105mm howitzer.

Bryan 

[blue520]

Running on the idea that my nation would have a mountainous internal region or at least one border, I was thinking of having a small dedicated group of mountain artillery. Equipped with the Mod 56 105 mm pack howitzer (also with MANPADS like the Stinger for self defence) & mule teams for primary transport and supply (but with helicopter support). For a light howitzer for the rest of the army something like the 105mm L118/M119A2. I am not all that savvy when it comes to artillery munitions, are the rounds for the Mod 56 compatible with the M119 and vice versa?

Any one know the maximum sling weight for the CH-46 Sea Knight?

Seeing the Alouette II & III are in, is the Aerospatiale Lama (a Alouette II with the engines of a III) ok?
On related helicopters, is the Aerospatiale Gazelle in or out?

Does the Sea King have a sling hook and if it does what is the maximum weight? What about the S-61R or the Westland Commando version?

With the S-64 Skycrane/CH-54 Tarhe pods capable of transporting up to 87 troops were built but were unable to carry an additional sling load and pods that did have the ability to troops and slung cargo were designed but not obtained, is it ok to use the later advanced pods?

One thing I have been thinking about is how would truck supported mounted infantry (or motorcycle infantry) go in modern warfare. I was contemplating an adapted Light Horse model, each troop was divided into about ten 4-man sections, before combat all men dismount and one man holds the horses while the other three proceed forwards. Besides standard armament each troop could be issued with additional weapons (and ammunition) carried on horse back to be used by the whole troupe, 2 men carrying a anti-armour RPG (example Panzerfaust 3), 1 a Stinger or similar MANPAD and the fourth with a bipod mounted "light weight" heavy machine gun like the Russian Kord 12.7 mm (alternative suggestions?). While being more vulnerable than troops in APCs they have greater manoeuvrability and ability to go places APCs can not, making them a more difficult target.        

727
Was there any major difference between the -100 and -200 wing? If there is I doubt a 727-100 re-wing with that of an -200 would get past rule 7 unless there was a proposal or was actually done.

If people are interested the actual and proposed re-engines for the 727 I have come across are.
Super 27 and similar (actually done) - engines 1 & 3 replaced by JT8D-217 or 219, engine 2 not replaced but a hush kit fitted.

Rolls-Royce Tay (offered by Dee Howard, -100 actually done -200 proposed) - on the -100 all engines replaced by Rolls-Royce Tay 650, enlarged intake for engine 2. A similar change was proposed for the -200 with Tay 670 engines, how ever I do not know if the 670 was ever developed in the end.

Rolls-Royce BR715 (proposed) - engines 1 & 3 replaced by Rolls-Royce BR715. Engine 2, either the JT8D was to be retained and derated, or replaced by a Tay (type not disclosed) or BR710 with intake modifications.

Twin 727 (proposed) - two septate proposals. A 30000 lbf IAE V2530-W5 (similar to the -A5 fitted to the A310 with a casing like the -D5 for the MD80) by Snow Aviation International and a 31200lbf CFM International CFM56-5C2 (also fitted to the A340). Engines 1 and 3 replace and number 2 removed. Number 2 inlet replaced by a fairing and the APU moved to the removed number 2 engine position with a tail cone replacing the exhaust

   
 
   

[Weaver]

Running on the idea that my nation would have a mountainous internal region or at least one border, I was thinking of having a small dedicated group of mountain artillery. Equipped with the Mod 56 105 mm pack howitzer (also with MANPADS like the Stinger for self defence) & mule teams for primary transport and supply (but with helicopter support). For a light howitzer for the rest of the army something like the 105mm L118/M119A2. I am not all that savvy when it comes to artillery munitions, are the rounds for the Mod 56 compatible with the M119 and vice versa?
 

As per that Wiki article:

Oto Mod.56 : US M1 ammo
US L119: US M1 ammo
UK L118: Abbot SPG ammo (NOT interchangeable with M1)

The L118 gun has a longer range than the L119 without using fancy shells, but there is a rocket-assisted shell for the  latter that more than makes up the difference, presumably at some cost in payload though.

Instead of the Mod.56, which in spite of it's widespread useage has an indifferent reputation, why not use the Thompson-Brandt MO120-RT-61 120mm mortar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortier_120mm_Ray%C3%A9_Tract%C3%A9_Mod%C3%A8le_F1

It's less than half the weight, has more lethal shells (with more fancy options) and 20 deg extra elevation, which often matters more than range in mountain warfare. It's normal maximum range is rather less than the Mod.56 (8000m vas 10,200m) but there's a rocket-assisted bomb that goes to 13,000m if you want.

Does the Sea King have a sling hook and if it does what is the maximum weight? What about the S-61R or the Westland Commando version?

AFAIK, the Sea King is out: Westland were producing them after 1990.

You're right about mules and horses being useful for transport, particularly in mountainous terrain, but don't underestimate their own unique logistics train: feed, blacksmith, vetinary etc... They're also very vulnerable to arty/mortar fire, since they can't find cover as easily or quickly as soldiers.

This may sound silly, but on reasonably flat terrain with a roads or a firm surface, one of the most cost-effective transport multipliers is the bicycle. It greatly increases "marching" speeds, particularly if personal loads can be ferried ahead by motor transport, it can get to some places that a jeep can't get, it's dirt cheap and it has a very modest logistics tail. It's highly reliable and if it does break, it doesn't block the road, can be recovered easily or even abandoned and recovered later at low cost. It's a cracking way to mobilise a citizen's militia, since with modest support for cycling clubs and the like, the recruits will train themselves for free for fun....

[elmayerle]

I believe the 727-200 wing had some "high-lift" devices not fitted to the 727-100 in order to deal with the greater gross weight of the longer airacraft.  I'm uncertain as to whether there were studies to fit this wing to the 727-100 for "special performance" versions, but it would seem a logical extension of the design.   Too bad the proposed 727-300 never made it to the cutting metal stage.

[Just call me Ray]

Alternate timeline rules:

7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades

If an engine fit is proposed, it'd be a go; otherwise we can't use it.

Twin 727 (proposed) - two septate proposals. A 30000 lbf IAE V2530-W5 (similar to the -A5 fitted to the A310 with a casing like the -D5 for the MD80) by Snow Aviation International

[blue520]

Thanks Weaver for that the ammunition information is very clearly on the wikipedia pages, do not know how I missed it.
I was drawn to the Mod 56 due to it's reported packabilty, however mortars do look a better option. Was thing about the M120 mortar, but the MO120-RT-61 looks even better. Any idea how well it brakes down for transport?  

Agree bicycles are also a great idea especially if you can off load some of the equipment to other transport modes. Also diesel militarised dual-sport motorcycles like the M1030M1 look potentially promising. Also came across this page on wikipedia which has a table of infantry transport types, a interesting one is the electric bicycle.

I was under the impression that the Sea King stopped before 1990, but Weaver is right. Westland did build new Sea Kings past 1990. Final production seems to be listed as 1996, how ever the last new construction was 1992. The last 2 helicopters in '95 and '96 were rebuilds for Norway.  
I counted 6 helicopters first flown in 1990 and a final 6 in 1992.
Five helicopters for the RN (build numbers WA1000-WA1004, registration ZG819-ZG822 & ZG875) and one helicopter for the Norwegian AF (build number WA1005, reg 522) in 1990. Six helicopters for the RAF (build numbers WA1006-WA1011, reg ZH540-ZH545) in 1992. Total 12, how ever the first flight of WA999 is not clear so it may be 13.

Can we call 12 limited production and let the Sea King in? or it it just too many?
         

[Weaver]

Thanks Weaver for that the ammunition information is very clearly on the wikipedia pages, do not know how I missed it.
I was drawn to the Mod 56 due to it's reported packabilty, however mortars do look a better option. Was thing about the M120 mortar, but the MO120-RT-61 looks even better. Any idea how well it brakes down for transport?  

Barrel, sights, carriage (2 x wheels plus axle) and base plate. The standard base plate's a bit of a monster: standard practice is for the crew to swing on the muzzle to lever it up out of a muddy surface.... However, there's a special mountain version of this mortar. I don't know what the differences are, however, but I'd imagine it's lighter than standard.

Agree bicycles are also a great idea especially if you can off load some of the equipment to other transport modes. Also diesel militarised dual-sport motorcycles like the M1030M1 look potentially promising. Also came across this page on wikipedia which has a table of infantry transport types, a interesting one is the electric bicycle.

IIRC, that M1030 turned out to be a dog and wasn't adopted, at least by the British Army. Note that the website says construction "will begin" in 2006. KADDB in Jordan make a militarised version of the Rokon Ranger two-wheel-drive motorcycle. It's still petrol however.