Which post-WW2 combat aircraft have not been used in combat?

"av8r" wrote in message
...




My guess is that the only British type to see no combat is the
Lightning -

Hi

You can add the Supermarine Swift and Gloster Javelin to that list.


Its already been mentioned that the Javelin saw service in Malaya
operating from RAF Butterworth

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"av8r" wrote in message
...




My guess is that the only British type to see no combat is the
Lightning -

Hi

You can add the Supermarine Swift and Gloster Javelin to that list.


Its already been mentioned that the Javelin saw service in Malaya
operating from RAF Butterworth

Keith

Keith, did it actually shoot, or at least get shot at? There were one
or two US type aircraft that made it to emergency areas, such as
Lebanon and Quemoy, but never apparently engaged in combat--is that
the case with the javelin in Malaya, or did it perform CAS? I can't
seem to find any evidence either way.

Brooks

In article ,
Kirk Stant wrote:
Lots of early French and Brit types used in Suez (my favorite -
Westland Wyvern - that must have been a bitchin' prop job to push
around!)

Remarkably high deck landing accident rate, I'm tiold, and it
certainly came a close second to the Firebrand in a straw pole of "worst
'carrier aeroplane' in a discussion between a panel of ex-FAA pilots
at a symposium at Yeovilton last year.

The prototype Wyvern at Yeovilton is even more impressive than the
production examples - a serious monster H-24 piston engine up front..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com...
I had forgotten the B-58 - Duh!

If you are going to include the RB-45 for its recon trole, don't
discount the B-58 yet. I believe there was a recent article published
that indicated the Hustler flew a sortie around Cuba during the
missile crisis with a recon pod ILO the weapons pod.

And I guess the FB-111 should be included.
B-45 was used in Korea, but for recce only?
F-94 was used in Korea (supposedly not as successfully as the F4U-5N,
especially against Bedcheck Charlie). Not sure what model.
French used Vampires and maybe Venoms in Algeria and Suez?
Lots of early French and Brit types used in Suez (my favorite -
Westland Wyvern - that must have been a bitchin' prop job to push
around!)
Some Alpha Jets were sold to African countries, and may have been used
there.

My guess is that the only British type to see no combat is the
Lightning - if only because it was not really optimized for airbase
defense and couldn't get anywhere else to fight! Just joking, but
only the Saudi's could have used it, using what, those goofy over the
wing bomb ejector racks? - I would have loved to have seen that. The
pilot would be safe from and optically guided AAA, however - the gun
crew would be laughing so hard it would be hard to aim their piece!

Don't laugh too quickly:

"The Saudi's F.53s saw brief action in December 1969 during a brief
conflict in the South Yemen border area. Several ground attack sorties
were flown, these ending the situation almost without any help from
the Saudi army."

www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/ lightning/history.html

Brooks


Looks like all the French hardware, except for the Mirage IV (in the
bomber role), got used (and still gets used). FAF Mirage IVPs did a
lot of good recce work for us lately, I believe. Even Rafales (off
the CV Charles DeGaulle) were deployed over Afghanistan in Air Defense
roles, while 2000's were dropping LGBs. Where were the Typhoons?

A similar picture for US and Soviet designs: Specialized Air Defense
fighters have less likelyhood of actual use (which is logical).
Bombers and "Frontal
Aviation" types - to use the soviet term - are much more likely to be
used.

All this isn't meant to prove anything, other than there sure are a
lot of people out there that apparently need bombs dropped on them or
missiles shot at them. Don't sell that stock in the Military
Industrial Complex yet! And lets start cranking out those F-35s.

Kirk

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
Just for fun, off the top of your heads, which post-WW2 combat
aircraft (any country) have NOT been used in their intended roles in
an actual shooting war (or police action, or soccer riot, or whatever
it's called these days)?

And why?

Some ROE:

1. Combat aircraft means it was designed or modified to employ
air-to-air or air-to-ground/ship/boat weapons.

2. Combat means someone was activily shooting back (or really wanted
to) while the aircraft was performing it's mission.

3. Let's leave out recce, that just gets too complicated!

To start things off, here are my USAF candidates:

B-36 - Held back from Korea for Nuke mission.
B-47 - Too early for Korea, too late for Vietnam (remember, no recce).
F-84F - Too early for Korea (ef considered a separate aircraft from
straight-wing F-84s), too late for Vietnam. Combat use by other
countries?
F-89 - Too late for Korea (?), not needed (no bomber threat).
F-106 - Not needed in Vietnam - F-102s deployed instead.
F-101 (Yeah, I know about the RF-101 in Cuba and Vietnam). Don't know
why F-101Cs weren't used early in Vietnam. Being phased out by then?

Everything else got lots of chances to do their thing.

At first glance, looks like the US taxpayer is getting a pretty good
deal for his money!

Kirk
(tired of all the non-mil av bull**** on this group)

I don't believe the AV-8A Harrier ever saw combat with the Marines. I don't
believe they were at Grenada or Lebanon). Of course the British versions did
as did the AV-8B's. The difference between the AV-8A and the B are so great
that the B has to be considered a new aircraft. Kinda like the old and new
F/A-18's.

But it seems that every body is nit-picking between models so there are
quite a few that didn't make combat according to those criteria. Quite a few
early models of the B-52 for example,
Then add the A-5A /A-5B, the original F8U(F-8A), the F-8E(FN), F-105B, some
of the early models of the A-4, etc. As you can see it can get rediculas in
a hurry


Someone else said the B-45/RB-45. But the B-45 saw action in Vietnam
dropping bombs.

Red Rider

"R" wrote in message
news

"Kirk Stant" wrote in message
om...
Just for fun, off the top of your heads, which post-WW2 combat
aircraft (any country) have NOT been used in their intended roles in
an actual shooting war (or police action, or soccer riot, or whatever
it's called these days)?

SNIP

Someone else said the B-45/RB-45. But the B-45 saw action in Vietnam
dropping bombs.

Red Rider

(When) did this happen? The B-45 Tornado was out of service before the
Vietnam War began....

Nick

"Nick Pedley" wrote in message
...

(When) did this happen? The B-45 Tornado was out of service before the
Vietnam War began....

Nick



Indeed but the RB-45C served with the 91st Strategic Reconnaissance
Squadron and saw some action in Korea.

Keith

Indeed but the RB-45C served with the 91st Strategic Reconnaissance
Squadron and saw some action in Korea.

Keith

RB-47 also saw some action over and near USSR, I believe one was lost.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

362436 (Ron) wrote:
Indeed but the RB-45C served with the 91st
Strategic Reconnaissance
Squadron and saw some action in Korea.

Keith

RB-47 also saw some action over and near USSR,
I believe one was lost.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Two known RB-47 losses; one off of Kamchatka in 1955 with 3 MIA, and one
off of Kola in July 1960 with 2 KIA, 3 MIA, and two captured but released
25 Jan 61.
Both losses due to MiGs.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

I don't believe the AV-8A Harrier ever saw combat with the Marines. I
don't
believe they were at Grenada or Lebanon). Of course the British versions
did
as did the AV-8B's. The difference between the AV-8A and the B are so
great
that the B has to be considered a new aircraft. Kinda like the old and new
F/A-18's.

But it (Harrier GR3 - which is the same as the AV8A) most certainly saw
combat with the RAF in Falklands