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

"Steven Vincent" wrote in message
...
H wrote:
"Jack G" kirjoitti

snip

Lockheed P-3 Orion
Beriev Be-6
Beriev Be-10
Beriev Be-12
Tupolev Tu-12
Tupolev Tu-14


The sea patrol planes such as the Breguet and the P3 were not intended
to drop bombs anymore than most of the recce planes so I don't think
should be open for discussion here. (I don't know if Nimrod claims a
war drop during Falklands or ODS - it had a role in both but I don't
think it actually launched a Harpoon, Torp or Sidewinder).

P-3's have conducted wartime weapons delivery with the launch of SLAM's
during Allied Force.

www.vp4association.com/p3_orion/p-3.htm

Brooks

"Jack G" wrote:
Could add as well:

Martin AM-1 Mauler
Grumman AF-2S Guardian

Jack


"Kirk Stant" wrote in
message
. com...
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)


AF-2S/W were in Korea for ASW if needed. Kept a few Soviet subs at bay
during that period.

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

"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)?

Haven't seen anyone mention the Canadair CL41G Tebuan, a strike version of
the Canadair CT114 Tutor trainer flown by the Malaysian air force. Or did
the Malaysians find someone to actually use it against?

tim gueguen 101867

Wow, you guys came up with a lot of things I never knew or had
forgotten. Great responses. If we open the criteria to "Combat
aircraft that have not seen combat - in any configuration, with combat
being defined as projecting force to affect the outcome of some
conflict", then there aren't very many that didn't get a chance to do
what they were built for - and their crews trained for.

A bit sobering, actually.

And recce is still a bit squishy - does the EP-3 "victory" over the
F-8 (I think that is what it was) count as "combat"? That sure would
surprise a lot of people!

Just one question:

What is a "Squark"?

Kirk Stant wrote:

snip

Just one question:

What is a "Squark"?

From the context it's presumably a Hawker Sea Hawk (actually produced by
Armstrong-Whitworth. It was designed by Hawker, but shuffled off to A-W
so that Hawker could concentrate on the Hunter, IIRR). The Indian Navy
(300 Squadron) used them in the 1971 war from the INS Vikrant, to attack
airfields, shipping, port facilities and troops in East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh). I can't remember if they were also used in 1965, but I think
not. The Sea Hawks were eventually replaced by Sea Harriers in the early
'80s.

Guy

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message . com...
Wow, you guys came up with a lot of things I never knew or had
forgotten. Great responses. If we open the criteria to "Combat
aircraft that have not seen combat - in any configuration, with combat
being defined as projecting force to affect the outcome of some
conflict", then there aren't very many that didn't get a chance to do
what they were built for - and their crews trained for.

A bit sobering, actually.

And recce is still a bit squishy - does the EP-3 "victory" over the
F-8 (I think that is what it was) count as "combat"? That sure would
surprise a lot of people!

No, but the use of the P-3 to fire SLAMs agaionst Serb targets does
seem to give the Orion the "combat" laurel.

Brooks


Just one question:

What is a "Squark"?

In article ,
Kirk Stant wrote:

Just one question:

What is a "Squark"?

Apologies - it was the Hawker Sea Hawk

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/seahawk/

A pretty little thing, and notably hardy and long-lived.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

In article , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
In article ,
Kirk Stant wrote:

Just one question:

What is a "Squark"?

Apologies - it was the Hawker Sea Hawk

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/seahawk/

A pretty little thing, and notably hardy and long-lived.


While we're on the FAA trail, AFAIK the Fairey Gannet never dropped
anything in anger.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
In article ,
Kirk Stant wrote:

Just one question:

What is a "Squark"?

Apologies - it was the Hawker Sea Hawk

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/seahawk/

A pretty little thing, and notably hardy and long-lived.


While we're on the FAA trail, AFAIK the Fairey Gannet never dropped
anything in anger.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

But how many casualties did it cause to people who were forced to look
at it?

Bob McKellar

In article , Peter Twydell
writes
In article , ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
writes
In article ,
Kirk Stant wrote:

Just one question:

What is a "Squark"?

Apologies - it was the Hawker Sea Hawk

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/seahawk/

A pretty little thing, and notably hardy and long-lived.


While we're on the FAA trail, AFAIK the Fairey Gannet never dropped
anything in anger.
Not strictly true. Gannets of 847 NAS were operational in Cyprus
between April 56 and November 59. They were on anti-smuggling (arms)
patrols and although as far as I know they never dropped anything in
anger they were there to do just that should the need arise.
--
Vic Flintham
Cold war military aviation
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk