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

[Kirk Stant]

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)

[tw]

"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!

Any Swedish aircraft after the Tunnan I think.. i.e. Draken, Viggen,

[ikke]

CF-100 Canuck ? Rather confident the Canadians never went into combat with
it.
The only other Clunck users were the Belgians, they might have done some
air-to-ground work in the Congo with theirs, but this is just a WAG
(wild-assed guess)


Cave Putorem

Steven

[Mike Marron]

(Kirk Stant) wrote:

>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?

Could be wrong, but here goes:

B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...

>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)

Same.

[Alex A]

Mike Marron wrote:
HI
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab

I have read that F106 was used in used in Vietnam for few monthes but not
with the
expected results (1 shot down)
> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> G.91, English Electric Lightning,
I think Vulcan was used for Malouines Airfield bombing... scimitar by indian
in Pakistan/India war (not sure, sea vixen?)

Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat,
Gnat was used by India in India vs Pakistan ?

> BAe Hawk, Fuji> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26,
B-58 Hustler,
> Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A,

Dassault Ouragen, by IAF
>McDonnell FH-1 Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
A+

[Mike Marron]

> "Alex A" > wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab

>I have read that F106 was used in used in Vietnam for few monthes but not
>with the
>expected results (1 shot down)

I'm afraid you're confusing the F-106 with its delta-wing F-102
predecessor. A quick visual to differentiate between the two
is the clipped vertical fin on the Six and the air-intakes are also
behind the canopy (not to mention the Six blows the Duece away
in terms of takeoff/climbout performance when watching from the
ground). But the -102 was in 'Nam and the -106 wasn't.

>> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
>> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
>> G.91, English Electric Lightning,

>I think Vulcan was used for Malouines Airfield bombing... scimitar by indian
>in Pakistan/India war (not sure, sea vixen?)

OK?

>>Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
>>Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat,

>Gnat was used by India in India vs Pakistan ?

?

>> BAe Hawk, Fuji> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26,
>>B-58 Hustler,
>>Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
>>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
>>McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
>>Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A,

>Dassault Ouragen, by IAF

OK.

>>McDonnell FH-1 Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
>> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...

>A+

Heh.

[tw]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> Gloster Javelin,

Javelins were in a semi-shootin' war with Indonesia I believe. As was the
Sea Vixen. Both were intecepting aircraft but not shooting them down
(although I believe the Javelins managed to get an Indonesian C130 to fly
into the ground)

>Avro Vulcan,

Falkland Islands not ring a bell?

>Handley Page Victor

Dropped bombs in Indonesia conflict (I think) again. If not there then Aden
or something like that...

> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer

Used against Angola by South Africa.

>BAe Hawk

Used in its intended role by the Indonesians (alway with the Indonesians!)
against armed rebels.

> deHavilland Venom,

Pretty sure that saw some service in the Far/Middle east.

> Hawker Sea Fury

Shot down a couple of MiG 15s in Korea, heavily involved in that conflict.

[hlg]

"tw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Kirk Stant) wrote:
> >
> > >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)?
> >
> > Gloster Javelin,
>
> Javelins were in a semi-shootin' war with Indonesia I believe.

One story has Javelins being called in for Close Air Support (Javelin was
purely an interceptor). They overflew the Indonesian / insurgent positions
and lit off the afterburners, which always started with a heck of a bang.
The noise itself was sufficient to send the enemy scuttling away.

As was the
> Sea Vixen. Both were intecepting aircraft but not shooting them down
> (although I believe the Javelins managed to get an Indonesian C130 to fly
> into the ground)
>
> >Avro Vulcan,
>
> Falkland Islands not ring a bell?
>
> >Handley Page Victor
>
> Dropped bombs in Indonesia conflict (I think) again. If not there then
Aden
> or something like that...
>
> > Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer
>
> Used against Angola by South Africa.

Used by RAF as target designators, and once or twice as bombers, during the
First Gulf War.

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:

> Saab
> 29,

The Saab 29 (Tunnan, Flying Barrel) did see active duty between 1961
and 1963 during United Nations missions in Congo.

< http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/29kongo.htm >

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Alex A" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Marron wrote:
> HI
> >
> > B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>
> I have read that F106 was used in used in Vietnam for few monthes but not
> with the
> expected results (1 shot down)

You should avoid quoting Stickney, Alex.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat

Vulcans performed bombing missions in the Falklands and Victors
operated as tankers then and in Gulf War 1


> G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,

Buccaneers were operational in the Gulf War and I believe Venoms did
ground attack in Malaya and Sea Venoms operated in Korea

> McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1

Vampires saw service in Korea I think

> Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...

Sea Furies were used off RN carriers in Korea I think.

The Indians have used the attacker against Pakistan I believe

>
> >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)
>
> Same.
>
>
>

[Pierre-Henri Baras]

"Alex A" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>

> > Sukhoi Su-15
>

1983, KAL 007 airliner

> > Tupolov Tu-22

Heh, a Libyan Backfire tried to attack a french airfield in Libya in 1986.
First attack put one bomb on the runway, second attack put 2 Crotale SAM
into the Backfire...

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Mike Marron
> writes
>Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
>F-101,

Did recce over Vietnam, didn't it?

>Gloster
>Javelin,

Indonesian Confrontation, 1960s

>Avro Vulcan,

Black Buck raids, Falklands

>Handley Page Victor

Tanking in the Falklands and IIRC the Gulf, plus some "small war"
bombing IIRC.

>Fiat
>G.91,

>English Electric Lightning,

>Folland Gnat,

Used in combat by the Indians.

>BAe Hawk,

Used by several buyers for COIN against terrorists / ruthless repression
of noble dissidents.

>Tupolov Tu-22

Libyan bombing raids vs. Chad, IIRC.

>Tupolov Tu-16,

Egyptian raids vs. Israel, and I think Iranian Badgers saw some combat
in the Iran-Iraq war.

>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer

South Africans used them in Namibia, and they also flew combat in Gulf
War '91.

>Dassault Ouragen

Used by the Israelis in 1967.

>Hawker Sea Fury

Korea.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Matt Wiser]

Mike Marron > wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
>B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D,
>F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing)
>Cougar, Gloster
>Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine
>Scimitar, Fiat
>G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage
>IV, Saab Viggen,
>Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland
>Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
>T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov
>Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
>Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand,
>Tupolov Tu-20,
>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen,
>deHavilland Venom,
>McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B
>Fury, deHavilland
>Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen,
>McDonnell FH-1
>Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat,
>McDonnell
>F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
>>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)
>
>Same.
>
>
>
A Correction: Tu-16 Badgers have seen combat-by the Iraqis in 1967 against
the Israelis and in 1980-88 against Iran; Soviet Badgers were in Afghanistan.
Libyan Tu-22s have seen combat in Chad, Sudan, and Tanzania. Soviet Tu-22M
(Tu-26) Backfires were used in Afghanistan in 1987-88, and in the first Chechen
campaign. Buccaneers in S.African service saw combat in Angola, Sea Furies
in Korea, Suez, and by the Cubans against the Bay of Pigs force; F7Fs saw
action in Korea, while French F-84Fs were also in Suez.Vulcans flew the Black
Buck missions in the Falklands War, with Victors as Tankers there and in
Desert Storm.
RB-45s flew in Korea.

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

[Kevin Brooks]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >...
> 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?

There was only one wing of them (81st TFW at Ben****ers), tasked with
deep penetration (read "nuclear") missions in support of SACEUR; I'd
imagine that the powers-that-was decided that we still needed to keep
a credible force facing the Sovs while other forces were sent to
Vietnam.

>
> 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)

The Avro CF-101--closest it came to combat use was when the Belgians,
who operated the type for some six years, sent four of them to the
then Belgian Congo where they performed at an airshow and did the
"show the flag" bit.

Grumman F-11F Tiger

McD-D F3H Demon--unless you count its deployement to the Quemoy/Matsu
area during 1958--but I don't know of any actual combat.

All of the Saab fighters (J35 and J37, along with the J39 to date),
minus the J29, which did see some use in Africa under UN auspices.

Douglas F4D Skyray

Gloster Javelin

De Haviland Sea Vixen (?)--Unless it saw some kind of use during the
UK's involvement in SEA operations?

Vought F7U Cutlass

North American FJ1 through 4 Fury--Deployed to support the Lebanon
Crisis in 58 (FJ3), never saw combat.

The Japanese F-1

ROC Ching Kuo

I think you will find that there are a few Soviet types that have
never seen active combat (even the Su-15 only ever "fought" a couple
of airliners...).

Brooks

[Guy Alcala]

Kirk Stant wrote:

> 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:

<snip>

> 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?

France during Suez.

<snip>

> 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?

They were still at Ben****ers sitting Victor alert. 27 F-101As and 34
F-101Cs were converted to RF-101G/Hs respectively, beginning sometime in
the 1966-67 timeframe, and were assigned to ANG squadrons. Conversions
were still incomplete at the time of the Pueblo incident. some of the
squadrons were deployed to Itazuke and forward deployed to Osan about six
months later, lasting until April 1969.

Guy

[Ian Craig]

The Buc was used in Gulf War I
"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > "Alex A" > wrote:
> >>Mike Marron wrote:
>
> >>B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>
> >I have read that F106 was used in used in Vietnam for few monthes but not
> >with the
> >expected results (1 shot down)
>
> I'm afraid you're confusing the F-106 with its delta-wing F-102
> predecessor. A quick visual to differentiate between the two
> is the clipped vertical fin on the Six and the air-intakes are also
> behind the canopy (not to mention the Six blows the Duece away
> in terms of takeoff/climbout performance when watching from the
> ground). But the -102 was in 'Nam and the -106 wasn't.
>
> >> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> >> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> >> G.91, English Electric Lightning,
>
> >I think Vulcan was used for Malouines Airfield bombing... scimitar by
indian
> >in Pakistan/India war (not sure, sea vixen?)
>
> OK?
>
> >>Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> >>Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat,
>
> >Gnat was used by India in India vs Pakistan ?
>
> ?
>
> >> BAe Hawk, Fuji> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26,
> >>B-58 Hustler,
> >>Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> >>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> >>McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> >>Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A,
>
> >Dassault Ouragen, by IAF
>
> OK.
>
> >>McDonnell FH-1 Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> >> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
> >A+
>
> Heh.
>
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

Mike Marron wrote:

> (Kirk Stant) wrote:

<snip>

> >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:

<snip>

> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar,

TF-9s used as armed FastFACs by the Marines in Vietnam. Tunnan used in the
Belgian Congo, as already mentioned by someone.


> Avro Vulcan,

Falklands.

> English Electric Lightning,

Possibly used by Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait for ground attack? Unlikely.

> Alpha Jet,

Not sure on this.

> Folland Gnat,

India, in both 1965 and 1971.

> BAe Hawk,

COIN.

> Tupolov Tu-22,

Usd by both Iraq and Libya according to Bill Gunston (circa. 1979), the
former against the Kurds, the latter against Tanzania in support of Uganda.



> Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> Tupolov Tu-16,

An Irawi Tu-16 bombed Netanya, israel during the Six-day war; it was shot
down (shared by a Mirage and AAA). Also used by Egypt to fire Kelt ARMs
against Israel in 1973.

<snip>

> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer,

Namibia by RSA, DS by RAF.

> McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee,

Banshees were used in Korea by the USN, but I can't remember if the -4 was.

> Dassault Ouragen,

Israel (56, 67 and WoA) and India (1965 for sure).

> Hawker Sea Fury,

FAA in Korea.

> Supermarine Attacker...

Don't think Pakistan used it in combat, but won't swear to it.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

tw wrote:

> "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (Kirk Stant) wrote:
> >
> > >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?
> >
> > Could be wrong, but here goes:
> >
> > Gloster Javelin,
>
> Javelins were in a semi-shootin' war with Indonesia I believe. As was the
> Sea Vixen. Both were intecepting aircraft but not shooting them down
> (although I believe the Javelins managed to get an Indonesian C130 to fly
> into the ground)
>
> >Avro Vulcan,
>
> Falkland Islands not ring a bell?
>
> >Handley Page Victor
>
> Dropped bombs in Indonesia conflict (I think) again.

Don't think so. Valiants dropped bombs in various places (Suez for sure), but
I dont think Victors ever did for real, although they did deploy.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> Buccaneers were operational in the Gulf War and I believe Venoms did
> ground attack in Malaya and Sea Venoms operated in Korea

No Sea venoms that I'm aware of. Only the Colossus-class light fleets were
deployed to Korea, and they had air groups of Seafires or Sea Furies and
Fireflies.


>
> > McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> > Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
>
> Vampires saw service in Korea I think

Meteor.

> > Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> > F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
> Sea Furies were used off RN carriers in Korea I think.

Yes, see above.

> The Indians have used the attacker against Pakistan I believe

If it happened it was the other way around.

Guy

[H]

"Mike Marron" > kirjoitti
om...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab

Republic F-84F France > Egypt 1956

> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,

Fiat G.91 Portugal - Angola, Mosambique

> Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,

Tupolev Tu-16 - Iraq> ?, Egypt > Israel
Tupolev Tu-22 - Iraq >?, Libya > Tsad

> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
> Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...

Grumman F7F Tigercat - Korea

>
> >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)
>
> Same.
>
>
>


H

[Vic Flintham]

In article >, Mike Marron
> writes
(Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
>B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
>Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
>G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
>Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
>T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
>Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
>McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
>Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
>Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
>F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
>>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)
>
>Same.
>
>
>
F-84F - Suez 1956
Vulcan - Falklands 1982
Victor - possibly Borneo 1962-66
Lightning - Saudi Arabia - Yemen c1967-70
Gnat - India-Pakistan 1965, 1971
Tu-22 - Chad 1981+
Buccaneer - South Africa 1965-90, Gulf War 1991
F2H - Korea
Venom - Malaya c1956-60, Suez 1956, Aden 1956+
Sea Venom - Aden 196-
Vampire - Malaya 1951-55, Algeria 1954, Aden 1952, Tunisia 1961
Ouragan - Israel 1956, 1965
Sea Fury - Korea 1950-53

Just a few which come to mind, but then my horizons are a bit further
than my own back yard. I don't see what the question has to do with the
US taxpayer.
--
Vic Flintham
Cold war military aviation
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk

[John S. Shinal]

Guy Alcala wrote:

>They were still at Ben****ers sitting Victor alert. 27 F-101As and 34
>F-101Cs were converted to RF-101G/Hs respectively, beginning sometime in
>the 1966-67 timeframe, and were assigned to ANG squadrons.

I'm confused. QRA Zulu is interceptor alert, I thought QRA
Victor was strike alert, but QRA India was the nuke alert ? What were
the F101s loaded with as they sat alert ? i.e. - were the weapons OD
or white ? ;-D




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Walker]

Mike Marron > wrote in message
...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
Fiat G.91 - used by the Potuguese in Angola?

English Electric Lightning - used by the Saudis for counter-insurection?

de Havilland Venom - RAF Malaya and Suez


John



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 09/10/03

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
>>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)?
>B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>29,

SAAB 29s founght over central Africa (Biafra?) in the 60s.

F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
>Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat

Vulcan flew the Black Buck airfield-denial missions during Corporate,
the longest-range bombing missions to date. IIRC Vulcan always
had a secondary conventional bombing role, so it was working within
its job description. Victors did the tanking for Black Buck, so although
they weren't worrking within their original design role they were
certainly doing a significant job.

>Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji

Gnat saw service in the early 70s Indo-Pakistani war, earning the
tag of "MiG-killer" in Pakistani service.
Hawks have seen a maul of action as ground-attack, Zimbabwean examples
over Congo, for example.

>T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
>Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,

*Blackburn* Firebrand, Mercifully no action. Bugger was dangerous enough
as it was.

>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,

*Blackburn* Buccaneer saw action in the second Gulf War (1991).
DH Venom saw action in Suez (1957).

>McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
>Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
>Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
>F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...

Sea Fury saw action over Korea - including a MiG 15 downed. Attacker
and IIRC Vampire samw action over Suez in '57.

>>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)
>
>Same.
>
>
>

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

[Thomas Schoene]

"Vic Flintham" > wrote in message

> In article >, Mike Marron
> > writes
> >
> F-84F - Suez 1956
> Vulcan - Falklands 1982
> Victor - possibly Borneo 1962-66
> Lightning - Saudi Arabia - Yemen c1967-70
> Gnat - India-Pakistan 1965, 1971
> Tu-22 - Chad 1981+

Tu-22s also in Afghanistan and Iran-Iraq War.

A couple more:

Tu-22M (proper name for Tu-26) - Afghanistan (late)
Tu-16 - Afghanistan and possibly Iran-Iraq war.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[BackToNormal]

Mike Marron > wrote:


> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> .....,.. Avro Vulcan

RAF in Falklands

> ........Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer,

Jaapies in Namibia, and also used in 1st gulf war

> ........deHavilland Venom,

Kiwis in Malaysia. and RAF?

> ........deHavilland Vampire

Kiwis in Malaysia. and RAF?

ronh
--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[R]

"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

[Nigel Isherwood]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
> Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
>

F9F Cougar - used (briefly) for FAC ops in Vietnam
Avro Vulcan - Falklands War
Gnat - India vs Pakistan
Hawk - Kuwait (Gulf War - Iraq invasion), Possibly Indonesia Coin ops in
East Timor)
Tu 22 - Libya - bombing raids on Chad
Tu 16 - Egypt vs Israel
Buccaneer - Gulf War
Venom - Suez (at least Sea Vixen) - also COIN in Aden
FJ-4B Fury - (Briefly) Vietnam
Ouragan, Israel vs Egypt, India vs Pakistan
Sea Fury - Korea
F7F Tigercat - Korea, WW2

[Kirk Stant]

I had forgotten the B-58 - Duh!
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!

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

[Nick Pedley]

"R" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "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

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

[Guy Alcala]

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

> In article >,
> Mike Marron > wrote:

<snip>

> Sea Fury saw action over Korea - including a MiG 15 downed. Attacker
> and IIRC Vampire samw action over Suez in '57.

I forgot, Indian AF Vampires saw action briefly in 1965. A flight of four
was shot down (at least one by friendly fire after they'd attacked their own
ground troops) and they were removed from combat subsequent to that.

Guy

[Per Nordenberg]

"tw" > skrev i meddelandet
...
>
> "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!
>
> Any Swedish aircraft after the Tunnan I think.. i.e. Draken, Viggen,

A SH-37 Viggen was once most likely fired at by a Soviet frigate during a photo
reconnaissance mission over the Baltic. It is not known however if it was a
deliberate shooting or if it was an accidental shooting, but photos from the
mission anyway showed two SA-N-4 Gecko (Soviet/Russian designation 9M33) missiles
being launched from the ship. Urban are you here? Can you help me with the year
for this incident? Was it late 70's?

In another Cold War incident over the Baltic a Soviet Su-15 Flagon crashed into
the sea when two examples were harassing a Swedish SH 37 Viggen over international
waters. The other Soviet pilot apparently though that his comrade was shot down by
the Swedish aircraft (the SH-37 actually did carry two Sidewinders for self
defense) because he chased the SH-37 Viggen for a long time (almost back to
Swedish waters) at very low altitude over the sea. The SH-37 Viggen pilot had a
tough ride because he was all the time hearing the alarm signals in his hearphones
when the Soviet pilot tried to lock his missiles on him, and he had repeatedly to
perform evasive manoeuvres.

The first incident above is official, but I'm not sure about the other. I heard
about it once from a man whose brother was a Viggen pilot (hope this is barred
under the statute of limitations now :).

Assuming the above incidents have happened - would it be enough to remove the
Viggen from the above list?


Regards,

Per Nordenberg

[av8r]

>
> 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.

Cheers...Chris

[Nick Pedley]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> >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!

I have trimmed the list according to my own research and the ideas of others
in this thread... feel free to amend this further!

B-36, B-47, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, Saab Draken, F-4D Skyray, F7U
Cutlass, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat G.91, English
Electric Lightning, Saab Viggen, Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Fuji
T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler, North American B-45,
Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20, Hawker Sea Vixen, McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee,
North American FJ-4B Fury, Yakolev Yak-25A, McDonnell FH-1 Phantom,
McDonnell F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...


HTH,
Nick

[Kevin Brooks]

Mike Marron > wrote in message >...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C,

Correct as far as the F-94C is concerned, but the F-94, in the A
guise, did see service in Korea.

Saab Draken, Saab
> 29,

The J29 did serve in combat; supported UN forces in Africa.

F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> Javelin, Avro Vulcan,

Vulcan flew the "Black Bart" conventional attacks against the
Falklands.

> Handley Page Victor,

Depends on how you look at it--the tanker version operated during the
Falklands conflict, IIRC.

Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> G.91,

Maybe, but didn't the Portugese operate the G.91, and if so, did it
ever see action during their colonial conflict in Africa?

> English Electric Lightning,

I believe the saudis used the Lightning against Yemenese elements?

> Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> Sukhoi Su-15,

Well, the Flagon *did* kill a couple of KAL airliners...

Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet,

ISTR some African user might have used the Alpha Jet in ground attack?

Folland Gnat,

Nope, Gnats were even credited with sabre kills when used by Idia
against Pakistan in 65.

BAe Hawk, Fuji
> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22,

Not sure about that--ISTR some use by the Libyans in Afica (Chad?)?

> Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,

B-58 as a bomber, correct. But I do recall an account of its use with
a rec pod around Cuba during the missile crisis.

> Tupolov Tu-16,

Nope, the Tu-16 has been used by the Egyptians, including missions in
Yemen IIRC.

> North American B-45,

The B-45 was more often used in its rec guise than it ever was as a
light bomber, and in that role it did see use over Korea, not to
mention reported penetrations into Soviet airspce (flown by RAF crew
IIRC).

Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer,

Buccaneer flew combat missions during ODS.

Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,

Venom saw action in 56 Suez operation against Egypt.

> McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> Vampire,

I believe vampire saw combat use by Rhodesia and South Africa.

Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen,

India, Israel, and (I think) El Salvadore all used the Ouragen in the
ground attack role during combat operations.

McDonnell FH-1
> Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury,

What? Sea Fury was even credited with a kill over Korea IIRC, not to
mention use by the Cubans later.

>Grumman F7F Tigercat,

Tigercat saw action in Korea.

Brooks


McDonnell
> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
> >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)
>
> Same.

[Kevin Brooks]

Mike Marron > wrote in message >...
> > "Alex A" > wrote:
> >>Mike Marron wrote:
>
> >>B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>
> >I have read that F106 was used in used in Vietnam for few monthes but not
> >with the
> >expected results (1 shot down)
>
> I'm afraid you're confusing the F-106 with its delta-wing F-102
> predecessor. A quick visual to differentiate between the two
> is the clipped vertical fin on the Six and the air-intakes are also
> behind the canopy (not to mention the Six blows the Duece away
> in terms of takeoff/climbout performance when watching from the
> ground). But the -102 was in 'Nam and the -106 wasn't.
>
> >> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> >> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> >> G.91, English Electric Lightning,
>
> >I think Vulcan was used for Malouines Airfield bombing... scimitar by indian
> >in Pakistan/India war (not sure, sea vixen?)
>
> OK?

Vampire was used by India, as was Gnat. The war he was referring to
was probably the 65 conflict.

>
> >>Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> >>Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat,
>
> >Gnat was used by India in India vs Pakistan ?
>
> ?

See above. It killed F-86's during that conflict.

>
> >> BAe Hawk, Fuji> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26,
> >>B-58 Hustler,
> >>Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> >>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> >>McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> >>Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A,
>
> >Dassault Ouragen, by IAF
>
> OK.
>
> >>McDonnell FH-1 Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> >> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
> >A+
>
> Heh.

Don't get too smug; by my count, you are more in the "C" range--the
Tu-16 was used in combat (see Egyptian use), as was the Tigercat (in
Korea) Sea Fury, etc...

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Buccaneers were operational in the Gulf War and I believe Venoms did
> > ground attack in Malaya and Sea Venoms operated in Korea
>
> No Sea venoms that I'm aware of. Only the Colossus-class light fleets were
> deployed to Korea, and they had air groups of Seafires or Sea Furies and
> Fireflies.

Venoms saw action in Suez 56.

>
>
> >
> > > McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> > > Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
> >
> > Vampires saw service in Korea I think
>
> Meteor.

I believe Vamps were used in combat by Rhodesia and South Africa, and
(possibly) by Jordan , India, and Egypt.

Brooks

>
> > > Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> > > F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
> >
> > Sea Furies were used off RN carriers in Korea I think.
>
> Yes, see above.
>
> > The Indians have used the attacker against Pakistan I believe
>
> If it happened it was the other way around.
>
> Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Mike Marron
> > writes
> >Could be wrong, but here goes:
> >
> >F-101,
>
> Did recce over Vietnam, didn't it?

The original poster discounted that use, but you are correct--it also
collected bullet holes over Cuba.

>
> >Gloster
> >Javelin,
>
> Indonesian Confrontation, 1960s

Did it shoot at anybody, or get shot at?

>
> >Avro Vulcan,
>
> Black Buck raids, Falklands

Ooops! I think I called them "Black Bart"! Too much time wasted
watching "The Simpsons", I guess...

>
> >Handley Page Victor
>
> Tanking in the Falklands and IIRC the Gulf, plus some "small war"
> bombing IIRC.

Correct on the first two, but I don't think so on the
bombing--confusing it with Valiant, perhaps?

>
> >Fiat
> >G.91,
>
> >English Electric Lightning,
>
> >Folland Gnat,
>
> Used in combat by the Indians.
>
> >BAe Hawk,
>
> Used by several buyers for COIN against terrorists / ruthless repression
> of noble dissidents.
>
> >Tupolov Tu-22
>
> Libyan bombing raids vs. Chad, IIRC.

I believe you are right--I had the same general recollection.

>
> >Tupolov Tu-16,
>
> Egyptian raids vs. Israel, and I think Iranian Badgers saw some combat
> in the Iran-Iraq war.

I believe the Egyptians also used them in Yemen.

>
> >Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer
>
> South Africans used them in Namibia, and they also flew combat in Gulf
> War '91.
>
> >Dassault Ouragen
>
> Used by the Israelis in 1967.

Amongst others, IIRC.

>
> >Hawker Sea Fury
>
> Korea.

And Cuba.

Brooks

[Ed Majden]

"Ian Craig" >
deHavilland
> > >>Vampire,

Wasn't the Vampire used in India/Pakistan and some other small nation
skirmishes? I thought it was used by some African countries. I could be
mistaken.

[Kevin Brooks]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Mike Marron wrote:
>
> > (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >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:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Could be wrong, but here goes:
> >
> > B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
> > 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar,
>
> TF-9s used as armed FastFACs by the Marines in Vietnam. Tunnan used in the
> Belgian Congo, as already mentioned by someone.
>
>
> > Avro Vulcan,
>
> Falklands.
>
> > English Electric Lightning,
>
> Possibly used by Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait for ground attack? Unlikely.

No, I believe it was used by Saudi Arabia in the attack role against
Yemeni targets.

>
> > Alpha Jet,
>
> Not sure on this.

I believe it may have seen use by Nigeria?

>
> > Folland Gnat,
>
> India, in both 1965 and 1971.
>
> > BAe Hawk,
>
> COIN.
>
> > Tupolov Tu-22,
>
> Usd by both Iraq and Libya according to Bill Gunston (circa. 1979), the
> former against the Kurds, the latter against Tanzania in support of Uganda.

I thought it also saw use by Libya in Chad early on?

>
>
>
> > Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> > Tupolov Tu-16,
>
> An Irawi Tu-16 bombed Netanya, israel during the Six-day war; it was shot
> down (shared by a Mirage and AAA). Also used by Egypt to fire Kelt ARMs
> against Israel in 1973.

Also used by Egypt in Yemen.

>
> <snip>
>
> > Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer,
>
> Namibia by RSA, DS by RAF.
>
> > McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee,
>
> Banshees were used in Korea by the USN, but I can't remember if the -4 was.
>
> > Dassault Ouragen,
>
> Israel (56, 67 and WoA) and India (1965 for sure).

I think it may also have seen use by El Salvadore?

>
> > Hawker Sea Fury,
>
> FAA in Korea.

And IIRC it saw action in Cuba (Bay of Pigs, by Castro's folks, and
previous to that by the Batista loyalists).

Brooks

>
> > Supermarine Attacker...
>
> Don't think Pakistan used it in combat, but won't swear to it.
>
> Guy

[Jack G]

Just did a quick read, may have missed these:

Boeing B-50
Grumman F11F Tiger

Jack


"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)

[Kevin Brooks]

"H" <*****.*******@**.****.**> wrote in message >...
> "Mike Marron" > kirjoitti
> om...
> > (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
> > >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?
> >
> > Could be wrong, but here goes:
> >
> > B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>
> Republic F-84F France > Egypt 1956

Not sure about that, but I did read that it continued to serve with
both Greece and Turkey until 76, so the likelihood of it seeing combat
at some point is there.

Brooks

>
> > 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> > Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> > G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
>
> Fiat G.91 Portugal - Angola, Mosambique
>
> > Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
> > T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> > Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
>
> Tupolev Tu-16 - Iraq> ?, Egypt > Israel
> Tupolev Tu-22 - Iraq >?, Libya > Tsad
>
> > Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> > McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> > Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
> > Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> > F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
> Grumman F7F Tigercat - Korea
>
> >
> > >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)
> >
> > Same.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> H

[Ron]

>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

[David Windhorst]

A couple more early limited-run jets -- the composite Ryan FR1 Fireball
and Vought F6U Pirate.

North American AJ Savage

If we're ruling out recce/weather/tanker/ELINT/ECM etc., the B66 and A3D
(although the at least the Destroyer certainly suffered combat losses in
one or more of those roles -- what about the Skywarrior?).

And I would have sworn that the FJ4/F1/AF1 Fury saw service in Vietnam,
but according to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_24.html they were
withdrawn from active service by 1962.

[Jack G]

Could add as well:

Martin AM-1 Mauler
Grumman AF-2S Guardian

Jack


"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)

[Tex Houston]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
> Just did a quick read, may have missed these:
>
> Boeing B-50
> Grumman F11F Tiger
>
> Jack

421ARS operated the KB-50J from Yokota 1960-Oct 1964 including operating a
Detachment at Takhli.

Tex

[Jack G]

Don't think aerial refueling fits the original posters intent:

"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)?"

I don't think a B-50 ever dropped a bomb in anger.

An F11F did shoot itself down accidentally by diving through the path of its
own shells, but I don't think that counts as a shooting war.

Jack

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just did a quick read, may have missed these:
> >
> > Boeing B-50
> > Grumman F11F Tiger
> >
> > Jack
>
> 421ARS operated the KB-50J from Yokota 1960-Oct 1964 including operating a
> Detachment at Takhli.
>
> Tex
>
>
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"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

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Per Nordenberg > wrote:

>A SH-37 Viggen was once most likely fired at by a Soviet frigate during a photo
>reconnaissance mission over the Baltic. It is not known however if it was a
>deliberate shooting or if it was an accidental shooting, but photos from the
>mission anyway showed two SA-N-4 Gecko (Soviet/Russian designation 9M33) missiles
>being launched from the ship.

The first media reports said "at", but what really
happened was that there was an exercise and it was overflown
and photographed when it happened to be firing at
an exercise target. As far as I know the Viggen wasn't in
the target's sector so it wasn't a case of mistaken
identity either.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.

[tw]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> Guy Alcala > wrote in message
>...
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
> > > "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Buccaneers were operational in the Gulf War and I believe Venoms did
> > > ground attack in Malaya and Sea Venoms operated in Korea
> >
> > No Sea venoms that I'm aware of. Only the Colossus-class light fleets
were
> > deployed to Korea, and they had air groups of Seafires or Sea Furies and
> > Fireflies.
>
> Venoms saw action in Suez 56.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> > > > Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
> > >
> > > Vampires saw service in Korea I think
> >
> > Meteor.
>
> I believe Vamps were used in combat by Rhodesia and South Africa, and
> (possibly) by Jordan , India, and Egypt.
>
> Brooks

Just read about a clash between Israeli Meteors and Egyptian Vampires last
night in fact. (By which I mean I read about it last night, it happened in
the 50's)

[Keith Willshaw]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Buccaneers were operational in the Gulf War and I believe Venoms did
> > ground attack in Malaya and Sea Venoms operated in Korea
>
> No Sea venoms that I'm aware of. Only the Colossus-class light fleets
were
> deployed to Korea, and they had air groups of Seafires or Sea Furies and
> Fireflies.
>
>

Quite right they arrived too late for service in Korea now I think
about it, I suspect they were used over Suez though.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>> Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
>> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
>Sea Furies were used off RN carriers in Korea I think.
>
>The Indians have used the attacker against Pakistan I believe

They certainly used the Squark - up to the 1980s when they got Harrier,
but I'm not sure they used the Attacker?

--
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)

[H]

"Jack G" > kirjoitti
et...
> Could add as well:
>
> Martin AM-1 Mauler
> Grumman AF-2S Guardian
>
> Jack
>
>
> "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)
>
>


Calquin (copy of Mosquito) from Argentina
Canadair CL-28 Argus
Breguet 1150 Atlantic
Bristol Brigand
Lockheed P-3 Orion
Beriev Be-6
Beriev Be-10
Beriev Be-12
Tupolev Tu-12
Tupolev Tu-14

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Nick Pedley > wrote:
>Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20, Hawker Sea Vixen, McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee,

Hawker Sea Vixen certainly saw no action (or indeed existance), but there
have been suggestions in this thread that the De Havilland Sea Vixen might
have seen active service over Borneo ;)

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

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

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)

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
H <*****.*******@**.****.**> wrote:
>> Could add as well:
>> "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

>Bristol Brigand

Brigand was used in Malaya.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."

[Matt Wiser]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
>"Alex A" > a écrit
>dans le message de news:
...
>>
>
>> > Sukhoi Su-15
>>
>
>1983, KAL 007 airliner
>
>> > Tupolov Tu-22
>
>Heh, a Libyan Backfire tried to attack a french
>airfield in Libya in 1986.
>First attack put one bomb on the runway, second
>attack put 2 Crotale SAM
>into the Backfire...
>
>--
>_________________________________________
>Pierre-Henri BARAS
>
>Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
>http://www.ffaa.net
>Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
>http://www.aviation-fr.info
>
>
Aircraft was a Tu-22 Blinder, and it was killed by a pair of I-Hawks, as
even the French Defense Ministry admitted at the time. No survivors from
the aircraft.
Backfire has not been exported to anybody, for which many parties are grateful.
Only non-Russian operator is Ukrainian AF.

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

[Matt Wiser]

(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!

[Matt Wiser]

"Jack G" > wrote:
>Don't think aerial refueling fits the original
>posters intent:
>
>"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)?"
>
>I don't think a B-50 ever dropped a bomb in
>anger.
>
>An F11F did shoot itself down accidentally by
>diving through the path of its
>own shells, but I don't think that counts as
>a shooting war.
>
>Jack
>
>"Tex Houston" >
>wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jack G" >
>wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Just did a quick read, may have missed these:
>> >
>> > Boeing B-50
>> > Grumman F11F Tiger
>> >
>> > Jack
>>
>> 421ARS operated the KB-50J from Yokota 1960-Oct
>1964 including operating a
>> Detachment at Takhli.
>>
>> Tex
>>
>>
>>
>
>
RB-50s did return fire on several occasions when jumped in international
airspace by MiGs, and the MiGs opened fire. That's combat by anyone's definition.


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

[Matt Wiser]

"Jack G" > wrote:
>Could add as well:
>
>Martin AM-1 Mauler
>Grumman AF-2S Guardian
>
>Jack
>
>
>"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)
>
>
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!

[Kevin Brooks]

"H" <*****.*******@**.****.**> wrote in message >...
> "Jack G" > kirjoitti
> et...
> > Could add as well:
> >
> > Martin AM-1 Mauler
> > Grumman AF-2S Guardian
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
> > "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)
> >
> >
>
>
> Calquin (copy of Mosquito) from Argentina
> Canadair CL-28 Argus
> Breguet 1150 Atlantic
> Bristol Brigand
> Lockheed P-3 Orion
> Beriev Be-6
> Beriev Be-10
> Beriev Be-12
> Tupolev Tu-12
> Tupolev Tu-14

The Orion fired a number of SLAM's against Serb targets during
Operation Allied Force, and has performed various combat missions
during ODS, OEF, and OIF. Pakistan was using the Atlantic at one time,
IIRC, and ISTR they lost one due to Indian fire?

Brooks

[tim gueguen]

"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

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> > ground attack in Malaya and Sea Venoms operated in Korea
>>
>> No Sea venoms that I'm aware of. Only the Colossus-class light fleets
>were
>> deployed to Korea, and they had air groups of Seafires or Sea Furies and
>> Fireflies.
>
>Quite right they arrived too late for service in Korea now I think
>about it, I suspect they were used over Suez though.

From the last asking/reading about that particular mistake, Suez
featured Venoms, (Sea Vemons?), Squarks, Wyverns, Meteors, Valiants
and Canberras. And Vampires, on the Egyptian side, plus some Soviet
types (Tu-16, I think, amongst others)

--
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)

[Nick Pedley]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Nick Pedley > wrote:
> >Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20, Hawker Sea Vixen, McDonnell F2H-4
Banshee,
>
> Hawker Sea Vixen certainly saw no action (or indeed existance), but there
> have been suggestions in this thread that the De Havilland Sea Vixen might
> have seen active service over Borneo ;)
>
I can't find any online sources which include the Sea Vixen as an aircraft
that saw action over Borneo.
Despite the link on this page- http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Borneo/
But it does hint that the Victor may have carried out a bombing raid there!
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Borneo/air-war.html

Nick

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:38:01 +0100, "Nick Pedley"
> wrote:

>
>"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
>>
>> >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!
>
>I have trimmed the list according to my own research and the ideas of others
>in this thread... feel free to amend this further!
>
>B-36, B-47, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, Saab Draken, F-4D Skyray, F7U
>Cutlass, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat G.91, English
>Electric Lightning, Saab Viggen, Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Fuji
>T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler, North American B-45,
>Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20, Hawker Sea Vixen, McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee,
>North American FJ-4B Fury, Yakolev Yak-25A, McDonnell FH-1 Phantom,
>McDonnell F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
>
>HTH,
>Nick
>
Note that the RB-47 was in "combat" over the SU. One came back with a
rather impressive hole in it where a MIG's cannon shell hit.

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

[Kevin Brooks]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >...
> 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

[Kevin Brooks]

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Keith Willshaw > wrote:
> >
> >"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >> > ground attack in Malaya and Sea Venoms operated in Korea
> >>
> >> No Sea venoms that I'm aware of. Only the Colossus-class light fleets
> were
> >> deployed to Korea, and they had air groups of Seafires or Sea Furies and
> >> Fireflies.
> >
> >Quite right they arrived too late for service in Korea now I think
> >about it, I suspect they were used over Suez though.
>
> From the last asking/reading about that particular mistake, Suez
> featured Venoms, (Sea Vemons?), Squarks, Wyverns, Meteors, Valiants
> and Canberras. And Vampires, on the Egyptian side, plus some Soviet
> types (Tu-16, I think, amongst others)

Best I can determine the Tu-16's were delivered to Egypt after the 56
War, but before 1962, when US State Department records first mention
them. I believe their primary bomber available in 56 was the Il-28
Beagle.

Brooks

[TJ]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,

With the "TU-26" this is the TU-22M BACKFIRE. The Backfire was used for
bombing raids in Afghanistan. During the run up to the Soviet withdrawal the
Backfires were heavily employed. The TU-16 BADGER was also used during
Afghainistan. With the TU-20 (VVS designation) you mean the TU-95 BEAR. As
far as I remember the BEAR has not been used in combat operations during
Soviet involvement in Afghanistan as a bomb-truck.

TJ

[David Nicholls]

> 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

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:09:33 +0100, "Nick Pedley"
> wrote:


>But it does hint that the Victor may have carried out a bombing raid there!
>http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Borneo/air-war.html
>

I can remember reading a similar account in a mag ages ago. To be on the
wrong side of 35 x 1000 pounders would definitely be a life changing event.



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

[Michel Romieu]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:35:09 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

(Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
>B-36, B-47,
>F-84F,
Used by French Air Force during Suez crisis
> F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
>29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
>Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
>G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
>Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
>T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22,
Used by Libya ; one shutdown by French Air Force over Chad
> Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
>Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
>Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
>McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
>Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
>Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
>F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
>>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)
>
>Same.
>
>

[TJ]

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alex A" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
> >
>
> > > Sukhoi Su-15
> >
>
> 1983, KAL 007 airliner
>
> > > Tupolov Tu-22
>
> Heh, a Libyan Backfire tried to attack a french airfield in Libya in 1986.
> First attack put one bomb on the runway, second attack put 2 Crotale SAM
> into the Backfire...
>
> --

You are thinking of the TU-22 BLINDER. The missiles used were French
operated I-HAWKs. A Blinder was also reported shot down by a Chad operated
SA-6 system captured from the Libyans. The Backfire has yet to be exported
(India pending lease).

TJ

[Keith Willshaw]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "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.
>

The Javelins of 60 and 64 squadron flew low level patrols along
the Indonesian border and one reportedly intercepted an Indonesian
Hercules dropping paratroops on the Malaysian side of the border
but was not permitted to shoot it down. They also provided top
cover for the Hunters whch were flying the ground attack missions.

I have no information one way or the other on the volume of
ground fire directed at them but I dont believe any fighters were
encountered.

Keith

[Michel Romieu]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:52:44 +0100, "TJ" >
wrote:

>
>"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Alex A" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>> ...
>> >
>>
>> > > Sukhoi Su-15
>> >
>>
>> 1983, KAL 007 airliner
>>
>> > > Tupolov Tu-22
>>
>> Heh, a Libyan Backfire tried to attack a french airfield in Libya in 1986.
>> First attack put one bomb on the runway, second attack put 2 Crotale SAM
>> into the Backfire...
>>
>> --
>
>You are thinking of the TU-22 BLINDER. The missiles used were French
>operated I-HAWKs. A Blinder was also reported shot down by a Chad operated
>SA-6 system captured from the Libyans. The Backfire has yet to be exported
>(India pending lease).
I confirm : shutdown by HAWK from 402° French Air-Defence Regiment
>
>TJ
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "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.
> >
>
> The Javelins of 60 and 64 squadron flew low level patrols along
> the Indonesian border and one reportedly intercepted an Indonesian
> Hercules dropping paratroops on the Malaysian side of the border
> but was not permitted to shoot it down. They also provided top
> cover for the Hunters whch were flying the ground attack missions.
>
> I have no information one way or the other on the volume of
> ground fire directed at them but I dont believe any fighters were
> encountered.

OK. All I found was mention of them using afterburners in low-level
passes to scare the bad guys below; I guess if they were getting shot
at when that occured you could chalk it up to "combat", but otherwise
it falls more into the same category as when the Dutch used those
F-104's to pull the same trick against Mollucan (sp?)
seperateists/terrorists holding those folks hostage back in the late
seventies (IIRC).

Brooks

>
> Keith

[Kirk Stant]

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"?

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...

<snip>

> > > Dassault Ouragen,
> >
> > Israel (56, 67 and WoA) and India (1965 for sure).
>
> I think it may also have seen use by El Salvadore?

The Football War in 1969? The Ouragans were received too late for that. It was fought by Corsairs and Mustangs.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >...
> 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"?

[Kevin Brooks]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Dassault Ouragen,
> > >
> > > Israel (56, 67 and WoA) and India (1965 for sure).
> >
> > I think it may also have seen use by El Salvadore?
>
> The Football War in 1969? The Ouragans were received too late for that. It was fought by Corsairs and Mustangs.
>
> Guy

Actually, I was thinking more in the COIN realm against their own
guerrellas; depending upon when the Ouragons last were flightworthy.

Brooks

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

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)

[Garrison Hilliard]

Michel Romieu > wrote in message >...

>Grumman F7F Tigercat

Used as a night fighter in the Korean War.

[[email protected]]

Shutdown?

[Peter Twydell]

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!

[Bob McKellar]

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

[Vic Flintham]

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

[John Walker]

Vic Flintham > wrote in message
...
> 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

Did the Indonesians ever use theirs in action?

John



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Vic Flintham
> writes
>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.

You could used the same argument for Javelins in Malaysia. The point is
that they DIDN'T drop anything in anger, no matter how prepared they
were to do so.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Vic Flintham]

In article >, John
Walker > writes
>Vic Flintham > wrote in message
...
>> 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
>
>Did the Indonesians ever use theirs in action?
>
>John
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03
>
>
>
I have no record, despite considerable research. Not sure if the
Gannets were operational through the period in question.
--
Vic Flintham
Cold war military aviation
http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk

[Steven Vincent]

Mike Marron wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote:
>
>
>>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!
> Could be wrong, but here goes:
>
> B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
> 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
> T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
> Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...


Yep.

OK RAF V Bombers
Vulcan dropped bombs on the Airfield at Port Stanley (Falklands '82).
Valiant dropped bombs during the Suez Crisis in '56. Both involved
AA so both are out. Canberra also bombed during Suez.

The Victor was used as a Tanker in Falkland's and Gulf War I but I
don't think it ever actually dropped bombs on anyone.
Tanker Missions not Combat missions so....

Attacker - Korea.
Sea Fury Korea, Malaya Suez.
Gnat Indian/Pakistan wars. (Local Licensed version but...)
Vampire / Venom used in different colonial wars in late 40's and 50's.
Venom at least stood Cap during Suez.
Buccaneer Lased and Dropped during Desert Storm.

>

I will stick with Javelin and Sea Vixen as being in.

Swift / Scimitar. Not sure about.
Firebrand - was this operational ?
Lightning - I think the Saudi's still had some on strength during Desert
Storm but operational ? Not sure if these got a shot in during the
"tanker War's". UK Lightning's did not get a combat shot.

Ouragen Used by Isreal in Combat. Not sure if the French used them
during Suez.
Hawk - Trainer not a combat jet so should not be here.
Alpha Jet - Deployed by the French over Bosnia etc. Not sure if they
actually dropped ordinance or not.

Need a list of what was used in "The Malay crisis", (dh Hornet Avro
Lincoln scored there for a start) Korea, (Sea Fury, Meteor, Vampire &
others)Suez, (Valiant, Canberra, Sperrin (? V-Bomber predesesor anyway)
+ a good mix of post war French kit.

Congo ? Some weird stuff was used on both sides during those battles.
I think the Portuguese G.91's may have been used in anger somewhere but
recall is hazy.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Marron wrote:
> (Kirk Stant) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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!
> > Could be wrong, but here goes:
> >
> > B-36, B-47, F-84F, F-89, F-106, F-101, F-86D, F-94C, Saab Draken, Saab
> > 29, F-4D Skyray, F7U Cutlass, F9F (swept-wing) Cougar, Gloster
> > Javelin, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, Supermarine Scimitar, Fiat
> > G.91, English Electric Lightning, Dassault Mirage IV, Saab Viggen,
> > Sukhoi Su-15, Shin Meiwa, Alpha Jet, Folland Gnat, BAe Hawk, Fuji
> > T1F2, Supermarine Swift, Tupolov Tu-22, Tupulov Tu-26, B-58 Hustler,
> > Tupolov Tu-16, North American B-45, Hawker Firebrand, Tupolov Tu-20,
> > Hawker Siddeley Buccaneer, Hawker Sea Vixen, deHavilland Venom,
> > McDonnell F2H-4 Banshee, North American FJ-4B Fury, deHavilland
> > Vampire, Yakolev Yak-25A, Dassault Ouragen, McDonnell FH-1
> > Phantom, Hawker Sea Fury, Grumman F7F Tigercat, McDonnell
> > F3H Demon, Supermarine Attacker...
>
>
> Yep.

Actually, nope. Saab 29 did see some limited combat use under UN auspices in
the Congo. F-94C is a bit picky, as the A model did see combat in Korea. You
have noted the discrepancy vis a vis the V-Bombers. I believe the Libyans
used the Tu-22 over Chad, or tried to. The Tu-16 was used by Egypt against
Yemeni targets, and IIRC may have pulled a couple of ineffectual sorties
against Israeli targets (it would be interesting to know if the PLAAF used
any in their 1979 Vietnam incursion). The B-58 never flew a bombing mission,
but IIRC it did do some recon work (with a recon pod ILO weapons pod) during
the Cuban Missile Crisis. The B-45 flew many missions over Korea (and the
USSR) in its recon role.

>
> OK RAF V Bombers
> Vulcan dropped bombs on the Airfield at Port Stanley (Falklands '82).
> Valiant dropped bombs during the Suez Crisis in '56. Both involved
> AA so both are out. Canberra also bombed during Suez.
>
> The Victor was used as a Tanker in Falkland's and Gulf War I but I
> don't think it ever actually dropped bombs on anyone.
> Tanker Missions not Combat missions so....
>
> Attacker - Korea.
> Sea Fury Korea, Malaya Suez.

Also Cuba, where Castro used them as late as the Bay of Pigs IIRC.

> Gnat Indian/Pakistan wars. (Local Licensed version but...)
> Vampire / Venom used in different colonial wars in late 40's and 50's.
> Venom at least stood Cap during Suez.
> Buccaneer Lased and Dropped during Desert Storm.

And IIRC did some strike missions under its South African guise.

>
> >
>
> I will stick with Javelin and Sea Vixen as being in.

If you mean "in" the list of non-combatants, yes.

>
> Swift / Scimitar. Not sure about.
> Firebrand - was this operational ?
> Lightning - I think the Saudi's still had some on strength during Desert
> Storm but operational ? Not sure if these got a shot in during the
> "tanker War's". UK Lightning's did not get a combat shot.

I believe the Saudi models were all gone by ODS, but they *did* use them in
a ground attack role against Yemeni targets in the late sixties/early
seventies timeframe IIRC.

>
> Ouragen Used by Isreal in Combat. Not sure if the French used them
> during Suez.

ISTR they were also used in the Soccer War?

> Hawk - Trainer not a combat jet so should not be here.

Wasn't there some concern over Indonesian use of the Hawk in combat
operations?

> Alpha Jet - Deployed by the French over Bosnia etc. Not sure if they
> actually dropped ordinance or not.
>
> Need a list of what was used in "The Malay crisis", (dh Hornet Avro
> Lincoln scored there for a start) Korea, (Sea Fury, Meteor, Vampire &
> others)Suez, (Valiant, Canberra, Sperrin (? V-Bomber predesesor anyway)
> + a good mix of post war French kit.
>
> Congo ? Some weird stuff was used on both sides during those battles.
> I think the Portuguese G.91's may have been used in anger somewhere but
> recall is hazy.

I think the G-91 may have seen some use by the Portugese in Angola.

Brooks
>
>

[Ed Majden]

"Steven Vincent"
You forgot the Canadian CF-100 Cunuck!

[Steven Vincent]

H wrote:
> "Jack G" > kirjoitti
> et...
>
>>Could add as well:
>>
>>Martin AM-1 Mauler
>>Grumman AF-2S Guardian
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>>"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)
>>
>>
>
>
> Calquin (copy of Mosquito) from Argentina
> Canadair CL-28 Argus
> Breguet 1150 Atlantic

> Bristol Brigand

Malaya Crisis, Yemen/ Oman before the RAF pulled back past Suez.

> 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).



>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"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