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