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

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)

"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

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

"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!

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.

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)

"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

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."

"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

H wrote:
"Jack G" kirjoitti
et...

Could add as well:

Martin AM-1 Mauler
Grumman AF-2S Guardian

Jack


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

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

And why?

Some ROE:

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

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

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

To start things off, here are my USAF candidates:

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

Everything else got lots of chances to do their thing.

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

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




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).