C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

[drmarkbailey]

Guys, a quick question.

In TLW with the Cold war continuing, both the shape and flow of US aircraft retirements will alter drastically from OTL. (OTL=@, sorry, I am just used to the term OTL)

We've discussed this before. Aircraft retention periods will also alter when aircraft are retired as there's a strategic need to keep the 'boneyard fleets' longer. Yes, this is a strategic third-order effect and very difficult to investigate. It's a bit easier for combat aircraft and becomes much harder to support aircraft. Basically, support aircraft (transports, tankers, MPA, ASW) retain potential strategic reserve viability far longer than combat aircraft: after all, a very old transport can still be reactivated to transport stuff (main mission for type) while, for example, a very old combat bird like a Skyraider certainly cannot be reactivated to resume its main role (strike), it's entirely obsolete for its designed mission. This is not true of a transport: in effect it becomes mission obsolescent but never mission obsolete.

Mission-obsolescent aircraft are perfectly viable in their main mission when used as a secondary type for the secondary missions, and even better can release mission-modern aircraft from these secondary missions.

I am asking a specific question here.

The Fairchild C-123 Provider fleet. As a type it had an interesting career (example: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/ ... apter/5#46).

Questions:

1. How many C-123 passed to long term storage at Davis-Monthan?
2. When did they pass out of Davis-Monthan (D-M) in OTL?
3. With the TLW POD, there's no 'peace dividend' and this obviously changes policies with respect to retention of aircraft at D-M
4. It seems that most C-123 which did go to D-M did so in the 1980s. With the TLW POD, there is less likelihood of them being passed out of D-M as fast as they were in OTL, so how many, if any, might still be at D-M by 1999-2000?

Cheers: Mark

[James1978]

I am asking a specific question here.

The Fairchild C-123 Provider fleet. As a type it had an interesting career (example: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/ ... apter/5#46).

Questions:

1. How many C-123 passed to long term storage at Davis-Monthan?
2. When did they pass out of Davis-Monthan (D-M) in OTL?
3. With the TLW POD, there's no 'peace dividend' and this obviously changes policies with respect to retention of aircraft at D-M
4. It seems that most C-123 which did go to D-M did so in the 1980s. With the TLW POD, there is less likelihood of them being passed out of D-M as fast as they were in OTL, so how many, if any, might still be at D-M by 1999-2000?

X8 C-123B arrived 1972-1975.
Looks like they were all either sold, donated to museums, or scrapped by 1986.

X6 C-123J arrived 1975-1976.
Looks like they were all sold to South Korea.

X22 C-123K arrived 1970-1994.
Final disposition breakdowns are less clear here.

Quick take, it looks like Uncle Sugar passed C-123s out as party favors. It looks like a lot of them went directly from USAF service to military aid to allies. With a big chunk of those going to South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

So I'd say we're looking at less than 22 C-123K maybe being at AMARC post-POD.

[James1978]

Guys, a quick question.

In TLW with the Cold war continuing, both the shape and flow of US aircraft retirements will alter drastically from OTL. (OTL=@, sorry, I am just used to the term OTL)

We've discussed this before. Aircraft retention periods will also alter when aircraft are retired as there's a strategic need to keep the 'boneyard fleets' longer. Yes, this is a strategic third-order effect and very difficult to investigate. It's a bit easier for combat aircraft and becomes much harder to support aircraft. Basically, support aircraft (transports, tankers, MPA, ASW) retain potential strategic reserve viability far longer than combat aircraft: after all, a very old transport can still be reactivated to transport stuff (main mission for type) while, for example, a very old combat bird like a Skyraider certainly cannot be reactivated to resume its main role (strike), it's entirely obsolete for its designed mission. This is not true of a transport: in effect it becomes mission obsolescent but never mission obsolete.

Mission-obsolescent aircraft are perfectly viable in their main mission when used as a secondary type for the secondary missions, and even better can release mission-modern aircraft from these secondary missions.

Figuring what might be in AMARC in TLWverse 2005 has been a running side project of mine. Short answer - probably a LOT less than you might think. When you consider that post-Vietnam, we just didn't build as many planes of newer types. Then when you factor in attrition, sales to allies, and how many of a given type are still in US service, there will be a lot less of many types than you might think, and in some cases possibly zero usable aircraft that can be returned to service.

Then there are things that you'd think a lot of are sitting in AMARC, but huge numbers never made it there in the first place. Take the F-4 for example. We gave a bunch to allies. And then there is the fact that the USAF ran out of QF-106 target drones in the @ early 1990s and the F-4 was next in line, with a lot of QF-4 conversions. Anyhow, the F-4 is probably it's own conversation for various reasons.

I think a lot of the ideas people have about how large the inventory is comes from pictures taken when the place was filled with retired Vietnam War era planes. At a certain point, a lot of those aircraft probably still got scrapped even with the continued Cold War.

Now having said all that, and to Mark's point, there are a good number of C-130s (still running down precise numbers), C-141s, and P-3s. Possibly zero KC-135s.

[drmarkbailey]

Hmm.

Then there are things that you'd think a lot of are sitting in AMARC, but huge numbers never made it there in the first place. Take the F-4 for example. We gave a bunch to allies. And then there is the fact that the USAF ran out of QF-106 target drones in the @ early 1990s and the F-4 was next in line, with a lot of QF-4 conversions. Anyhow, the F-4 is probably it's own conversation for various reasons.

I think a lot of the ideas people have about how large the inventory is comes from pictures taken when the place was filled with retired Vietnam War era planes. At a certain point, a lot of those aircraft probably still got scrapped even with the continued Cold War.

Agree and this is the core of my point.

I can't but think that the entire cycle will be different. F-4 are a good example to discuss, in OTL, 300+ were converted to target drones from about 1995 to replace the QF-106.

Re QF-4: The airframes selected for regeneration were repaired at Aircraft Maintenance And Regeneration Center (AMARC) in Tucson, Arizona, and then converted into target drones at Tracor’s facility at Mojave Airport, California. From 1997 onward, Phantoms started replacing the Convair QF-106 Delta Dart, another jet born in the good old 1950s, in the FSAT role. After the stock of F-4Gs suitable for drone conversion was depleted, the company switched to F-4Es, and then to RF-4Cs.(https://www.jetsprops.com/bombers/f-4-p ... -qf-4.html)

Will the QF-4 even exist in TLW? I honestly do not think so on the original schedule, too many allies use it as a fighter and strike bird, and the USSR hasn't gone away. There was no QA-4 target drone in OTL and there might well be in TLW as a partial replacement for the QF-4.

The bottom line is that in OTL there was no incentive to retain a lot of the Vietnam-era birds. In TLW there really does seem to be a strong incentive to do so, but it's hard to map because it's going to be highly variable across types. So we could, I think, see types like the F-105 being retained at AMARC for longer because if t isn't used by any ally, so they were can be converted to QF-105 roles instead of a F-4 fleet which does retain use in Allied service and a 'second order effect' strategic importance.

Overall, I think this is actually a seriously complex issue.

CHeers: Mark

[Bernard Woolley]

Is there a reason anyone would want to retain the C-123 beyond its various @ retirement dates? Or bring any survivors back?

[James1978]

Is there a reason anyone would want to retain the C-123 beyond its various @ retirement dates? Or bring any survivors back?

Well it's Mark asking, so I'm going to take a wild guess at general atavism about old prop planes and something to do with TLWverse Australia.

I'm more than happy to dig deeper into C-123 availability. I haven't dug into a new air frame in a while. It sounds fun.

[gtg947h]

I'm not seeing them being reactivated for anything other than maybe domestic cargo runs. Reestablishing a supply line for avgas anywhere else would be a huge logistical challenge and I'm not sure civilian production could meet the need even if almost all light airplanes were grounded. And good luck with the maintenance.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Is there a reason anyone would want to retain the C-123 beyond its various @ retirement dates? Or bring any survivors back?

How desperate are people for cargo aircraft?

That’s probably the determining factor around which everything else is factored.

Have they started raiding the museums yet?

[James1978]

I suspect Mark is thinking about something like the C-123T upgrade with T56 engines - which are in widespread use.
Recall that in TLWverse, Australia has scooped up a variety of old prop models and re-engined them.

[Matt Wiser]

One thing that would go against any QA-4 drone program is that the Skyhawk would still be in use by Allies, and shipping some overseas-even if only to be stripped for usable parts, would still be viable. As for F-4s, some E models no doubt went (via either Israel, Turkey, or both) to Iran once the Green Revolution occurred, and the Iranian AF would be getting its F-4 squadrons back up to strength for the first time in years.

[James1978]

I don't see QF-105s happening. In @, they started converting QF-100s in 1983, and QF-106s in 1987. If a QF-105 was ever going to happen, it would have happened in the 1980s.

They started pulling F-4E/Gs and RF-4C for QF conversions in @ 1992. I’ve actually broken it down by @ year. A handful of F-4Es and RF-4C went first, but then the F-4Gs went FAST once they were retired. They were followed by the F-4Es next, then the RF-4Cs. With the F-4G, and to a lesser extent the RF-4C, hanging around longer in TLWverse, the F-4Es are going to get converted first because they are available. And we were doing that in @ when plenty of allies were still flying F-4s. To be clear, I'm not saying there are no F-4Es in AMARC by TLWverse 2005 - there just won't be fields full.
Now in @, 351 F-4Ds made it to AMARC but none were ever used for QF conversions.

As for Iran, I think the questions are a) how long did the Green Revolution take, and b) how long did it take the new government to consolidate power such that the US government is going to sign off on heavy weapons and aircraft. Even using formal US allies as cutouts for delivery, the US still has to sign off. Yea, it's a totally different regime, but I don't think the memory of Iran-Contra is so distant that Congress isn't going to want to have a say.
IIRC, the TLWverse Green Revolution was in February 2000. That's near the tail end of the TLWverse one-term Clinton administration. I don't know that Bernard has ever nailed down just when Clinton decided not to seek reelection or how effective he was at the end. But I think there is a good chance he decides to let the next President and the next Congress figure out how to deal with post-theocratic Iran. That puts us into 2001 and asking how many usable F-4Es are still left in AMARC.

I'll think about QA-4s tomorrow. But a quick look says not as many A-4s as one might think by the POD.
QA-7Ds might be worth looking at.

[Craiglxviii]

How about a QF-8 conversion? There were plenty built and not so many sold.

[drmarkbailey]

Hi guys

I am actually looking at the second and third order mobilisation demands and implications of a WWIII on medium and small powers. One of the yawning gaps is transport aircraft. Yes, they can use commercial aircraft for hub to hub cargo movements, which does not help much at all as most military cargo types are unsuitable for civil cargo aircraft. They are fine for hub to hub general logistic support, food, small packages, essentially nothing on military pallets and certainly no ammo above small arms.

The powers which build C-130 type cargo aircraft and up will prioritise themselves and existing orders will be seized. C-130 and larger in places like AMARC will be denoted as for the national air force(s) and will not be available.

What does this leave? And what is the demand?

Medium and small powers have small fleets of transports, mostly C-130 sized and not in large numbers. Australia is very different, even in TLW, as it has a C-17 force. In OTL, Australia introduced an initial fleet of four C-17As between 2006 and 2008. Additional aircraft were acquired in 2011, 2012, and 2015. Based at RAAF Base Amberley, all eight C-17As are operated by No. 36 Squadron.

In TLW, the C-17A force will come forward as the orbat shows:
86 Wing – RAAF Base Richmond
No. 35 Squadron: C-17A
No. 36 Squadron: C-130H
No. 37 Squadron: C-130J
No. 40 Squadron: C-27J
No 22 (City of Sydney) Squadron: Heavy Transport Skill salvage
No 27 (City of Townsville) Squadron: Medium transport Skill salvage

but probably 4 C-17A in service + 2-4 on order and they'll probably be taken over by the USA.

Available machines will be impressed (including the Shorts Belfast operating out of Cairns) yet this is just small numbers of odds and sods.

The Australian operational demand 1998-2005 is not for these C-130/C-17 assets anyway. It's for light to medium transports and a lot of them (cheap) as ADF units are penny-packeted across the north and the islands. You just don't use C-17 or C-130 to resupply a platoon out there in the GAFA (Great Australian F*** All and its bigger than western Europe). There's a range of assets needed ranging from GippsAero GA8 Airvan (7 pax/half a ton to 400 miles) to a C-27J Spartan, with most being in the middle. I can cover most ADF needs with Airvans and C-47. The remaining gap is something with a rear cargo door that can take light vehicles. Something like the C-123 has a cargo size of something like 22' x 9' x 7' high.

So I'm checking this aspect out and yes, any such airframes (~20 needed) would have to be turboprop converted. There was a C-123T which is why I'm looking at it. The conversion's been done.

Cheers: Mark

[Craiglxviii]

Hi guys

I am actually looking at the second and third order mobilisation demands and implications of a WWIII on medium and small powers. One of the yawning gaps is transport aircraft. Yes, they can use commercial aircraft for hub to hub cargo movements, which does not help much at all as most military cargo types are unsuitable for civil cargo aircraft. They are fine for hub to hub general logistic support, food, small packages, essentially nothing on military pallets and certainly no ammo above small arms.

The powers which build C-130 type cargo aircraft and up will prioritise themselves and existing orders will be seized. C-130 and larger in places like AMARC will be denoted as for the national air force(s) and will not be available.

What does this leave? And what is the demand?

Medium and small powers have small fleets of transports, mostly C-130 sized and not in large numbers. Australia is very different, even in TLW, as it has a C-17 force. In OTL, Australia introduced an initial fleet of four C-17As between 2006 and 2008. Additional aircraft were acquired in 2011, 2012, and 2015. Based at RAAF Base Amberley, all eight C-17As are operated by No. 36 Squadron.

In TLW, the C-17A force will come forward as the orbat shows:
86 Wing – RAAF Base Richmond
No. 35 Squadron: C-17A
No. 36 Squadron: C-130H
No. 37 Squadron: C-130J
No. 40 Squadron: C-27J
No 22 (City of Sydney) Squadron: Heavy Transport Skill salvage
No 27 (City of Townsville) Squadron: Medium transport Skill salvage

but probably 4 C-17A in service + 2-4 on order and they'll probably be taken over by the USA.

Available machines will be impressed (including the Shorts Belfast operating out of Cairns) yet this is just small numbers of odds and sods.

The Australian operational demand 1998-2005 is not for these C-130/C-17 assets anyway. It's for light to medium transports and a lot of them (cheap) as ADF units are penny-packeted across the north and the islands. You just don't use C-17 or C-130 to resupply a platoon out there in the GAFA (Great Australian F*** All and its bigger than western Europe). There's a range of assets needed ranging from GippsAero GA8 Airvan (7 pax/half a ton to 400 miles) to a C-27J Spartan, with most being in the middle. I can cover most ADF needs with Airvans and C-47. The remaining gap is something with a rear cargo door that can take light vehicles. Something like the C-123 has a cargo size of something like 22' x 9' x 7' high.

So I'm checking this aspect out and yes, any such airframes (~20 needed) would have to be turboprop converted. There was a C-123T which is why I'm looking at it. The conversion's been done.

Cheers: Mark

Have a look at DC-3 / C-47s available for conversion to Turbo-Daks. There were still many airframes at AMARC in @ when I was poking around there.

[Eaglenine2]

Can C-47 can carry light vehicles?

[Craiglxviii]

Can C-47 can carry light vehicles?

In its original guise the C-47, with its R-1830 radials could carry 1.5 tons out to 600 miles. It was the Deuce and a Half of the Sky. Say 3500lb of useful payload at a cruising speed of 160mph. They could certainly carry a Willys Jeep.

The Turbo Dak with its twin PT6A jet turbine turboprops can carry a useful payload of around 8500lb with a cruising speed of 240mph (and a maximum of 328) to the same range.

Basler did a nice conversion (the BT-67) which included a fuselage plug, reducing the C-47’s tendency to bulk out before weighting out.

[Eaglenine2]

The hatches are on the side isn't a pain in the ass to get Jeeps off and on a C-47?

[Craiglxviii]

The hatches are on the side isn't a pain in the ass to get Jeeps off and on a C-47?

It IS a pain in the ass, but it’s certainly possible- I’ve done it. The cargo doors are about 14’ wide when fully opened.

[Eaglenine2]

Eh should the is something with a rear cargo door that can take light vehicles a C-27J mission?

[James1978]

For reference, there are four classification levels for aircraft at AMARC:
Type 1000 - Aircraft stored in near-flyaway condition. Can be stored without re-preservation for a period of 4 years. Aircraft stored under this category may be downgraded to Type 2000.
Type 2000 - Generally aircraft allocated for reclamation purposes. Aircraft stored under this category may be downgraded to Type 4000.
Type 3000 - Flyable hold for 90 days or more, pending transfer, sale or disposition.
Type 4000 - Minimal preservation. Generally aircraft stored in this category are awaiting disposal.

The thing that everyone should keep in mind is that is kinda doesn't matter how many of a given aircraft were built.
What matters if how many ever made it to AMARC/AMARG in the first place, what year they went in, and how many were left by 1989/1990.

As for target conversions. As goofy as it may sound, the service still owns the aircraft - i.e. the Navy still owns ex-Navy and Marine aircraft, and the Air Force still owns ex-Air Force aircraft. Which is to say, I'm not sure that say the Air Force can just go grabbing Navy planes to turn into target drones.

Interesting note, the Navy had been converting old F-4s to QF-4N and QF-4S since the mid 1980s. And they built some QF-4Bs back in the 1970s. This seems to suggest that by the time the Air Force was looking for it's next target drone, using old F-4s was well understood.

Going back to the QF-100s, it looks like the F-100D/Fs they used hadn't been at AMARC all that long when the conversions started. So I'd make a guess that they were in Type 1000. Ditto for the QF-106s. They seemed to use aircraft that hadn't been out of service all that long when the type was selected for use as the next aerial target.

I didn't look at every one, but it looks like the F-8s were mostly gone buy the mid-late 1980s. A lot of them ended up range targets, spares for the French Navy, or educational purposes. Google's AI says that the F-8s mostly went in as Type 2000 or Type 4000 since the Navy had no intention to return them to service. Once the last reserve RF-8s left service in 1987, I'd be shocked if any F-8s still at AMARC didn't get downgraded to Type 4000.