C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW
-
Bernard Woolley
- Posts: 1092
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:06 pm
- Location: Earth
Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW
It is.
“Frankly, I had enjoyed the war… and why do people want peace if the war is so much fun?” - Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Carton de Wiart
Re: AMARC - F/A-18A/B
F/A-18A/B from AMARC
Probably easiest to just post the table.
Some explanations
* US Attrition: Using loss data from @, but for dates prior to TLWverse April 2005.
* Reactivation: Two USN Reserve fighter F/A-18A squadrons were on the USS America when she went down. For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming most of the aircraft aboard were not airborne and were lost. That's 20-24** aircraft pulled from AMARC for the USN.
** Depends on actual squadron size. In the late 1980s, pre-POD, USN F/A-18 and F-14 squadrons dropped from 12 planes to 10. Why is another conversation.
* Australia: Aircraft taken from AMARC by Australia post-1999 TLWverse,
* Spain: in @, Spain got 24 F/A-18A from AMARC in the 1990s. In TLWverse, they got 30.
* New Zealand: TLWverse only.
Now there are a few caveats here . . .
* New Zealand: It's unclear if more Hornets were/are on order so that No. 2 Squadron can be reequipped as well. But given that in @ New Zealand once planned to lease 28 F-16s, I'd say that's a safe bet.
* Canada: TLWverse Canada is short a Hornet squadron from their @ Cold War high. I'm honestly not sure if anybody was thinking about attrition, or if its just an oops when we hashed out the Canadian ORBAT. In any event, Canada's peacetime attrition was such that they had to disband a Hornet squadron in TLWverse in order to keep the rest of the squadrons at a decent, non banana republic strength. But with the Cold War not ending, and NORAD obligations being what they are . . . I think there is a high likelihood that Canada picked up some F/A-18As from AMARC in the 1990s. Probably worth a discussion in the Canada thread.
Now those number can be fiddled with on the US end. But it would require revising some ORBATS. And if New Zealand i supposed to get a second squadron, and Canada makes an attrition buy, then the numbers say we have to do that.
Probably easiest to just post the table.
Some explanations
* US Attrition: Using loss data from @, but for dates prior to TLWverse April 2005.
* Reactivation: Two USN Reserve fighter F/A-18A squadrons were on the USS America when she went down. For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming most of the aircraft aboard were not airborne and were lost. That's 20-24** aircraft pulled from AMARC for the USN.
** Depends on actual squadron size. In the late 1980s, pre-POD, USN F/A-18 and F-14 squadrons dropped from 12 planes to 10. Why is another conversation.
* Australia: Aircraft taken from AMARC by Australia post-1999 TLWverse,
* Spain: in @, Spain got 24 F/A-18A from AMARC in the 1990s. In TLWverse, they got 30.
* New Zealand: TLWverse only.
Now there are a few caveats here . . .
* New Zealand: It's unclear if more Hornets were/are on order so that No. 2 Squadron can be reequipped as well. But given that in @ New Zealand once planned to lease 28 F-16s, I'd say that's a safe bet.
* Canada: TLWverse Canada is short a Hornet squadron from their @ Cold War high. I'm honestly not sure if anybody was thinking about attrition, or if its just an oops when we hashed out the Canadian ORBAT. In any event, Canada's peacetime attrition was such that they had to disband a Hornet squadron in TLWverse in order to keep the rest of the squadrons at a decent, non banana republic strength. But with the Cold War not ending, and NORAD obligations being what they are . . . I think there is a high likelihood that Canada picked up some F/A-18As from AMARC in the 1990s. Probably worth a discussion in the Canada thread.
Now those number can be fiddled with on the US end. But it would require revising some ORBATS. And if New Zealand i supposed to get a second squadron, and Canada makes an attrition buy, then the numbers say we have to do that.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Eaglenine2
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:22 pm
Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW
Dumb question is the F/A-18A production line still up?
Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW
No. Production of the F/A-18A/B ended in 1987 for the US, but the last CF-18A/B for Canada was 1988 and the last EF-18A for Spain was in 1990.
In @, "C/D' production ended in 2000. Absent a significant export order in the late 1990s, I don't think that would change much in TLWverse.
But if anyone has a suggestion for who might make a major F/A-18C/D purchase in the late 1990s, I'm all ears.
Any other non-US air forces flying classic F/A-18s will be flying "C/D" models. That's at least Kuwait, Malaysia, and Switzerland. There may be a few others.
In TLWverse, Finland did not get F/A-18C/Ds.
Australia would have picked up its F/A-18D squadron around 1999-2000ish. I don't think it's official/cannon, but at least in my head I had them as basically white tail birds that someone else ordered then had to cancel for some reason. So when the RAAF got them, they were basically ready for delivery and already configured to USMC F/A-18D N/AW standard.
-
Matt Wiser
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:48 am
- Location: Auberry, CA
Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW
One other type of aircraft is going to be coming out, and it'll be the Navy and Marines only: the A-6. I do believe we discussed this on the previous board, but the need for Intruders is going to outpace Grumman's production capacity. The A-6G, which was a proposed alternative to the F in @, envisioned a CILOP program, with the fuselage of the E, airframes zero-timed, the F's avionics and radar (and TRAM), along with wings. I don't recall if the G kept the J52 engines or went to the F404s that the F had, so... This is a program that NADEP Alameda and NADEP Norfolk could work on, along with (Grumman CEO's teeth knashing) Boeing-Wichita as they were doing the composite wings. This is, of course, separate from taking enough Es out of storage for the three new CVWs standing up.
The difference between diplomacy and war is this: Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell so elegantly that they pack for the trip.
War is bringing hell down on that someone.
War is bringing hell down on that someone.
-
drmarkbailey
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:20 am
Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW
Makes sense for both the F-18 force and the transport issue.
OK....
Into this gap stepped Viking Air of Victoria, British Columbia. The company, a manufacturer of replacement parts for all out-of-production de Havilland Canada aircraft, had purchased the type certificates from Bombardier Aerospace for all versions of the DHC-1 through DHC-7 series aircraft, which gave them the right to manufacture and sell new aircraft of those types.
Viking Air had proposed to both the RAAF and Canada’s Air Command that it put the Buffalo back into production for both air forces. The new-build Buffalo, dubbed the DHC-5NG for ‘New Generation’ would be powered by Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100 turboprops, with six-bladed composite propellers, rather than the General Electric T64 of the original aircraft, which powered three-bladed propellers. It would also have a glass cockpit and Night Vision Goggle compatibility.
With its Caribous becoming increasingly difficult to operate, the RAAF had almost bitten Viking Air’s hand off, so keen were they to procure the aircraft. The deal offered to the Australians also included Caribou spare parts to keep the fleet going while the DHC-5NG was brought into service.
Air Command was a little less enthusiastic; its Buffalo fleet was not in the need of immediate replacement. However, it saw the logic of joining the programme as a larger production run would make each individual aircraft cheaper. Canada would be happy to wait a bit longer for its new CC-115B to be delivered, which would be after the last Australian aircraft was delivered.
The first four DHC-5NG had been delivered to the RAAF by late 2004, which had established C Flight of 38 Squadron, to act as an Operational Evaluation Unit, and more recently as an Operational Conversion Unit. On the outbreak of war, the flight had joined the rest of the squadron at Port Moresby.
Canon is canon.
So, how about this?
2000 - start the Caribou upgrade FIRST in (say) early 2000. Do that locally with Viking Air doing a tech/training transfer so that a Caribou turbo-upgrade kicks off in Australia for the 17 extant RAAF caribou. There won't be enough as demand grows
2001 - with all sorts of SHTF going on, Viking convinces the RAAF to buy 1 SQN of Buffalo (12 machines) specifically for the PNG mission. They are a better bird for and have a capability superiority in those flying conditions. Meanwhile this liberates the Caribou fleet to support the mission across the Top End as it generates. The Squadron in PNG uses a mix of modified and unmodified Caribou and then Buffalo as they enter service - which marches the canon story three years later in '04.
that gives an appropriate timeline for the newbuild Buffalo
Comments?
Cheers: Mark
OK....
Into this gap stepped Viking Air of Victoria, British Columbia. The company, a manufacturer of replacement parts for all out-of-production de Havilland Canada aircraft, had purchased the type certificates from Bombardier Aerospace for all versions of the DHC-1 through DHC-7 series aircraft, which gave them the right to manufacture and sell new aircraft of those types.
Viking Air had proposed to both the RAAF and Canada’s Air Command that it put the Buffalo back into production for both air forces. The new-build Buffalo, dubbed the DHC-5NG for ‘New Generation’ would be powered by Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100 turboprops, with six-bladed composite propellers, rather than the General Electric T64 of the original aircraft, which powered three-bladed propellers. It would also have a glass cockpit and Night Vision Goggle compatibility.
With its Caribous becoming increasingly difficult to operate, the RAAF had almost bitten Viking Air’s hand off, so keen were they to procure the aircraft. The deal offered to the Australians also included Caribou spare parts to keep the fleet going while the DHC-5NG was brought into service.
Air Command was a little less enthusiastic; its Buffalo fleet was not in the need of immediate replacement. However, it saw the logic of joining the programme as a larger production run would make each individual aircraft cheaper. Canada would be happy to wait a bit longer for its new CC-115B to be delivered, which would be after the last Australian aircraft was delivered.
The first four DHC-5NG had been delivered to the RAAF by late 2004, which had established C Flight of 38 Squadron, to act as an Operational Evaluation Unit, and more recently as an Operational Conversion Unit. On the outbreak of war, the flight had joined the rest of the squadron at Port Moresby.
Canon is canon.
So, how about this?
2000 - start the Caribou upgrade FIRST in (say) early 2000. Do that locally with Viking Air doing a tech/training transfer so that a Caribou turbo-upgrade kicks off in Australia for the 17 extant RAAF caribou. There won't be enough as demand grows
2001 - with all sorts of SHTF going on, Viking convinces the RAAF to buy 1 SQN of Buffalo (12 machines) specifically for the PNG mission. They are a better bird for and have a capability superiority in those flying conditions. Meanwhile this liberates the Caribou fleet to support the mission across the Top End as it generates. The Squadron in PNG uses a mix of modified and unmodified Caribou and then Buffalo as they enter service - which marches the canon story three years later in '04.
that gives an appropriate timeline for the newbuild Buffalo
Comments?
Cheers: Mark