C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

[Matt Wiser]

How about the AF using the C/D Phantoms for drone conversion and holding the Es for transfer to Allies and Gs for possible return to service? And since some Allied air forces also operated the RF-4E, keeping some RFs around for transfer or for parts sources would also go, IMHO.

[drmarkbailey]

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

Yes. Nothing the ADF has can fit in a C-47. A Perentie is Overall length, fully equipped 4330 mm/ 170.5 in
Overall length, basic stripped 4217 mm/ 166 in
Overall height, to top of windscreen 2138 mm/ 84 in
Overall height, over hood (GS model) 2283 mm/ 90 in
Wheelbase 2565 mm/ 101 in
Track (distance between wheels), front 1524 mm
Width of body (load bed) 1720 mm/67.75 in

A WWII Jeep is Length: 132 inches, Width: 62 inches, Height: 69.9 inches (with the top up), Wheelbase: 80 inches.

The 28 Squadron series runs through the acquisition of many DC-3/ C-47 and a conversion similar (but not the same) as Basler, in TLW as it extends I think they'll wind up with ~60 'classic' DC-3/C-47 (and a couple of DC-2 and even one L2D) and maybe 150-200 C-47T.

The S-2 to S-2T conversion program liberates engines (well, engine cores) which provide a good pool for the 'classic' C-47 fore and I found a company in Melbourne which could make the necessary parts and indeed, whole engines.

Hence the gap I've identified, by about 2001 the RAAF will have identified an increasing need for a medium transport aircraft roughly like a C-27 and it can't be new because a new bird can't be afforded.

Cheers: Mark

[drmarkbailey]

How about the AF using the C/D Phantoms for drone conversion and holding the Es for transfer to Allies and Gs for possible return to service? And since some Allied air forces also operated the RF-4E, keeping some RFs around for transfer or for parts sources would also go, IMHO.

This is why once you look at this from within the perceptive lens of TLW, it becomes a very, very complex issue. James is dead right on 'what matters is what makes it to AMARC' of course. TLW changes ALL of the logic basis for that.

Example, F-4.

Probably in service in TLW in 2005 with Egypt, Australia, Germany, Greece, Iran, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, USA. Sure, fading out with some of these (Israel, USA at least).

All of this makes a reserve stock of these aircraft a strategic issue. And in TLW, one ally (Australia) is actually re-introducing the type into service as a single-seat interceptor for continental defence as the AF-4I.

Perhaps a starting point might be "what types are in Allied service in significant numbers" Those types are the ones which, perhaps, should not be rapidly disposed of in TLW if they were disposed of rapidly in OTL.

Chief among these is, IMHO, the F-4 fleet: at least as a good initial example to look at. The main reason for this is that the F-4 was a modular design (which surprised me when I found that out) and it's in widespread allied use after TLW POD.

Cheers: Mark

[Craiglxviii]

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

Yes. Nothing the ADF has can fit in a C-47. A Perentie is Overall length, fully equipped 4330 mm/ 170.5 in
Overall length, basic stripped 4217 mm/ 166 in
Overall height, to top of windscreen 2138 mm/ 84 in
Overall height, over hood (GS model) 2283 mm/ 90 in
Wheelbase 2565 mm/ 101 in
Track (distance between wheels), front 1524 mm
Width of body (load bed) 1720 mm/67.75 in

A WWII Jeep is Length: 132 inches, Width: 62 inches, Height: 69.9 inches (with the top up), Wheelbase: 80 inches.

The 28 Squadron series runs through the acquisition of many DC-3/ C-47 and a conversion similar (but not the same) as Basler, in TLW as it extends I think they'll wind up with ~60 'classic' DC-3/C-47 (and a couple of DC-2 and even one L2D) and maybe 150-200 C-47T.

The S-2 to S-2T conversion program liberates engines (well, engine cores) which provide a good pool for the 'classic' C-47 fore and I found a company in Melbourne which could make the necessary parts and indeed, whole engines.

Hence the gap I've identified, by about 2001 the RAAF will have identified an increasing need for a medium transport aircraft roughly like a C-27 and it can't be new because a new bird can't be afforded.

Cheers: Mark

Pacific Sky were manufacturing new R-1830s, and Pratt & Whitney still had 3,000 (no typo!) engine cores available in the late 1990s/ early 00s. New engines and spare parts weren’t a problem.

[drmarkbailey]

Thanks for that info, Craig, that's new to me.

Cheers: Mark

[Craiglxviii]

Thanks for that info, Craig, that's new to me.

Cheers: Mark

No worries chap. If you really want a problem for DC-3s it was brake units, they were an utter whirling bastard to source.

Now I’ll throw you a curve ball. DC-6s (C-118?) and L-188s converted into the cargo role; 10 and 7 tons at 250kts out to 1000 miles respectively. There were around 18 L-188s kicking around in the U.K. and Alaska in the early noughties; I don’t know how many DC-6 there were in Latin America but it was in double digits. Pacific Sky supported the DC-6 and Lockheed/ Rolls Royce/ Pacific Propellor supported the L-188.

Don’t forget the C-54 either, there were quite a few of those in civil hands across the 80s and 90s, again supported by Pacific Sky (and 22 in AMARC).

Edited to add: plus 11 x C-119 if you want a big boxy tail ramp fuselage.

[drmarkbailey]

Hmm.

In TLW, the ADF has a specific array of second tier air transport tasks. The 'DC-3 series' (DC-2, DC-3, C-47 and yes even a sole L2D can deal with these at very reasonable cost which is within Australia's TLW budget. It also avoids the 'telepathic hero' style of too many AH.

There is a gap for a faster ambulance aircraft and I have a really, really offbeat answer to that one <evil grin>

I don't see a capability gap for DC-6, the cargo capability is very good but it needs special equipment to unload and it is not rough field capable. Across the GAFA we are talking dirt strips and saltpans.

So far, C-123 and C-119 fit the bill. Here's the interesting thing, DC-2, DC-3, C-47, C-119, C-123 (and my little surprise) can all be fitted with the same engines, same cockpit, same electronics & comms and same loom (mostly) in the same facility. A DC-6 is a very different bird.

So at the moment, I'm just going to focus on the transports with a ramp.

Cheers: Mark

[Craiglxviii]

Hmm.

In TLW, the ADF has a specific array of second tier air transport tasks. The 'DC-3 series' (DC-2, DC-3, C-47 and yes even a sole L2D can deal with these at very reasonable cost which is within Australia's TLW budget. It also avoids the 'telepathic hero' style of too many AH.

There is a gap for a faster ambulance aircraft and I have a really, really offbeat answer to that one <evil grin>

I don't see a capability gap for DC-6, the cargo capability is very good but it needs special equipment to unload and it is not rough field capable. Across the GAFA we are talking dirt strips and saltpans.

So far, C-123 and C-119 fit the bill. Here's the interesting thing, DC-2, DC-3, C-47, C-119, C-123 (and my little surprise) can all be fitted with the same engines, same cockpit, same electronics & comms and same loom (mostly) in the same facility. A DC-6 is a very different bird.

So at the moment, I'm just going to focus on the transports with a ramp.

Cheers: Mark

Mark, sorry to be a PITA here but anything that can handle and maintain a DC-3 can handle a DC-6. Engines, props, wheels, brakes, electrics, airframe. Aside from engine stands (clearly!) they’re almost identical in terms of maintenance tooling (in many cases they are identical, there are few unique tools for the R-2800 that the R-1830 doesn’t use). I seem to recall that the fuel flow test rig needed a flow meter change but other than that the other workshop test rigs were suitable across both types. And the DC-4 too for that matter- this was my first job so I got to experience the joys of it all: DC-3/ C-47, C-54, DC-4, DC-6 and the L-188 too, hence why they snuck in- all in the same rather small facility, all on a shoestring predictably.

For DC-6 ground cargo handling, the bird can either carry its own roller ramps or the same scissor lifts that can handle an L-188 cargo conversion will work for them. We operated cargo DC-6s across most of the arse end of the world with no problems, well not for ground cargo handling at any rate. Alaska, Africa, Mongolia. I don’t recall us having problems loading or offloading and some of it was fairly big equipment, not always palletised.

Rough strips, again not a problem. Dirt, snow, sand, I’ve seen (and been in) -6s that operated out of all of them. Including one in a sandstorm that performed the shortest landing run I’ve ever seen any large aeroplane do, it must have been about 600’. That captain really wanted to get her down! There were rough-field tyres available out of Canada at surprisingly cheap cost (I know- I was able to extend the life of the British -6s by getting them type rated through the CAA, after Michelin decided to scrap the moulds for their standard ribbed tyres).

[James1978]

Quick reply from some digging I've been doing.

I think the problem with finding old C-123s is how long they've been out of service, and where they've been sitting since they left service.
At least in @, I think the US probably stopped caring once the C-123 left Thai and ROK service by the mid-1990s. After that, who cares. I don't really see that changing in TLWverse even with the continued Cold War.

For all intents and purposes, Australia's sub-POD isn't until 1999. Up until then, I'm not sure any former or soon to be former C-123 or even C-119 military operators are thinking anybody will be interested in their surplus aircraft. And Australia wouldn't be looking around and asking to buy them before 1999-2000.

That's not to say I think there was a mad rush to scrap any C-123s in AMARC after that, but if they weren't Type 2000/4000 already, they were after the mid-1990s. If they are still sitting in the dry Arizona desert or in civil use somewhere, and Australia is willing to come get them and run them through an onshore C-123T-style program, good on them. But a caveat - at least some of the 22 C-123Ks that made it to AMARC left at some point, and I'm trying to run down their ultimate fates
But out of service Thai and ROK C-123s have been sitting in the elements for at least a few years in an unclear state of preservation, some since the 1980s? That's a whole different kettle of fish, ditto for any museum birds wherever they may be. And it appears that at least some of the ROK birds found employment as decoys.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'm guessing that Mark's purpose/mission here is to support the Defense Battalion outposts and mobile patrols across the vastness of northern Australia?


But if anyone is just dying to know the fate of every C-123, there is a book coming out on January - Fairchild C-123 Provider: Technical Data and Complete Service Histories.

[Craiglxviii]

Quick reply from some digging I've been doing.

I think the problem with finding old C-123s is how long they've been out of service, and where they've been sitting since they left service.
At least in @, I think the US probably stopped caring once the C-123 left Thai and ROK service by the mid-1990s. After that, who cares. I don't really see that changing in TLWverse even with the continued Cold War.

For all intents and purposes, Australia's sub-POD isn't until 1999. Up until then, I'm not sure any former or soon to be former C-123 or even C-119 military operators are thinking anybody will be interested in their surplus aircraft. And Australia wouldn't be looking around and asking to buy them before 1999-2000.

That's not to say I think there was a mad rush to scrap any C-123s in AMARC after that, but if they weren't Type 2000/4000 already, they were after the mid-1990s. If they are still sitting in the dry Arizona desert or in civil use somewhere, and Australia is willing to come get them and run them through an onshore C-123T-style program, good on them. But a caveat - at least some of the 22 C-123Ks that made it to AMARC left at some point, and I'm trying to run down their ultimate fates
But out of service Thai and ROK C-123s have been sitting in the elements for at least a few years in an unclear state of preservation, some since the 1980s? That's a whole different kettle of fish, ditto for any museum birds wherever they may be. And it appears that at least some of the ROK birds found employment as decoys.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'm guessing that Mark's purpose/mission here is to support the Defense Battalion outposts and mobile patrols across the vastness of northern Australia?


But if anyone is just dying to know the fate of every C-123, there is a book coming out on January - Fairchild C-123 Provider: Technical Data and Complete Service Histories.

Then that puts the whole question squarely into the mix of where I found myself in 1999, what cheap 1950s/60s cargo aircraft are there around and what do they look like (tail ramps or not).

Silly question, do you have data on the number of P-3s kicking around AMARC? There were plenty enough for me to rob the brake discs out of to keep our fleet of L-188s flying, but they weren’t in the best condition. They could be suitable for the Air Products side cargo door conversion.

[James1978]

Then that puts the whole question squarely into the mix of where I found myself in 1999, what cheap 1950s/60s cargo aircraft are there around and what do they look like (tail ramps or not).

Silly question, do you have data on the number of P-3s kicking around AMARC? There were plenty enough for me to rob the brake discs out of to keep our fleet of L-188s flying, but they weren’t in the best condition. They could be suitable for the Air Products side cargo door conversion.

In TLWverse 2005? Yea, rough numbers.
But I make no representations as to what Type category the "A" and "B" models are.

* Up to 19 P-3A

* Up to 63/75 P-3B
COMMENT: Depends on if the @ 2010 Brazil sale moved up in TLW. Number would also be lower if anyone else bought refurbished P-3Bs in TLWverse.

* Up to 65 P-3C
COMMENT: This one is a little tricky. To totally replace the P-3B in USN service, the USN had to buy more new builds in TLWverse 1990s post P-7 cancellation. This could allow for early model / higher hour P-3Cs to go to AMARC. So I added X125 P-3C bought during the TLWverse 1990s, this substituted for X125 planned “P-3G” from @ to get the TLWverse P-3C buy.
COMMENT: Also, Australia grabbed some of these once Konfrontasi 2 kicks off.

[Matt Wiser]

Keep in mind that some P-3s are candidates for being fitted with APG-66 and a LRAAM to deal with the Tu-22DP threat...

[James1978]

Keep in mind that some P-3s are candidates for being fitted with APG-66 and a LRAAM to deal with the Tu-22DP threat...

On the one hand, it's already been done and is in service on the P-3 LRT.

On the other hand . . .
APG-66: 150km Range
BRLS-8B "Zaslon": 400km Range

In that light, an AN/APG-71 or AN/APG-77 might be necessary.


Then there is this little tidbit re. the AN/APG-71:
"The system itself is capable of a 460-mile (740 km) range, but the antenna design limits this to only 230 miles (370 km)."

Which has me wondering . . . how large of an antenna can you fit in the nose of a Tu-22M? And what might a circa 2005 TLWverse Zaslon be capable of with an antenna that size?

[Matt Wiser]

And how long to a) manufacture the radars if no spares are at hand, and b) do some flight testing, maybe with a live shoot or two, before going out to patrol in NORPAC?

[James1978]

And how long to a) manufacture the radars if no spares are at hand, and b) do some flight testing, maybe with a live shoot or two, before going out to patrol in NORPAC?

Step 1: Notify VX-1 (ASW testing - they'll be most familiar with the P-3) and VX-4 (A2A testing) that a tiger team will be taking taking whomever they please from those units for a task of grave national importance. Said personnel will report to China Lake within 24 hours. Appropriate personnel from Hughes/Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, and P-3 specialist from the NADEPS will be joining them.

Step 2: Find some P-3Cs, preferably ones coming out of NADEP Alameda or NADEP Jacksonville that haven't been turned over to a line VP squadron yet. Yea, we'll be ripping bits out, but at least we know they are mechanically sound and everything else is up to date.

Step 3: Survey NADEP Norfolk and NADEP North Island. Requisition a few AN/APG-71s from F-14Ds that are in depot maintenance and won't be reassembled any time soon. I mean an AN/APG-77 really would be better, but there are rather fewer of those.

Step 4: CNO tells the CVWs they no longer have first priority on factory fresh AIM-152s*, and maybe don't get too attached to any you still have in your magazines.

Step 5: MacGyver an AN/APG-71 into a P-3 nose, and and F-14D RIO station in the back. Speed counts. It's a wartime kludge and doesn't have to be pretty. It just has to work.

Step 6: Work seven days a week to finish systems integration, then flight and separation testing.

Even for a task of grave national importance, I'd guess a couple weeks.


* As of D+11, the RIM-174 was described as "semi-experimental". I'd not expect any AIM-174 to show up anytime soon, even as a wartime kludge.


Now having said all that, if there were some kind of Black World platform somewhere in Nevada that was ultra stealthy, had a long range, could super cruise, and was A2A capable, well now, that might be a nice thing for somebody to mention. If such a thing were to exist.

[Jotun]

And how long to a) manufacture the radars if no spares are at hand, and b) do some flight testing, maybe with a live shoot or two, before going out to patrol in NORPAC?

Step 1: Notify VX-1 (ASW testing - they'll be most familiar with the P-3) and VX-4 (A2A testing) that a tiger team will be taking taking whomever they please from those units for a task of grave national importance. Said personnel will report to China Lake within 24 hours. Appropriate personnel from Hughes/Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, and P-3 specialist from the NADEPS will be joining them.

Step 2: Find some P-3Cs, preferably ones coming out of NADEP Alameda or NADEP Jacksonville that haven't been turned over to a line VP squadron yet. Yea, we'll be ripping bits out, but at least we know they are mechanically sound and everything else is up to date.

Step 3: Survey NADEP Norfolk and NADEP North Island. Requisition a few AN/APG-71s from F-14Ds that are in depot maintenance and won't be reassembled any time soon. I mean an AN/APG-77 really would be better, but there are rather fewer of those.

Step 4: CNO tells the CVWs they no longer have first priority on factory fresh AIM-152s*, and maybe don't get too attached to any you still have in your magazines.

Step 5: MacGyver an AN/APG-71 into a P-3 nose, and and F-14D RIO station in the back. Speed counts. It's a wartime kludge and doesn't have to be pretty. It just has to work.

Step 6: Work seven days a week to finish systems integration, then flight and separation testing.

Even for a task of grave national importance, I'd guess a couple weeks.


* As of D+11, the RIM-174 was described as "semi-experimental". I'd not expect any AIM-174 to show up anytime soon, even as a wartime kludge.


Now having said all that, if there were some kind of Black World platform somewhere in Nevada that was ultra stealthy, had a long range, could super cruise, and was A2A capable, well now, that might be a nice thing for somebody to mention. If such a thing were to exist.

Flight of the Old Dog intensifies

[Craiglxviii]

The P-3’s nose wasn’t specially accommodating length-wise, there’s only about 5’6” inside the radome before the forward pressure bulkhead. Would that be enough? I have a feeling that the AWG-9/ APG-71 goes quite a bit further back inside the nose of the Tomcat than just the visible antenna.

[James1978]

The P-3’s nose wasn’t specially accommodating length-wise, there’s only about 5’6” inside the radome before the forward pressure bulkhead. Would that be enough? I have a feeling that the AWG-9/ APG-71 goes quite a bit further back inside the nose of the Tomcat than just the visible antenna.

Ahh, good catch.

We know an APG-66 will fit, and there are plenty if pictures on the net of F-16s with their noses forward of the cockpit opened up to get an idea of how big the unit was. There are fewer similar picture of the F-14s nose opened up, but they do seem to suggest a . . . less volume constrained unit.

If they have to design a new nose and flight test that too, that's gonna take time.

[Craiglxviii]

The P-3’s nose wasn’t specially accommodating length-wise, there’s only about 5’6” inside the radome before the forward pressure bulkhead. Would that be enough? I have a feeling that the AWG-9/ APG-71 goes quite a bit further back inside the nose of the Tomcat than just the visible antenna.

Ahh, good catch.

We know an APG-66 will fit, and there are plenty if pictures on the net of F-16s with their noses forward of the cockpit opened up to get an idea of how big the unit was. There are fewer similar picture of the F-14s nose opened up, but they do seem to suggest a . . . less volume constrained unit.

If they have to design a new nose and flight test that too, that's gonna take time.

AN/APG-71 is 28 cu ft. And only 55 were built.

I was about to say “assuming it isn’t 3’ in diameter” but it turns out that it IS. And 1300lb weight too (!!! That’s some radar! https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... RC_ID=1318)

So assuming the whole thing is cylindrical, which it isn’t, but close enough for government work, that gives us a us a length of 3’ 11.5”. So it will fit inside the nose radome of a P-3. And all the missile ancillaries and computer modules that were packed behind the Tomcat’s RIO will also fit inside the avionics bay behind the radome and under the flight crews’ feet.

NB- I wonder who wrote that 1999 Forecast International paper… be ironic if it was Stu.

[James1978]

AN/APG-71 is 28 cu ft. And only 55 were built.

Quite a bit more than that in TLWverse.

I was about to say “assuming it isn’t 3’ in diameter” but it turns out that it IS. And 1300lb weight too (!!! That’s some radar! https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... RC_ID=1318)

So assuming the whole thing is cylindrical, which it isn’t, but close enough for government work, that gives us a us a length of 3’ 11.5”. So it will fit inside the nose radome of a P-3. And all the missile ancillaries and computer modules that were packed behind the Tomcat’s RIO will also fit inside the avionics bay behind the radome and under the flight crews’ feet.

That will make things easier.