C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

The long and short stories of 'The Last War' by Jan Niemczyk and others
James1978
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by James1978 »

Matt Wiser wrote: Tue Sep 16, 2025 2:13 am 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.
Ok, I ran down some more info.

105 F-4Cs went to AMARC November 1986 - October 1989. All pre-POD.
351 F-4Ds went to AMARC May 1987 - November 1990, apart from a couple of birds from test units in 1991.
239 F-4E to AMARC in @ 1986-1997, but mostly by 1991.

Some of those units got F-4Es, but most of them got F-16A or F-16ADFs. With F-16C production for the USAF probably still going at Cold War rates, I don't see the conversion schedule for F-4C/D units changing all that much. The units that got F-4Es will probably hang onto them a little longer, but not much.

In 1988-89, the USAF transfered two batches of F-4Es along with some RF-4Cs to South Korea. Though the RF-4Cs may happen later in TLWverse.
Spain got ex-USAF RF-4Cs in 1989 and 1995. By TLWverse 2005, they are out of service.
Greece got a batch of F-4Es post Desert Storm.
Turkey got a batch of F-4Es post Desert Storm.

For QF-4 conversions, we started pulling F-4Es in @ March 1992, F-4Gs in March 1992, and RF-4Cs in April 1992.
A total of 114 were pulled pre-2000, with a further 75 2000-2005.
Despite rather substantial numbers of F-4C/Ds making it to AMARC, they weren't chosen for QF-4 conversions. If anyone can figure out the reason why, I'd love to know. But the USAF seems to have had their reasons.

Note that we did that in @ while allies were still operating substantial F-4E fleets, just like in TLWverse.
I don't see anybody new clamoring for retired F-4s who wasn't already operating them. Maybe we pawn some more F-4Es off on Egypt, and maybe some RF-4Cs because reasons, but that's it beyond what we passed out in @.

Iran and Australia won't even be on anyone's radar until TLWverse 2000.

In TLWverse, the F-4G leaves USAF service 1996-2000, and are held in Type 1000. The RF-4Cs left service 1993-2002.

So in light of all that, I don't see that the F-4E user group really looks all that different between @ and TLWverse 1990-2000. Which makes me think that the F-4Es will still be the first to go for QF-4 conversions, along with RF-4Cs as they become available.

#########################################################################################

Now having said all that:
My question to Matt, is how many F-4Es do you envision going to Iran?
And Mark, how many F-4s are you thinking about for Australia.
Matt Wiser
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:48 am
Location: Auberry, CA

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Matt Wiser »

With Iran's existing prewar inventory (65 Es and 8 Ds), and to get the Iranian AF's F-4 squadrons up to 1980 strength (a squadron had 16 aircraft before the Shah fell):

11th TFS (Mehrabad)
31st, 32nd TFS (Nojeh/Hamadan)
61st, 62nd TFS (Bushehr)
91st, 92nd TFS (Bandar Abbas)
101st TFS (D) (Chah Bahar)

Add to that 8 RF-4Es.
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.
James1978
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by James1978 »

Matt Wiser wrote: Sat Sep 20, 2025 2:44 am With Iran's existing prewar inventory (65 Es and 8 Ds), and to get the Iranian AF's F-4 squadrons up to 1980 strength (a squadron had 16 aircraft before the Shah fell):

11th TFS (Mehrabad)
31st, 32nd TFS (Nojeh/Hamadan)
61st, 62nd TFS (Bushehr)
91st, 92nd TFS (Bandar Abbas)
101st TFS (D) (Chah Bahar)

Add to that 8 RF-4Es.
Can I assume some "D" models thrown in for the 101st TFS?

And you're saying Iran has 8 RF-4Es left?
Matt Wiser
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:48 am
Location: Auberry, CA

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Matt Wiser »

Some Ds for the 101st should be available: eight survived out of 14 in 1980. If no Ds are available at AMARC.... Maybe if the ROKAF retires its Ds early and accelerates their F-15K buy, the ROKs sell their Ds to Iran and Samsung Aerospace upgrades the remaining Iranian Ds

Yes: Iran had at least 16 RF-4Es prior to 1980: Tom Cooper's books on the Iranian AF are consistent in that eight survived the Iran-Iraq War.

The 12th TFS at Meherabad flew F-4s, but transitioned to MiG-29s. The 71st and 72nd at Shiraz also flew F-4s, but they later became the Iranian AF's Su-24 wing.
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.
James1978
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by James1978 »

Matt Wiser wrote: Sat Sep 20, 2025 5:30 am Some Ds for the 101st should be available: eight survived out of 14 in 1980. If no Ds are available at AMARC.... Maybe if the ROKAF retires its Ds early and accelerates their F-15K buy, the ROKs sell their Ds to Iran and Samsung Aerospace upgrades the remaining Iranian Ds
There ought to be plenty of "D" models at AMARC.

And the ROK-AF F-4Ds were replaced with F-15Ks earlier in TLWverse than in @. Offhand, enough to fill out a single squadron sounds doable.
Yes: Iran had at least 16 RF-4Es prior to 1980: Tom Cooper's books on the Iranian AF are consistent in that eight survived the Iran-Iraq War.
Ok. Just as an FYI, RF-4Es are going to be much harder to come by.

As for the F-4Es. By my calculation, Iran would need 47 F-4Es to bring those squadrons up to strength.

Using the @ QF-4 AMARC withdrawls for 1992-1999, 47 F-4E is doable.

The complicating factor is going to be TLWverse Australia wanting F-4s for a homeland defense interceptor, and just when that ball gets rolling. Because Australia probably has their eyes on that same pool of F-4Es. Or maybe Mark can work with F-4Ds.
Either way, you two can work allocation priority out with Bernard. Please, just let me know the result so I can track inventory.
Matt Wiser
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:48 am
Location: Auberry, CA

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Matt Wiser »

Need to correct: Iran had 32 Ds purchased in 1968. In 1980, they had 28. Of that, 14 survived the Iran-Iraq War. Enough Ds to form a second squadron at Chah Bahar ought to be available-especially from the ROK. (the original plan under the Shah according to Cooper was each wing having two squadrons.)
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.
drmarkbailey
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:20 am

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by drmarkbailey »

I'm a little annoyed as my last post disappeared.

OK... By the look of it I'll have to say the RAAF looks to aircraft brokers and tells them to buy every C-123 and C-119 they can find (and major components) wherever found and in whatever condition they may be. Add that program to the back end of the DC-3/C-47 program.

F-4E numbers the RAAF requires delivered :

2001 - 22 F-4E (establishes an operational squadron of unmodified F-4E: 12 operation aircraft on the flightline, 10 cycling thru maintenance and as attrition reserves for this SQN)
2002 - 64 F-4 for rebuild as AF-4I
2003 - 85 F-4 for rebuild as AF-4I
2004 - 53 F-4 for rebuild as AF-4I
2005 - first SQN of AF-4I reaches IOC

Total 202

The remaining machines from the 22 F-4E in the first buy will probably move in to training roles in 2006. Maybe even as a rebuilt AF-4T

The AF-4I is a specialised single-seat aircraft, a pure long-loiter interceptor, no strike capability at all. It's THE essential program to rebuild the entire combat aircraft industrial base. Yes, it's a second tier aircraft.

The REQUIREMENT for a large number of F-4 will be articulated to the US in third quarter 1999. it will be stated as a critical Alliance industrial and capability development program.

Cheers: Mark
Jotun
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:27 pm
Location: Ze Bocage Mudflats

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Jotun »

West Germany had 88 RF-4E and 175 F-4F in its inventory, and only one Geschwader is left, in TLW, IIRC.

I SEEM to remember that Jan said the West German government transferred the retired Phantoms to AMARC.

I could of course be mistaken.
James1978
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by James1978 »

Jotun wrote: Sat Sep 20, 2025 4:33 pm West Germany had 88 RF-4E and 175 F-4F in its inventory, and only one Geschwader is left, in TLW, IIRC.

I SEEM to remember that Jan said the West German government transferred the retired Phantoms to AMARC.

I could of course be mistaken.
It might be more accurate to say the West Germany bought 88 RF-4E and 175 F-4F. Attrition takes its toll.

Most of the surviving RF-4E were divided up between Greece and Turkey in @ and in TLWverse.

JG-71 still flies F-4Fs in TLWverse.

Accounting for 30 F-4Fs with JG-71 and using @ attrition numbers, in theory there are maybe 116 F-4Fs out there, Subtract a few for museums and gate guards.

I suppose the real question of F-4F availability is just when they become available.
Re. the Typhoon, according to the Prologue, in 1995: "The Royal Air Force now expects to take delivery of its first aircraft in January 2001, achieving an interim operational capability in December of that year."
I'm guessing at a similar timeline for the Luftwaffe. In which case, F-4Fs don't start to become surplus until sometime in 2001.
Jotun
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:27 pm
Location: Ze Bocage Mudflats

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Jotun »

James1978 wrote: Sat Sep 20, 2025 6:06 pm
Jotun wrote: Sat Sep 20, 2025 4:33 pm West Germany had 88 RF-4E and 175 F-4F in its inventory, and only one Geschwader is left, in TLW, IIRC.

I SEEM to remember that Jan said the West German government transferred the retired Phantoms to AMARC.

I could of course be mistaken.
It might be more accurate to say the West Germany bought 88 RF-4E and 175 F-4F. Attrition takes its toll.

Most of the surviving RF-4E were divided up between Greece and Turkey in @ and in TLWverse.

JG-71 still flies F-4Fs in TLWverse.

Accounting for 30 F-4Fs with JG-71 and using @ attrition numbers, in theory there are maybe 116 F-4Fs out there, Subtract a few for museums and gate guards.

I suppose the real question of F-4F availability is just when they become available.
Re. the Typhoon, according to the Prologue, in 1995: "The Royal Air Force now expects to take delivery of its first aircraft in January 2001, achieving an interim operational capability in December of that year."
I'm guessing at a similar timeline for the Luftwaffe. In which case, F-4Fs don't start to become surplus until sometime in 2001.
Let's assume the Fs are shipped over - one way or the other - in tranches as the air wings are equipped with the Typhoon. That would mean that maybe...90-100ish could be residing at AMARC and be relatively fresh.
Matt Wiser
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:48 am
Location: Auberry, CA

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Matt Wiser »

So... Iran needs about 60-70 more Es. Not just to bring their E squadrons back to full strength, but to cover peacetime attrition and also for a dedicated RTU (Replacement Training Unit). Assuming the ROK F-4D squadrons transition to the F-15K, their Ds can go to Iran (with D.C's. blessing).
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.
James1978
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 8:38 pm

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by James1978 »

Ooookay. Our basic problem is that until TLWverse 1999, absolutely nobody is looking to become a new F-4 operator. And until 2000-2001, the US will have been actively working to keep the active Iranian fleet of US aircraft as small as possible.

US allies who do operate F-4s will be planning to run their upgraded fleets for a while, and a few were happy to accept tokens of appreciation from Uncle Sam post-Desert Storm. But none of them were looking to spend their own money to grow their F-4 fleets when that cash could pay for new F-16s and F-15s.

Let's review our timelines of competing priorities:
* July/August/September 1999 - Australia lets the US know it will be needing a "large number" of F-4s, looking to be 202.
* February 2000 - The Green Revolution in Iran overthrows the theocratic regime. What's unclear is if that that was the end, or the beginning. I'd say whatever the answer, it's going to take some time for the new government to to consolidate its hold on power to the degree that the US is going to be comfortable supplying heavy weapons and aircraft. IMO, Clinton decides to kick that decision down the road to the next President and next Congress. That puts us into 2001. And my gut tells me Congress won't make it easy.

What made it to AMARC?
* 105 F-4C
* 351 F-4D
* 239 F-4E
* 140(ish) RF-4C in 1999, of an eventual 240. [TLWverse #]
* 105(ish) F-4G [Type 1000 - no F-4G for you!]

As things stand now, the last F-4s leave US service in TLWverse 2002 when the last Guard/Reserve RF-4C squadron trades their birds in for RF-16Ds. The F-4Gs were gone by 2000. Right now the fact file says 1998 for the least F-4E, but given what I've learned in the last week, it's probably 1994-95 at the latest. Which means Ogden probably started shutting down the F-4 depot maintenance line around 2000.

In @, 114 air frames for QF-4 conversion were pulled 1992-99. In TLWverse, that's going to be a mix of mostly F-4E and to a lesser extent RF-4C. For the sake of discussion, let's call it 82/32.
Which means by the time anyone comes knocking, there aren't 239 F-4Es left at AMARC anymore. It's 157.

ROK-AF
Given the continued Cold War, the F-X program which leads to the F-15K is shifted left enough for all the F-4Ds to be out of service by the early 2000s.
So F-4Ds for Iran are doable . . . assuming Australia didn't get their first.

But . . . just maybe?
F-4F: I'm not sure how the timing works for Mark, but Australia could probably get a good deal on those F-4Fs. Which (indulging in good stereotype) have been lovingly cared for by German mechanics/engineers.
I'm not sure F-4Fs for Iran work, unless the Germans rip out a lot of the ICE enhancements. I don't think Uncle Sam wants Iran to get AMRAAM wired birds.

F-4G: Look, an F-4G is just an F-4E with some specialist bits and bobs. If Australia asked, Uncle Sam might see his way to letting them go. Maybe.

I'm aware neither of those necessarily help Iran. But in TLWvers post-1999, the demand for F-4Es exceeds the supply of F-4Es.
And as things stand, Australia raided AMARC first.


Mark, you might expand on the whole AF-4 thing in the Australia Follow-ons thread. Can you work with F-4Ds?
drmarkbailey
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:20 am

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by drmarkbailey »

James

First - CORRECTION: The boom drops on 12 November 1999 as follows:

12 November 1999Konfrontasi II Opens. Fighting in East Timor surged, with Cuban ‘advisors’ entering the new country with militia groups, now very well trained and equipped. On 19 October 1999 Indonesian probes of Australian airspace began, but the ‘official’ start of Konfrontasi II was 11 November 1999 at 1100 local time, when four TNI-AU F-5 escorted a two-A-4 airstrike on Bacau. Three RAAF F-18A had conducted a ‘psyops and presence’ mission, flying from Darwin, overflying Dili and parts of East Timor in a show of support, and landing at Bacau. There they were inspected by various dignitaries. The fighters had only self-defence AAM, but the message was obvious. They were planned to fly back next day. Just before dawn the Indonesian strike appeared (there was no warning or defences) and destroyed all three aircraft, killing 19 RAAF personnel preparing them for flight. Canberra was informed by what became known as ‘The Junta’ (in reality an unstable array of competing political forces) that the presence of long ranged modern combat aircraft in East Timor would not be tolerated.

This resulted in pandemonium in Canberra, as it coincided with a NATO report from Polish sources confirming the sale of two squadrons of Su-27 and the training of Indonesian pilots in Poland. The pandemonium was worsened when a flight of Tu-22M paid a visit to Indonesia to exercise with the Indonesian military. The instantaneous collapse of the regional strategic assumptions sparked a Defence Strategic Review (DSR). As one cynical historian said at the time “yeah, so much for the Ten-Year Rule. Again!



The scream for one operational SQN of F-4E would be immediately after this. Let's put a date on it: 12 December 1999
Yep, that's a "see us politicians are doing something" call it a political kneejerk.

The AF-4I project (I'll post this when I can)

The way this shapes is fast. Basically, it's like an 'Aviation AUKUS' (guess I am the world's most minor and useless prophet :lol: )

Intent - rapidly build the ability to manufacture (not assemble, manufacture) first tier combat aircraft in Australia by 2006-2008.

Pathway - use an 'entry program' to develop the industry. It has to be risk free insofar as possible, it has to be financially as modest as possible, it is an industrial development program first and a capability provision second.

As the strategic situation develops, and to simplify the program, a single-role high-endurance single-seat interceptor is selected, as Australia does not have an ADGE. Basically, the strategy is to base a SQN in each major city to intercept ASM, so it's a traditional radar + interceptor

The airframe chosen is F-4 because it is available, mature, very well known, is modular, and has been subject of innumerable upgrades. better, A total rebuild program has been done by the IAF, KURNASS.

The AF-4I basically uses F-18 tech, same engines radars etc so far as humanly possible. Just replacing J79 with F414 adds 13,000 lb more thrust than for a J79, its smaller in diameter than J79 and 630kg lighter than J-79. AND it has lower fuel consumption.

"The decision to utilise the latest F-18 systems also set the radar to AN/APG-79. This also made the ‘Hornet path’ for the RAAF absolutely assured: or so it was thought at the time before ‘the f*ckup fairy paid a visit’, as one wag later put it."

Now, you'll have picked up that the F-4 is modular, and that this is in two parts, 1 SQN of 'classic' F-4E and the rest for a 'from bare airframe rebuild with F-18 systems' so I don't think it matters too much what the airframes started off as.

Cheers: Mark
Matt Wiser
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:48 am
Location: Auberry, CA

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Matt Wiser »

All right, then.. There's still going to be F-4E airframes available for Iran. The new Powell Administration would have the political capital to spend that would get reluctant Congress-critters on board for this (and the F-14A to B rebuild, selling surplus M-60s and AH-1Js, etc.) as "We need the new Iran as a potential ally against the Soviet Union and to keep Saddam on his toes."
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.
Eaglenine2
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:22 pm

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Eaglenine2 »

Dumb question why local production of F-18 for Australia?
drmarkbailey
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:20 am

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by drmarkbailey »

I assume that's 'why not local production of F-18 in Australia'?

If that's the question, the answer is 'there is no industrial base to do that, the first job is to build the industrial base (fast) and to do THAT you need a project which is within grasp of what you already have which springboards you into the industrial capability you need'.

And Australia does not need F-18 (a short-ranged multirole which can't compete against Su-27 insofar as we knew in 1999), it needs a genuine medium bomber to replace F-111 and absolutely nobody has one.

THAT is what the program outcome aims for.

Cheers: Mark
Eaglenine2
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:22 pm

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Eaglenine2 »

So some of Australia's F-4E order would get diverted to Iran with US replacing the order with German F-4F for free? Since there are limited F-4E available and F-4F has AMRRAM capability?
drmarkbailey
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:20 am

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by drmarkbailey »

I think the advantage here is that the Australian program really only requires 22 F-4E specifically at the font end of the program.

Looking through the program (which I'll post now), what matters more to it is the lowest-possible useage airframes.

This might make things easier to work out for James!

Cheers: Mark
drmarkbailey
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:20 am

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by drmarkbailey »

On the transport side, I can find no 'pool' of these transport aircraft. The RAAF has 17 DHC-4 Caribou in 2000 in-country and on the books but only 8 were serviceable with 38 SQN. 35 SQN transferred its last Caribou to 38 SQN in 2000 and was reduced to 'paper' status. We used these aircraft very extensively in Vietnam and PNG and they were worn out. Yes they could be refurbished and in TLW they will have to be. There are very few if any available worldwide in this timeframe. Australia has enough to cycle through the workshops (RAAF Wagga's facilities can handle the work) to keep 38 SQN's orbat of 8 or so DHC-4 in service in TLW. That's enough to take care of much of the requirement in Papua New Guinea, which the Caribou is peculiarly suited to - the flying conditions there are horrifying.

C-47 can deal with the rest of the demand there in PNG. probably add 6-8 classic C-47 to 38 SQN.

That leaves zero light ramp-loader transports for the CONAUS tasks. I think that with the C-47T force the requirement is for about 30 machines, based out of the bare bases (say 6 operational in each, the rest being cycling through maintenance and attrition reserves).

Make this 35 SQN, with a mix at the start and moving to a mix of whatever C-119 and C-123 that can be found, the unit having a flight at each of the three barer bases to support the NORFORCE and Reserve units and their little bases across the north.

Does this seem reasonable?

Does anyone have a better 'cheap and cheerful aircraft' possibility? Is there a pool of DHC-4 anywhere? There was a DHC-4T conversion, this would actually be preferable to a Provider-Boxcar mix if there's a pool of Caribou anywhere.

Cheers: Mark
Craiglxviii
Posts: 3554
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 7:25 am

Re: C-123 Providers, and AMARC disposal policies in TLW

Post by Craiglxviii »

Mark, one thing it may help to mention is that Oz by the year 2000 in @ was absolutely stuffed FULL of spares for every WW2 type that was ever flown out of or transited through there. Plenty of sheep farmers made lots, lots and lots of money when they took inventory of what their dads had bought for scrap value and then left behind in storage sheds that was then uploaded to subscribable Inventory Support databases that started becoming widespread in the late 1990s/ very early 00s.

There were (by 2000 @) a load of DHC-4 (20-30 odd) on their original engines working small, el-cheapo cargo flights across the Florida panhandle and parts west along the Gulf Coast to Galveston, I seem to recall they had a good deal going along the small airstrips across southern Louisiana. Again they’re ripe for conversion to Turbo-Caribou although there were still adequate spare engines and parts to keep them flying as-was.
Post Reply