Which combat aircraft never saw action?
Discussion
Pinkie15 said:
MiG 25
Rafale (spp ?, French replacement for the various Mirage's)
Canberra (not sure as it was in service for so long)
B1
F14 (or were they flown on CAPs in GW 1 ?)
Canberra:Rafale (spp ?, French replacement for the various Mirage's)
Canberra (not sure as it was in service for so long)
B1
F14 (or were they flown on CAPs in GW 1 ?)
Suez, Pakistan vs India, Falklands, Vietnam. Plus no doubt a few more.
B1:
GWs and I think Bosnia
F14:
at least one 'incident' vs Libya. Certainly Gulf war. Iran vs Iraq war. Also covered the final US evacuation from Vietnam.
Pinkie15 said:
MiG 25
Rafale (spp ?, French replacement for the various Mirage's)
Canberra (not sure as it was in service for so long)
B1
F14 (or were they flown on CAPs in GW 1 ?)
Pretty sure they've all be used.Rafale (spp ?, French replacement for the various Mirage's)
Canberra (not sure as it was in service for so long)
B1
F14 (or were they flown on CAPs in GW 1 ?)
Mig25 shot down an F18 in the gulf
Rafale have been used in Libya and Afghanistan, and I'd guess some other operations in Africa too.
The American version of the Canberra was used in Vietnam, and I believe they lost a few recce versions in the cold war before the U2 entered service
I think B1's have bombed half the countries in the middle east.
F14's were presumably used in gulf war 1?
Dr Jekyll said:
Vigilante?
Come to think of it it's a bit harsh to exclude reconnaissance from the definition of combat. If it's a reconnaissance aircraft doing it's stuff and gets shot at, that is near enough combat.
that's a good point. Be a bold man to tell any of Rudolf Andersons family he never saw combat.Come to think of it it's a bit harsh to exclude reconnaissance from the definition of combat. If it's a reconnaissance aircraft doing it's stuff and gets shot at, that is near enough combat.
Teddy Lop said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Vigilante?
Come to think of it it's a bit harsh to exclude reconnaissance from the definition of combat. If it's a reconnaissance aircraft doing it's stuff and gets shot at, that is near enough combat.
that's a good point. Be a bold man to tell any of Rudolf Andersons family he never saw combat.Come to think of it it's a bit harsh to exclude reconnaissance from the definition of combat. If it's a reconnaissance aircraft doing it's stuff and gets shot at, that is near enough combat.
Johnnytheboy said:
I've just been trying to work it out using Wikipedia and now it's really bugging me.
Early 60s large supersonic fighter/bomber, turned out to be rubbish, but found a second career as a reconnaissance plane in Vietnam.
Really pretty - used to be one on the USS Intrepid museum in New York.
I have a book on the damn thing at home but it's gone out of my head....
Lockheed SR71 Blackbird?Early 60s large supersonic fighter/bomber, turned out to be rubbish, but found a second career as a reconnaissance plane in Vietnam.
Really pretty - used to be one on the USS Intrepid museum in New York.
I have a book on the damn thing at home but it's gone out of my head....
jamiehamy said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I've just been trying to work it out using Wikipedia and now it's really bugging me.
Early 60s large supersonic fighter/bomber, turned out to be rubbish, but found a second career as a reconnaissance plane in Vietnam.
Really pretty - used to be one on the USS Intrepid museum in New York.
I have a book on the damn thing at home but it's gone out of my head....
Lockheed SR71 Blackbird?Early 60s large supersonic fighter/bomber, turned out to be rubbish, but found a second career as a reconnaissance plane in Vietnam.
Really pretty - used to be one on the USS Intrepid museum in New York.
I have a book on the damn thing at home but it's gone out of my head....
Johnnytheboy said:
I love the way people are still answering a question I figured out at lunchtime. 
But A for effort!
I have a bit of a thing for the Vigilante since I saw one on the Intrepid in 1986.
It was a bomber but the weapon delivery system (i.e. dropping the bomb out of a rearward facing chute) was not particularly effective. However, the RA-5C recce version was pretty effective and saw extensive use in 'Nam. So it saw lots of genuine action. But A for effort!I have a bit of a thing for the Vigilante since I saw one on the Intrepid in 1986.
It's a very influential design and helped inspire the shape of the F-15 and the F-14. Original concepts for the Vigilante even had twin fins.
SR-71s have been involved in many conflicts over the years. - as were their precursers, the CIA operated A-12s. The YF-12 never saw action because it only ever flew as a test aircraft and never entered operational service.
Eric Mc said:
It was a bomber but the weapon delivery system (i.e. dropping the bomb out of a rearward facing chute) was not particularly effective.
Weren't there Vigilante trials in which the weapon - I think with associated empty fuel tanks? - dispensed through the rear-facing tube tended to follow the aircraft in the slipstream for some distance. Generally a bad thing if the weapon is of the nuclear variety.Didn't the Vigilante also hold the record for the distance behind the front cockpit of the nose gear? - meaning when maneuvering on the carrier deck at times the front seater was uncomfortably far out over the edge.
Tony1963 said:
Eric Mc said:
The YF-12 never saw action because it only ever flew as a test aircraft and never entered operational service.
To be fair, the clue as to why it didn't go operational is in the Y part of its name...Tony1963 said:
ReverendCounter said:
XB-70?
X and Y prefix aircraft were EXTREMELY unlikely to see combat. Usually the case with experimental and prototype aircraft!The XB-70 began life as a replacement for the B-52. However, before it had even flown, the decision to replace the B-52 was reversed and the programme was restricted to the production of just too aircraft to be used purely for research.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff