±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: DIEGO38
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6597

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 85
Total: 85
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Community Forums
03: Home
04: Photo Gallery
05: Statistics
06: Photo Gallery
07: Community Forums
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Photo Gallery
12: Home
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Photo Gallery
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Photo Gallery
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Photo Gallery
39: Community Forums
40: Photo Gallery
41: News
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Downloads
45: Photo Gallery
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Photo Gallery
55: Photo Gallery
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Photo Gallery
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Community Forums
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Photo Gallery
78: Community Forums
79: News
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Photo Gallery
83: Community Forums
84: Photo Gallery
85: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jinx
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 186
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:55 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Roy_A_Lingle
The cost of a new tank would possible be far more. There is NO plant, with skilled workers present, that can build new tanks.

You would have to find skilled workers, possible train some of them, check out all the equipment that was placed in storage (that is if any of it was saved), service and repair all of it as needed before restarting production. So less you are planning on building 10,000+ tanks, the restarting process cost would make 7 million per vehicle look cheap.



Thank you for the info. I was not aware that the production facilities had shut down. When the training and tooling-up and plant-building costs are added to the mix, i guess $7,000,000 *does* sound relatively "cheap'.

As for the next generation of fighting vehicles (i am resisting using the word "tank", here, because from what i've heard the resulting product might be something quite different), is this still in the planning phase? Or are there already facilities to build them? (I hate to think what the *new* machines are going to cost.....)
Back to top
View user's profile
SFC_Jeff_Button
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1311
Location: Ft Hood, TX
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:31 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

I wasn't aware that the Lima Tank Plant in Ohio wasn't producing the amount of armor that it once did. Below is what I found out about the plant. It's a little long but pretty well covers the use of the plant, past and present.
Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP)
The Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP) manufactures the M-1 Abrams tank. The Tank Plant is a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility, run presently by General Dynamics. The tank plant has produced more than seven-thousand tanks since opening in the early 1980s. The Tank Plant reduced its workforce from a peak of 3,800 to 450 by late 1996. With few new procurements on the horizon, the tracked armored vehicle segment of the industry is in decline. Upgrades to the M1A1 Abrams tank and the M1A2 System Enhancement Package should keep the Lima, Ohio, plant operating through 2005. The Lima facility is also projected to produce 465 Heavy Assault Bridges. These programs require but a fraction of the production capacity available at the facility. Production of a new light-armored military vehicle should increase the work force at the Lima Army Tank Plant by the end of 2001, and employment levels should exceed 600 workers.

The United States Army purchased the property on which the Lima Army Tank Plant sits in 1942 to manufacture weapons. The Army has contracted since then with private businesses to operate a plant to manufacture combat vehicles on the property. In 1982, General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. agreed to manage the plant, commencing in 1983, and, in a separate contract, to manufacture tanks at the plant. General Dynamics does not pay rent for the plant; the Army has granted it a "revocable license to use" the plant and reimburses it for its expenses in managing the plant. General Dynamics receives its profits on the markup for producing the tanks.

As World War II approached, the U.S. Army developed a plan to utilize industrial firms to manufacture armored vehicles. The urgent need for these vehicles was not fully recognized until the Germans’ Blitzkrieg across Europe in 1939 and 1940. This situation presented a staggering mission for the Army Ordnance Department’s new (1941) Tank and Combat Vehicle Division. In one year, over one million vehicles, including 14,000 medium tanks, were to be produced and ready for shipment.

The Lima Army Tank Plant traces its 55-year history back to May 1941, when the Ohio Steel Foundry began building a government-owned plant to manufacture centrifugally-cast gun tubes. The site was chosen for its proximity to a steel mill, five railroads, and national highway routes. Before construction was completed, the Ordnance Department redesignated the site as an intermediate depot for modifying combat vehicles, to include tanks. In November 1942, United Motors Services took over operation of the plant to process vehicles under government contract. The plant prepared many vehicles for Europe, including the M-5 light tank, the T-26 Pershing tank, and a “super secret� amphibious tank intended for use on D-Day. During World War II, the Lima Tank Depot had over 5,000 employees, including many women, and processed over 100,000 combat vehicles for shipment.

Activity slowed during the post-WWII period, and the plant temporarily became a storage facility. In 1948, tanks were dismantled and deprocessed there. Numerous tanks were “canned� and stored in cylindrical gas containers with dehumidifiers. When the Korean War broke out, the depot expanded and industrial operations resumed. Over the next few years, the facility rebuilt combat vehicles and fabricated communication wiring harnesses. The Korean truce led to the depot’s eventual deactivation in March 1959 with little other activity taking place over the next 16 years.

In August 1976, the government selected Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP) as the initial production site for the XM-1 tank, and Chrysler Corporation was awarded the production contract. The method of production differed from previous armor programs; the hull and turret sections were to be fabricated from armored plate, rather than castings, allowing Chrysler to produce a lighter, stronger tank.

Since this was a government-owned, contractor-oper-ated (GOCO) manufacturing facility controlled by the Army’s TankAuto-motive and Armaments Command (TACOM), the installation was expanded and specialized industrial plant equipment purchased. A sister plant was established in Michigan, the Detroit Tank Plant, to assist with the assembly of M1 sections fabricated at Lima.

On February 28, 1980, the first M1 tank rolled out of LATP. It was designated the M1 Abrams, in honor of General Creighton W. Abrams. The name, Thunderbolt, recalled the name Abrams gave to each of his seven tanks in WWII. One of the original XM-1 prototype tanks is permanently on display in front of the Patton Museum of Armor and Cavalry at Ft. Knox.

In 1982, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) bought Chrysler Defense Corporation and began producing the M1 at a rate of 30 tanks a month. By January 1985, the last M1 had rolled off the assembly line, and production began on the improved M1 (IPM1) the following October. The plant later transitioned to manufacture the M1A1, with the first pilot vehicle built in August 1985. By the end of 1986, the plant’s equipment was increased to meet a maximum monthly production capability of 120 M1A1 tanks. At that time GDLS employed over 4,000 workers in Lima with over 100 TACOM personnel monitoring the production and facilities contracts.

In June 1990, all government contract administration services at Lima were placed under the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Command, with TACOM as the procuring activity. During this period, the Marines received over 200 M1A1 tanks, and the first Abrams foreign military sales occurred. The plant supported Desert Storm by sending technical experts to Saudi Arabia for M1A1 fielding to units previously equipped with M1s.

The 1990 DOD base closure plan ordered the Detroit tank plant to reduce its operations, and in August 1991, the Lima Army Tank Plant became the only facility in the U.S. that is a hull/chassis/turret fabricator and final systems integrator of the M1.

The first M1A2 tanks rolled out of LATP in 1992 with upgrade versions produced in 1994.

The installation includes 370 acres and 47 buildings, it’s own railroad network, and two government-owned railroad locomotives. There is also is a 2-mile test track, steam plant, deep water fording pit, 60% and 40% test slopes, and an advanced armor technology facility. The main manufacturing building has over 950,000 square feet of enclosed space, equivalent to approximately 30 football fields. The government owns all of the real property and over 96% of the plant equipment, to include com-puterized machines, robotic welders, plate cutters, large fixtures, and special tooling. General Dynamics is under contract to operate the facility and produce the Abrams with government oversight.

The commander of the Lima plant, a government-owned, contractor-operated facility, is an Army lieutenant colonel. The government and contractor managerial staffs work together monitoring monthly production requirements while maintaining quality control. A partnership environment ensures the highest quality equipment is produced at a fair cost to the government. LATP is operated under the direction of an installation commander who is responsible for the efficient and economical operation, administration, service and supply of all individuals, units, and activities assigned to or under the jurisdiction of LATP. General Dynamics manages the tank plant in which it manufactures tanks. It pays no rent for the plant, and receives reimbursement of its costs in managing the plant. General Dynamics also may manufacture, subject to written approval of the Army, products for others at the plant; in fact, General Dynamics manufactured tanks for the government of Saudi Arabia at the plant. Furthermore, General Dynamics is responsible for security at the plant, securing it according to Army regulations. This security includes counterterrorism, crime prevention, and security of the property.

The Abrams Tank System Program has been using Depleted Uranium (DU) armor on the Abrams Tank since 1988. The DU is fabricated into armor packages by a contractor to the Department of Energy. The contractor ships the assembled armor packages to LATP for installation in the tanks. At LATP, the armor packages remain in the transportation containers until they are ready to be inserted into the tank. Following installation of the armor package and other tank components, the completed tanks are transported to military units as required for field use.

Abrams production originally occurred with over 9,000 Abrams having rolled off the assembly lines of the production facilities, including those produced for domestic and foreign sales.

The M1’s technological and tactical successes in Desert Storm made the tank the envy of the world armor community and generated foreign interest. Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait now own M1A2 tanks produced at LATP. In a co-production program, M1A1 tank kits (hulls, turrets, components, etc.) are manufactured at LATP and shipped to Egypt for final assembly. Commercially, GDLS also produces “special armor� packages for the South Korean K1 tank.

GDLS is under a multi-year Army contract to upgrade approximately 600 M1/IPM1 tanks to M1A2. The plan is to upgrade 10 tanks a month over a five-year period. The cost of a new M1A2 tank is approximately $4.3 million.

The Army, in conjunction with General Dynamics Land Systems, hosted an acceptance ceremony for the Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package (SEP) Tank and the Wolverine Assault Bridge Launcher, 01 September 1999 in Lima, Ohio, at the Lima Army Tank Plant.

The General Dynamics Land Systems Division is the system prime contractor for manufacturing and assembly of the XM104 “Wolverine� - Heavy Assault Bridge. Manufacturing and assembly during the EMD phase of Wolverine elements and components (except the engine/transmission) occurs primarily at GDLS, which uses two facilities: Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP), a government-owned, contractor-operated manufacturing facility located in Lima (Allen County), Ohio; and the GDLS Sterling Heights Complex (SHC), located in Sterling Heights (Macomb County), MI. The mission of LATP is to produce the M1 series Main Battle Tank (MBT). SHC serves as the division headquarters and is their engineering and prototype fabrication facility. The scope of the analysis of potential impacts from manufacturing will be limited to GDLS (LATP), and Anniston Army Depot. The analysis will not include investigation of subcontractors to GDLS and Anniston Army Depot.

Lima, Ohio, is a metropolitan community of 83,000 people situated along I-75, midway between Toledo and Dayton. Sundstrand Corporation, formerly Westinghouse, produced electrical systems for military and commercial aircraft, NASA's space shuttle program, and Abrams battle tanks. Sundstrand/ Westinghouse once employed 3,000, but steady lay-offs resulted in the displacement to only about 400 when it completely closed in June 1996. The Airfoil/Textron Company, a fan-blade maker for jet engines, shut its doors in the fall of 1995, laying off the last 300 workers from a workforce that once numbered 1,800. Since the Lima area's peak defense-related employment, Lima has lost in excess of 8,000 high-wage industrial jobs. The financial loss to the local economy between 1992 and 1996 is estimated at $300 million annually.

BRAC 2005
In its 2005 BRAC Recommendations, DoD would realign Lima Tank Plant, OH. It would retain the portion required to support the manufacturing of armored combat vehicles to include Army Future Combat System (FCS) program, Marine Corps Expeditionary Force Vehicle (EFV) chassis, and M1 Tank recapitalization program. Capacity and capability for armored combat vehicles existed at three sites with little redundancy among the sites. The acquisition strategy for the Army Future Combat System (FCS) and Marine Corps Expeditionary Force Vehicle would include the manufacturing of manned vehicle chassis at Lima Army Tank Plant. The impact of establishing this capability elsewhere would hinder the Department’s ability to meet the USA and USMC future production schedule. This recommendation to retain only the portion of Lima Army Tank Plant required to support the FCS, EFV, and M1 tank recap, would reduce the footprint. This would allow the Department of Defense to remove excess from the Industrial Base, create centers of excellence, avoid single point failure, and generate efficiencies within the manufacture and maintenance of combat vehicles.

The total estimated one-time cost to the Department of Defense to implement this recommendation would be $0.2M. The net of all savings to the Department during the implementation period would be a savings of $5.9M. Annual recurring savings to the Department after implementation would be $1.7M with payback expected immediately. The net present value of the costs and savings to the Department over 20 years would be a savings of $22.3M. This recommendation would not result in any job reductions over the period 2006-2011.

_________________
SFC Jeff Button "High Angle Hell"
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:22 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

Hi Jeff! Hi Folks!

The plant is more active than I was thinking. Still the area lost a lot of skilled workers.

"The Lima facility is also projected to produce 465 Heavy Assault Bridges"

Say what?

It is my understanding that is one of the programs that the ex-C of S of the Army, Gen. Shineki killed so the funds could be used to buy Strykers.

Anyone else heard if that program has be refunded?

Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Roy_A_Lingle

"The Lima facility is also projected to produce 465 Heavy Assault Bridges"

Say what?

It is my understanding that is one of the programs that the ex-C of S of the Army, Gen. Shineki killed so the funds could be used to buy Strykers.

Anyone else heard if that program has be refunded?


There were a couple of bits in that piece that made me think that it was old info, by about 3-4 years. I believe that early on it mentions 2000 as "next year" or something similar. I've not heard anything to indicate that the bridges have been re-funded.

C

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:22 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

Hi Folks!

My take on the cost of newer equipment.

I think a large part of the higher cost has more to do with the way a system is being accouted for now days.

Another, I maybe wrong, but I am under the impression that in the passed systems didn't have every possible OVERHEAD expence added into the price of an item.

When you look at wages for people, cost of utilities for the plants, and then tack on every expence that one can get away with, the TOTAL cost of all systems has climbed like a ICBM going up. It is the packing on of OVERHEAD costs. If you could just count the cost of raw materials and the man hours of only the individuals who directly worked on the system, the cost would be a lot lower.

My take of way today's systems cost so much.
Sgt, Scouts Out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Al_Bowie
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- SFC_Jeff_Button
[img][/img][img][/img]
Seems that the F14 costs to much to repair. An F14 requires 50 hours of maint for each 1 hour of flight, versus 5-10 hours of maint for the F18. Also mentioned was the fact that the F14 was aimed at dogfighting, (as in top-gun fame) but that it is no longer needed since jets now shoot missiles at each other from miles away. .


Whoever wrote that was obviously brought up on Top Gun. The F14 was designed to be a Long Range Fleet interceptor using the extremely advanced (then) Hughes AIM 64 Pheonix Missile system originally designed for the TBX (F111 Naval). It was expected to engage enemy bomber fleets at ranges exceeding 100 mile.
Whilst it did possess dogfighting ability and reintroduced an internal gun to the Navy Fighter its primary role was long range interception and NOT Dog Fighting.
Cheers
Spanner
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

"Whoever wrote that was obviously brought up on Top Gun. The F14 was designed to be a Long Range Fleet interceptor using the extremely advanced (then) Hughes AIM 64 Pheonix Missile system originally designed for the TBX (F111 Naval). It was expected to engage enemy bomber fleets at ranges exceeding 100 mile.
Whilst it did possess dogfighting ability and reintroduced an internal gun to the Navy Fighter its primary role was long range interception and NOT Dog Fighting.
Cheers
Spanner"

Spanner - If you look a couple messages below thatone you'll find my defense of the last true dog-fighter the F-15. As an old 'Eagle Keeper' I couldn't do anything else Smile

Oh and the F-11 was the TFX (although calling it a fighter is a whole lot less accurate than calling the F-14 a dog fighter :-))

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:28 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart

Oh and the F-11 was the TFX (although calling it a fighter is a whole lot less accurate than calling the F-14 a dog fighter :-))


Bob, I assume you're referring to the proposed F-111B, rather than the Grumman F-11 Tiger Laughing The old F-11 (of one-time Blue Angels fame) certainly WAS a dogfighter.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:28 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

You got it. finger didn't hit enough 1s and I didn't catch it before it went (Actually I had to leave for a meeting as I sent it so didn't see it until now Sad

I remember when the Blue Angels went from teh F-11 to the F-4. The Air Force Thunderbirds went from the F-100 to the F-4 at about the same time. Both switched to other aircraft very soon. The F-4 for all it's good qualities was not meant to be a tight turning show bird!!

Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:49 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart
"Whoever wrote that was obviously brought up on Top Gun. The F14 was designed to be a Long Range Fleet interceptor using the extremely advanced (then) Hughes AIM 64 Pheonix Missile system originally designed for the TBX (F111 Naval). It was expected to engage enemy bomber fleets at ranges exceeding 100 mile.
Whilst it did possess dogfighting ability and reintroduced an internal gun to the Navy Fighter its primary role was long range interception and NOT Dog Fighting.
Cheers
Spanner"


Oh and the F-111 was the TFX (although calling it a fighter is a whole lot less accurate than calling the F-14 a dog fighter :-))


..a mission which the F111 could have performed....at long range. There was an interesting episode during which the Navy COS or SecNav and Thomas Moorer (then CNO) were being grilled on why there was resistance from Naval aviators about accepting the F111 (marinized) as it's principle fighter in harmony with the Air Force...Moorers' boss being a "yes" man and saying "sure we can...it just needs more thrust to overcome it's mass".
The SecDef (I believe) noted Moorers' qualifications and skeptical look and asked him, in front of his boss, whether he thought more thrust would make the F111 (TFX) platform a fighter acceptable to the Navy. He replied (at some risk to his career) "Sir, in my opinion, all the thrust in Christendom would not make a fighter out of the F111."

It was virtually a dead issue after that....
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:58 am
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart
I remember when the Blue Angels went from teh F-11 to the F-4. The Air Force Thunderbirds went from the F-100 to the F-4 at about the same time. Both switched to other aircraft very soon. The F-4 for all it's good qualities was not meant to be a tight turning show bird!!

Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


Hence my earlier remark about the F-4 and it's Rhino moniker. The "official" reason for the switch from F-4E to T-38A for the T-birds was fuel cost savings. About this time the Blue Angels went from F-4 to A-4 for similar reasons. I have no idea on the answer to your quiz.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- bsmart
Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


F1015B T'Chief? Transitioned back to the F100 mighty quick....
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:16 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Doug_Kibbey
- bsmart
Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


F1015B T'Chief? Transitioned back to the F100 mighty quick....


I wasn't aware they had gone back to the F-100 after the F-105 (before my time...), but if so that is probably what Bob was referring to. The "Thud" wasn't much on close-in dogfighting, either. Although it did bag it's share of MiG's during the early years of the air war in Vietnam.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

- Doug_Kibbey
- bsmart
Quick Quiz - Does anyone know the other time the Thunderbirds changed out of a new plane much sooner than expected?


F1015B T'Chief? Transitioned back to the F100 mighty quick....
You got it! It appears there were about 6 shows with the F105B when it was decided (after a fatal accident) thet the birds needed extensive modifications. Instead they went to the F-100D (They had used the F-100C before)

I was looking at the Thunderbird web site and it says they used the F-4 for sevral years and transitioned out of it because of the 'Energy Crisis' in the Early 70s. The entire group of T-38s used less fuell than one F-4!

A pilot I knew later on F-15s flew with the T-birds in the F-4 era and told a slightly different story. Although he loved the Phantom no one liked it in the type of flying the Tbirds did. Some of the Tbirds wanted to go to the F-5 but the powers that be didn't want to use a 'second rate fighter' The energy crisis gave them the excuse to go to the lighter airframe but the same powers that be wouldn't step up to the more poerful F-5E/F version that was just becoming available. So they were left with 'standard' T-38s

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Armor and Helicopter losses in the war....

My Google-fu is strong, Master...

"Almost a footnote in the history of Thunderbird aviation, the Republic-built F-105B Thunderchief performed only six shows between April 26 and May 9, 1964. Extensive modifications to the F-105 were necessary, and rather than cancel the rest of the show season to accomplish this, the Thunderbirds quickly transitioned back to the Super Sabre. While the switch back to the F-100D was supposed to be temporary, the F-105 never returned to the Thunderbird hangar. The F-100 ended up staying with the team for nearly 13 years."

www.aviationheritagemu...rbirds.htm


BTW, there is (or was) an F-11 Tiger in Blue Angels colors in the aviation museum outside Topeka, I think it is...indoor...very nice.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 of 3
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum