Is there any retired plane that you believe shouldn't been retired ? Or could have a role in today's world?

[-]

I second the F-111. It's cost and multi-tole capability is still valuable. The ability to cruise at ultra long-range without refuel then drop down to avoid radar before unleashing a massive payload (nuclear capable too), plus air-to-air capability that still keeps up with ~90% of Russia's inventory and ~80% of China's makes it a force to be reckoned with.

It has durability like nothing else too. The airframe is even sturdier than the f15. Only reason they stopped using them is because the airframes were just too old and would require complete replacement.

If it were upgraded with modern long-range radar and missiles and its' carrying capacity it could become a great supplement to a stealth fighter force. Swing wing really does bring something to the table.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

>then drop down to avoid radar

That hasn’t been a thing for decades. Modern radars can’t be avoided by flying low. You have to actually be flying behind geographic obstructions.

>it could wipe out an entire air base or naval facility in one run

With what? A nuke?

>plus air-to-air capability that still keeps up with \~90% of Russia's inventory and \~80% of China's makes it a force to be reckoned with.

That is a complete fantasy… The F-111 is a bomber.

>The airframe is even sturdier than the f15

What does that even mean? The F-15 is a 9G airplane. The F-111 is not. That doesn’t even get into the actual sustained turn performance difference.

>If it were upgraded with modern long-range radar and missiles

So now the only actual selling point is updated radar and updated missiles… that could be retrofitted to any airframe.

[-]

Broad_Floor9698@reddit

That is a complete fantasy… The F-111 is a bomber. It's a multi-role fighter-bomber, but you would know that right? and absolutely can keep up with alot of what Russia fields. Russia haven't been producing very good aircraft and most of their stated capabilities are a known farce. Maneuverability hasn't been as important in air combat for 20 years now, and since China is in a similar situation for a lot of their inventory and is based on russian designs that haven't been relevant since the 90s, which is close to when the f111 was retired. Only their more modern j20s and j35's, which are a subpar ripoff of the f35 are far better, but the f111 can match the rest and more by having more room for (modern) missiles and radar.

Also its more durable in taking hits...at least what i heard theoretically from pilots at RAAF amberley.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Russia haven't been producing very good aircraft and most of their stated capabilities are a known farce

So you’re not going to try to say that the F-111 is good, just that Russian designs are shit? What are you talking about like the mig 23? The F-111 stands no chance against any variant of the Flanker. with good GCI, it doesn’t stand a chance against any mig-29 variant either.

Maneuverability hasn't been as important in air combat for 20 years now,

That isn’t remotely true. You don’t know what you’re talking about. There’s a reason they don’t just put 30 AIM-120s on a B-1. Even a long range air combat requires maneuverability. It’s just different from dog fighting.

but the f111 can match the rest and more by having more room for (modern) missiles and radar.

Match them how? Simple payload and range numbers? There’s a shit ton more that goes into air combat than that…

Also its more durable in taking hits...at least what i heard theoretically from pilots at RAAF amberley.

Durability is not a thing. It’s not World War II. They’re not flying through flak. They’re getting hit by missiles. There’s no absorbing a missile impact.

[-]

Broad_Floor9698@reddit

During the gulf war at least 3 confirmed direct hits on F-111's occurred by infrared guided missiles. They made it back to base. Im done arguing your lack of knowledge, buddy, and i'll trust the word of the pilots that flew them over a keyboard soyboy

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

During the gulf war alone at least 3 confirmed direct hits on F-111's occurred by infrared guided missiles

I got news for you. Those weren’t direct hits.

And why did you only respond to one part? That’s the only one you thought you had anything for?

[-]

Broad_Floor9698@reddit

Source on them not being direct hits?

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

That they flew back…

[-]

Broad_Floor9698@reddit

You're kidding right? Did you even try using google buddy? Not sure if trolling at this point or you're just a few corndogs short of a picnic, haha

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

There’s no source on the internet detailing a direct hit. You’re welcome to prove otherwise. Anyone who knows anything about air combat knows that if a missile “hits” and you keep flying, it’s because it wasn’t a direct impact, and the proximity fuse went off too early.

[-]

MandolinMagi@reddit

The F-111 has either massive range or a mediocre payload. It has 4 hardpoints that can take tanks or bombs. The centerline bay is fuel or laser designator. The four outer hardpoints can't sweep and aren't even mentioned in most manuals.

Meanwhile a F-15E can take 3 drop tanks, 6 bombs, and 4 AIM-9 or AIM-120

[-]

MightNo4003@reddit

From my knowledge it was particularly the frames were snapping and fuel leaks that was why they could not keep flying as long as they wanted.

[-]

Broad_Floor9698@reddit

Geez is that true? The airframes were cancerous?!? You mean the asbestos or something else? I thought aviation and really all armed services in general were cancerous at the time because of the oils and chemicals they used.

Pretty much all mechanics working on aircraft were guaranteed a dose of cancer back in the 70's as well. Amberley airbase in Queensland Australia used to discharge cancerous chemicals and heavy metals and it was so bad that some 40 years on you still can't go for a swim in the upper riverways and creeks around the airfield unless you want to grow another leg.

Then there's the horrors of agent orange and the hundreds of thousands of american personnel that died of cancer and the millions of civilians that have died from it (people in vietnam are still suffering the effects of agent orange).

[-]

MightNo4003@reddit

Yea the tanks leaked a lot of fuel and fluids is one of the problems. It truly is scary how deadly the chemical components are. Everywhere there is a McConnell Douglass plant from that era has a similar toxin issue. Still see people today around the VA that have issues from that stuff.

[-]

epicenter69@reddit

The first aircraft I supported when I enlisted in 1993. I was AGE, and that thing was an AGE whore. A generator, Hi-PAC and hydraulic cart were the minimum needed just to start that thing. That’s the extent of my knowledge of them. Then, Cannon AFB switched to F-16s around 1997ish. What a difference!

[-]

cinemashow@reddit

I love the F-111 and I’m old enough to have seen them at air shows. But I listened to the fighter pilot podcast with an F-111 pilot who said the F-111s handling at even modestly high angle of attack was downright dangerous

Sorry grabbed this from Grok to ensure some accuracy:

At high AOA, the fat, flat fuselage acted like a giant paddle, creating a massive separated wake that rolled right over the T-tail’s vertical fin. That wake: • Blanked the rudder → zero yaw authority • Blocked the vertical stab → loss of directional stability • Triggered yaw divergence → the jet would snap into a sideslip, then depart controlled flight This wasn’t just theory—early F-111A test flights hit uncommanded rolls at 15–18° AOA because the rudder was in clean air only at low AOA. Once the fuselage wake swallowed it, you were along for the ride.

[-]

Broad_Floor9698@reddit

While true, that problem was fixed early on and it became a prolific air to ground killing machine

[-]

cinemashow@reddit

Yes… but with AOA limiters, dorsal strakes, and a spin recovery chute…

[-]

Mdhinflfl@reddit

I don't know much about the viability of bringing back a retired aircraft, but I have loved watching F4 Phantoms since my first duty station back in the early '80s.

[-]

GeckoV@reddit

B-52! Oh, wait

[-]

strike-eagle-iii@reddit

Back in 2007, I was called out to one of our KC-135s that had landed with the circuit breakers for all three phases of one of the fuel pumps popped. After troubleshooting I pulled out the relay that was faulty...had the nice date of install of 1958 stamped on it.

[-]

InQuintsWeTrust@reddit

“I NEVER DIE”-B52

[-]

sherzeg@reddit

B-52; if you're lucky, it's the one your great-grandfather flew.

[-]

Duke_of_Calgary@reddit

Isn’t there a web comic of a B-52 transferring cargo to the enterprise?

[-]

j2004p@reddit

I've seen something along the lines of "b-52 on its 5th re-engine" and they're just warp nacelles 🤣

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

I would pay $$ for this

[-]

Duke_of_Calgary@reddit

for free

[-]

Longjumping-Jello459@reddit

Seems realistic to me.

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

Excellent! Thanks 😁

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

Not with those new engines, apparently.

[-]

Difficult_Limit2718@reddit

Rudder size doesn't matter in space

[-]

375InStroke@reddit

No, but there is one flying the Enterprise's pilots home when it was retired.

[-]

blastmanager@reddit

Someone atleast made a meme about how B-52 will lead the honorary escort for retiring space destroyers.

[-]

hoppertn@reddit

“The year is 2476, Earth has dispatched a formation of Ion equipped Space B-52ZZZ models to suppress the moon rebellion with high yield neutronium fusion bombs.”

[-]

Sweaty_Resist_5039@reddit

With the Excelsior spaceframe now retired, older B-52s have been pressed into service... lol

[-]

The_Hairy_Herald@reddit

The Soviet Moon-ion must be crushed!

[-]

Apexnanoman@reddit

And it would be the 353rd "replacement" for the B-52H. Which will still be flying and bombing the super intelligent whales who lack air defense.

[-]

Big_Gassy_Possum@reddit

"Love Shack, Baby!"

-B-52's

[-]

DrewP_Nuts@reddit

I'm the engineering manager for an aerospace manufacturing company. Received a request for quote for a B-52 part last week. Guess the plan is to keep that thing going.

[-]

blastmanager@reddit

I think it's officially planned to be kept alive until the 2040s.

[-]

Messyfingers@reddit

The intent of the program to upgrade the H model to J's is to have them flying into the 2050s or possibly longer.

[-]

afkPacket@reddit

Which means that the last pilots to fly the B-52 may not have been born yet.

[-]

Poltergeist97@reddit

Yup. Currently only the 52 can carry the oversized cruise and hypersonic missiles. With the new B-21 being on the smaller side, I doubt it can carry them.

Its a great missile truck, since it doesn't need to get within 1,000 miles of enemy airspace.

[-]

keyToOpen@reddit

Loose lips sink ships. I am 90% sure I know what company you work for. Please don't share classified info on reddit.

[-]

CARCaptainToastman@reddit

I also work at an aerospace manufacturing company. Spent a full day last week working up the inventories for an entire wave of B-52 parts. For the second week in a row.

All of it being newly released engineering. Stealth bombers are temporary. The BUFF is forever.

[-]

lucky_bastich@reddit

I want a scene in a Star Trek show where the Federation unironically uses B-52s in combat.

[-]

DRSU1993@reddit

The BUFF

[-]

Jaxcat_21@reddit

Welcome to the LOVEEEE SHACK!!!

Wait, that may be the wrong B-52s

[-]

Grimol1@reddit

Made me laugh. Thanks

[-]

AshMaster11@reddit

They should have never stopped production of the F-22

[-]

Agloe_Dreams@reddit

I mean, functionally speaking the F-22 is the better plane but the technology in the F-35 is a huge advantage and the F-22 is remarkably poor for upkeep. What they really needed was a Silent Eagle treatment on the F-22 with new avionics and better maintainability in the form of a new coating.

[-]

bizzyunderscore@reddit

i will never understand how that ever passed the sniff test

[-]

IAmQuixotic@reddit

It was 2003, they were throwing everything in the furnace to stoke the GWOT funding fire. From their perspective they had no conceivable use case and were just being kept around to prevent losing stealth capacity altogether between F-117 retirement and F-35 adoption.

[-]

Careful_Farmer_2879@reddit

The final order was cut after that administration.

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

To reduce political fighting this post or comment has been filtered for approval. Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Political comments can result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

bizzyunderscore@reddit

sigh

[-]

IAmQuixotic@reddit

With hindsight it was an awful awful decision. Total tomfoolery

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

Back then, many of us saw through the blatant jingoism fueling this crap in the same way some see through the lies of current politics.

[-]

ScarlettPixl@reddit

Fuck Dick Cheney

[-]

Longjumping-Jello459@reddit

Well to from what I've heard the big issue with the F-22 is the maintenance on it is extensive and costly. The next generation air superiority aircraft is supposed to be better in that area as well as be more advanced once it is supposed to come online in 2030(?) assuming everything stays on track with its development and production.

[-]

Poltergeist97@reddit

The radar absorbing coating on it is very maintenance heavy, and requires climate controlled hangers so it dosen't degrade. The coating on the F-35s is much more robust.

[-]

bizzyunderscore@reddit

i dont wanna sound dumb but why dont they "just" use the f-35 coating on the f-22?

[-]

SchleppyJ4@reddit

From a safety- and/or money- standpoint? Or something else?

[-]

paulk355@reddit

Came here to say this!

[-]

dank_failure@reddit

Or actually chosen the YF-23. Bigger weapons bay, faster, stealthier. It fits the modern battlefield much more (it already did back then tbf)

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

The bigger weapons bay didn't actually increase carrying capacity and it also was going to go away on the EMD (production) F-23. The stealth advantage is not something anybody can actually quantify without releasing classified information, so we have no idea how substantive it would be, and furthermore the EMD F-22 substantially improved stealth and speed.

[-]

gramoun-kal@reddit

Care to elaborate? Do you mean that they should have allowed it to be exported, which means that it gets reverse engineered by the client country or whoever else can access it from them?

Or do you mean that the USA needs more of them? They haven't really had a use case so far and the only time one opened fired on anything outside of an exercise was to shoot down a helium balloon with a short range missile. Any other high altitude fighter could have done that.

[-]

CARCaptainToastman@reddit

They were also used in Syria, albiet to a very limited extent.

[-]

gramoun-kal@reddit

I didn't mean to say they weren't flying. Just that they were, at best, doing the job of a F-15, no better than a F-15 does it.

[-]

CARCaptainToastman@reddit

I would argue that they were doing the job of an F-15 while also being more scary!

[-]

SchleppyJ4@reddit

My favorite bird. I could watch videos of it all day.

[-]

showMeYourPitties10@reddit

It goes from a rocket to a leaf floating in the wind, and then back to a rocket

[-]

Stardama69@reddit

Same

[-]

Trevor-Lawrence@reddit

Yeah it's such a beautiful capable fighter.

[-]

onlyrelevantlyrics@reddit

I think the F-20 program had a lot of promise. Unfortunately bureaucracy and exports got in the way.

Absolutely awesome airplane.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

They would still be useless. They wouldn’t be able to carry hardly any fuel and maybe like two AIM-120s? Modern fighter jets are big for a reason. That’s how big the airplane has to be to get 6 to 8 AIM-120s 300 miles away, >30,000ft at tactical airspeeds.

The F-20 comes from a time and they were betting that they could get away with four sidewinders and a cannon for point defense.

[-]

onlyrelevantlyrics@reddit

Right - but that wasn't exactly the question. Saying that a modern PS5 is better than a first gen PS1 ignores the fact that the PS1 set the groundwork. When you say "Comes from a time....", you ignore the actual question.

It shouldn't have been retired, simply because it was an unbelievable platform ripe for advanced testing and evolution.

Even Chuck Yeager thought so. But politics.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Saying that a modern PS5 is better than a first gen PS1 ignores the fact that the PS1 set the groundwork.

No, that’s not the question. The question is “did it have promise?” No, even by 1982 it was not promising. Even in 1982 that’s not enough fuel, not enough missiles, not enough range.

It shouldn't have been retired, simply because it was an unbelievable platform ripe for advanced testing and evolution.

In what way? What’s the use in testing on that?

Even Chuck Yeager thought so. But politics.

Chuck Yeager only thought that because of politics. He was retired from the air force and consulting with Northrop in his private capacity. He was literally paid to promote it.

Also, he was so far removed from tactics that he didn’t know what he was talking about by the mid 80s.

[-]

onlyrelevantlyrics@reddit

Settle down, Top Gun. It was a nice airplane worthy of inclusion into the discussion.

My point stands. Feel free to yell at clouds.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Settle down, Top Gun.

Because I know facts?

It was a nice airplane worthy of inclusion into the discussion.

And providing context as a counter-point is how discussions work.

[-]

onlyrelevantlyrics@reddit

Yes.

[-]

dr_stevious@reddit

The F-20 was the first plane that came to mind for this topic. The other was the F-16XL.

[-]

Sabonis86@reddit

F-20 was a true winner. From everything I’ve read and seen, it was an absolutely amazing platform.

[-]

kanakalis@reddit

none of those 3 would fit in today's world even if modernized

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

I think modernized F-14 would have been a monster

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

To reduce political fighting this post or comment has been filtered for approval. Submission of political posts and comments are not allowed, Rule 7. Political comments can result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

vini_damiani@reddit

As much as I love the tomcat (its my fav fighter) its just not that practical, the swing wing system limits its capacity by a lot, it can carry less payload than the super hornet, is a pain to maintain, the phoenix is not the most practical missile and there already are missiles today that fill its role

The tomcat was simply purpose built for a war that never happened and couldn't really adapt, its still a cold war frame, it was built right at the time where analog peaked and it only went downhill from that when digital systems were introduced

Almost any sliver of a role that could be left for it was filled by the rhino

[-]

Gwenbors@reddit

I dunno. Nothing against the -18, but speed is pretty clutch for a fleet interceptor, and the Hornets don’t have it.

(Although whether there’s any point in fleet interceptors in the era of maneuverable, hypersonic, long-range anti-ship missiles is another question…)

[-]

Prof_Slappopotamus@reddit

Manueverable and hypersonic don't go together.

[-]

vini_damiani@reddit

Issue is the big speed difference is assuming a slick jet, the F14 basically never flew slick, it ran the ferry tanks and the phoenix rails that reduced the speed a lot, also the phoenixes overall are way more draggy

Realistically they were flying at like mach 0.9 to a intercept

[-]

Gwenbors@reddit

The Super Hornets have that weapons separation issue so their inboard pylons are pigeon-toed.

Makes them even slower than the legacies.

Want to say running dirty the Tomcats were M1.8 or so, the Super Hornets are 1.4.

[-]

Public_Enemy_No2@reddit

My favorite aircraft. But, it is too big and heavy for this generation(s) that are flying now.

[-]

raidriar889@reddit

It would be roughly the same size as F-15EX

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

F-15EX has \~45,000 pounds between empty and max takeoff, whereas the F-14D only had \~30,000.

[-]

raidriar889@reddit

The F-14D’s mtow is only 7,000 less than the F-15EX, its empty weight is higher, and its one foot shorter which qualifies as “roughly” for me, but the fact that its smaller proves the point I was making

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

It is roughly the same size as the EX, which is why comparing payload capacity is an apples to apples comparison, it even had almost the same engines. You get two thirds as much capability for the same physical footprint but with massively more maintenance.

[-]

SirLoremIpsum@reddit

I think a modernized updated F-14 like the Super Tomcat idea would have been a monster

In today's multi role world where maintenance hours are crucial - even a super tomcat would be a maintenance hog and less desirable than current alternatives

[-]

CMDR_Imperator@reddit

The F-14, although one of the most unique (and frankly, coolest) military aircraft ever built, it was nagged by constant & expensive maintenance. Grumman's own estimates were between 30-60 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air. There was also a fundamental shift during the F-14's service - military strategy focused more on stealth capability and multirole tactical ability, two areas the F-14 was never built to accommodate.

End of the day, it was built as an air superiority fighter and it absolutely did an amazing job of that. But the military needed aircraft that were smaller and able to strike ground targets, and they needed an aircraft that didn't require such extensive post-flight maintenance.

[-]

WardogBlaze14@reddit

Absolutely, with what they planned to do to upgrade the platform, the F-14 would still be a beast of a plane and kick ass.

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

This subreddit gonna downvote me to hell but other analysts think the Super Tomcat could have been a monster also

[-]

WardogBlaze14@reddit

Yep but you’re right, the Tomcat never should have been retired as soon as she was, still had plenty of life left in the platform, it was really all politics that killed the F-14.

[-]

neddie_nardle@reddit

Don't worry. It's Reddit where people on a social media platform always know better than the people who actually had to make the decision.

[-]

Hulahulaman@reddit

The Aussies kept the F-111 going until 2010. The Aardvark has something the modern inventory is lacking. Range.

[-]

Pepsi_Popcorn_n_Dots@reddit

Twice the range and double the bomb load as the F-15.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

But the F-15E could defend itself from enemy air forces and thus get to the target. That and significantly newer avionics and systems. That's no small reason why the F-15E replaced it en masse

[-]

Slick-Fork@reddit

A mudhen with a full load of bombs isn't going to engage enemy fighters unless it dumps its bombload first.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

A mudhen with a full load of bombs isn't going to engage enemy fighters unless it dumps its bombload first.

You don't need to drop your bombs to do BVR.

[-]

Slick-Fork@reddit

If you’re shooting at 737’s then no need to.

If you’re actually engaging fighters then one would assume they might actually shoot back. So even if you’re bvr you’re going to have to maneuver

[-]

mjdau@reddit

The F-111's defence strategy was to run away damn fast before the dust even cleared. In that sense it was definitely more an A-class than an F-.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

The F-15E can get plenty fast itself if it needed to

And the F-111's designation predated the 1962 re-alignment of designations, on top of the Air Force in general hating designating anything but F. In reality, had they gone with the post-1962 structure, the F-105, F-111, etc. that were primarily air-to-surface platforms would likely have been designated A, as the Navy's pre-1962 A platforms like the A-4 were.

[-]

F111-Aardvard-111@reddit

Yes, the Aardvark was supersonic, had great range, and could even go nuclear.

It was amazing (completely unbiased opinion)

[-]

MarcusBondi@reddit

No other aircraft ever made could beat the F111 in all 3 metrics of range, speed and payload.

[-]

killswitch2@reddit

My dad flew them and retired them. I love the photo of the F-111 with all the payload it could carry laid out around it on the tarmac.

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

The most popular answers are the F-111, Tornado gr.4 and the A-6

[-]

OldStromer@reddit

I love the A6 and of course it's slightly beefier brother the EA6B.

[-]

BentasticMrBen@reddit

The big ol’ donkey dick was iconic on the Prowlers

[-]

OldStromer@reddit

The refueling, uhhhh, Probe? Yeah that's less than attractive. The plane is ALL function. I love it.

[-]

unbannedrhodie@reddit

I agree, wonderful plane

[-]

F111-Aardvard-111@reddit

I know, right?

[-]

MightNo4003@reddit

I cannot believe they have done that to my boy not even an ef111 for electronic warfare and SEAD was spared.

[-]

VictarionGreyjoy@reddit

It would be so cool if they made an updated modern version of it. The new jets are cool but they're not variable geometry wing bomber cool.

[-]

No-Level5745@reddit

And maintainability...unfortunately why it went away, cost too much and wasn't versatile enough for the shrinking Air Force

[-]

Specialist_Reality96@reddit

Didn't do anything a cruiser missile couldn't.

[-]

MarcusBondi@reddit

Range? Dump & burn at air shows? Tank busting. Could be fitted with a gun.

[-]

Specialist_Reality96@reddit

If you fit the gun you loose the precision weapons guidance system. Combat range was about what the Tomahawk, drones can bust tanks so can attack helicopters. man portable Javliens other tanks, Bradleys.

So you're down to dump and burns which is the result of an aircraft designer thinking putting the emergency dump mast between the exhausts.

[-]

rockdude625@reddit

When I become a billionaire, first thing I’m doing is recommissioning an SR71

[-]

LogExpert5281@reddit

As a simple billionaire you will run out of money before you get one back in the air. 🤣

[-]

Tight_Hedgehog_6045@reddit

Yes, we referred to them affectionately as "Pigs", and their range and speed were phenomenal. Such a shame we got rid of them, but there wasn't much choice really, as spare parts were disappearing fast. Huge controversy over fuel tank inspections and repairs, which damaged a lot of people.

[-]

WLFGHST@reddit

The F-111 ended up just being like a baby B-1. Similar maneuverability (in the fact neither are doing any fancy maneuvers), the F-111 was just faster (and could do dump and burns), but both are also extremely cool (and initially shared much of the same instrumentation, at least in the cockpit).

[-]

MoccaLG@reddit

Yep sweeping wings are complex, heavy and therefore inefficient in todays standards

[-]

RB30DETT@reddit

Well that...and being fucking awesome at dump & burns during Riverfire.

[-]

burgonies@reddit

Emus don’t have SAMs

[-]

Fireside__@reddit

And speed on the deck

[-]

Spencemw@reddit

Satellite’s replaced the SR-71 as did the X-37 space plane.

The F-15E replaced the F-111. The EF-18 replaced the EF-111

Depending on who you talk to The Navy does or doesnt have a great long range fast interceptor at the moment that can greet and identify distant threats before they close on the carrier group. The F/A is passable in this mission without being as fast to intercept or being able to go as far. The Mx costs, esp downtime, of the F-14 outweighed its usefulness. The threat of bombers nuking a carrier group are quite low compared to during the coldwar. China doesnt appear to be threatening carrier groups with bombers like the soviets did. Instead, they use their hypersonic missile and submarines.

[-]

613Flyer@reddit

Didn’t the F-14 have an insane ratio of maintenance required for every hour of flight which contributed to its retirement?

[-]

Alternative-Key264@reddit

Yes but the D model and the cancelled st-21 was suppose to have significantly less maintenance requirements, thanks Dick Cheney.

[-]

Doggydog123579@reddit

Also supposed to have thrust vectoring which would have been wild.

Thanks Cheney

[-]

Alternative-Key264@reddit

Yup, only took them 19 years to come up with a kind of replacement with the aim-174, and that requires two aircraft to utilize the max range.

[-]

F14Scott@reddit

40:1

As much as I loved the Tomcat and was intrigued by the follow on concept, the Hornet F is good enough and way cheaper.

[-]

greaper007@reddit

My dad was an F14 pilot. He said he had no idea how difficult it was to land until he switched to F4s in the reserves.

[-]

ISuckAtFallout4@reddit

Yes

[-]

fastsailor@reddit

Except the Growler is a Navy plane and the USAF has not received a replacement for the EF-111, so presumably it will need to hope that the USN is able to spare some aircraft from its own missions.

As far as I am aware, the F-111 is considerably faster on the deck than an F-15 and has a longer range. Apparently, variable geometry aircraft have very good characteristics for fast low-altitude flight, including good gust responses, which leads to a faster and smoother ride which can't be matched by something with as big a wing (which is only moderately swept) as an F-15.

Satellites have known orbits and your adversaries would be aware of those,

[-]

MandolinMagi@reddit

The F-111s long range is mostly fake. It needs drop tanks to get it, which cut into bomb load as it only has 4 hardpoints

F-15E can take 3 drop tanks and 4-6 bombs at the same time

[-]

Spencemw@reddit

Astronomers have been able to track the secretive X-37 as its maneuverable. Many believe this is the unpredictable spy satellite because it can fly on a tasking basis in real time. It just completed a 400 day period in orbit.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2025/03/07/u-s-air-forces-x-37b-spaceplane-lands-following-434-day-orbital-mission/

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

Is that you, Steve Austin?

[-]

mz_groups@reddit

The physics of an orbiting object are well known, as are the specific impulses of various propulsion systems. We have not gotten to the point where a satellite can radically change orbital plane. It's impressive that they have been able to do something to change orbital plane using aero maneuvers, but there are finite limits as to what it can do.

[-]

Specialist_Reality96@reddit

The F-117 replaced the F-111 not the F-15, the F-111 was designed to drop a bomb on a target whilst avoiding radar, it avoided radar by flying low and fast. When you don't show up on radar there is less need to fly low and fast which has it's own inherit problems.

Putting a bomb load on an F-111 (the weapons bay is occupied with a pavetack pod) at best limiits it's ability to sweep the wings at worst locks it's wings in a single position which puts a massive dent in both speed and range.

Between the F-117 and modern standoff weapons like Tomahawk Harpoon etc the F-111 was obsolete by the late 80's. It continued to fill the role in low threat environments until the maintenance intensity of a variable wing airframe and not a very good one finally caught up with it and the bottom of a coal mine was the best place for it.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

The F-117 replaced the F-111 not the F-15, the F-111 was designed to drop a bomb on a target whilst avoiding radar, it avoided radar by flying low and fast.

The F-15E replaced the F-111. The entire initial purpose of the F-15E and reason for having a second seat was to do the low level interdiction mission. They put on a navigation FLIR and even featured a HUD that could display that image to the pilot (with the WSO helping in navigation and weapons employment) to continue that mission

[-]

TimeTravelingPie@reddit

Growler already supports the air force because the AF decided not to replace the F-111.

[-]

Spencemw@reddit

This. Red Flag exercises frequently include EF-18s. The ultimate “jointness” 🤣

[-]

Beech_driver@reddit

It’s the Air Force that can spare a few pilots VS the Navy sparing a few aircraft.

It is my understanding that it was decided when the EF-111 was retired that the missions are joint so the assets would be too and rather than have multiple platforms to do the same mission it was better to have one dedicated one. The Navy Growler squadrons have some Air Force pilots assigned to them to support this one mission, one team approach.

[-]

BandicootOnly4598@reddit

There are many, many missions for which satellites can not replace an aircraft. The inability to rapidly deploy and collect isr in a specific area at a specific time simply isn’t something a satellite (or space plane) can do without advanced notice. There are other systems still doing that work; while satellites are part of it, the camera technology has gotten good enough to enable lots of other platforms to also collect good data.

[-]

Spencemw@reddit

i found this entry on the X-37 wiki pedia page interesting: "In July 2019, former United States Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson explained that when an X-37B was in an elliptic orbit it could, at perigee, use the thin atmosphere to make an orbit change preventing some observers from discovering the new orbit for a while, permitting secret activities.[37]".

[-]

Guevorkyan@reddit

Satellites replaced the SR-71 to an extent. There are several gaps yet in the availability of intelligence gathering, due to the way satellites operate.

SR-71 could be deployed to an area of interest in about 4 to 5 hours with high definition sensors, whilst you had to wait for the sat to be at the right orbital position and timing, which wasn't always the case. That's why they still use the Dragon Lady, but it takes 3 to 4x times to get there.

Also, there was a psycological aspect about the Blackbird that does not happen with satellites. A powerful intimidating tool.

[-]

Spencemw@reddit

The SR-71s speed protected it from SAMs during its heyday of operations. Hypersonic missiles that reach speeds of Mach five+ such as China's Feitian-1 and the Russian S-500 system would likely negate the SR-71s speed advantage. Esp when trying to cross large countries like Russia or China that can place those hypersonic SAMs all over the place.

[-]

Ok_Concentrate_3662@reddit

The F-14 was a superb bird. But it was an Mx hog.

She was an emotionally needy debutante in all ways.

The sex was great, though.

I agree with you on all counts. The only thing I think the carrier group needs that might work to address the gaps you mention is a very fast, simplified, two-seat, compact and dedicated interceptor coupled with a very fast, sophisticated UAV serving as a "Growler" and "Hawkeye."

[-]

Kinetikat@reddit

Oddly enough, I always wonder about keeping some redundancy. Besides, reaching point a from point b physically within a short period of time is not possible via satellite. Probably just me tho.

[-]

Mean_Magician6347@reddit

Not possible with the sr71 either, unless you have multiple other planes loitering in between where it’s been and wheee it’s going. Gives it all away.

[-]

stug_life@reddit

I think the aardvark could have an air defense role if fielding long range missiles like the AIM-174. The way I’m envisioning it is as a stand off support fighter for aircraft like the F22 and F35. It’d stay back and use its speed and payload to sling long range air to air missiles from outside of enemies missile range.

The advantage this provides to the frontline fighters would be to force enemy fighters into defensive postures and allow aircraft like the F22 to press into more advantageous positions.

[-]

bigmucusplug@reddit

What's wrong with the SR-71?

[-]

Just_Another_Scott@reddit

Superceded by satellites and UAVs.

[-]

CMDR_Imperator@reddit

Yeah, but what I wouldn't give to be blasting across the planet in one of those babies at Mach 3 at FL850.....

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

Right! This subreddit is forgetting the most important part about planes... the cool factor 😎

How do you think Tom Cruise got all the women in the 80s.. the cool factor 😎

[-]

CMDR_Imperator@reddit

Right! This subreddit is forgetting the most important part about planes... the cool factor 😎

I think a lot of pilots forget that 10 year old kid inside them that got them interested in flying in the first place. I know I tend to get a little lost between the checklists and radio calls, etc and forget that there was once a crazy kid that wanted to be going full burn like a bat out of hell while scraping the desert floor. I try to take a few minutes whenever I go up and just enjoy the horizon, and remind myself that my inner 10 year old would be doing backflips.

[-]

caaper@reddit

Ahh yes, Tom Cruise's SR-71

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

Who said he flew that plane!!?? I just said he had a cool factor in the 80s

[-]

Mikeg216@reddit

Ahh yeah.. movie starts with a bunch of guys in Larry bird shorts oiling each other and striking poses..

[-]

SharkSheppard@reddit

Go on...

[-]

outworlder@reddit

Satellites are more predictable though. UAVs are more vulnerable.

If it was cheap I bet the SR-71 would still be operational. The problem is that it is the definition of "not cheap"

[-]

Wompie@reddit

U2 is still operational, or was until very recently, proving that the speed isn’t necessary

[-]

PilotBurner44@reddit

For a very different role. The speed (and altitude) was absolutely necessary to evade enemy shoot downs. U2s aren't being used for overflight and border reconnaissance of enemy countries that are actively trying to shoot it down. When it was, they ended up being shot down by enemy aircraft, creating major international incidents.

[-]

maxyedor@reddit

The thing with the SR71 though is that it really wasn’t used to overfly hostile territory anyway. They’d get right up to Soviet airspace and then turn. They’d overfly Vietnam or various other nations with lesser air defenses, but not true peers. It’s also from a time when photography meant using film and you had to get it back to a lab in order to develop it. Today we can use satellites and have the images back in a matter of minutes rather than waiting hours for a Blackbird to return. We can’t get a satellite over a specific spot in China quite as quickly, but we wouldn’t get that Blackbird back from a mission over China anyway.

Satellites are also amazingly cheap compared to spy planes. We have hundreds or spy satellites vs a couple dozen Blackbirds because they’re so much cheaper. When we have massive networks of satellites in orbit theyre never far from an area of interest, meaning we don’t have to “scramble” one to a new hotspot. Satellites also have virtually no ongoing costs so we can take pictures every single day of everything a specific satellite overflies for the better part of a decade for basically the cost of hard drive space which gives us great up to the minute intel negating the need for a last minute overflight.

The answer to OPs question is either Aardvark or B36 peacemaker just to see if we could have ever made it reliable

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

You’re no fun. /s

[-]

outworlder@reddit

We don't really "scramble" satellites. Orbital maneuvers are horrendously expensive. They are put in the orbit they need to be to cover areas of interest relatively frequently.

They will do passes in a very, very predictable fashion. An adversary knows the next satellite passes(and any amateur astronomer can find out that information too). They can then hide assets or do whatever they want before the next pass.

The good thing about the SR-71 is that it could be dispatched at unpredictable times. And outrun basically anything, including aircraft and missiles. The main reason it didn't overfly peers directly is that, in the unlikely case one got lost, they didn't want the tech falling in the wrong hands.

[-]

Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit

The main reason it didn't overfly peers directly is that, in the unlikely case one got lost, they didn't want the tech falling in the wrong hands.

It didn't overfly peers directly because the peers operated missile systems that could easily engage SR-71, like S-200.

[-]

outworlder@reddit

Supposedly. Maybe. No SR-71 was ever shot down despite many attempts.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-u-2-avionics-technician-explains-why-s-300-and-s-400-missile-systems-would-not-be-able-to-shoot-down-the-sr-71-blackbird/amp/

[-]

Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit

Blackbird never overflew the USSR. The positions of every S-200 site were plotted by satellite, SR-71 missions were specifically planned so that they would never get into the NEZ of an S-200 unit.

[-]

PilotBurner44@reddit

The Blackbird was not missioned to fly over the USSR. There are plenty of stories from sled drivers who inadvertently overflew USSR airspace. The USSR desperately tried shooting down SR-71s but never succeeded, and lost a fair amount of their own aircraft in the process of doing so.

[-]

AmputatorBot@reddit

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-u-2-avionics-technician-explains-why-s-300-and-s-400-missile-systems-would-not-be-able-to-shoot-down-the-sr-71-blackbird/

^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)

[-]

Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit

Satellites are also amazingly cheap compared to spy planes. We have hundreds or spy satellites vs a couple dozen Blackbirds because they’re so much cheaper.

We don't have hundreds of spy satellites, and a spy satellite is MUCH more expensive, like an order of magnitude or two more expensive, than a Blackbird. It's just useful enough to make the cost worth it.

[-]

maxyedor@reddit

Most estimates are between 3-500 US Military satellites orbiting right now. Hard to say how many of them are used for imaging vs signals intelligence vs communications, and which ones are “spy” satellites may depend on your definition of spying.

The upper end of the price spectrum is $4-5b each. Once you launch them satellites are fairly inexpensive to run, you just need a small crew to worry about positioning, not like you’re refueling or maintaining it. No chance a modern Blackbird would be under $1b to build, and even if we somehow kept the old ones flying, they were 1/4 million dollars per flight hour, and several hundred million in annual maintenance. There would definitely be major SLEP programs along the way, and if they went digital they’d need a bunch of satellites to transmit the data anyway.

They retired from departments with unlimited budgets, that’s a good indicator of their cost/benefit

[-]

_okbrb@reddit

I saw one on ADS-B yesterday

[-]

GGCRX@reddit

I mean, yes it definitely wasn't cheap to fly, but satellites aren't exactly cheap to launch either. Especially considering when they retired it, we were launching KH-11 satellites at between 1.25 and 1.75 billion dollars per. You could fly the SR71s for 5 years for the cost of one satellite launch.

[-]

Kind-County9767@reddit

And the speed isn't enough to deal with modern missiles anyway

[-]

TheHeroChronic@reddit

Why is the U2 still in service then?

[-]

Carnivorous_Mower@reddit

Because they still haven't found what they're looking for...

[-]

Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit

U-2 can drive around in circles for hours. It provides persistent, wide-area coverage for not too much money. SR-71 was for snapshots of an area at incredible cost.

SR-71 stuck around through the 60s, 70s and into the 80s because pre-KH-11 satellite intelligence took an incredible amount of time to capture. It was all film camera stuff, so you launched the satellite, the satellite took pictures until it ran out of film, which could take months, and then the film was returned to Earth so it could be processed and the analysts could take a look at it. There was no urgent retasking or premature film capsule return unless something happened that was REALLY important. Like 'new country getting nukes' important or 'world war III' important.

When KH-11 arrived, with instant real-time imaging capability, SR-71 was rendered obsolescent. It took some time to field the entire satellite constellation, but the USAF was convinced that SR-71 ops had lost their justification by 1988.

Another factor that most don't bring up is that at time of cancellation, the USAF was actively working on the AARS, which was sort of a proto-RQ-180 that would work with the B-2 fleet to find and destroy Soviet mobile ICBMs. That was also a better use of money than continued SR-71 ops.

[-]

burgonies@reddit

“Dragon lady” sounds cooler than “blackbird”

[-]

TheHeroChronic@reddit

You ain't wrong

[-]

SwimmingThroughHoney@reddit

Because there is a role for a surveillance aircraft. It's just that the U-2 is cheaper. The environment and tech that the SR-71 was designed for no longer exists (being able to fly so fast that nothing could shoot it down), so it's redundant.

[-]

nalc@reddit

Much cheaper than a SR-71 and neither is surviving against someone who doesn't want you to be there so pick the cheapest one

[-]

Just_Another_Scott@reddit

That's a great question. It is set to be retired in 2026.

[-]

TheHeroChronic@reddit

Ooof that's sad, I get it but I always loved that plane as a child

[-]

zestfullybe@reddit

Also, while extremely cool, the SR-71 was also extremely dangerous to fly. While no Blackbirds were lost to enemy action, 12 of 32 were lost to accidents.

Most notably was Skunkworks test pilot Bill Waters, who had his Blackbird disintegrate at 78,000 feet at mach 3.2. He didn’t eject, the aircraft just disintegrated around him and his backseater Jim Zwayer, and both were thrown clear of the debris. Bill was only saved by the pressurized flight suits they wore. He fell down to about 15,000 feet in a haze when his parachute opened automatically. Unfortunately, Zwayer suffered a broken neck and did not survive.

Incredible, legendary bird, but very very dangerous to fly. They were at the bleeding edge. It took immense skill and big brassy ones to fly them.

UAVs are cheaper and don’t cost pilot lives when they go down. Satellites don’t cost pilot lives or airframes.

[-]

GGCRX@reddit

It wasn't that bad after they got the kinks worked out.

[-]

Treerific69@reddit

How's a satellite gonna get me laid?

[-]

actualhumannotspider@reddit

I love it, but it definitely had issues.

It leaked fuel until it reached a high enough speed that thermal expansion closed the gaps. It took a pretty long time to reach top speed. And now, missiles can overtake it.

And as far as purpose, it seems like satellites can do almost everything it was designed to do, but cheaper, safer, and easier.

[-]

No_Tailor_787@reddit

Cost/benefit ratio no longer adds up. Too expensive for the intelligence gathered. There are newer ways to get what's needed. They were designed for requirements of the 60's and 70's.

[-]

Jayhuntermemes@reddit

Nothing wrong necessarily (outside of operational costs) but, plainly, other systems does it's job better. For strategic intelligence, satellites do it with less risk. For tactical Intelligence, the U-2 handles the "high altitude spy plane" role for significantly cheaper with enough capability that it made keeping the Blackbird unfeasible

[-]

A-29_Super_Tucano@reddit

Satellites kinda took the blackbirds job, and modern missiles have made its job far more risky.

[-]

pmoran22@reddit

The 14 would have plugged a whole for deep strike missions the navy is lacking on.

[-]

TangoMikeOne@reddit

I'd absolutely still want a world where an SR-71 is kept airworthy because even though satellites made it obsolete and outperform it in every metric, and it would piss fuel everywhere until it got up to operating temperatures from friction, it was the apex of aerial reconnaissance.

If that alternate universe exists, I'd hope that there's also airworthy English Electric Lightning (can climb to the heavens like a homesick angel) and Avro Vulcan (I prefer the look of the Victor, but the howl from the Avro when it banks made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up the only time I heard it)

[-]

505Trekkie@reddit

The F-14 and F-111 were both amazing aircraft but had become utter maintenance nightmares by the end of their lives. It’s just like how the B-1 is currently a maintenance disaster today.

[-]

mz_groups@reddit

The US will operate F-15Es for a long time to come. A modernized F-111 with modern avionics and engines would be superior. Yeah, it's not stealth, but the USAF is going to be operating non-stealth interdictors for decades to come, and a re-engined, re-avionics F-111 would be faster and at least as accurate.

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

Modernizing would entail fixed wings.

[-]

Euhn@reddit

I mean the tomcat would be a better barcap flyer with more range. give it modern engines and electronics.Thay shit would slap.

[-]

Dangerous_Action_243@reddit

F-14

[-]

MulberryLife521@reddit

I don’t know about practicality, but the SR-71 blackbird is badass. Would be cool just to see it fly.

[-]

MeiDay98@reddit

I wish the YF-12 program could've succeeded. The airframe probably had a lot of potential as a brutally fast and high altitude fighter/bomber

[-]

KickFacemouth@reddit

The cost to keep them on alert would have been astronomical. The Blackbird family had lots of unique operational considerations that AFAIK the program never thought to address. Pilots had to pre-breathe oxygen before stepping to the jet. The fuel tanks weren't sealed when on the ground and JP7 leaked out until the aircraft got up to speed. After takeoff the aircraft had to refuel from a special KC-135 to top-off.

No matter how good the YF-12 was in the air, the fact that it was such an ordeal to get it in the air would have undermined its usefulness as an interceptor.

[-]

Obvious-Hunt19@reddit

Interceptor? What

[-]

KickFacemouth@reddit

The YF-12 was a prototype interceptor based on the A-12 Oxcart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12

[-]

acestins@reddit

I'm happy that the Dayton museum has the only YF-12 left on display, right next to a normal SR-71

[-]

acestins@reddit

The YF-12 was an armed SR-71(not really but close enough). It carried like 3 early air-to-air missiles.

[-]

OrdainedFury@reddit

Sounds like you'd enjoy the book Skunkworks by Ben Rich. He was Kelly Johnson's right hand man, and helped design the SR71. It's amazing history, and yes they got a little crazy with that airframe

[-]

KirbyQK@reddit

It's a REALLY good book

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

And those factors are all a testimony to the incredible engineering those guys did - in the 50s! Can you image intentionally designing an aircraft fuel tanks that leaked on the ground, that would seal when supersonic? Unbelievable!

[-]

Jimmy_the_Heater@reddit

I was fortunate enough to see one fly at an airshow in the late 80's. Mach diamonds on takeoff and oh what a glorious sound!

[-]

AbbreviationsOld636@reddit

Yeah I saw it at an airshow at Norton AFB when that place existed.

[-]

BearstowsBarnstormer@reddit

It gives you an unpredictable reconnaissance platform. Satellite orbits are pretty easy to track to their orbital period.

[-]

McCache33@reddit

The problem is that air defenses were already catching up to it when it was in service. The SR-71 never entered Soviet airspace for that reason. Less costly drones can easily fill the same role.

[-]

jr89123@reddit

As an Air Force brat I had the luxury of seeing them all the time when we were stationed in Okinawa. My dad took me out to the flight line a few times to see them.

[-]

monster_bunny@reddit

Yeah. That’s one of those rare shinies where I don’t care about practicality or modern efficiency because it’s such an incredible aircraft and feat of aviation engineering.

[-]

armor452@reddit

No, most plans go through retirement because of maintenance or cost concerns. I will say the impending retirement of the A-10 without having a sufficent replacement. The A-10 is an extremely rare case where I think this arguement can be made. Airframes have lifespans and at some point you have to decide wether to invest in future tech and airframes or keep putting new tech in old airframes.

[-]

Blue387@reddit

I wonder if the modern navy could have used a replacement for the S-3 Viking as a carrier based anti-submarine aircraft

[-]

work_reddit_88@reddit

My favorite carrier aircraft.

[-]

Adventurous_Sir_9619@reddit

I was going to say this. The S-3 often gets overlooked by “sexier” aircraft but fulfilled its role extremely well with no comparable replacement.

[-]

Dugiduif@reddit

That’s the MH-60Rs job now

[-]

FluffusMaximus@reddit

No speed. No range.

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

You don’t exactly need speed or range to fight a submarine. You do need loiter time I agree but a plane cant only make passes over a target, a helicopter can hover and utilize dipping sonar which can be more effective than sonobuoys

[-]

FluffusMaximus@reddit

When that submarine is equipped with modern ASCMs, you want something in between short ranged and slow, and land based but fast. Losing the S-3 left a significant gap in ASW capability organic to the CSG.

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

If you want land based the P-8 exists. It can fly pretty slow in landing configuration and has considerable range, loiter time and its mach .8 capable at altitude which is pretty darn fast

[-]

FluffusMaximus@reddit

Read my reply again.

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

I did- my bad lol. I read CSG as coast guard not carrier strike group. Which- fair enough. Could you strap a set of sonobuoys on a growler lol?

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

Nothing the S-3 can do today that an ASW helicopter cant in terms of ASW anyways, its A2A refuel role has been replaced by the super hornet.

[-]

drillbit7@reddit

an SA-18H or SV-22C would be interesting: more speed and standoff than the helicopters.

[-]

GetsWeirdLooks@reddit

The problem with both those platforms is a lack of loiter time.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

Nope. It's the same reason frigates were retired with their replacements being overexpensive 'littoral combat ships.' The brass and heads of state in the 2000s thought state vs. state submarine warfare was a thing of the past.

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

They had plans to revive the S-3 but it was canceled

[-]

mach198295@reddit

Maybe something that can fly low and fast or slow with extended range like the OV-Bronco. Faster and quieter than a helicopter with much greater range. Wing hard mounts have room for weapons. Jamming pods and extended fuel tanks.

[-]

CMBLD_Iron@reddit

Check out the OA-1K Skyraider II they are just now fielding.

[-]

SomeJayForToday@reddit

That looks so anarchronistic, I love it.

[-]

SkyGuy182@reddit

I love aircraft like this. It goes to show in our modern world there’s still a place for them.

[-]

Fit-Function-1410@reddit

Wow!! A military air tractor?! I didn’t even know about this! I fucking love this! Looks badass af too

[-]

victorsmonster@reddit

I have an affinity for the Super Tucano because it’s more sleek, almost like the ultimate evolution of the old Warbirds. But the Skyraider does seem to be more rugged

[-]

saint_nicolai@reddit

I've seen skytractors do some gnarly shit, so it definitely has the pedigree.

[-]

mangeface@reddit

I see them quite frequently since I live a couple of miles from where their training squadron is. They’re pretty neat aircraft.

[-]

thejones0921@reddit

Special forces have some broncos they were using in Iraq and Syria recently like within past ten years.

[-]

Reader-87@reddit

Tornado?

[-]

Mikeg216@reddit

So like an a-10?

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

Needs more seats for mission specialists.

[-]

mkosmo@reddit

Why? Part of what USAF was trying to do was leverage automation and HOTAS to allow a pilot to serve in these roles without the need for extra bodies.

Tactics, strategy, and doctrine evolve.

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

Tactics, strategy, and doctrine evolve.

This is the exact answer to your question.

[-]

mkosmo@reddit

Those mission specialists no longer need to be “in the fight” with modern communications and multi-domain doctrines.

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

Then you don't need a pilot in the plane, either.

[-]

mkosmo@reddit

Yes. That’s not too far off on the horizon, either. Drone aircraft have been pretty well proven, and fully autonomous will be required before long.

[-]

mach198295@reddit

OV10 Bronco. I believe there are piston versions as well as jet prop versions.

[-]

Square_Ad8756@reddit

Correct me if anyone knows better but I imagine it would make a great drone hunter. Plenty of space for jamming pods and guns/rockets to take on lower speed drones.

[-]

CotswoldP@reddit

Good point. A few APKWS pods, maybe even bodge a steerable GAU-19 under the nose for any leakers. Can happily take off from a road so can surge them forward if needed.

[-]

Square_Ad8756@reddit

The Ukrainians are using light aircraft as mobile jamming systems. I bet you could also mount a sophisticated jamming system on that aircraft in addition to the weapons that a WSO could operate.

[-]

duggatron@reddit

They're used in wildfire management in California for many of the reasons you listed.

[-]

TsuyoshiHaruka@reddit

The Philippines only retired theirs a year ago

[-]

CharlieFoxtrot000@reddit

Also room for a little cargo, or a couple special ops troops, or a tail gunner, or a small medical outfit.

[-]

InQuintsWeTrust@reddit

Underrated plane. Be perfect for whatever role the upgunned crop spreaders we purchased are for.

[-]

GetOffMyGrassBrats@reddit

A-10 Warthog...they should have just made a drone version of it.

[-]

TheOGTachyon@reddit

F4 Phantom II. Should have been refitted with modern avionics and used as long-range interceptors. Would be perfect for Canada and Alaska to patrol the Arctic. But then the US should never have quashed the Avro Arrow, which was built for exactly that role.

They keep trying to kill the A10 Warthog, even though there's nothing even close to being able to replace it in its anti-armour and ground support roles. The suggestion that the F35 could do this job at all, let alone as well, is beyond ludicrous. Especially at the cost ratio.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

>F4 Phantom II. Should have been refitted with modern avionics and used as long-range interceptors.

You’re basically saying it would be a good missile truck. Because it’s speed, acceleration, and turn performance are absolutely awful compared to any fourth generation fighter.

>They keep trying to kill the A10 Warthog

They DID kill the A-10.

>even though there's nothing even close to being able to replace it in its anti-armour and ground support roles.

Yeah there is. It’s a myth that the 30mm cannon was some uniquely capable weapon. every modern fighter can carry bombs that can destroy tanks.

The problem with the A-10 is that is only useful in a completely permissive environment. That existed for 20 years in Iraq and afghanistan, but that won’t exist anywhere else.

[-]

Arctic_Chilean@reddit

F-20 Tigershark. Upgraded with the latest 4.5 Gen tech (AESA, Datalink, EW, HMD, etc...) and F414 engines.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

They would still be useless. They wouldn’t be able to carry hardly any fuel and maybe like two AIM-120s? Modern fighter jets are big for a reason. That’s how big the airplane has to be to get 6 to 8 AIM-120s 300 miles away, >30,000ft at tactical airspeeds.

The F-20 comes from a time and they were betting that they could get away with four sidewinders and a cannon for point defense.

[-]

MandolinMagi@reddit

Why not buy a F-16 though?

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

The F-20 was the cheap fighter jet that would fill the niches the Saab Gripen is currently fielding. Only a decade earlier. It would've been the best post-Cold War alternative for nations pulling back on national defense spending in the 1990s.

[-]

ElSquibbonator@reddit

The S-3 Viking has my vote. With it retired, the US Navy lacks a dedicated carrier-based ASW platform, and existing aircraft such as the P-8 Poseidon and the SH-60 Seahawk don't adequately fill the same niche.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

What could an S-3 do that a P-8 and an SH-60R can’t?

[-]

SadDad701@reddit

The S-3’s tanker role would arguable be more important.

You’re understanding how good the MH-60R is especially when combined with a P-8.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

Sure, but I do wonder if they cover the gaps in such vast areas with flashpoints, like the western Pacific.

[-]

SadDad701@reddit

That’s where the P-8 comes in.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

With it retired, the US Navy lacks a dedicated carrier-based ASW platform, and existing aircraft such as the P-8 Poseidon and the SH-60 Seahawk don't adequately fill the same niche.

P-8 and MH-60R are insanely good at their jobs. We also live in a very very different ISR world now with things like MQ-4

As u/SadDad701 wrote, in the latter half of its career, the S-3 was utilized most imortantly as a tanker

[-]

FluffusMaximus@reddit

This.

[-]

VTDan@reddit

The A-6 intruder, hear me out. At the very end of the A-6’s service life, A-6Es were beginning to receive composite re-wing upgrades; additionally, engine and avionics upgrades were already in the works for the eventual A-6F. Today the US Navy has now been struggling for a decade plus with finding an adequate aerial refueling platform to replace the F-18 buddy fuel system. Those upgraded A-6s would have made awesome tankers, and would have prevented excessive unnecessary accrual of flight hours on F-18s throughout the GWOT.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

It’s more efficient to chip away at a super hornet service life with tanking, than it is to have an airplane exist on the carrier just to tank.

[-]

mangeface@reddit

I think that decision really came down to commonality. You can have a mediocre tanker that also can perform multi mission operations or a handful of dedicated tankers that would require another supply chain.

[-]

VTDan@reddit

Totally understand that desire to reduce the number of unique platforms. Apparently the Navy has decided to go a different way though, because they’re actively developing a big expensive fifth generation stealth dedicated tanker platform (MQ-25).

Personally I think the Navy just didn’t anticipate how necessary embarked aerial refueling enablers were going to be in the tactics typical of GWOT style operations, and that they dropped the ball on a potentially cost effective, available, and sustainable tanker solution in the A-6.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

Totally understand that desire to reduce the number of unique platforms. Apparently the Navy has decided to go a different way though, because they’re actively developing a big expensive fifth generation stealth dedicated tanker platform (MQ-25).

The MQ-25 being a tanker is to reduce technical risk as the Navy tries to integrate unmanned assets into cyclic ops around the carrier while relieving strain on the F/A-18s doing tanking

They specifically chose to do that to reduce scope creep and to get the fundamentals right first with a relatively simple but important mission

Personally I think the Navy just didn’t anticipate how necessary embarked aerial refueling enablers were going to be in the tactics typical of GWOT style operations, and that they dropped the ball on a potentially cost effective, available, and sustainable tanker solution in the A-6.

They didn't though. They used S-3s until 2009, which were even cheaper and more efficient

Of course, no one predicted GWOT would continue the rest of the 2010s either

[-]

VTDan@reddit

You’re giving Boeing and Pax river a lot of credit where they don’t necessarily deserve it when it comes to the MQ-25. Might wanna read more about what it was originally intended to be and how/why that has changed over the years. In short: it’s a tanker now primarily because it has become obvious the Navy needs a tanker. The implication you’re making that it’s being used to reduce technical risk is nonsense, it’s a program that has been floundering since 2006; it’s no longer state of the art.

A 2007 retirement? It’s almost 2026 and the Navy is still years out from having the MQ-25 or any other dedicated tanker fully fielded. Whether they didn’t anticipate the actual real world sustainability implications of using the F-18 for buddy fueling, or whether they underestimated how long and intensive GWOT operations would be, they still dropped the ball.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

I'm in Navy test and intimately familiar with the innerworkings of NAVAIR, CNAF, etc. By no means is Boeing or Pax faultless here, but you are seriously missing everything going on.

The X-47 was never ever intended as anything but a tech demonstrator to demonstrate integration of unmanned assets into cyclic ops

We are still doing massive amounts of work on the integration of the command and control apparatus into our ships - which, in case you haven't noticed, we can't actually operate any of these unmanned assets until we get our ships modified with them and installed. MQ-25 is the first use case of said ground station - it will be used for a lot of unmanned assets in the future.

That the X-47 had a stealthy shape (do you even know what it takes to actually make something LO besides looking stealthy?) was also to demonstrate flying such a tailless shape for a carrier landing

It does NOT mean they were looking at building a stealthy UAS to do stealthy things - there were a lot of proponents in Congress and what not to do so, but given the size, payload, and plain lack of maturity in autonomy (which is CRITICAL for operating at sea if you ever lost link to the asset), we STILL would not have fielded a damn thing.

Look at how the Air Force - despite only having to operate from fixed land bases - is still struggling to get autonomous CCAs in operation.

And you think we would have fielded high autonomy UAS's on our ships that we're still working on a robust universal ground station for current and future unmanned assets?

The idea that the program has been around since 2006 meaning its no longer state of the art is laughable. We didn't even start PDR or CDR or MQ-25 until recently. You do realize a program can spend decades investigating things before actually drafting updated contemporary requirements for industry to build something new, right? It's not like they've been working on the actual MQ-25 asset of 20 years. They've been doing a LOT of work on actually making it even possible to integrate these assets into the air wing.

A 2007 retirement? It’s almost 2026 and the Navy is still years out from having the MQ-25 or any other dedicated tanker fully fielded. Whether they didn’t anticipate the actual real world sustainability implications of using the F-18 for buddy fueling, or whether they underestimated how long and intensive GWOT operations would be, they still dropped the ball.

Tell me more about how our PPBN process would have gotten us a dedicated fixed-wing tanker when we already had one in the air wing. And tell me why that makes sense given our finite deck space.

The entire reason MQ-25 ended up being the solution was precisely because it has a dual role as the first introduction of fixed wing unmanned assets into cyclic ops on a CVN. Period. Without that, zero chance you get funding from Congress to pursue it.

[-]

VTDan@reddit

Believe it or not, I know that building a cool stealth looking aircraft doesn’t make it low observable. But it is a fact that the MQ-25 was born out of the pile of ashes that was the UCLASS program. And UCLASS absolutely was originally intended to procure and field a stealthy aircraft to do all the stealthy stuff. That program languished, shed requirements, and ultimately became CBARS. One of the reasons the tanker role was down-selected for CBARS from the original set of capability requirements was because the Navy recognized the immediate need for a tanker. That need did, and still does exist. Hence, the entire reason for my initial post. Overall, the above debacle is a great illustration of why the FAR is currently being rewritten.

WRT UMCS integration in the fleet (which totally does not have to be tied to the MQ-25 platform specifically): I do genuinely hope you guys have developed forward leaning system that’s modular and future proofed (blah blah blah) and not the still-animated corpse of a once relevant concept doomed to immediately fall apart in an EW saturated, GPS denied South Pacific.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

Believe it or not, I know that building a cool stealth looking aircraft doesn’t make it low observable. But it is a fact that the MQ-25 was born out of the pile of ashes that was the UCLASS program. And UCLASS absolutely was originally intended to procure and field a stealthy aircraft to do all the stealthy stuff.

Yes, and between the budget process, the AF winning the fight on that, and technical risk that they would not accept, the program never made it above the line. Had we gone with the original UCLASS plans, we'd be up shits creek as the tanker problem isn't solved AND we'd have an asset with a lot of overlap elsewhere that would undoubtedly have been built for the wrong environment.

That program languished, shed requirements, and ultimately became CBARS. One of the reasons the tanker role was down-selected for CBARS from the original set of capability requirements was because the Navy recognized the immediate need for a tanker. That need did, and still does exist. Hence, the entire reason for my initial post.

Like I said, need + reduced scope/technical risk helped drive N98, CNAF, and PMA's direction

Overall, the above debacle is a great illustration of why the FAR is currently being rewritten.

From your lips to God's ears

WRT UMCS integration in the fleet (which totally does not have to be tied to the MQ-25 platform specifically):

It didn't have to be, but it's ultimately tied to the program as MQ-25 is going to be the first to figure out all its issues.

I do genuinely hope you guys have developed forward leaning system that’s modular and future proofed (blah blah blah) and not the still-animated corpse of a once relevant concept doomed to immediately fall apart in an EW saturated, GPS denied South Pacific.

Hence why the program has taken so long. The changing landscape in the past oh, 20 years, has seen some pretty drastic changes in requirements

If anything, like I mentioned, had we gone to UCLASS, we'd be up shit's creek without a paddle. The odds of us going the wrong direction at the wrong time against a threat that has changed significantly would have been tremendous, and still would not have given us a tanker

[-]

CotswoldP@reddit

I'm a little surprised they never made a KC-2. The Greyhound could have carried a decent amount of Jetfuel up to altitude, and stayed there.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

I'm a little surprised they never made a KC-2. The Greyhound could have carried a decent amount of Jetfuel up to altitude, and stayed there.

C-2 being turboprop can't sustain high altitude tanking

And they take up a LOT of deck space - we never liked keeping the COD on board unless absolutely necessary

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

C-2 being turboprop can't sustain high altitude tanking

If that were a dealbreaker, the Marines would be flying KC-135s instead of KC-130s.

I still don't understand why they replaced them with V-22s.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

If that were a dealbreaker, the Marines would be flying KC-135s instead of KC-130s.

What?

The Marines fly KC-130s because the KC-130s double up as transports that can land and resupply forces in remote locations.

Also, the KC-130s can fly slow enough to refuel their MH-53s and MV-22s

Those are all issues the Navy aren't concerned with. And those are things a KC-135 cannot do.

I still don't understand why they replaced them with V-22s.

The only reason was because the Navy was on the program of record to buy V-22s, did not know what to do with them (seriously, look at early docs on the V-22 program... the Navy was originally going to get an HV-22 for CSAR), and when money wasn't forthcoming for a C-2 revision AND because the F135 core module cannot fit in the C-2's existing cargo bay, they went with the CMV-22

[-]

CotswoldP@reddit

Thanks, I hadn't realized they would be such issues 😊

[-]

IAmQuixotic@reddit

Huh yeah great idea. Surely somebody must’ve thought about it at some point? Can’t believe I’ve never heard of it before

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

It was never viable. USMC experimented with the V-22 and killed that idea. You couldn't fly high or fast enough to keep up with a strike package, and it takes up a LOT of room on deck

[-]

IAmQuixotic@reddit

You’ve already got C-2s aboard, and it’s no less capable of keeping up with a strike package than a KC-135 or some such

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

You’ve already got C-2s aboard

Nah. C-2s rarely stay on board. They usually spend most of their deployments ashore collecting per diem - they only come on board to drop people and things off, and take people/things off

and it’s no less capable of keeping up with a strike package than a KC-135 or some such

What are you talking about? A KC-135 - being derived from aircraft that ended up operating as airliners - have zero issues cruising at the most efficient jet altitudes (high 30s) and high subsonic airspeeds.

C2 is a turboprop with a shitty pressurization system that can't come close to operating at those altitudes, let alone airspeeds

[-]

GetsWeirdLooks@reddit

They had a good buddy fuel aircraft, the S3 Viking, that they retired early. That’s the plane that should still be in service for both refueling and COD.

[-]

Otarmichael@reddit

"Launch the Intruder!" - Flight of the Intruder. The best naval aviation movie that isn't about beach volleyball.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

Those upgraded A-6s would have made awesome tankers, and would have prevented excessive unnecessary accrual of flight hours on F-18s throughout the GWOT.

They didn't go straight to the F/A-18s though - they retired the A-6s from tanking and shifted those duties to the S-3. They arguably could have kept the S-3 around longer, as it had even more life and was a better tanker than the A-6.

Of course, GWOT also was not anticipated, nor did we expect to be at it for 20+ years

[-]

Mikeg216@reddit

Probably have a few hundred sitting lined up at aamarg

[-]

jhill9901@reddit

S3 Viking.

[-]

AceCombat9519@reddit

OV-10 Bronco because it's perfectly suited for counterinsurgency operations

[-]

TypicalRecon@reddit

The cat is too expensive and that will always been its downfall but having a big fleet defense fighter with a big radar and long range missiles as a country that's active in the south china sea is always something to think about.

[-]

thebomby@reddit

Northrop F-5E. Still in use by a number of air forces in upgraded form. Brazil and Chile in particular. Low cost with great ease of maintenance.

[-]

SecretPersonality178@reddit

The A10. While I don’t think it has officially been retired yet, but it doesn’t have a replacement

[-]

Richard-Squeezer@reddit

It's completely useless in a real war

[-]

No_Race_9384@reddit

Avro

[-]

workntohard@reddit

I lived at RAF Lakenheath in the 80s when both the F-111 and the SR-71 when both there to see flying so both have a soft spot in my heart. The flight path seemed to go right over the high school interrupting class.

[-]

chuckop@reddit

I’ve always pined over the XB-70. I get that it would made obsolete, but what a glorious machine it was.

[-]

Spartan0330@reddit

It’s amazing how the XB-70 just dwarfs everything around it at the Air Force Museum in Dayton. Just an insane piece of engineering.

[-]

InedibleArmadillo@reddit

Not gonna lie, the XB-70 was practically the ONLY reason I visited that museum. It's majestic af.

My wife was pregnant at the time. Had it been a girl, my wife agreed to let me have her middle name be Valkyrie after that jet.

[-]

Nicksaw85@reddit

Yeah, that and “Memphis Belle” were like 95% of my motivation to go there, and the XB-70 absolutely did not disappoint.

[-]

workntohard@reddit

The Memphis Belle exhibit was under construction my last visit, need to get back there again.

[-]

CommanderCody52@reddit

And then you look up into the bomb bay of that B-52.

[-]

chuckop@reddit

Maybe he name his daughter that.

[-]

Quatapus@reddit

XB-70 would be a wild name for his daughter

[-]

mogrim@reddit

It’s the kind of name Musk would give one of his thousand kids

[-]

lopedopenope@reddit

So would disappoint

[-]

juanmlm@reddit

… Elon?

[-]

InedibleArmadillo@reddit

Nah, Elon would insist on XB-70 as a first name.

[-]

chuckop@reddit

But would then reject it because of the association with Valkyrie and the 20 July Plot.

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

I came here to say this ^

[-]

Alibotify@reddit

This guy ain’t lying!

[-]

OldStromer@reddit

Wow dude, you've got a keeper there.

[-]

ch4lox@reddit

Unfortunately it was a bit so he had to name it Edward Cullen (his last name).

[-]

EricP51@reddit

Truly incredible museum.

[-]

chuckop@reddit

North American Aviation was pretty amazing.

[-]

SchleppyJ4@reddit

And they were designing futuristic-looking stuff like this in the 50s. Crazy. Feels like we were almost more advanced then than now, in some ways. At least design-wise!

[-]

Wooden-Sprinkles7901@reddit

The difference is back then there were more one off prototypes made. These companies would absolutely ball out making the most advanced shit possible with no forethought regarding pricing and selling units later. Nowadays militaries and private companies make things with the hopes of selling it to make billions in contracts, shareholders ruined the innovation.

[-]

SchleppyJ4@reddit

That’s a really good point. There’s less incentive and innovation today because the geopolitical situation simply doesn’t demand it. Obviously I wouldn’t want to be at war or anything with anyone but man, it must’ve been like living in the future going from what planes we had pre WW2 to stuff like the Valkyrie within 10 years or the Concorde within 20 years. And going from our first satellite to landing on the damn Moon in 12 years!

[-]

Wooden-Sprinkles7901@reddit

Absolutely. I would argue the geopolitical world warrants it just as much now as it ever did then. I think our leaders today arent taking geopolitics into account enough, at least in terms of how it would effect their constituents. Nowadays they only care if themselves and their families are safe, everyone else be damned.

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

Strictly functional.

[-]

KeystoneNotLight@reddit

NAA A-5 Vigilante says hi.

[-]

thenewjerk@reddit

I’m an aviation nut for sure, but I love all forms of history and every museum. It’s really hard for me to express to my history and museum loving friends who may not be into military history just how ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDING the Air Force Museum is.

[-]

Screen-Equal@reddit

MY grandfather volunteered there every tuesday my whole life doing restorations. The behind the scenes is even cooler somehow, and SO many of those aircraft are the literal work of his hands.

I miss him so much- he is who taught me to love planes, even though I don't intend to learn to fly

[-]

Spartan0330@reddit

Yeah I would say I’m more of a casual enthusiast. I don’t know all the airframe variants and stuff like that. But yes the Museum in Dayton is absolutely fascinating.

[-]

NerdyComfort-78@reddit

My husband’s favorite plane there.

[-]

Apexnanoman@reddit

Yeah I've told people before that unless you see it in person, you just can't understand how amazing it looks.

[-]

oops3719@reddit

That museum is insane. Maybe the best I’ve ever been to.

[-]

wyohman@reddit

This is the correct answer. I was a wee lad in the 70s when my dad was stationed at Wright-Pat. I saw the XB70 almost daily

[-]

Madroc92@reddit

B-58 Hustler: Extremely cool, absurdly expensive to build and operate, can only do one thing, obsolete within a few years of introduction into service.

XB-70 Valkyrie: Hold my beer.

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

My father claimed the B-58 had the highest crew workload of any aircraft.

[-]

3__@reddit

B-58's used to set off Sonic Booms over my house a little west of Milwaukee in the late 1950's.

We also found Radar Chaff regularly and had three Nike Missile sites a couple miles away...

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

Same here, in Indy.

[-]

3__@reddit

Well it is only a few minutes between Mil town and Indy at 800 miles per hour...

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

Good point. Probably the same aircraft booming both places.

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

Gotta love the cold war. I grew up next to the Blue Cube in Sunnyvale CA, and in sight of the coast defense radar on Mt. Umunhum. P-3 ASW planes always coming and going.

[-]

Madroc92@reddit

I believe it. I've read some accounts and also got to chat once in the Cold War hangar at the USAF museum (way back in the day) with a volunteer docent who used to be a navigator on one.

Basically a Concorde in terms of complexity, but with \~20 years earlier computer/automation tech and the same number of crew.

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

I actually had the opportunity to sit in a live on in the ramp at Bunker shill AFB in 1967, while taking a physical for the USAFA. Incredible aircraft.

[-]

Madroc92@reddit

Love the pic! I've run autocross on the alert stand at Grissom (formerly Bunker Hill). The hurry huts are still there too, albeit pretty run down at this point.

There's a small air museum up there too, which has a TB-58 on static display.

[-]

Stunning_Coffee6624@reddit

Trivia - John Denver’s dad, “Dutch” Dutchendorf was one of the first B58 pilots. My dad flew with him during Viet Nam. According to my dad he was a little crazy but an excellent pilot.

[-]

oojiflip@reddit

B-58 is my absolute favourite jet I've never seen. Such a ridiculously badass machine with such a niche role

[-]

Apexnanoman@reddit

The Hustler is one of the two planes I would own if I was Ultra rich. I would love to see it repowered with modern engines. Could probably just about treat it like a fighter lol.

[-]

Carnivorous_Mower@reddit

John Denver's father was a test pilot for the Hustler.

[-]

DataGOGO@reddit

The B-58 was always too busy killing its aircrews to be an operational bomber.

[-]

hardervalue@reddit

My dad flew in Air Force in 50s, asked him if he ever flew it. He said “I’m still alive, aren’t I”

[-]

MoccaLG@reddit

The XB-70 was already obsolete by its testing phase. Thats where the Blackbird was shining. Many small engines = heavy, complex and inefficient.

[-]

That_Primary_1769@reddit

Heat signatures render these forever obsolete

[-]

akdanman11@reddit

F-111 would be great in a modern context, in fact it would’ve been so good we made a new plane with similar capabilities (the B-1).

[-]

Inherently_Unstable@reddit

Can someone explain to me what GWOT is?

[-]

JerbalKeb@reddit

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=GWOT

[-]

Inherently_Unstable@reddit

Thought so, no need to be a jerk about it.

[-]

JezeusFnChrist0@reddit

While I agree the Tomcat should have been retired, I strongly believe they should have made the Super Tomcat, often called The ST 21, super tomcat of the 21st century.

Unlike the super hornet, it would have been a superior aircraft to the original.

[-]

Sabonis86@reddit

Rhino isn’t superior to the Hornet? How come?

[-]

JezeusFnChrist0@reddit

The super Hornet is slower and less maneuverable.

The only thing super about it is its size.

[-]

Sabonis86@reddit

Gotcha. Thanks for the insight!

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

Gotcha. Thanks for the insight!

Have actual hours in these aircraft - I have no clue where u/JezeusFnChrist0 is getting his 'knowledge' from

The Hornet - even an EPE'd Hornet - does not "destroy" the Rhino in a dog fight. Maneuverability and flying characteristics are close enough that the better pilot really does decide those fights

Ironic that he thinks slower is a con on the Rhino, as it can sustain those slow speeds for higher angles of attack flight as well

More importantly, the Super Hornet is the vastly superior overall fighter in all the other domains. It's a generational leap over the Hornet

[-]

JezeusFnChrist0@reddit

We you in the Navy?

I was an AT....so what I am saying is common among airdales and pilots.

I never said the Rhino was not capable. I am just pointing out the weaknesses. Also many will rell you the Growler EA-18 is not as capable as the EA-6B Prowler it replaced.

Obviously carrying the heavy electronic warfare pods as well as being able to carry refueling pods is something the Rhino/Growler Super Hornet airframe can do that the legacy Hornet could not.

I suppose dog fighting is a thing of the past, they said that before Vietnam as well, but we have yet to face an adversy that has forced us to test that theory...Hopefully we never will. If it does we better pray all the over the horizon guided missles work as advertised

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

As much as I love the Rhino, I do wonder if the French did it better with the Rafale?

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

The Rafale is no slouch, but nope. The Rhino is fantastic enough that the Navy has felt no need to accelerate F-35 introduction. In fact, the F-35 is actually behind the Rhino is a lot of areas.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

As much of a maintenance nightmare it was, I think it was a missed call to not re-engine and add modern computers to a Super Tomcat. The engine was right there, just add commonality with the Strike Eagle. It would've given the Tomcat another decade to retire in the latter part of Global War on Terror instead of it retiring right when it became a shitshow.

[-]

JezeusFnChrist0@reddit

I do think a modernsized version would have cut the maintance down significantly. We had over 3 decades to learn and improve the design..

That said, Fat Amy and the Rhino still cant do some of the things the Tomcat did.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

True, we still are pushing out F-15 variants. I still think the variable sweep wing was the biggest problem with it. If there was a way to make it easier to maintain, and not instigate superstitious cults like with B-1B ground crews, it surely would've lasted longer.

The potential showed in how the Tomcat aces were Iranian and some managed to kill Iraqi Mirage pilots without them realizing they were under threat under BVR Phoenix hits.

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

Unlike the super hornet, it would have been a superior aircraft to the original.

What? Where in the world are you getting this? You could not be more wrong. The Super Hornet is a generational leap over the Hornet

[-]

Capt_Bigglesworth@reddit

RAF Nimrod..

[-]

Maximum-Arachnid319@reddit

The Sandy. Best in the world for CAS. lots of ordnance, great loitering time, cheap to build, maintain and fly.

[-]

MandolinMagi@reddit

Sure, if you define CAS as dumping unguided weapons on light infantry who can't shoot back.

Any MANPADS, SPAAG, etc will shut them down instantly

[-]

Maximum-Arachnid319@reddit

You ever call in CAS, or fly a Spad?

[-]

MandolinMagi@reddit

No. I just know how to read. They got phased out late in Vietnam and got pulled from operations over North Vietnam because they were too vulnerable to everything

Spent their entire career shooting up defenseless North Koreans, Chinese, and NVA.

[-]

candylandmine@reddit

A-10. Should be sent to Ukraine and converted into missile trucks / anti drone.

[-]

leont21@reddit

Had to scroll WAY too far to see the right answer

[-]

DisregardLogan@reddit

Isn’t that the EF-111 Raven?

[-]

mcg_090@reddit

SR-71.

[-]

msnplanner@reddit

The NASA DC-8. And not quite retired yet, but the A-10.

[-]

TheRocketWentDown@reddit

Honestly I’d have to say the Harrier. Was quite literally the little jet that could and still made a mean weapons platform. RAF retired them about a decade too early in my opinion.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

The Harrier was a maintenance pain in the ass, but the Brits retired them too early. It's now where I think it's the right time to sunset them. And even then I'd recommend a slow transition to the F-35 or UAS platforms.

[-]

TheRocketWentDown@reddit

One of the most infuriating things I found about the retirement was the fact that it was a gamble by the MOD that the F-35 program and Queen Elizabeth class carriers would be ready by the time of the retirement so that crews could start transferring over… this did not happen. Harriers were retired in 2010 and the first F-35’s didn’t enter RAF/Fleet Air Arm (FAA) service until 2018. That’s 8 years of no carrier fleet. The RAF and Navy also had to share the F-35 fleet for the first 5 years as they didn’t have enough.

Would’ve made more sense to keep the harriers until there was sufficient numbers of F-35s to retire them.

Basically, poor timing, poor planning and poor management. Thanks MOD!

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

At least Japan set out their ~~aircraft carrier~~ helicopter lily pad so that they fix any kinks out of it when the Mitsubishi F-35s came into operation.

An absolute MoD L with the fleet. They are very fortunate that Argentina was too busy imploding in that time, preventing them from doing something terrible.

[-]

milgi617@reddit

Definitely- kept the Tonkas going so they could say they had fast planes, when the Harrier was what they needed for CAS.

[-]

Theloneous_Punk@reddit

With modern electric motors, and hydraulics, the F-14 could've been updated to absolutely still be useful.

Also, variable nozzles would have made that plane even scarier.

[-]

Oxytropidoceras@reddit

The intruder. I'm not even that big of an A-6 fan but looking back at the GWOT, the A-6 would have been the absolute perfect aircraft for slinging JDAMs later in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the Super Hornet and strike eagle could come in with a dozen 500 pound JDAMs, the A-6E could have rolled up with more than double that.

I would also argue that it's ability to carry 12 rocket pods would make it absolutely fantastic for air defense against drones nowadays. With APKWS, it was basically everything a helicopter brings in drone defense, except better. APKWS has more than proven itself in downing drones, and an aircraft able to carry 228 APKWS rockets (12 pods and 19 shots each) for a range of 900 miles, and being able to fly as slow as 120 knots, it would have had no trouble loitering for an hour or two during a massed drone attack just picking off drones one at a time. Especially if the Prowler counts towards that too, you could have a 4-ship (2 intruders, 2 prowlers) that could almost single handedly repel the massed strikes we see Russia use on Ukraine, or the kind of attacks on US ships we saw by the Houthis.

[-]

MandolinMagi@reddit

An A-6 would be limited to, at most, 12 GBU-12s. Four TERs worth, with a drop tank centerline. Can't put PGMs on a MER, they're too long

And outside of Vietnam era meme loads, nobody actually loaded those things to max

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

While the Super Hornet and strike eagle could come in with a dozen 500 pound JDAMs, the A-6E could have rolled up with more than double that.

Except the Super Hornet and Strike Eagle have deployed and employed 10+ 1000 pound JDAMs because the Super Hornet and Strike Eagle were actually wired and configured to carry smart bombs

You do realize that the jets talk to and from the JDAM on the stations, right?

The A-6 carried its large raw # of bomb payloads using dumb multi-racks which are great for dumb bombs that don't need to talk back to the jet (there are no serial buses to those stores). Problem was, they were never designed to carry racks that could talk to 'smart weapons'

This was actually an issue with the F-15Es carrying smart bombs on some of its CFT stations, which the F-15EX resolved

So the A-6 could never have done that

[-]

Jimmy_the_Heater@reddit

The Super Tweet and the program surrounding it. No fighter pilots wanted to fly it, so they brought in cargo pilots, refuelers, anyone that could fly and set them loose in a swarm. Highest accuracy rating of any plane in Vietnam IIRC.

[-]

MandolinMagi@reddit

Useless if you plan to fight anyone who can shoot back.

[-]

Orruner@reddit

And it looks super cute to boot!

[-]

PugnansFidicen@reddit

Theyre doing something kinda similar again these days - there's a AF spec ops contract for what is essentially an up armored and heavily weaponized crop duster.

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

The skywarden is perfect for its role. Its the A-10 but slower, equally deadly and cheaper. South american air forces have already been using upgunned PC-9 advanced trainers and super tucanos for anti-cartel work.

[-]

Maro1947@reddit

Saw one at an airshow last year. Unbelievably loud!

[-]

MaxCorgiBus@reddit

We used to call the Tweet the Air Force’s most efficient system for turning fuel into noise (stop me if you’ve heard this one…).

[-]

doomiestdoomeddoomer@reddit

That thing looks mental. :D

[-]

flying-is-awesome@reddit

The F-14,and its planned lineage would be a top fighter still.

[-]

SoundOk4573@reddit

A10

[-]

AverageAircraftFan@reddit

The A-10 was outdated when it entered service, let alone today.

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

F-14 we failed you... you were so cool...

[-]

AprilDruid@reddit

F-14 needed hours of maintenance by the time it was retired. It was big, bulky and outdated

[-]

hardervalue@reddit

It was easy to maintain. You could maintain it on an Iranian airfield using 40 year old parts and it would still had enough gumption to clear a 100 foot obstacle on a 200 meters runaway and take out an SU-57.

[-]

AprilDruid@reddit

Iran is the perfect environment. It's a desert. They've kept those running mainly by cannibalizing the fleet.

Its role was fulfilled by the Hornet and Super Hornet without as big a headache. Also keep in mind, they retired the Phoenix missile, the missile platform developed for the F-14. And keep in mind that mechanics had to do a lot more work to keep one running, compared to the Hornet platform.

[-]

hardervalue@reddit

It’s not a desert. Maverick and Rooster had to traverse a wooded mountain to get to the F-14s hanger.

[-]

us1087@reddit

I thought it was the opposite. Politicians tried to kill it several times but the boots on the ground saved it. There was no better machine for close air support.

[-]

hardervalue@reddit

The criticism is that the vibration from that huge gun made it inaccurate enough that it was constantly risking fratricide in close air support missions.

[-]

CotswoldP@reddit

I disagree. For the first decade of service it probably would have done fine in it's designed role, ripping up the Fulda Gap. But as more all aspect MANPADS arrived, it lost it's ability to get in close to use the cannon in its design role. DESERT STORM should have been it's last outing.. From then on, guided weapons are king, and there are better platforms for that.

[-]

Adventurous_Yak_2742@reddit

I was wondering if I should just type BRRRRRRRRRRRRT

[-]

leviwhoelse69@reddit

The KC-10 😭

[-]

biggsteve81@reddit

Still in service with Omega Air Refueling.

[-]

CPDIVE@reddit

KC-10. But I may be more than a little biased.

[-]

biggsteve81@reddit

Omega Air Refueling still operates a couple of KC-10s, but they are currently grounded because of the UPS crash.

[-]

Acrobatic_Quote_1257@reddit

So much this…. It takes 2 KC-46’s or 3 KC-135’s to do the job of a single KC-10….

[-]

blorbschploble@reddit

As much as I love the F-14, the maintenance it required was absurd.

F/A-18Es with AIM-120Ds and escort cruisers can’t exactly replace it but I bet below deck the Hornet is much loved.

[-]

Robin061270@reddit

F-111,Loved it over UK skies from Upper Heyford with the E model,And Lakenheath with the F model,Sadly missed by uk aviation enthusiasts,Loved the SR-71 too,Saw it at Air Fete Mildenhall quite a few time,Major Brian Shull flew it for us one Saturday at the much missed Air Fete.

[-]

lord_flashheart2000@reddit

Concorde. There was literally nothing wrong with the airframes when they were taken out of service - they got so hot when flying at Mach 2 that there was no corrosion.

[-]

braxtonbarrett@reddit

The A-10 is on the chopping block… only if the military creates a fleet of paratrooping Thanos, would retirement be acceptable.

[-]

CMBLD_Iron@reddit

EF-111 ‘SparkVark’ - Realistically, the airframe was going to be retired regardless. It was old, complex, expensive, and reaching the natural maturity of its service life. That being said, I am utterly dismayed that the Air Force decided to give up the jamming/EW mission so easily to the Navy and the Prowlers then Growlers. I know that the AF works in conjunction with the Navy on this now, including having a rotation of pilots and EWOs flying with those squadrons, but I would love to see something like an EF-15Ex or something similar that would have taken over that mission set. That is one of many airframe changes o would vote to see

[-]

RO1984@reddit

Air Force does have it's own Growlers FWIW but the point definitely stands. EW has gotten more complicated like anything else

[-]

CMBLD_Iron@reddit

Never said they have their own Growlers, as I’m well aware of it. They do have pilots that fly in rotation with the VAQ squadrons to help with interoperability training. Just perplexes me that the branch that’s predominantly focused on aerial superiority neglects a key mission set by not having a platform in its own arsenal to combat in that space.

[-]

RO1984@reddit

I don't think it's being completely neglected so much as it's being integrated elsewhere. There's a new Compass Call coming online and some other capabilities out there with existing airframes. I think they're integrating it so there's ideally not a single point of failure in a very different EW environment than the Cold War era mentality

[-]

Mayr0_69@reddit

Well the A-10 is in the process of being retired. I think it still has value for air-to-ground support and wish it could remain in service for much longer

[-]

Longjumping_Rule_560@reddit

The Fokker F70, F100 and the stillborn F130.

I could see a market for the F50 and F60 as well, but Fokker’s jetline really stood head and shoulders above the competition. Had it still been around, with upgraded engines, it would still be a good program.

[-]

PurpD420@reddit

XB-70 my beloved

[-]

TX-Ancient-Guardian@reddit

No

[-]

satuuurn@reddit

You just had to put the F-14 Tomcat in the black livery up when you asked this question? She was sexy but a “hangar Queen” if I remember the lingo correctly. A lot of maintenance and impractical, they say, to maintain. Anyway, I pick her. Cheney might’ve put her out of service if the rumors are correct. RIP to all.

[-]

ScarlettPixl@reddit

Someone previously mentioned the D model and the supertomcat, which allegedly would've been considerably easier to maintain.

How easy could it have been to upgrade previous F-14 models to D or Super Tomcat specs? If at all

[-]

MikeyPlayz_YTXD@reddit

Pretty easy. The D and ST-21 are still Tomcat airframes, so it’s just a matter of replacing systems and putting them back in service.

[-]

satuuurn@reddit

If I’m not mistaken, they did upgrade a B to a D. Perhaps more than one.

[-]

MikeyPlayz_YTXD@reddit

25% of the Ds they made were retrofitted A’s. And they did that very quickly.

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

All black was perfect 👌 , best looking fighter of all-time

[-]

seanx40@reddit

Spitfires and Mustangs would like to speak with you

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

I’m still kicking myself for not taking the opportunity I had to fly a Mustang! Such a beautiful aircraft! And, the sound!

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

F-14 gets all the booty

The Spitfire and Mustang pilots could end up getting polio and die

[-]

ChillFratBro@reddit

The story I've always heard is that a major reason to retire the F-14 is because Iran had some and the US wanted to ensure no spares ever made it to Iran after the revolution.

[-]

Sad-Umpire6000@reddit

26 years after the Iranian revolution?

[-]

bmccooley@reddit

Yes, as we were at war with the "Axis of evil."

[-]

SingleSeatBigMeat@reddit

The story I've always heard is that a major reason to retire the F-14 is because Iran had some and the US wanted to ensure no spares ever made it to Iran after the revolution.

If the F-14 was such a world beater, why would we destroy them if Iran had them, and not use them against them?

No, we destroyed them AFTER we retired them (because they were old, antiquated, and expensive) to prevent them from getting spare parts.

[-]

Kardinal@reddit

That is not why she was retired.

She was retired because she was far too expensive.

Parts were destroyed because Iran.

[-]

Gwenbors@reddit

At the time I’d heard that slamming all that beef into carrier decks over and over again was causing fatigue cracks in the wing box, and it was basically impossible to reweld/replace the titanium.

Couldn’t keep them airworthy.

[-]

Kardinal@reddit

That was part of it. But cost of maintenance specifically her time in the hangar vs in the air was just crazy expensive.

And Phoenix was obsolete and it would have been a lot of money to upgrade her for AMRAAM.

[-]

cinemashow@reddit

30-60 man-hours of maintenance per flight hour. In no small part due to… the different screws/fastners used to remove access panels : hundreds of unique screw/fastener types (think AN, MS, NAS standards in various alloys, sizes, and heads). Making sure you replaced screws with proper replacement screw was a headache for maintenance. Ooops. Just cross threaded that one! Dohh!

[-]

Kardinal@reddit

I also remember that they had to drop the whole engine to replace a single part where the Hornet and Rhino had a much more modular engine design.

[-]

FluffusMaximus@reddit

Expensive and antiquated.

[-]

raidriar889@reddit

That’s why the destroyed all the airframes when they retired it but it’s not why they decided to retire it in the first place

[-]

TheOne_718@reddit

the concorde

[-]

SlowDuc@reddit

I could see an F-111 modernized to carry 40 AMRAAMs or an SR-72 as a hypersonic cruise missile carrier, to riff on the OPs pictures

[-]

Scared_Breadfruit_26@reddit

Definitely the FB111, low level JDAMS and such for sure. I think many retired aircraft could easily be remade using modern electronics and components, and be lighter and faster. Just like the B-52, open the plants back up and remake it as it clearly works.

[-]

namast_eh@reddit

Avro Arrow.

[-]

muck2@reddit

Not to be a stickler for detail, but your propositions aren't mutually exclusive. An aircraft may still have a role in today's world, but should be retired nonetheless (e.g. because of maintenance costs).

I think the only Western aircraft that could still fill a (second-line) military row and be operated at reasonable costs would be the F-4 Phantom II.

From what I can gather, the Royal Air Force has at times felt like they retired their Tornado GR.4's too early.

[-]

martinjh99@reddit

Take this with a pich of salt but I did read somewhere that it was fatigue that downed our Tornado's...

They were coming to the end of their useful life due to the usage in the Gulf Wars etc...

[-]

GhostRiders@reddit

No.

I had the pleasure of working where the Tornado GR4 were built and speaking with the pilots / co-pilots who flew them, those who built and designed them.

Nobody was of the opinion that they were no longer useful or coming to the end of their life, if anything there were projects in the works to give the G4's an extensive overhaul to extend their operation life.

The GR4 was killed off for one reason and one reason only.. money.

The British Government killed the GR4 to pay for the F-35 even thou they were told not only would it be several years at best before they would be in active service but they were not and would never be a direct replacement for the GR4.

The RAF always intended for both the F-35 and GR4 to work together as they complimented each other very well.

The decision to kill the GR4 was not supported by anybody outside of the Government.

[-]

martinjh99@reddit

Thanks for the reply... Sorta thought it might be money :)

Great looking plane gotta say...

Qould have loved to see the GR5....

[-]

muck2@reddit

Well, yes and no. The Tornado is a very sturdy plane. The Germans gave their aircraft a comprehensive overhaul, adding 2,000 hours of service life to the cell. It's just a matter of cost, of whether or not you want to foot that (considerable) bill. The Brits thought they didn't need the Tornado any more due to the entry into service of the F-35. However, delays of the programme and London being slow to order more planes created somewhat of a capacity gap (in quantity if not in quality).

[-]

seeasea@reddit

Nah. Military should go for swarms of low cost ones, like the Textron Scorpion.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

[Laughs in UAS]

[-]

Relayer2112@reddit

Welcome back Jeune École. But also, no.

[-]

muck2@reddit

Absolutely not.

[-]

ConsciousPatroller@reddit

The F-4 is still flown by the Hellenic Air Force afaik

[-]

muck2@reddit

Exactly. The Turks and Iranians also still use the aircraft; the Japanese and South Koreans retired theirs only recently. The F-4 proved to be a decent multi-role platform and was cheaper and easier to maintain than many other contemporary and later aircraft, securing a long service life.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

There's a reason Turks and Greeks still field F-4s in the same reason they still field M48 Patton tanks and why Cyprus will forevermore remain split.

[-]

martinjh99@reddit

Correct - Startup and Takeoff video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoDmgw_43oo

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

Variable sweep wing. It was a stopgap and is a nightmare to maintain.

The only reason the Tu-22M3, Tu-160, and B-1B haven't joined their smaller comrades is because there is no feasible alternative in replacing them today.

[-]

seanx40@reddit

Because they did. The Brits don't have a strike aircraft. The Eurofighter's payload is too small

[-]

NickJsy@reddit

Tornado. I know the Luftwaffe still fly them but they are an incredible aircraft.

[-]

BeamMeUppScottie@reddit

I think one SR should be kept alive and flying just to shit on the rest of the countries that don’t have their flag on the moon

[-]

kayl_breinhar@reddit

As much as I love the Tomcat, it was time. They were maintenance hogs, and there's just no room for warplanes that required 40-60 man hours of maintenance for every flight hour.

She got a second life as the Bombcat, but that was a lucky break.

[-]

UpsetStudent6062@reddit

TSR2

[-]

efxeditor@reddit

The XB-70 Valkrie.

[-]

Market_dumb21@reddit

A-10

[-]

MightNo4003@reddit

I think ef 111 used for jamming and decoy jammer drones would have been critical it’s just we didn’t understand the importance and relevance of Ukraine style frontline wars after Iraq was so quick conventionally and had insurgency as the primary issue. Another plane is the sr71 with stealth recon uav the D21. This would have been a potent force in a modern conflict as it can be used for live time intelligence for SAMs and ballistic missile hunting. After seeing how well Iran’s missile launchers were targeted I believe a doctrine could have been made to use these to hunt down SAMS/scuds.

[-]

Dbromo44@reddit

Bring back the Tomcat, just because.

[-]

MajiktheBus@reddit

The Sopwith Camel

[-]

Proud-Spite-5891@reddit

With Snoopy as the pilot! 😁

[-]

Caligulaonreddit@reddit

ME 109. Or the sapnish variante HA1112.

This thing might be still usefull in a lot of conflicts.

[-]

guidomescalito@reddit

Pig 4 eva

[-]

GhostRiders@reddit

For me the Tornado GR4.

I had the pleasure of working where the Tornado GR4 were built and speaking with the pilots / co-pilots who flew them, those who built and designed them.

Nobody was of the opinion that they were no longer useful or coming to the end of their life, if anything there were projects in the works to give the G4's an extensive overhaul to extend their operation life.

The GR4 was killed off for one reason and one reason only.. money.

The British Government killed the GR4 to pay for the F-35 even thou they were told not only would it be several years at best before they would be in active service but they were not and would never be a direct replacement for the GR4.

The RAF always intended for both the F-35 and GR4 to work together as they complimented each other very well.

The decision to kill the GR4 was not supported by anybody outside of the Government.

[-]

TheEventHorizon0727@reddit

Fokker D VII. Jets can't fly slowly enough to dogfight it, and its twin Spandaus would rain hell in a ground attack role.

[-]

p1dfw@reddit

Easy…A-10

[-]

anactualspacecadet@reddit

C-47

[-]

Mal-De-Terre@reddit

Especially with turboprops.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

BT-67 Basler my beloved. It's a sign that it's a perfect aircraft design.

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

I would love to see the 67 in military service but im trying to find a role that it could fill that a large helicopter couldnt fill… maybe for some smaller air forces that dont have the huge logistical capacity the US has could make use of it. The RCAF for example uses twin otters

[-]

Mal-De-Terre@reddit

How about mission endurance / range? I suppose there isn't much space between the bigger helos and a C-130, so I'll have to fall back on my favorite reason: just because it's awesome.

[-]

jking615@reddit

Test platform for system tuning. It's slow enough to simulate a drone, big enough to bring an entire team to tune systems in real time.

[-]

Jimmy_the_Heater@reddit

Absolute workhorse. Many DC-3's are still flying today.

[-]

RedHuey@reddit

I don’t know, modern missile and tracking systems have rendered pretty much every aircraft in history as vulnerable. Stealth is (I believe) merely a sort of stopgap competition. They up the radar, we up the stealth, so they up the radar again…etc. Eventually, that will likely top off as well and even stealth, as we know it today, won’t matter.

Soon the end, what’s gone is probably best gone.

[-]

zebra1923@reddit

British Harriers - clearly a role for Harriers as US Marines and Spanish navy still use them, 15 years after the British took them out of service.

[-]

WanderingAstronaunt@reddit

When I was in the Navy, we were flying a H60 training mission from one experimental base in Ridgecrest, CA to a certain Air Force Base south of that location. It was going to be an NVG trainer so we left Ridgecrest at dusk to the AF base in the desert. Got to hang out in the AF pilots rest building while we waited for the sun to go down and for refueling. As we were called back to the helo for launch, we readied up and started our taxi to take off. As we got above 200-300ft off the ground, I could've swore that I saw an SR-71 being pulled into a hangar. We did a small circle around the big, desert compass (for shuttle landings) and maybe my eyes were deceiving me, but I swore I saw a person walking away from the shadowy outline of a SR-71 with an oversized helmet. But like I said, NVGs can play a hell of an illusion on the brain and depth perception. Maybe it was just a F15?? Still convinced it wasn't.

[-]

NiftyMittens89@reddit

Canadian Aviation tragedy: the Avro Arrow never even got to have a role in its own time.

[-]

Dannyaviation11@reddit

Whatever if canceling Avro Arrow was a mistake or not (I believe it is). The real mistake was the government refused to support a transition for the facility that already spent millions on, and could of converted into like a civilian aircraft.

[-]

Immediate-Season4544@reddit

Yes they could have moved to civilian aviation like a c102 jetliner successor. Also if the interceptor role was obsolete as they said (the Arrow was replaced by the cf 101 voodoo, an interceptor) they could have modified the Arrow for multirole, they had plans. Plus the Arrow was capable of holding air to air and air to ground weapons.

[-]

insubordin8nchurlish@reddit

Daughter came home from university talking about the politics between Canada and the US and the Arrow's development. A very proud moment for me, it was.

[-]

MsGorteck@reddit

It is a Army plane, and NOT(!!!) cool or sexy, but what about the Mohawk? Anti drone and tactical recon.... Also do the Marines still use the Bronco?

[-]

Missouri_hiker@reddit

What’s the bottom one?

[-]

Shippers1995@reddit

Concorde for me, supersonic transatlantic travel would make life a lot easier

[-]

MJ1989C@reddit

The 757 with a neo variant

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

This is one of the few shouldnt have been retired arguments I’ll agree with. Boeing doesnt really have anything currently on the market to fill the void the 757 left behind. Sure the Max 10 exists but its not certified now and may not be ever.

[-]

ryosuccc@reddit

In my opinion? No… technology moves on and the world has to move with it. You cant just keep upgrading legacy aircraft and expect to keep up on the world stage, looking at you russia…

[-]

Gilmere@reddit

I have always thought the Lockheed S-3 Viking was prematurely sundowned. It had a lot of capability, was a versatile carrier based aircraft, and a proven ASW platform with advanced systems better than the others flying at that time. I knew I was right when I saw buddy tanking ops start kicking in and the revision of US carrier cycles just because the tanker situation was a mess. Even today its not fully rectified (IMHO). Add to that, the revision of the three zone defense of the US CVBG being modified with much less capable platforms / arrangements.

Yeah I think they could have flown ES-3A / S-3B's for a LONG time.

[-]

goldfingerforu@reddit

The Concorde, of course.

[-]

WhyDidIClickOnThat@reddit

SR-71. Do we need a ultra high maintenance supersonic spyplane? We do not. Should we have kept them flying just so I can see them perform at airshows? Absolutely.

[-]

OnlyEntrepreneur4760@reddit

B757

[-]

Doc_Hank@reddit

F4's forever!

[-]

Weekly_Injury_9211@reddit

Concorde

[-]

DryProgress4393@reddit

Concorde, it still feels like it should be flying.

[-]

InQuintsWeTrust@reddit

Concorde was a fool’s errand from the start. It was never going to be successful long term.

[-]

CotswoldP@reddit

To be fair, it was successful in a limited way. It was pretty profitable to fill a plane with First class passengers, far better than the cattle class scum.

[-]

Longjumping-Jello459@reddit

Hey I take offense to that as an economy class flyer, when I did fly.

[-]

BannedAgain-573@reddit

Sometimes proof of concept is enough.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

What we're typing on killed it. It's the TV killed the radio star as corporations saw it cheaper to hold teleconferences over in person meetups which killed a big part of the Concorde's bread and butter. Add that with fuel costs, noise complaints, and it being an exclusive wealthy person's jet.

That said, I do miss it because it was a brief respite from the banality that became air travel since 2001. But I doubt costs would make it feasible in comparison to the cookie cutter twin engine carrying 300+ passengers at Mach .Meh.

[-]

Blue_HyperGiant@reddit

Eh. The Concorde itself had issues.

But I do think there would be a use case since there are more routes across the Pacific.

[-]

DIY_at_the_Griffs@reddit

The issues were resolved. The last one to fly had all of the fuel tanks upgraded with Kevlar impact protection, upgraded tyres and was good to go.

The problem was that by the time concord returned to service after the accident, the world had changed. Many of Concord’s regular customers didn’t return after 9-11 due to being in the towers at the time, plus the new age of video conferencing making a day trip to NYC/LONDON less of a necessity.

I firmly believe that it should have been taken out of service due to the crazy environmental impacts, but also there should have been at least 1 kept as a flying exhibit for airshows etc.

[-]

SilentSpr@reddit

It didn't have the range for Pacific flights.

People don't realize that something introduced in the 1970s is made up of mostly 1960s tech, it's amazing that it lasted to 2003 as is.

[-]

Blue_HyperGiant@reddit

It didn't have the range for Pacific flights

Hence the issue 😄

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

Yessss! She deserved better

[-]

spudicous@reddit

Easily the S-3 Viking. Retired while not even being that old and without even the idea of a replacement for its role.

[-]

Spiritual_Trash_4948@reddit

These are a like the most ridiculously expensive planes to operate the us has ever had in inventory. And no, none of them really has a place in it anymore.

[-]

HotRecommendation283@reddit

RAH-66 Comanche, should have never been cancelled, and a sub-program that should have continued to live would be ATAS.

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

I'm surprised they didn't turn this into an unmanned program. It's the perfect setting for an armed scout helicopter.

[-]

ardicli2000@reddit

F117 F14 B52

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

If you want to piss off an aviation mechanic, tell them that we should keep variable swept wing aircraft flying! There's a reason many were happy turning aircraft carriers into Hornets nests, nations referring to MiG-21s over MiG-27s, and cults/superstitions created among the B-1B ground crews.

[-]

Original_Read_4426@reddit

The B-58

[-]

Nodsworthy@reddit

Concord. New engines and uprated control and avionics. Maybe use redundant camera systems rather than that expensive and heavy droop nose. Still the most beautiful aircraft I've seen in the metal.

[-]

pjakma@reddit

There was a Concord B development project. Larger wing, improved engines with no need for reheat. Longer range, quieter.

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

My father flew basically everything. Concorde was his favorite.

[-]

technark@reddit

YF-12A. Epic in its original form, defeated by the politics of the USAF hating that they hadn't thought of it themselves imu.

Imagine a modernised variant, updated engines, coatings, seals, materials and payload etc. With 80,000ft claimed/acknowledged service ceiling in the 1970's, think more like 90-100kft now at a sustained match 3.5+ that can sail above the service altitude / outside the energy envelope of almost all air defence interceptors and throw heavy long range missiles to knock down the A50 Mainstay and other C4I assets behind the line of contact, leaving the front line aircraft in the dark, uncoordinated and vulnerable.

With that kind of height and speed on a launch platform you could plausibly target things 250-350miles away (AIM-174B,meteor etc), so they quite possibly wouldn't even be likely to detect the launch aircraft and the ability to rapidly reposition / dash into threat range, launch and retreat would be an absolute nightmare to defend against.

[-]

NotCook59@reddit

Maybe not a role today, but what a beautiful aircraft!

[-]

Fuze_KapkanMain@reddit

Unified German MiG-29’s

[-]

YouCanShoveYourMagic@reddit

Concorde.

[-]

SkitariusOfMars@reddit

F-14 wasn’t replaced. Hypothetically, if a bunch of Backfires attacked modern carrier they’d probably sink it.

[-]

lesnortonsfarm@reddit

I also wonder the reason behind scrapping the blackbird over the u2. I mean the sr71 is far superior

[-]

John_the_Piper@reddit

Cost. U2 is low cost in comparison with the SR71. No special gas, no special tankers, etc

[-]

lesnortonsfarm@reddit

Yeah another redditor mentioned it’s around $2.5mil to just start the engines. I had no idea the cost for this plane.

[-]

nighthawke75@reddit

It costs the sunny side of 2.5 million for each engine to start. And 15 million to do a check ride.

Plus the fuel spillage.

[-]

lesnortonsfarm@reddit

Goddamn. That fuel spillage I knew about, but I did not know the other associated costs. Astronomical price. Thank you for schooling me up

[-]

Jackmino66@reddit

The Aardvark probably should’ve lasted longer, but none of those 3 aircraft are really capable today. The SR-71 being fast as fuck isn’t really helpful when it’s original job was being done by satellites immediately

[-]

Stardama69@reddit

The Rapier. Damn fine plane for its time, too bad it never flew

[-]

USNDD-966@reddit

The Skyraider would have been awesome in GWOT…

[-]

gramoun-kal@reddit

There was a long gap between when the last AV-8B Harrier was produced, and it's replacement, the F-35 B started rolling out of the factories.

In fact, the country that kinda invented STOVL, the UK, only got their first F-35 B in 2018.

Most of the aircraft carriers in the world aren't super-carriers with catapult. They're small runway boats that can field helos, the Harrier, or the F-35 B. They were limited to helos only for a long time.

In fact, it'd be kinda nice to have more than one plane to choose from. Most missions don't require stealth, sensor fusion, VR helmets and a NDA agreement so one-sided it kills lawyers. I think many navies would appreciate the availability of a low-cost, low-operation-cost jet for their short carriers.

But what do I know, I just have an armchair.

[-]

fatbunyip@reddit

The Avro Vulcan

[-]

ohhellperhaps@reddit

For me it's a concept rather than an aircraft. The numbers game. There are WW2 fighter aircraft with higher production numbers than the current US total amount of aircraft.

[-]

DeniedByPolicyZero@reddit

I think we peaked in the 1950's with the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, again not the actual aircraft (because the 104 had issues) but the fact it was designed that a single plant could pump out 20 a day, it was cheap, and it was fast!

[-]

FriendComplex8767@reddit

I cannot believe the Blackbird (and its D21 drone) were retired without a far more capable replacement.
I'd bet money their is a hanger with it's replacement sitting in it.

The F111 was getting old. I remember speaking to RAAF pilots and maintainers of it.

No experience with the F14, but the computers in it were crazy advanced for the day and quite sometime after. Sad a super tomcat never became a thing.

[-]

DeniedByPolicyZero@reddit

Satallite imaging became so good that the SR71 became surplus to requirements

[-]

FriendComplex8767@reddit

Yea I know the reasons. But when have the AF and CIA not wanted the ability to go higher and faster.

With today's electronics and material science it must really open up what skunkwords can do.

[-]

NinjafoxVCB@reddit

Id love to say the F14 but for that you'd need the supercat which wouldn't have been the same plane as the ones retired anyway.

For the UK, would say the harrier, that thing has really come into its own when it was retired because the MOD ran out of money and needed to cut costs.

[-]

DeniedByPolicyZero@reddit

Although, the RAF ultimately offered the harrier for retirement to save the tornado when UK gov was going to decom the latter, because as nice as the harrier was the tornado was more important as a true ground attack platform.

[-]

phill2010uk@reddit

Jaguar.

[-]

ReconArek@reddit

I still believe in the Me-262 superiority.

[-]

Hrevak@reddit

It's about economics. All of your examples became too expensive to upgrade and even maintain, so they were retired and replaced.

[-]

flanker_33@reddit

Mate, the SR-71 would be target practice for Foxhounds armed with R-37Ms today.

[-]

SanderDieman@reddit

A12 / SR71 / or coolest of all since weaponised: YF12

[-]

Nok1a_@reddit

I wish I had enough money to try to buy a tomcat and learn how to fly it, then I could die happy

[-]

InfernoOfTheLiving@reddit

Dassault Mirage III

oh wait, it’s not yet retired

[-]

B4rberblacksheep@reddit

Would be retired today but the Avro Arrow should never have been cancelled

[-]

StoneBailiff@reddit

Well the a-10 warthog is basically obsolete because it's slow and vulnerable to modern air defenses, but it is still in service mostly due to nostalgia and cool factor, it seems.

[-]

Nabanako111@reddit

OV-10 Bronco is just way too usefull to be retired

[-]

SnooHedgehogs4699@reddit

Yeah, pretty much the perfect COIN aircraft. Retired right about the time we needed a ton of them.

[-]

DarkwingDawg@reddit

F-14 had range and speed that the hornet couldn’t replace fully. It needed updates of course and maybe a new variant (like the super hornet) but it deserved more time in service.

[-]

Ok_Airline_9182@reddit

We were robbed of the Super Tomcat 21

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

Wait that was real...(goes to Google)

No no why God why !!! The US even thought it could have been a beast.. noooo why

[-]

ncc81701@reddit

Because :

1) it would have cost a lot of money just to extend the service life of F-14/ F-14 derivative for a decade. Maybe 1.5 decade. Money that was better spent at purchasing new F-18E/F

2) Its a whole another supply chain the Navy have to maintain and support, again doesn’t seem worth it for a type that might have 10-15 years left of service when F-18E/F is already going to be a thing. The F-8 also had a much better readiness rate of any F-14 and it wasn’t going to change that fact with the super tomcats

3) a lot of the super tomcat’s capabilities is duplicating what F-18E/Fs capabilities, you don’t need both.

There are a lot more important considerations going into to Fighter procurement than “it’s cool” or max performance or go home. As much as the laymen ignores them these “boring” attributes are hugely important to how you go about selecting what does and doesn’t get to take up space on a carrier.

[-]

MikeyPlayz_YTXD@reddit

The Superhornet was not going to be a thing if they got ST-21. And when the wars actually started and the F-14D and Superhornet actually had to face the wear and tear of war, the F-14s not only had less maintenance hours (35 vs 41 for the Super), but they were also consistently carrying the Hornets in CAS and FACA, guiding in their bombs for them with it’s superior TGP and systems.

Basically all of this is extreme hyperbole against the F-14.

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

Your not including the badass cool factor 😎. Which makes F-14 super BADASSS!!!!

[-]

Sleepyassjoe@reddit

A stealthy F111 with an electronic warfare variant that could also coordinate drones

[-]

Ok-Limit-9726@reddit

Unfortunately cost and roles stop’s indefinite flying….

SR-71 is my pick

[-]

MikeyPlayz_YTXD@reddit

F-14 obviously. The first 4th gen and the king of them. Could have easily taken the path the F-15 did and would be much more helpful for today’s Navy.

[-]

DTM2006@reddit

I've heard US had plans to retire the A-10s inn near future. But they could come in handy for drone hunting but still a short burst from that gun would cost more than the drone though!

[-]

AejiGamez@reddit

KC10>>>KC135

[-]

Throwaway3751029@reddit

If the Vark wasn't such a maintenance nightmare, maybe. But needs modernization to have a chance. But the F35 is probably better anyways and it has stealth capability

[-]

bmccooley@reddit

Probably?

[-]

Throwaway3751029@reddit

In a role as a standoff bomb/missile truck, which is about all a non stealth aircraft is good for against a peer or near-peer threat environment. Could also have some use if the Ravens are included too, as long as those got significant upgrades to the EW suite

[-]

Pavores@reddit

Yeah it might have some use as a stand off missile hauler

[-]

Throwaway3751029@reddit

Maybe, although underwing ordinance might be limited, and I doubt that bomb bay can fit SM-6

[-]

SupermouseDeadmouse@reddit

Given the current state of drone / unmanned warfare in Ukraine a squadron of modernized P-51s could be very effective. They could easily chase down the Shahed drones and cost a lot less to operate vs modern anti aircraft missiles.

[-]

myheromeganmullally@reddit

Brazil has been building the Super Turcano for awhile now. It’s a solid little fighting aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

[-]

Smoking0311@reddit

Someone above you just mentioned the Sandy / sky raider . What do you think ?

[-]

SupermouseDeadmouse@reddit

Yeah that would work well also I’m sure, although it’s much more of an air-to-ground platform.

[-]

WatercressNumerous51@reddit

Avionics software engineer here. Almost any US airframe since the 70s could be a fantastic new aircraft if you rip out the old Avionics and radar and replace with all new. Think A10 with F35 control panels, HMD, radar, EW, etc.

[-]

hardervalue@reddit

DC-8. First supersonic airliner.

[-]

JasonBourne1965@reddit

SR-71

[-]

FriendlyPyre@reddit

The MiG-27, it wasn't obsolete and the russian government was just doing massive cuts on everything at the time. They should have just tried to sell the existing airframes rather than just scrapping the lot.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with their decision to kill all single engined models.

[-]

chicano32@reddit

Mig 31 foxhound. Retired out on 2023 from being in service since the 80’s

[-]

Aggravating_Speed665@reddit

Dear Mr President/USAF/NASA

There are not enough spy planes nowadays.

Please bring back three of them.

I am not a crackpot.

[-]

tilo_om@reddit

Wait what ? Blackbird is retired ? 😱

[-]

GDow1981@reddit

Not one. I think wishful thinking is a dangerous thing. Ever try to drive and maintain an old car you loved? Eventually you need to bite the bullet and get a new one as despite how great the old one was in the past it’s not now.

[-]

DaimonHans@reddit

At least one has become a Decepticon.

[-]

The_Creonte@reddit

Shuttle, 71, Concorde…..just because

[-]

wezelboy@reddit

A-10 goes brrrt.

[-]

Adventurous_Tip8801@reddit

CH54A, CH-54B, and th CH53X

[-]

masteroffdesaster@reddit

the Tomcat could have been in service longer, if there were some measures taken. Grumman proposed various Super Tomcat upgrades, and while the government went with the Super Hornet, the F-14D had superior performance to the F/A-18E/F. an F-14E would have an even higher margin over that. it would also have gotten much more weapons integrated, making it more versatile

sure, maintenance would still be an issue, but the F-14E could be new built airframes, and I think its higher performance would offset the higher maintenance cost

[-]

NoDoze-@reddit

Is that the Playboy F14...?

[-]

8ringer@reddit

F-14 always and forever. They just look so freaking badass.

[-]

72corvids@reddit

I feel that the Warthog still has relevance. A permanent installation of LANTIRN/SNIPER and a brand new EW suite could go someway to increasing its value and usefulness. Also, it'd probably be effective against all of the various drones that have been in use over the past couple of years. Load it up with the new APKWS. Although, according to The War Zone, that's actually going to happen.

Another one that I sometimes think about is the Raven. Does the Air Force have its own squadron(?) level EW attack jet, like what the Growler does for the Navy? I can't remember if it does.

[-]

texas1982@reddit

Honestly, with the wars we ACTUALLY fight, an A10 with a steam guage 6-pack and a UHF radio is easily still relevant on the battlefield.

[-]

72corvids@reddit

😂 so true!

[-]

DarthNightsWatch@reddit

As great as these were, I can totally understand why they were retired. The F-14 for example, was apparently a nightmare for ground crews to maintain and was also crazy expensive to operate. Variable geometry-winged fighters in general just aren’t practical or efficient in this day in age.

However if I’m going just by the rule of cool factor, I’d lobby the U.S govt. myself to replace every fighter and spy plane we have with a Tomcat and SR-71 without question

[-]

Starchaser_WoF@reddit

Cessna O-2 Skymaster

They'd find something to do with it

[-]

rb109544@reddit

Sure SR-71 retired

[-]

1IsNeverEnough4Me@reddit

Are we using the A-10 warthog still or not? Either way, we should be. The flying gun.

[-]

mosesenjoyer@reddit

Meanwhile the navy still using the P3 Orion. The one I trained on was nearly triple my age (20ish)

[-]

Clown_Penis69@reddit

F-14, SR-71, and XB-70 all would have roles today.

But maintenance on all of them, and up time, would be prohibitively expensive, so I understand why they’re not around any longer.

F-111 can be replaced by bombers with standoff weapons or F-15E’s, but the others were unique and had capabilities that no longer exist.

[-]

Popsnapcrackle@reddit

The three you showed images of

[-]

Lokitusaborg@reddit

No; there are good reasons for the aircraft that have been retired to stay retired. Even the A-10. Those airframes are so beat up the cost to keep them airworthy is going to be astronomical

[-]

steve0suprem0@reddit

when i'm trying to impress a girl at a bar, i ask

what's your favorite strategic longrange bomber, and why is it the B1B Lancer?

if they don't immediately come back with variable wing geometry, i change the subject.

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

Success rate?

[-]

steve0suprem0@reddit

you'd be surprised. i certainly am.

my favorite time this worked, i got the reply, "wow steven, you really like airplanes." the reply "i really like airplanes and i really like you" worked out quite well and i gave her the variable wing geometry answer, so i'm not sure if that counts.

i've actually whispered sweet nothings about thrust vectoring or bernoulli's principle and other decidedly unsexy (to anyone but people like us) as aftercare and i really am amazed at how effectively it's put them to sleep. well maybe not.

i can't wait to see this on r/thathappened

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

Sweet nothing's ... 😂

Man, I'm definitely going to try that. Not. My wife of decades would probably laugh uncontrollably.

[-]

steve0suprem0@reddit

okay i have gotten that too. actually most times. but sexy time should be fun. and the one that found it so comfortingwas a special case where she was seeking respite from some pretty gnarly trauma that had recently happened.

but yeah, whipsering about how as a fluid increases speed it decreases pressure and trying to sound like barry white, the laughs are gonna be positive and get you a second date.

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

I believe you. Its actually pretty similar to how I snared my wife, way back when.

[-]

ChokesOnDuck@reddit

They should have made a delta wing F111 and conventional wing F14 upgrade variant.

[-]

Vinura@reddit

None of them.

All were retired because either the mission became obsolete, the aircraft became too expensive to operate due to maintenance or structural issues, or it was cheaper to build a new plane vs upgrading the existing platform.

[-]

Dramatic_Ad8473@reddit

The warthog. Can take a beating. Small Drone destroyer in a defensive capacity.

[-]

pythongee@reddit

It's still here.

[-]

Dramatic_Ad8473@reddit

No longer in production though, as far as I know.

[-]

pythongee@reddit

Lol..how many of our jets are still in production?

[-]

IAmQuixotic@reddit

For a few more months

[-]

pythongee@reddit

We'll see.

[-]

Correct_Cap_6087@reddit

It took much too much scrolling to find this answer!

[-]

CotswoldP@reddit

I disagree. Terrible drone destroyer. The GAU-8 is an absurd weapon to use - you're over friendly territory remember, and there are better platforms to hand APKWS pods off.

[-]

Dramatic_Ad8473@reddit

I guess I'm envisioning a drone swarm on a beachhead for instance. Think Taiwan for example.

[-]

Jimmy_the_Heater@reddit

Plane go BRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTT

[-]

Independent_Wrap_321@reddit

The song of my people

[-]

Captain_Slime@reddit

It's not cheap enough relative to other options to be a good drone destroyer. You can go with a lighter platform for that, such as the super tucano, and not lose much or any capabilities.

[-]

Reasonable_Youth4723@reddit

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!

[-]

G7VFY@reddit

English Electric Canberra and lightning, Vulcan Valiant, Buccaneer, Hawker Harrier and Hunter,

and anything with 30mm Aden Cannons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4xaSL-kRoM

[-]

LefsaMadMuppet@reddit

S-3 Viking. It had so much potential in other roles but was sidelined.

[-]

Middleage_dad@reddit

Just imagine if we kept updating the Wright Flyer. At this point it would be fully automatic.

[-]

TimJamesS@reddit

Vulcan

F14

F4

[-]

CounterSimple3771@reddit

Yes. These three.

[-]

lockerno177@reddit

Cessna T-37. Pakistan still flies it. Its a simple to maintain trainer aircraft that is very forgiving on new pilots and maintenance crew. A very nice transition from flying props to jets.

[-]

Ok_Programmer_4449@reddit

Of the three pictured, the F-111 is the only one that could legitimately be useful now, and it would only be useful after total air superiority had been achieved. The Blackbird's job is done from space. The F-14 could at most be used as a decoy to distract the enemy from stealthier aircraft.

[-]

MeiDay98@reddit

Not quite a retired plane, but I think the YF-23 should've been brought into service. Though, the F-22 is a perfectly understandable choice based on all publicly available data. (You really couldn't go wrong with either fighter tbh)

[-]

DataGOGO@reddit

The YF-23 was the better plane, they went with the F-22 because they felt “better” about Lockheed.

[-]

malongoria@reddit

Yeah Northrop's delays with the B-2 killed any chances for the F-23.

Ironically most of the delays were from Air Force brass wanting the Spirit to have a low level capability in case the stealth wasn't good enough. Hence the saw tooth trailing edge.

It was originally supposed to have a plan view like the B-21 has now.

[-]

CotswoldP@reddit

Wasn't that one of the reasons to prefer the YF-22? In case the Stealth wasn't enough or the damn Sovs found a way to neuter it, the YF-22 was still an all out dogfighter, like the F-15. YF-23 was a touch stealthier, but not as manoeuvrable.

[-]

malongoria@reddit

IIRC the YF-23 was almost as maneuverable, was faster in supercruise and flat out, had a longer range, along with being a fair bit stealthier.

Lockheed had a better reputation for developing aircraft.

[-]

CMDR_Imperator@reddit

Ahhh, the Black Widow II. One of my personal favorites. That aircraft was positively beautiful. I always liken it to a Lamborghini Countach - loud, wild, just a bit ridiculous, and styling that awakens a drooling 10 year old in every pilot and aviation enthusiast in the world. Yes, the F-22 has better agility, and better industrial/political backing....but my God, the YF-23 was just......fucking radical.

[-]

Youngstown_WuTang@reddit (OP)

The YF-23 looks way more sexier

[-]

iridium_carbide@reddit

Same tbh. Just love the black widow II cause it's a bit stealthier and just plain looks amazing, but both are good.

[-]

GothmogBalrog@reddit

The moment satellites start getting shot down, i wonder is we are going to wish we still has the capability to put up an SR-71

The things it has a satellite doesnt- unpredictability and no orbital debris

We can put one up and fly an unannounced mission in a way a satellite will never be. And it flies in a region where the risk to it is missiles specifically fired at it.

[-]

dukecityzombie@reddit

When I recently read about the possible need for a new long range interceptor I almost shit myself thinking about the F-14. But, the maintenance issues kept my thoughts grounded. My nostalgia overwhelms my ability to be rational. Damn I miss that aircraft.

[-]

Sprinkles_the_Mad@reddit

I don't want the Harrier to be retired because it's so cool ;-;

Would kill to see any attempt at modernization

UFO plane go brrr

[-]

Far_Dragonfruit_1829@reddit

See my profile for a pic of its prototype, the P.1127. Flown in 1960. Sixty-five fucking years ago.

[-]

bizzyunderscore@reddit

the real star in True Lies

[-]

MIRV888@reddit

Playboy F-14's have an important role to play in my life.

[-]

TigerUSA20@reddit

I thought that was Hugh Heffner’s private jet 🤣

[-]

DataGOGO@reddit

F-111 easily has the most relevant capabilities for the modern battlefield (like Ukraine).

That said, more so than the F-15E that replaced it? No.

They were all retired for a reason.

[-]

Historical-Force5377@reddit

Xb-70.

[-]

Texas_Kimchi@reddit

The F14 gets WAY too much love these days. Was a great plane when it first came out but was HIGHLY flawed. The F14 was retired exactly when it needed to be retired. At the time the F-14 was retired it was already well out of date due to its weapons systems and being just a fleet defense fighter. There was no role for it anymore with the F-15, F-16, and F-18's being introduced all whom did the job better.

As for planes being retired that shouldn't have? The A-10 being retired is the top of the list. The US is making a huge mistake in moving to the old idea of 1 jet for every job. The A-10 of course would need air superiority but thinking an F-35 is going to get down in the dirt is a waste of the platform. The A-10 would be great in a new role of doing drone missions due to its lower speed and weapon suite.

I think for the most part planes are being retired at the right time but the decisions to retire the BOne and A-10 are coming from flawed points of view and the war in Ukraine is showing that the battlefield is indeed changing, its just not changing the way the Pentagon bean counters think its changing.

[-]

Optimal-Cat-8117@reddit

Tomcat..

Just because people love Cats

[-]

FluffusMaximus@reddit

Neither of those three are survivable in the modern world.

[-]

Ok-Toe-5512@reddit

The sr71 would ifn it were weaponized. In fact, with modern tech upgrades, it'd be even stealthier, faster, and more than likely remain viable. That tech from way back when is what the hypervelocity stuff being procured today got it's beginnings. Still unmatched to date. Pictures not on film anymore. Real time. Utilize in non contested air space. ECM suites and data meshing with today's stuff . I seen you! BOOM from somewhere else.

[-]

jakep623@reddit

By the logic in these comments, every aircraft is useless and we should be exclusively using drones.

Real answer is there are many aircraft that could still be applicable, or, as applicable as other aircraft that are more modern.

E.g. SR-71, XB-70, F-111.

There are examples of airplanes that have made it through bureaucracy and still fly. U-2 is one that comes to mind.

[-]

sgonefan@reddit

I think the F15EX isn't a substitute for A10

[-]

ClifftonSmith@reddit

I honestly loved the KC-10. Very capable as a tanker and cargo hauler. Big Sexy was just that.

[-]

Gentlemanmax67@reddit

No. But for once, I’d like to see an F-14 Tomcat perform at an airshow.

[-]

2407s4life@reddit

All three of those aircraft were maintenance nightmares by all accounts. And while all three were good at their roles, they've either been superseded by newer platforms, have survivability issues in today's battlefields, or no longer fit into the force doctrinally.

The closest thing to an exception might be the F-14/AIM-54 combination. There has been a trend in Russia, China, and Europe lately of fielding very long range A/A missiles, which don't really have an equivalent in the US right now. I'm sure we'll see something come out to fill that gap in the next decade or so, though most NATO munitions are cross compatible so it's probably not a huge issue in the short term.

[-]

HouseReyne@reddit

A-10 brrrrrtttt

[-]

NukeRocketScientist@reddit

SR-71 and maybe, maybe the Vark are the only of these that would have any chance in these days. The SR-71 because it is a surveillance aircraft and could at least hold the same role as the U2 currently at a significantly steeper price. The Vark as a ground attack aircraft would still be perfectly capable of ground attack missions with air superiority as the A-10 is now, but it would need all the targeting bells and whistles that modern aircraft get for precision bombing. The F-14 while a beautiful aircraft would be toast by anything 4+ gen. Modern AIM-120s are on par for range with the AIM-54s and would get smoked by anything with an AESA radar. Modern F-16s with the "have glass" (or however it's spelled) treatment would absolutely smoke the F-14 in just about every encounter.

As for aircraft that could still contend in the Modern age with upgrades: I feel like there are a lot of WWII to Vietnam era aircraft with upgrades and the new guided 70 mm rockets that would make excellent anti-drone swarm aircraft. I feel like the Mosquito in a weird way being made from wood, would make an excellent anti-drone aircraft if you gave it turboprops, modern electronics, radar, guided rockets, maybe some stealth RAM over the metal components like engines and such. For some reason, I feel like the A-4 Skyhawk could take on the anti-drone role well with modernized everything and increased payload. It wouldn't have a chance against actual modern jets, but could be interesting with like an F-35 engine upgrade assuming it would fit (it wouldn't).

This is monumentally stupid, but I want to see a modernized B-17 with electronically controlled turrets be used against drone swarms. That'd be awesome! Or the B-29 with better turret control...

Realistically, most thing's Cold War on in the surveillance or ground attack role with air superiority, could probably still hang, its more so a question about whether it's cost effective, combat effective, or reasonable to do. I mean, the Ukrainians have WWII era aircraft flying to combat drones with a dude in the backseat with an AK. There are plenty of aircraft from even WWII that could still be better than that...

Now, for the somewhat more serious and even more chaotic. Retrofit F-104s with drone control amd AESA radars, send them in first wave at Mach fuck with the longest range missles they can carry. Hell, two AIM-174s could do the trick. Send them balls to the wall straight in and push the enemy onto their backfoot early and have F-35s designating targets right behind them with a swarm of MALDs and Growlers to make an EW black hole.

I feel like some of the early F-15s could certainly be upgraded to the F-15EX era of missle truck as long as the airframes are still worthy. As long as you gave them data link, they could lob so many missles or MALDs from the back line that they'd probably be fine. Even doing a full retrofit for tanker duty would work similar to how the F/A-18 holds tanker duty for the Navy.

I feel like the A-6 also never really reached it's heyday. Under air superiority, I don't really see why it couldn't still compete given a large enough payload amd precision guidance. There really isn't anything that I can think of that the F/A-18 that replaced it couldn't do except for maybe be cheaper in the ground attack role just for maybe a cheaper maintenance/fuel rate?

Idk, I might think of more later...

[-]

Dragonkingofthestars@reddit

PBY Catalina, it be terrible as a warplane but it probably be very good in a civilian search and rescue role

[-]

YugeFrigginGoy@reddit

Avro Arrow and I will die on that maple flavoured hill

[-]

The-Unknown_YT@reddit

I LOVE THE Lockheed-Martin SR-71 Blackbird

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

Just Lockheed, actually.

[-]

kakakatia@reddit

All the keyboard warriors who think they know forest firefighting in BC, Canada, still think the Mars Bombers should still be operating, lol

[-]

Drinkmykool_aid420@reddit

Add an A-10 warthog, a Lamborghini Countach and a poster of all the shark species and you have my childhood wall posters.

[-]

twarr1@reddit

The Tomcat has been obsolete for decades. The A-10 is still a relevant design. The biggest mistake the bureaucrats made was cutting the F-22 program short. The F-35 it’s a hacked-up jack of all trades, master of none. The planners expected to be F-16-like; cheap, and really good at multiple roles, but it falls comically short.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

The A-10 hasn't been relevant since 10 years before it entered service and it only continues to exist because it's a useful propaganda tool and because it's fine for COIN (a role where almost anything with a gun and a good stall speed is fine).

The F-35 is really good at what it does for a lot less than any alternative. It has its issues but even despite them it's hilariously good as a fighter and incredibly cheap for a 5th gen multirole.

[-]

twarr1@reddit

$2 Trillion boondoggle with poor availability and steadily decreasing mission profile.

Ok

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

$2 trillion dollars to build 1,700 airframes, equip, maintain, fuel, arm, train, upgrade and fly them for the next half a fucking century, with parts commonality and interoperability with a dozen allies, with an airframe that offers greater range, sensor capability, and payload than most of its competitors while also being stealthy and flying like an F-16? With more than a thousand airframes delivered and in service around the globe? Expanding the tactical and strategic capabilities of the nation? Giving LHDs and similar a 5th gen fighter with greater range and payload and weapons suite than they've ever had access to via Harriers and helos?

God, what a terrible waste of money.

[-]

OkLibrary4242@reddit

AF is still trying to kill the A-10 but the grunts in the ground love it.

[-]

Amishrocketscience@reddit

Maybe the sub hunting long range plane that was taken out of service recently

[-]

SturmGizmo@reddit

I'll die on this hill. The A-10. I know it's not fully retired yet but it's on its way to the boneyard. Most of the combat we've seen in the last 5 decades has been against either guerilla type forces with little to no manpads or conventional forces that have been work down to the point where the Warthog is able to operate in theater to support the ground forces. I realize that against a near-peer adversary it would not serve any purpose but that is historically not who we have been fighting. That and nobody knows what type of hybrid or narco war maybe in the future. People may counter by saying future drones would be particularly threatening to lower and slower flying aircraft. And that maybe true, but maybe there are countermeasures to that threat.

[-]

Sunsplitcloud@reddit

Today stealth matters most. And nothing with excellent stealth is better than F22 and B2 (and B21).

[-]

Snorkle25@reddit

Any mission where the overarching requirements haven't changed in any fundamental way. Case in point the B-52. Or the E-2/C-2. Or cargo planes and tankers. You could definitely modernize the aircraft (modern flight computers, digital displays, fly by wire, etc) but you don't need to change out the core airframe design because the fundamentals for the mission haven't changed either.

[-]

gerblnutz@reddit

Tomcat was retired because we sold them to Iran and we didn't want them to get replacement parts. Fantastic carrier air superiority and interceptor.

[-]

hellorhighwaterice@reddit

Hot take but the KC-10. It is hard to have too much airlift and tanker capacity as the USAF but somehow we retired them before some KC-135s. If someone here can explain why that decision was made that would be great.

[-]

International-Mix783@reddit

Supply chain was awful and they couldn’t hold nearly the cargo a 135 could because of the low deck. I think the planes hadn’t been modernized since the 80’s. They made the decision to let them go long ago

[-]

nkawtgpilot@reddit

Because there are too many KC-135s to replace easily, so it made more sense to retire the KC-10 because it didn’t hurt the capability as much

[-]

RupertTheReign@reddit

Avro Arrow

[-]

Worldly-Republic-247@reddit

A-10

[-]

NicHarvs@reddit

Most retired planes are retired because they become inefficient to run. The gear just becomes outdated, and issues that arise with them are remedied by their replacement. The replacements are just... better.

[-]

AtomGalaxy@reddit

The Dornier Do 31.We have the technology to make it work reliably now, and wouldn’t it be better and safer than the V-22 Osprey?

Also, how about the VentureStar? I’ll bet we could figure it out now, and it would be a good compliment to SpaceX Starship for getting crew back and forth once manufacturing in space becomes a thing.

[-]

McCheesing@reddit

Kc-10

[-]

jellobowlshifter@reddit

VIKING

[-]

fuzzimus@reddit

A-10 brrrrrrrrrt!

[-]

KickFacemouth@reddit

KC-10

[-]

No_Tailor_787@reddit

No. Older airframes become more difficult and expensive to maintain. At some point, they need to be done.

[-]

ripped_andsweet@reddit

the KC-10 for sure. the KC-46 isn’t entirely a bulletproof platform yet and at the same time the 135 is nearing 60 years old.

[-]

Ruby5000@reddit

I mean the A-10, cause it’s my favorite. But I understand if it’s deemed obsolete

[-]

Lopsided-Customer546@reddit

A10 drones

[-]

nighthawke75@reddit

Before everyone hits their collective nostrils bent, I'll do some explaining.

Money, airframes, and changing threat environments.

Honestly the USAF didn't want the Blackbird. It's COSTLY just to power it up to do checks.

The Vark was at the end of its airframe life. It's primary mission as a SAC bomber was ending with the rollout of the B1B and Stealth.

Tomcat was plucking at other people's straws, trying to find other missions it was not built for towards the end. It's airframe was rolling up 6 hours maintenance for 1 hour flying time, not economical. The threat environment was changing with faster missiles and bombers being phased out.

Wear and tear folks. It costs money to keep them aloft. Especially when the parent company is either bought out or folds.

[-]

mangeface@reddit

Maybe something like the E-8 JSTARS. I’m not sure how well the E-11 replaces it but I’m not upper echelon military command that would know that information. I think the OV-10 could’ve been upgraded and kept in service in the Marine Corps. But for the most part everything that’s been retired has been replaced by a superior aircraft.

[-]

Gwenbors@reddit

Does the YF-23 count?

[-]

battlephrog1@reddit

God’s Chariot the Ch-46 SeaKnight!

[-]

seanx40@reddit

None of those are remotely useful today. All incredibly expensive to operate. All limited with cheaper alternatives

[-]

Bceverly@reddit

I miss my Phantoms

[-]

CaptainA1917@reddit

Certainly none of those three. Nor every fudd‘s favorite, the A-10, which should’ve been retired 20 years ago.

The F-5 family should’ve been built in larger numbers and served in the USAF, and replaced a bunch of outdated and ineffective century series fighters.

And one that probably should’ve been built, the F-20.

[-]

easyadventurer@reddit

F14 would be incredible for morale!

I also saw a documentary where it outfoxes SU57s, which could be handy

[-]

MaleficentCoconut594@reddit

In my heart of hearts I truly believe the only reason the SR-71 was retired was because we have a top secret successor actively flying. And before anyone says “satellites took over” there’s a reason the U-2 still flies as well as recon drones. There is still a need for ground intelligence photography within the atmosphere

The navy still misses the f-14. Yes it was becoming too expensive to operate, but an upgraded version (the -D) would’ve been just fine. Not everything needs to be a 500 million dollar stealthy flying super computer, even though they have their place too

[-]