Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Geoff on July 23, 2012, 06:53:50 PM
-
If this has already been done I appologise.
I have always thought the USAr should have kept it's fixed wing units for the CAS role. I understand (I think) the politics that caused the change. But what if?
Early jets tested were the Fiat G-91 and F-5A.
I assumed the Shoski Tiger F-5C would be the main a/c used with the small number of Fiats sent to ArNG units in Alaska.
The A-4C was also modified for the army and test flown. I could see units in Vietnam use standard A-4's the same as the USN/MC. Not sure about an army version though. But an A-4E with Jaguar u/c would be an easy model conversion.
I like the idea of F-4's probably "D"s in army service, and taking part in the air defence role of the CONUS as well??
The A-7 and A-10 are obvious replacements. But what about the Jaguar, or even the Tornado GR series which the USAF/E were considering at one point for commonality with the European air forces?
Anyway any opinions please?
-
Geoff, for my mind CAS type platforms seem a logical choice, but I think the use of the F-4 or Tornado is a bit of a stretch. I'd think sticking with shorter ranged stuff to get down into the weeds would be the better options.
Regards,
John
-
If this has already been done I appologise.
I have always thought the USAr should have kept it's fixed wing units for the CAS role. I understand (I think) the politics that caused the change. But what if?
Early jets tested were the Fiat G-91 and F-5A.
I assumed the Shoski Tiger F-5C would be the main a/c used with the small number of Fiats sent to ArNG units in Alaska.
The A-4C was also modified for the army and test flown. I could see units in Vietnam use standard A-4's the same as the USN/MC. Not sure about an army version though. But an A-4E with Jaguar u/c would be an easy model conversion.
I like the idea of F-4's probably "D"s in army service, and taking part in the air defence role of the CONUS as well??
The A-7 and A-10 are obvious replacements. But what about the Jaguar, or even the Tornado GR series which the USAF/E were considering at one point for commonality with the European air forces?
Anyway any opinions please?
An interesting question. Also along with CAS aircraft would be the US Army’s fixed wing transport aircraft they were force to hand over to USAF. The Caribou and its replacements would remain US Army aircraft. Be very cool to see Air Cavalry Regiments flying fixed wing attack aircraft.
I doubt the US Army would get in the business of interdiction aircraft like the A-7, Jaguar and Tornado. These airplanes have advanced navigation systems and attack radars to find enemy targets deep inside their territory. But the A-4 and evolved Army versions is a very likely CAS aircraft.
The A/X (aka A-10) would be an Army program. They would probably stay with the initial specification (6,000 lbs ordnance) and Northrop had a really nice looking pusher prop with the Avenger gun. Attack helicopters would still go ahead for transport helo escort and to fire the TOW missile and the Cheyenne would probably get production funding without USAF opposition.
In the late 70s, early 80s it all about killing tanks with Tank Breaker and Assault Breaker programs. The A-4 replacement would probably be customised to deliver anti-tank missiles with the nature of the missile being key. Survivability concerns about the Northrop turboprop against guided missiles would probably require something fast and ultra-manoeuvrable down low. Hellfire would require two seats for the gunner. Maybe an attack version of the F-20? Or maybe something VTOL?
-
a really neat idea for a build theme methinks, John Lacey 'maverick' created a couple of really plausible 'nam' period artworks which certainly look plausible and would certainly cause some double takes on a model table, i recall his Skyraider, A.4 Skyhawk and AV.8A Harrier. (go on John post some back up on here)
Just musing, circa 1970's there were a few of the Army's helicopters painted in MERDC. scheme, definately would look different on the Bronco, Harrier or A.10, especially in one of the more unusual theatre variants, eg. winter 8)
my own thinking would be the Corsair and Tornado might be a bit toestepping with the USAF. altho i could envisage the CAS. role being Army tasked >:D
a brill idea, cheers, Joe
-
Various US Army fixed-wing assets as requested:
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/HarrierGR_104.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/OV-101.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/A-102.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/A-402.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/A-432.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/A-434.jpg)
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/F-507.jpg)
And for giggles:
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s101/Maverick65au/Post%20War%20Other%20US/Ju-8703.jpg)
Regards.
John
-
very cool, should provide for some modelling inspiration methinks, i hadnt sen the MERDC camou Skyhawk artworks before, very cool, especially the winter example 8)
many thanks for sharing John, cheers, Joe
-
Thanks for the artwork John. I had forgotten the MERDC versions and I do like the winter one :-*. I have an A-10 waiting to go on the blocks.
I think you are right about the Tornado, but I could see the Army using a version of the Corsair.
My idea of the Phantom was ...well the USN and USAF use it, and so do the Marines. So I was thinking Vietnam era, with a bit of "mission creep" and the USMC using the Toom for CAS. Throw in a soupson of interservice rivalry and ego and = .... Well why not have a mach 2 bomber for CAS with the army? lol :icon_ninja:
-
sweet, i only just noticed the canopy on the Stuka, sorry Condor 8)
-
I was always partial to the Olive Drab over Grey scheme myself.
-
I was always partial to the Olive Drab over Grey scheme myself.
I liked the gloss overall green myself. Would not work on a Hog though except as a commemorative scheme.
-
The Harrier would be highly likely, given the RW US Army interest in it and it's ability to operate "in the field" somewhat like a helicopter. A dedicated Army version might have a bigger, thicker wing, roughly equivalent to an earlier, all-metal AV-8B wing. It would be slower, but the wing would contain the fuel that normally resides in the "welded on" drop tanks you always see on Harriers, thus freeing up more pylonage for bombs and rockets.
A big, fat wing (A7?) might also make a suitable mod for the Jaguar, for similar reasons. The Jag doesn't have to have the RAF's trick nav/attack system: the French ones had much simpler avionics. I wouldn't discount all the avionics though: LRMTS is highly relevent to the CAS mission, enabling the aircraft to work closely with a laser-equipped FAC on the ground.
-
G.91:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/00xxUSARMY.jpg)(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/0065G-91R3.jpg)
A-4 (note different landing gear):
(http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.org/files/images/imagecache/gallery-display/148483.jpg)
F-5:
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c272/switchblade111/Miscellaneous/n156f.jpg)
-
Here's one I did a while back.
(http://www.doomisland2.com/images/profiles/us_army_fiat_g-91.jpg)
-
Build that G91 and watch JMNs start whining about it being not real... :D
-
Original 'Topping' display model of a US. Army Grumman A.6 Intruder ...
-
in Brooklands Museum store theres an original display model of a HS. Kestrel again in overall olive with US. Army titling, i should have some snaps of it in the folders
i came across this one id saved previously, an artwork by 'bagera' and Joe Rella inspired by Johns profile posted above ...
-
something different, a captured Yak 18 in US. Army markings ...
-
Thanks for the pics.
Was the A-6 a proposal or pure Wif?
-
a genuine proposal, it came about at the time when the Army were relinquishing their fixed wing assets tho unfortunately
re CAS. Phantom, just so happens iv come across such a thing in my files ...
cheers, Joe
-
Ahh virtually an "E" externally then. Hmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
G.91:
A-4 (note different landing gear):
([url]http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.org/files/images/imagecache/gallery-display/148483.jpg[/url])
I like the dual main wheels. Just need to figure our how to construct a larger housing for them.
-
A-4 (note different landing gear):
([url]http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.org/files/images/imagecache/gallery-display/148483.jpg[/url])
I like the dual main wheels. Just need to figure our how to construct a larger housing for them.
You could try for something like that used on the Skyraider with a larger single wheel that rotated to fold flat inside the wing. This arrangement would give you the additional benefit of more space next to the inboard wing pylon so you can hang a larger fuel tank or an MER/MBR without conflict.
-
You could try for something like that used on the Skyraider with a larger single wheel that rotated to fold flat inside the wing. This arrangement would give you the additional benefit of more space next to the inboard wing pylon so you can hang a larger fuel tank or an MER/MBR without conflict.
That's how the original Skyhawk main wheel worked. This twin wheel arrangement is to decrease the ground pressure so you can fly from rough fields and drag be dammed.
-
Hmmm...I wonder how a SNCASE S.E.5000 Baroudeur would look in this scheme/role?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/S.E.5000_Baroudeur_in_flight_c1955.jpg)
-
I've always thought that if the US Army did keep fixed wing CAS a/c, the PA-48 Enforcer and the Rutan Ares would look good in Army colors.
Ed
-
I've always thought that if the US Army did keep fixed wing CAS a/c, the PA-48 Enforcer and the Rutan Ares would look good in Army colors.
And the A-1 Skyraider and A-37 would be used by the US Army not USAF as they were CAS gap fillers. Though if the US Army had new build Skyhawks coming of the production line they may not need these aircraft. USAF may acquire the Skyraider as a dedicated C-SAR escort and replace it with new build PA-48 Enforcers since the A-10 would be an Army aircraft. Another CAS option could be the OV-10 Bronco for the US Army.
The next question is if the US Army has the CAS role will they also take on the FAC role? In which case the O-1 (L-19) Bird Dog would remain in the Army and be replaced by O-2s. Army might also buy the O-2TT tandem cockipt, twin turbine, side gun version as a dedicated FAC aircraft wtih the Bronco being mixed FAC and CAS.
I like the idea of the Ares in US Army service. Maybe armed with the LOSAT missile and auto tracker target designator.
-
Some more A-4 photos:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/A4D-2Nb.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/A4D-2N.jpg)
-
Some more A-4 photos:
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/A4D-2Nb.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/A4D-2N.jpg[/url])
Yup. I have to build this. Thanks for the confirmation that the wheels rotated 90 degrees into crude/simple fairings. For the US Army requirement for a fast CAS, the three hard points with TERs and MERs should be fine.
Greg: You need to build one too albeit in 1/48. (http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thread/1243162187/1243553287/What+to+do+with+a+TSR.2-) You need to scroll down a bit to see what I am referring to.
Has anyone bought/reviewed the new mold Airfix 1/72 A-4B yet?
Carl
-
Yes I have one of the Airfix kits. It looks good, but I have not started building it yet. Freightdog are doing an A-4C nose if you do a real world prototype model. But I suspect mine will be based on a "B" which were rebuilt to "E" and "F" spec.
I hadn't thought of the FAC and Fast FAC roles. They might use TA-4F's for that role?
-
TA-4Fs are a natural choice for the fast-FAC role, after all, the Corps used them in such a role (after TF-9Js and prior to OA-4Ms). You could even extrapolate later A-4M/OA-4Ms in service with the Army, or alternatively add A-7Ks to the A-7Ds for a fast FAC component.
For a FAC, I'd stick with something with a prop to be slow enough.
Regards,
John
-
TA-4Fs are a natural choice for the fast-FAC role, after all, the Corps used them in such a role (after TF-9Js and prior to OA-4Ms). You could even extrapolate later A-4M/OA-4Ms in service with the Army, or alternatively add A-7Ks to the A-7Ds for a fast FAC component.
For a FAC, I'd stick with something with a prop to be slow enough.
Regards,
John
I have an extra ARII 0-2A which I am sure will look very nice in overall Olive Drab as an Army owned FAC bird.
-
TA-4Fs are a natural choice for the fast-FAC role, after all, the Corps used them in such a role (after TF-9Js and prior to OA-4Ms). You could even extrapolate later A-4M/OA-4Ms in service with the Army, or alternatively add A-7Ks to the A-7Ds for a fast FAC component.
For a FAC, I'd stick with something with a prop to be slow enough.
Regards,
John
OA-2, Skyraider and Bronco. But replaced with??
(I am still assuming the helicopter gunship still gets developed but possibly later with the Chyanne in the anti-tank role. But the rotary wing units still get develpoed for the "vertical envelopment" following the Frence use in Algeria.)
-
TA-4Fs are a natural choice for the fast-FAC role, after all, the Corps used them in such a role (after TF-9Js and prior to OA-4Ms). You could even extrapolate later A-4M/OA-4Ms in service with the Army, or alternatively add A-7Ks to the A-7Ds for a fast FAC component.
Fast FAC isn’t a close air support mission. It’s for battlefield air interdiction (BAI) and would remain a USAF capability.
-
OA-2, Skyraider and Bronco. But replaced with??
O-2 was replaced with the OV-10 Bronco but the FAC community wanted the new tandem seat, side gun, push-pull turboprop O-2TT. Especially for CAS FAC with the OV-10 for BAI FAC. So maybe the US Army would never buy into the OV-10 for FAC and instead buy the O-2TT with USAF FAC units converting to OV-10. OV-10s were replaced with OA-37s and OA-10s.
USAF A-1 Skyraiders were replaced by the A-7. But by that time had been supplanted by A-37s and F-5s for CAS but the A-1 remained strong in the VNAF. If the US Army had A-4s for CAS they wouldn’t need the A-1 but USAF might want some for the C-SAR escort “Sandy” mission.
-
Fast FAC isn’t a close air support mission. It’s for battlefield air interdiction (BAI) and would remain a USAF capability.
I suspect that depends on the service who's definition you use. Whilst the USAF fast FAC was a much more involved role, that of the USMC was a traditional FAC albeit in a higher performance aircraft.
Regards,
John
-
Greg: You need to build one too albeit in 1/48. ([url]http://www.network54.com/Forum/219149/thread/1243162187/1243553287/What+to+do+with+a+TSR.2-[/url])
Nah...mind you I am thinking my 1/48 SNCASE S.E.5000 Baroudeur might make a US Army appearance...just to be different. ;)
-
I suspect that depends on the service who's definition you use. Whilst the USAF fast FAC was a much more involved role, that of the USMC was a traditional FAC albeit in a higher performance aircraft.
Essentially Fast FAC is ‘traditional’ FAC in a high threat area. Traditional FAC isn’t just close air support where the FAC is in communication with troops on the ground but also part of battlefield air interdiction where the FAC has no friendlies on the ground but finds targets behind enemy lines and vectors strike aircraft in on them. In VietNam where Fast FAC began it was strictly a BAI role against the North’s lines of communications in the north and Ho Chi Minh trail. The USMC started flying Fast FAC with TA-4s (call sign Play Boy) for exactly the same taskings: BAI over north VietNam and the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos. There was essentially no difference between USMC and USAF type Fast FAC operations except the type of aircraft.
-
That pretty much goes against most I've read regarding the USMC's doctrines on airpower. Marine airpower is usually considered a component of the air-land battle in support of Marines on the ground. (I'm sure Ben might know a little more regarding this.) To suggest that the TAs weren't in support of ground Marines (as either the Ho Chi Minh trail or North Vietnam would preclude ground forces) is quite an unusual statement.
Regards,
John
-
That pretty much goes against most I've read regarding the USMC's doctrines on airpower. Marine airpower is usually considered a component of the air-land battle in support of Marines on the ground. (I'm sure Ben might know a little more regarding this.) To suggest that the TAs weren't in support of ground Marines (as either the Ho Chi Minh trail or North Vietnam would preclude ground forces) is quite an unusual statement.
BAI is part of the air land battle. Just that there are no friendly ground forces present because by its very nature it is behind enemy lines. In fact the whole “air-land battle” doctrine as developed by the US forces in the 80s was built around BAI or engaging the Soviet second echelon. The Marines have always been involved in BAI. They even brought Mitchell bombers in WWII to interdict Japanese seaborne logistics. Their VMFA(AW) squadrons with F/A-18D Night Attacks are the contemporary Marine BAI capability.
As to the role of the USMC Tango (Cougar) and Playboy (Skyhawk) Fast FAC being BAI outside of South VietNam this is well established historical fact.
I am Col Robert G. Clapp, USMC(ret). During most of 1969 I flew with the
Playboy FACs as a TACA (tactical air coordinator airborne). We flew the
TA4-F. Call sign: "Playboy". I was Playboy 77. The birds belonged to
H&MS-11, a squadron of MAG-11, based at DaNang. We did fly some missions
"in-country", but most of our operations were in Laos along the Ho Chi Minh
Trail. We ran the roads looking for anything which might prove interesting
as a possible target for strike aircraft. We also, at times, were given a
specific place to check out closely, and if deemed appropriate we would call
7th AF ( which had overall control) for a strike. We then controlled the
strike a/c, which might be AF, Navy, or Marine.
Though we generally moved along at about 400 kts roughly 3-500 ft above
ground, and constantly changing heading and altitude, we rarely got shot at
from anywhere in our forward quadrant. Usually enemy fire came from
behind, and only a short burst, making it hard to judge just where it had
come from. It was usually 50 cal or 23mm.
We got so familiar with the trails system that we almost could tell if a
bush had moved from the day before.
We would go out on a double mission each time. Run the roads, come back
near the border, tank with a Marine C-130, and go back for another go at it,
then bingoing back to DaNang, home base weather permitting.
Hope this has been of some help.
Sincerely, Bob Clapp, or "Shadow" as my Personal call sign was.
http://www.chancefac.net/Fast%20Facs/Comments/Playboy.htm (http://www.chancefac.net/Fast%20Facs/Comments/Playboy.htm)
As the good Colonel says, "Hope this has been of some help." Cheers.
-
Thanks for the info. Whilst I'd read about Mistys and Ravens & their missions outside of SVN, I certainly wasn't aware of the Corps going beyond the border as it were in their FAC mission. Perhaps the material I'd read was slanted towards the PR aspect of the Marines looking after their own.
Regards,
John
-
Going off at a slight tangent there was also the B-26K in Vietnam.
-
G.91:
A-4 (note different landing gear):
([url]http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.org/files/images/imagecache/gallery-display/148483.jpg[/url])
I like the dual main wheels. Just need to figure our how to construct a larger housing for them.
As far as I can tell, the wheels rotate around the leg as normal and, instead of a door over the single wheel, you've got a streamlined fairing in front of both. A very simple and straight-forward solution.
-
I have seen a pic of the Army A-4 in flight and IIRC you could see the wheel hubs - so I think you are right.
-
I have seen a pic of the Army A-4 in flight and IIRC you could see the wheel hubs - so I think you are right.
Not the photo on the previous page?
-
Nope -
-
Errr...that is the image on the previous page...
-
Ah sorry thats a small red "X" on mine, Doh!
-
The one at Reply#25? That's odd.
-
#26
-
Perhaps an Northrop AVZ-12 (P.1127/Kesterl/Harrier) in Army markings (Northrop acquired the original US P.1127 and derivatives license after seeing and appreciating the P.1127 entry in the CAS competition - they were prevailed upon to transfer it to St. Louis as part of the politics surrounding the USMC's initial Harrier purchase). The US Army was definitely interested, that's why they had pilots in the Tri-Partite Evaluation squadron of Kestrels.
On a somewhat related note, after program cancellation, what if the Cheyenne's remaining and the Mustang chase planes had been transferred to NASA? They'd look good in NASA markings.
-
NASA markings would look good. It could be plausible too.
-
Putting an AV-8A in USAr service in 'Nam has been on the bucket list for a while.
An acquaintance of mine flew Mohawks over there and was pretty clear the opposition knew serious retribution was going to soon arrive if a Mohawk flew over, not from the Mowhawk but from other airborne sources such as the B-52. Dan loved that aircraft. He also does not like the Roden kit btw.
-
. He also does not like the Roden kit btw.
Why?
-
NASA markings would look good. It could be plausible too.
There's a 1/72 decal set out there for a NASA Cobra, two of those would likely give you enough material to do a NASA Cheyenne. The chase planes could make for a cool scheme, too; an updated version of the schemes NACA flew P-51's in.
-
Unfortunately for me there is no Cheyenne kit in 1/48...
-
Grumman studied a tandem-seat more purposeful attack version of the Mohawk. That could gbe interesting to do using the cockpit section of an IAe-58 Pucara and placing in US Army markings.
Another thought, a V-22 in markigns similar to those used by the Chinook.
-
Hmmm...Chinook with V-22 wings/engines added.
-
Some of these designs might interest you guys. They're smaller, prop powered designs for the competition that led to the A-10. Think US Pucaras 8)
Concept Art:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2615.msg152792.html#msg152792 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2615.msg152792.html#msg152792)
3 Views:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2615.135.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2615.135.html)
Personal fav is the Grumman design 8)
-
Unfortunately for me there is no Cheyenne kit in 1/48...
But there is a classic 1/72 one available:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AURORA-LOCKHEED-AH-56A-CHEYENNE-HELICOPTER-502-100-/330893381451?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item4d0ac84f4b (http://www.ebay.com/itm/AURORA-LOCKHEED-AH-56A-CHEYENNE-HELICOPTER-502-100-/330893381451?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item4d0ac84f4b)
Or if you're looking for something more challenging:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOCKHEED-AH-56-CHEYENNE-HELICOPTER-DESK-MODEL-FUSELAGE-/271174986142?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f2349e99e (http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOCKHEED-AH-56-CHEYENNE-HELICOPTER-DESK-MODEL-FUSELAGE-/271174986142?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f2349e99e)
-
Hmmm...Chinook with V-22 wings/engines added.
Chinook fuselage with pylons removed and V-22 wings, engines, and tail. You might need some tweaking for clearance purposes.
-
Why? Shape and detail areas.
But the F-15 guys I know don't like any Eagle kit for the same reasons, same with the Tomcat back seater regarding his former mount. I think, and it's just my opinion, that once past a certain point of familiarity with a type, what are minor errors and omissions to even a skilled/experienced modeller become major errors to those very familiar with a type.
-
I'd say the T-28 Trojan would be a shoe-in for Army fixed wing service.
It was used extensively by the French in Algeria, albeit in the Fennec variant, and the VNAF during the Vietnam conflict.
A T-34C based variant would be a logical turbo-prop follow on.
For something a bit more exotic, the Lockheed-Aermacchi MB-339 T-Bird II might have looked good in Army colours had it won the JPATS competition.
Mind you, the T-6 Texan II that did win the JPATS wouldn't look bad in Army colours either.
-
For something a bit more exotic, the Lockheed-Aermacchi MB-339 T-Bird II might have looked good in Army colours had it won the JPATS competition.
MB-339K, but use guns & ammo common to other Army platforms. A developed version might have a turbofan engine instead of the turbojet.
-
Why? Shape and detail areas.
But the F-15 guys I know don't like any Eagle kit for the same reasons, same with the Tomcat back seater regarding his former mount. I think, and it's just my opinion, that once past a certain point of familiarity with a type, what are minor errors and omissions to even a skilled/experienced modeller become major errors to those very familiar with a type.
Think you're right there: when I built a motorbike kit for a freind, every tiny 1mm detail that was wrong or just ill-defined lept out at me as if it was square wheels or something.
-
Here's one I did a while back.
([url]http://www.doomisland2.com/images/profiles/us_army_fiat_g-91.jpg[/url])
Now how cool is this!!!!!
M.A.D
-
Could someone point me in the directions of the CAS arguments of the 1960's please?
-
Could someone point me in the directions of the CAS arguments of the 1960's please?
If memory serves me correctly, try googling "Key West Agreement". That's where it was all hashed out.
-
Fast FAC. Would an aircraft such as the F-5E, mentioned in another thread by Elmayerle, retained some air to air and/or air to ground capability? Time frame: 1967-1999ish.
TIA
-
As I described it, it would still retain one gun and full stores capability, just not the gun aiming radar. It should still be fully capable of using its hardpoints to carry anything a regular F-5E could carry; same criteria would apply to a Fast-FAC version of the F-5F.
-
I was wondering about having a simple ranging radar with the laser scabbed on underneath. It would give it a clear weather air -to-air role. OK I looked at a Mirage F-1A and thought it looked good. :-*
-
Given the current Sandbox Deployment Events, the Hawker P.1216 could serve similar to the F/A-18 role but with a faster turn around time.
-
Question: Whatz first kitbash idea you think of when "US Army fixed wing aviation" is mentioned ?
Answer: T56 powered OV-1 Mohawk.
-
Getting back to the Northrop F-5 series, I've been unable to google out information on the US Army interest in the type. So....F-5A or F-5E? Soft field requirements? Cockpit armor?
Current paint scheme of interest: OD semi gloss with white wings and under surfaces.
-
Technically neither. ;D
The aircraft tested was the N-156F #1 prototype:
(http://aviationweek.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/12/n156f.jpg)
-
Thanks. And I've looked at the Musem of Flight's YF-5A with only a glance how many times? :icon_nif:
So, in theory, if making an Army fast FAC out of the F-20, it could be designated a dash 156G with the requisite prefix? Or 156M if one wishes to go out seven letters after 156F....
-
Thanks. And I've looked at the Musem of Flight's YF-5A with only a glance how many times? :icon_nif:
So, in theory, if making an Army fast FAC out of the F-20, it could be designated a dash 156G with the requisite prefix? Or 156M if one wishes to go out seven letters after 156F....
Probably not as according to a former Northrop worker over on Secret Projects the two-seat F-5G/F-20
study of 1982 was designated N-354.
;D
N-156 designations:
N-156T from design PD-2879D; became USAF T-38 TALON advanced trainer
N-156F FREEDOM FIGHTER company demonstrators
N-156F USAF YF-5A FREEDOM FIGHTER lightweight fighter [SS-420A]
N-156A USAF F-5A FREEDOM FIGHTER
N-156B USAF F-5B FREEDOM FIGHTER
N-156C USAF RF-5A FREEDOM FIGHTER
N-156NN T-tail Naval version; from design PD-2706
N-156D carrier-borne fighter developed from N-156NN. Later became N-285B
N-156E lightweight jet fighter using CF-700 engines
N-156TX project "TALLY-HO", no details
;D
-
N-156D/N-285B looks real nice. I had a chance to read, but not copy, a brochure for it while at Northrop.
-
Here's one I did a while back.
([url]http://www.doomisland2.com/images/profiles/us_army_fiat_g-91.jpg[/url])
I love this profile!
Excellent work my friend!!
Any chance of one with ordnance??
M.A.D
-
Were there rapidly deployable landing arrestors?
How about near-ZELL systems?
-
Were there rapidly deployable landing arrestors?
How about near-ZELL systems?
The United States Marine Corps developed an expeditionary airfield system called SATS (Short Airfield for Tactical Support) that included a catapult and arresting gear.
Links:
US Navy Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) - SATS: Marine Corps Expeditionary Airfields (http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.blog_post_detail&blog_post_id=83)
globalsecurity.org - Short Airfield for Tactical Support (pdf file format extraxt from a field manual)) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/nrtc/14251_ch11.pdf)
SATS-EAF Association (satseaf.com) (http://sats-eaf.com/)
Google results for "Short Airfield for Tactical Support" (https://www.google.com/search?q=Short+Airfield+for+Tactical+Support&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs)
-
An interesting read (http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://sobchak.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/i-jet-dellu-s-army-1956-1961-e-la-battaglia-army-usaf-sul-close-air-support/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://sobchak.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/i-jet-dellu-s-army-1956-1961-e-la-battaglia-army-usaf-sul-close-air-support/%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26hl%3Den-gb)
-
Very! Thanks for that!
:)
Guy
-
Skipping entrenched and historical doctrines, could there be value in a recce arm for the US Army in Korea and Vietnam..?. say with the F9F-5P for instance.
-
Skipping entrenched and historical doctrines, could there be value in a recce arm for the US Army in Korea and Vietnam..?. say with the F9F-5P for instance.
Interesting, Armoured Cavalry Regiments are a Corps or even theatre level capability, how about a fixed wing tactical rec element in each ACR?
I had an idea of a tactical fighter group some time ago consisting of to squadrons of fighters, two of attack aircraft and one of tactical recon and SEAD aircraft that was automatically deployed to any theatre with divisional+ ground force deployment. Admittedly this was for a completely fanciful ADF but probably could be afforded and supported by the US army as a Cavalry type Squadron forming part of a very different Air Cavalry up until the formation of a separate Army Aviation Branch in 1983.
-
The up and coming Super Tucano kit. That's an Army machine for the Americans.
-
The up and coming Super Tucano kit. That's an Army machine for the Americans.
More than you know, the Super Tucano originated from the Northrop/Embraer entry in the JPATS competition.
Personally, I like the idea of the US Army operating AV-1 armed Mohawks (possibly with tandem seating instead of side-by-side) and AV-6B Harriers (first generation) in Southeast Asia.
-
AV-1...this is.....? :-[
-
An whiffy attack version of the OV-1 Mohawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_OV-1_Mohawk) but, given the description, with a tandem (fore-aft) arranged cockpit.
Could be done in Whif World by slotting an AH-1 cockpit into an OV-1! ;)
:)
Guy
-
An whiffy attack version of the OV-1 Mohawk ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_OV-1_Mohawk[/url]) but, given the description, with a tandem (fore-aft) arranged cockpit.
Could be done in Whif World by slotting an AH-1 cockpit into an OV-1! ;)
Actually, from the Grumman drawings, using an IA-58 cockpit would be closer to what was envisioned, but your way would lead to potentially greater commonality and I'm sure Bell wouldn't mind supplying cockpit sections at a very nominal fee above their costs.
-
I didn't know that Grumman had even looked at doing a tandem seat arrangement, so I was going off my minds' eye.
At least the pilots would be familiar with the general layout of the cockpit - they'd just have to remember that the AV-1 isn't supposed to descend vertically! ;)
:)
Guy
-
Gripen.
-
How about this for a bit of a whiff, when the USAF is formed the US army loses all fixed wing combat aircraft with the exception of dive bombers which are classed as a replacement for heavy artillery (which to be honest they were)?
Basically (this is the whiff bit) NA continued developing the A-36 Apache during WWII and the USAAF continued using it. The big changes in the improved B variant was the use of the RR Merlin engine, changes to the cooling system to make it more durable in the event of damage from ground fire and a change in armament to 4 20mm cannon as well as an increase in bomb load and provision for rockets. This increased the types survivability in the Mediterranean as well as the improved altitude performance making it far more useful in Burma. The types increase performance and retention of dive brakes made it a superb CAS platform replacing many P-40s in Europe, the Far East and the Pacific as it retained the ability to take out point targets through dive bombing but were also well and truly able to defend themselves from enemy fighters. As well as USAAF service it was also used extensively by the RAF and RAAF.
Buy the end of WWII the Apache was the main light attack platform in the US inventory and with the creation of the USAF there was some confusion of what to do with them. Twin engined attack planes were reclassified as Bomber (B) and single engined types as Fighter (F), the Apache however didn't really fit as a bomber or an attack aircraft. The USAF was inclined to retire the type and hand the mission over to the F-51 Mustang however the Apache was clearly the superior CAS platform, thus it was decided (much to the USAFs chagrin) that the Apache would remain the A-36 and if they didn't want it then it would be operated by the Army instead. this is how the US Army got to keep the CAS role with a secondary (sneakily never mentioned in the presence of USAF officers) battlefield air defence role protecting US ground forces from enemy surveillance and CAS.
It was the A-36G (griffon powered ;D) of Korean War fame that became the lynch pin of US Army fixed wing combat aviation, leading to the A-36R (RR Dart). The turboprop attacker served so well in the early years of Vietnam that it in turn paved the way to the A-## (fill the blank with your favourite / preferred 50s-60s attack jet) and eventual shared AV-8A buy and AV-8B development with the USMC.
8)
-
Actually, it was a US Army buy of the AV-6B that led into the AV-8A, which the USMC later bought into and then both of them going on to the AV-8B and derivatives while upgrading the AV-8A's to AV-8C's. The AV-6B's were the FRG's Kestrel FGA.1's bought by the US Army, put into camouflage, and run for operational evaluation in field maneuvers including trials with existing rocket pods under the wings. Maintenance and upgrades were supplied by Northrop Aircraft and data was fed back to Hawker Siddeley, for use in Harrier development, through the US license for the P.1127 and derivatives held by Northrop. Politics surrounding the USMC's acquisition of the Harrier resulted in this license being shared with McDonnell and joint US production by Northrop and McDonnell, later McDonnell-Douglas; which led to much smoother collaboration of the F/A-17 and -18 for both.
-
Interesting, didn't kwon that, thanks.
What did you think of the Apache though :-[
-
Interesting, didn't kwon that, thanks.
What did you think of the Apache though :-[
I think the Apache is an excellent starting place for a family of attack aircraft developing along the lines of their fighter siblings but with differences (retaining the 4x 20mm wing armament of the Mustang I, and XP-78, for one thing) as well as, at least experimentally, a streamlined fit of a suitable radial engine to reduce vulnerability. Final versions could well be equivalent to Turbo-Mustang III's or Piper Enforcers.
With the AV-6B, et al., I tried to see what the US Army could do absent restrictions on their use of fixed-wing CAS. I could also see some AV-1 armed Mohawks showing up, too, for action in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.
-
One minor note, the only people who regularly called any P-51 or related aircraft the 'Apache' were
the North American Marketing folks. From available info the A-36 operators called it 'A-36', 'Mustang'
or in the case of an Italy based unit, 'Invader', before the latter name became better known for the
A-26 series.
Using the Apache moniker for the A-36 was popularized post-war by popular writers.
BTW using any 'new' R-R engine post-war is going to require new agreements and direct
payments rather than the license fees arrangement used during the war for the Packard
Merlins. This is the main reason for the switch to Allisons on the F-82 series. The US
balked at the prices the UK government were asking, they were especially galled by
what they saw as an overly steep price while the UK government was giving turbo-jets
to the Soviets. So they gave a two-finger salute and walked away. Can't say as I blame'em.
-
BTW using any 'new' R-R engine post-war is going to require new agreements and direct
payments rather than the license fees arrangement used during the war for the Packard
Merlins. This is the main reason for the switch to Allisons on the F-82 series. The US
balked at the prices the UK government were asking, they were especially galled by
what they saw as an overly steep price while the UK government was giving turbo-jets
to the Soviets. So they gave a two-finger salute and walked away. Can't say as I blame'em.
Indeed.
-
One minor note, the only people who regularly called any P-51 or related aircraft the 'Apache' were
the North American Marketing folks. From available info the A-36 operators called it 'A-36', 'Mustang'
or in the case of an Italy based unit, 'Invader', before the latter name became better known for the
A-26 series.
Using the Apache moniker for the A-36 was popularized post-war by popular writers.
BTW using any 'new' R-R engine post-war is going to require new agreements and direct
payments rather than the license fees arrangement used during the war for the Packard
Merlins. This is the main reason for the switch to Allisons on the F-82 series. The US
balked at the prices the UK government were asking, they were especially galled by
what they saw as an overly steep price while the UK government was giving turbo-jets
to the Soviets. So they gave a two-finger salute and walked away. Can't say as I blame'em.
Strange times, I read that even Stalin couldn't believe the British were just giving them the engines and the damage done to UK industry by alternately giving away leads to competitors and then over charging friends and real customers forcing them to find other options was just stupid. The thing that really surprised me on some reading I have done is the amount of political interference forcing UK companies to cancel competitive products and then plow money into uncompetitive ones before pulling the rug out from under them when they delivered on spec. Just crazy.
Ok I will stick to A-36A now.
I do like the idea of a low drag radial fit though, that would be very interesting.
-
Kitty Hawk's new Twogar as a Fast FAC
-
Kitty Hawk's new Twogar as a Fast FAC
I like.
-
Kitty Hawk's new Twogar as a Fast FAC
OF-9?
-
Kitty Hawk's new Twogar as a Fast FAC
I like.
That appears to be one of the options for the TF-9/F9FT out of the box. (http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/kh/kit_kh_80129.shtml) Markings are provided for a USMC TF-9J (BuNo 147384) of Headquarters and Maintenance Squadron THIRTEEN (H&MS-13) Tail code YU/2 that flew FAC missions in Vietnam.
-
So much for an original idea.... :-\
And you can tell I've not been on that website for the past couple months.
;D ;D ;D
What I had in mind, however, was overall Bell Helicopter Olive Drab with some red on various flying surface tips with a big, black TEST on the airframe somewhere.
-
So much for an original idea.... :-\
And you can tell I've not been on that website for the past couple months.
;D ;D ;D
What I had in mind, however, was overall Bell Helicopter Olive Drab with some red on various flying surface tips with a big, black TEST on the airframe somewhere.
Something along the lines of the Fiat G.91 or Northrop N-156F the US Army tested in 1961?
-
Yep.
-
It's a bit achronic, but I could see a Hawker Kestrel in similar markings as a (pre-consolidation) VZ-12A, and (post-consolidation) as a XAV-6A "Kestrel" and followed by an AV-6B "Harrier".