US Army fixed wing aviation

[AGRA]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

Some more A-4 photos:

[The Big Gimper]

Some more A-4 photos:

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. 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

[Geoff]

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?

[Maverick]

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

[The Big Gimper]

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.

[Geoff]

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.)

[AGRA]

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.

[AGRA]

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.

[Maverick]

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

[GTX_Admin]

Greg: You need to build one too albeit in 1/48.

Nah...mind you I am thinking my 1/48 SNCASE S.E.5000 Baroudeur might make a US Army appearance...just to be different.

[AGRA]

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.

[Maverick]

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

[AGRA]

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

As the good Colonel says, "Hope this has been of some help." Cheers.

[Maverick]

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

[Geoff]

Going off at a slight tangent there was also the B-26K in Vietnam.

[elmayerle]

G.91:

A-4 (note different landing gear):

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.

[Geoff]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

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?

[Geoff]

Nope  -

[GTX_Admin]

Errr...that is the image on the previous page...

[Geoff]

Ah sorry thats a small red "X" on mine, Doh!

[GTX_Admin]

The one at Reply#25?  That's odd.

[Geoff]

#26

[elmayerle]

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.