US Army fixed wing aviation

[jcf]

Thanks.   And I've looked at the Musem of Flight's YF-5A with only a glance how many times? 


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.
 

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

 

[elmayerle]

N-156D/N-285B looks real nice.  I had a chance to read, but not copy, a brochure for it while at Northrop.

[M.A.D]

Here's one I did a while back.

I love this profile!
Excellent work my friend!!

Any chance of one with ordnance??

M.A.D

[Daryl J.]

Were there rapidly deployable landing arrestors?   

How about near-ZELL systems?   

[Jeffry Fontaine]

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

globalsecurity.org - Short Airfield for Tactical Support (pdf file format extraxt from a field manual))

SATS-EAF Association (satseaf.com)

Google results for "Short Airfield for Tactical Support"

[GTX_Admin]

An interesting read

[Old Wombat]

Very! Thanks for that!

:)

Guy

[Daryl J.]

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.

[Volkodav]

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.

[Daryl J.]

The up and coming Super Tucano kit.  That's an Army machine for the Americans.

[elmayerle]

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.

[Daryl J.]

AV-1...this is.....? 

[Old Wombat]

An whiffy attack version of the 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

[elmayerle]

An whiffy attack version of the 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!

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.

[Old Wombat]

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

[Daryl J.]

Gripen.

[Volkodav]

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 ) 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.

 

[elmayerle]

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.

[Volkodav]

Interesting, didn't kwon that, thanks.

What did you think of the Apache though 

[elmayerle]

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.

[jcf]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

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.

[Volkodav]

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.

[Daryl J.]

Kitty Hawk's new Twogar as a Fast FAC

[GTX_Admin]

Kitty Hawk's new Twogar as a Fast FAC

I like.