An idea has just popped in my head... whatif US Army had"won" the fixed-wing CAS aircraft battle the service fought against USAF in the late 60's ?
I mean, what if the two services had found an agreement on CAS aircrafts?
Here's my own idea...
USAF / Army 1970 deal.
USAF kept tactical transports, gunships and jets (A-37, A-7, A-X)
Army is allowed to have
- turboprop COIN (Cavalier, Broncos...)
- old piston-engined machines
- compound machines (such as Cheyenne)
- helicopters (transport, gunships, attack, its up to them!)
So the Army take over a vast fleet of O-1, O-2, OV-10, Skyraider, B-26, Cavaliers, L-19, Bearcat and started operations on the Ho-chi-minh trail.
After the end of the Vietnam war, this fleet needed to be refined. Piston-engined machines were withdrawn, and replaced by more Broncos, completed by new-build, T-56 powered Skyraiders.
Us Army SuperSpads are tasked with some important missions
- AH-56 escorts
- local air defense (mainly against helicopters, but A-1T are so powerfull and agile that this mission extend to turboprop and slow-jets COIN/ CAS aircrafts, up to MiG-17 performances). This concept is rather similar to the british SABA of 1986 ;)
- first wave of attack, before Cheyennes and Cobra end the job.
There are some other possibilities, like AT-28Fs (twin T76-powred T-28 derivatives with a solid gun nose) or the straight AT-28E with a single turboprop in the nose (T53, I believe - same as Piper Enforcer).
Prop-driven, armed trainers (such as AT-28 or the more recent ALX) would be interesting, too.
Maybe AT-28s for some years, then an "ALX-isation" (single seat, etc.) of the Raytheon T-6A Texan II (already suggested recently)
I recognize my ignorance about organisation of US Army attack choppers squadrons (battalions ?).
Can someone help ? Maybe we can convert some Apache units into fixed-wing squadrons ?
Hmmm If I build this turboprop Skyraider I'll paint it in a sheme similar to an Apache...
So we actually have a strong US Army "aviation", with SuperSpad, armed-trainers, Bronco and Cheyenne (plus of course a bunch of choppers such as OH-6s and Cobras ).
Problem with the TurboSkyraider is the production line of the Spad close in 1957. Maybe France could have bought brand-new Skyraider for the Algerian conflict (instead of armed T-6s) so the production line stayed opened until Vietnam war break out... then, everything is possible!
Take a Comanche and an A-10. Mate Comanche fuselage and A-10 planes, wings and engines. Canted fins.
Et voila: a stealth tank killer.
:wub: :wub:
US army needs U-2s to cover the battlefield ;)
I think the US Army will want some jet CAS types & they'll have some prescendent for having them. They were already looking at the A-4 & G.91. So I think they might get jets for the CAS/BAI mission. In the 60's & 70's they'd have, A-4 Skyhawks (possibly customized for the US Army), A-37's & US manufactured G.91's. In the 80's they'd add A-10's.
Of course, the best Whatif would be if the USAF remained under the control of the US Army; no USAF 'independence' in 1947.
:cheers: Bryan
They also trialed the F-5 as well.
Would they have got the F-4D as a heavy CAS aircraft in the 70's? :wub:
I've tried to find a compromise which would not put USAF in anger ;)
I supposed USAF scorned prop-driven aircrafts, only living for jets. That's why they let "slow" aircrafts (and chopper derivatives) to the Army.
USN already rivaled USAF for fast jets, I don't think the service would have accepted that Army had jets, too. IHMO.
I supposed that gunships would still be property of USAF simply because they are derivatives of... USAF cargoes.
To stay brief, US Army has a strong experiences of turbins and propellers (thanks to the choppers) but less experience in pure jets and cargos...
QuoteI've tried to find a compromise which would not put USAF in anger ;)
I supposed USAF scorned prop-driven aircrafts, only living for jets.
I've always thought they scorned anything that's not an air-to-air fighter or strategic bomber! ;)
If the Army had it's way, they'd have the 'close air support' & gunship missions (and anything else that's in direct support of the grunt on the ground) regardless of the aircraft type. My grandfather always thought the regular Army soldier got a raw deal when the Air Force was made an independent service. More than once he envied the Marines for having their own organic air arm.
:cheers: Bryan
QuoteI think the US Army will want some jet CAS types & they'll have some prescendent for having them. They were already looking at the A-4 & G.91. So I think they might get jets for the CAS/BAI mission. In the 60's & 70's they'd have, A-4 Skyhawks (possibly customized for the US Army), A-37's & US manufactured G.91's. In the 80's they'd add A-10's.
They also trialed the F-100 and F-5. A version of the P1127 (immediately pre-Kestrel version) was submitted and there was interest enough to fund two aircraft (VZ-12, I think). It would be interesting to finish a Kestrel in markings similar to the other aircraft evaluated.
I would tend to avoid the T-28 derivatives, simply by virtue of their limited survivability, but A-1s are a distinct possibility.
- A-37s - a very strong possibility, capable of carrying enough to be very useful
- OV-10 - Broncos would be ideal
- OV-1 Mohawks - ideal for surveillance, but armed with rockets and guns
- A-4 Skyhawks - ideal for heavier support
- A-10s - bought in the '70s, but in much larger numbers
Perhaps the Army could push for its own small tanker force, either KC-130s or even KC-135s to support these types! :P
I doubt the USAF would be happy to see F-5s or F-100s in Army service, too much like fighters, at least the A-4s are strike types, so less conflict.
Gunships would be a strong possibility, probably based on a massive new force of DHC-5 transports, armed with 20mm cannon and miniguns. The USAF could buy AC-130s, but the Army would operate the smaller gunships in much larger numbers, supporting regular forces, not just spec ops types...
QuoteQuoteI've tried to find a compromise which would not put USAF in anger ;)
I supposed USAF scorned prop-driven aircrafts, only living for jets.
I've always thought they scorned anything that's not an air-to-air fighter or strategic bomber! ;)
If the Army had it's way, they'd have the 'close air support' & gunship missions (and anything else that's in direct support of the grunt on the ground) regardless of the aircraft type. My grandfather always thought the regular Army soldier got a raw deal when the Air Force was made an independent service. More than once he envied the Marines for having their own organic air arm.
:cheers: Bryan
aaargh, seems I went on a wrong idea... prop/ jet distinction is not enough, maybe ground pounders/ fighters is better...
Ok, lets go for US Army A-37 , and A-10. Question is, a choice must be made between AV-8A, A-4 and A-7...
I like the idea of a tanker force, maybe KC-130 would be sufficient ;)
QuoteI doubt the USAF would be happy to see F-5s or F-100s in Army service, too much like fighters, at least the A-4s are strike types, so less conflict.
IIRC the "Hun" flew the majority of the CAS missions south of the DMZ so I could see it being operated by the USAr.
Quote
IIRC the "Hun" flew the majority of the CAS missions south of the DMZ so I could see it being operated by the USAr.
The problem is that the F-100 was still a 'fighter', albeit one performing the strike mission, whereas traditional groundpounders like the A-4 would avoid that problem. Also, the Army might be more tempted by larger numbers of cheaper types - rather than transonic types.
QuoteI've tried to find a compromise which would not put USAF in anger ;)
I supposed USAF scorned prop-driven aircrafts, only living for jets. That's why they let "slow" aircrafts (and chopper derivatives) to the Army.
USN already rivaled USAF for fast jets, I don't think the service would have accepted that Army had jets, too. IHMO.
I supposed that gunships would still be property of USAF simply because they are derivatives of... USAF cargoes.
To stay brief, US Army has a strong experiences of turbins and propellers (thanks to the choppers) but less experience in pure jets and cargos...
The U.S. Army had plenty of experience with cargo aricraft. The C-7 Caribou was acquired in quantity by the Army and used quite successfully until the Key West Accords when these aircraft were all transferred to the U.S. Air Force.
One of the primary things to keep in mind with any Army combat aircraft or support aircraft is the requirement to operate from forward bases that would consist of packed earth and very primitive conditions. These same conditions would not allow most USAF aircraft to operate from anything other than a hard surface runway with major factilities.
If the Army was to have an aviation element with fixed wings that would support combat operations it would have been something much more robust in design and construction. Not unlike the OV-1 Mohawk which was capable of limited use from airfields that would be conisidered primitive or austere by USAF standards.
The main thing to keep in mind with any combat support aircraft would be to keep it easy to maintain and have the ability to stay in the field with the troops where it was needed. The USAF was never organized to provide this kind of support to the Army and that is one of the reasons why there was a need for an organic combat support aircraft in Army markings and under Army control.
The jet aircraft of the day required a very large support organization or infrastructure to keep them flying. Most of the USAF combat aircraft had a primary mission of nuclear weapons delivery and a secondary mission of providing limited air support with conventional weapons. Combat aircraft that demonstrated good close air support qualitities were not the same qualities that the USAF wanted for an aircraft that was to attack targets with nuclear weapons which is why you had very fast fighter aircraft that needed a slow moving and in most cases a propeller driven aircraft to seek out and find the targets and then dirct the "fast movers" to attack.
Most of the aircraft tested by the Army for the close air support mission were actually not suitable for use in the field where they would have succumbed to the environment and primitive conditions. Cheap, easy to maintain, and user friendly would be the guidelines to abide by with the creation of your "army cooperation aircraft." When the A-4 was evaluated by the Army it was modified to allow it to operate from primitive airfields by using dual wheels on the main landing gear. The A-4 might have been close to what was needed but keep in mind it was originally designed to carry one nuclear weapon and two fuel tanks and conventional ordnance was something that was designed in later when it was discovered that the next war was not going to be fought with atomic bombs and the Marines needed something that could drop conventional weapons.
AV=8A's then?
The US Army/USAF battle goes on still today - this time involving UAVs. See below:
"...while the US Air Force is disputing the army's right to move forward on ER/MP as it claims domain over all medium-altitude and above ISR assets."
From the last section of this (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/05/08/213745/us-army-to-restage-sensor-payload-contest.html) article.
BTW, the ER/MP is the General Atomics Warrior extended-range/multipurpose (ER/MP) UAV.
Regards,
Greg
QuoteWhen the A-4 was evaluated by the Army it was modified to allow it to operate from primitive airfields by using dual wheels on the main landing gear.
See here (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=13993&st=570) (towards bottom) for some photo's of said aircraft.
Regards,
Greg
I would think the T-34 Mentor line would easily work for the US Army's close support needs.
A CAS version of the T-34C has been successfully serving in several air arms.
The Army always prefered its air support from the Navy rather than the Air Force anyway didn't they?
QuoteAn idea has just popped in my head... whatif US Army had"won" the fixed-wing CAS aircraft battle the service fought against USAF in the late 60's ?
I mean, what if the two services had found an agreement on CAS aircrafts?
Here's my own idea...
USAF / Army 1970 deal.
USAF kept tactical transports, gunships and jets (A-37, A-7, A-X)
Army is allowed to have
- turboprop COIN (Cavalier, Broncos...)
- old piston-engined machines
- compound machines (such as Cheyenne)
- helicopters (transport, gunships, attack, its up to them!)
So the Army take over a vast fleet of O-1, O-2, OV-10, Skyraider, B-26, Cavaliers, L-19, Bearcat and started operations on the Ho-chi-minh trail.
After the end of the Vietnam war, this fleet needed to be refined. Piston-engined machines were withdrawn, and replaced by more Broncos, completed by new-build, T-56 powered Skyraiders.
Not USA, but USAF, my prototype T-56 powered YA-1K Turbo Skyraider from a couple of years ago. Airfix/MPC C-130 cowl & prop mated to an Airfix/MPC A-1.
QuoteThe Army always prefered its air support from the Navy rather than the Air Force anyway didn't they?
I heard that the USAF has the tendency of leaving OpFor helicopters alone in Balkan- fixed-wing aircraft would be force-fed Sparrows and AMRAAMs, but helicopters could do as they please.
QuoteThe Army always prefered its air support from the Navy rather than the Air Force anyway didn't they?
Their ranking was USMC first, then Navy, USCG, USPS, Civil Air Service, Boy Scouts, and then Air Force.
JoeP
Great minds think alike! As you probably seen, Damian 2 and I are planning...
T-56 Skyraiders !!
Hmmm let's see... the Skyhawk still has growth potential today (as Brazil and Singapore machines demonstrate today).
Maybe "customized" Army Skyhawks could be produced after 1979 (the production line is not close) ? Something like Singapore machines (F-404, modern weapon system and the like) combined with Army mods showed above (I also think about this gorgeous Skyhawk II invented by this ARC whatifer :wub: )
Quote from: jeffryfontaine on May 12, 2007, 06:03:42 AM
One of the primary things to keep in mind with any Army combat aircraft or support aircraft is the requirement to operate from forward bases that would consist of packed earth and very primitive conditions. These same conditions would not allow most USAF aircraft to operate from anything other than a hard surface runway with major factilities.
If the Army was to have an aviation element with fixed wings that would support combat operations it would have been something much more robust in design and construction. Not unlike the OV-1 Mohawk which was capable of limited use from airfields that would be conisidered primitive or austere by USAF standards.
The main thing to keep in mind with any combat support aircraft would be to keep it easy to maintain and have the ability to stay in the field with the troops where it was needed. The USAF was never organized to provide this kind of support to the Army and that is one of the reasons why there was a need for an organic combat support aircraft in Army markings and under Army control.
The jet aircraft of the day required a very large support organization or infrastructure to keep them flying. Most of the USAF combat aircraft had a primary mission of nuclear weapons delivery and a secondary mission of providing limited air support with conventional weapons. Combat aircraft that demonstrated good close air support qualitities were not the same qualities that the USAF wanted for an aircraft that was to attack targets with nuclear weapons which is why you had very fast fighter aircraft that needed a slow moving and in most cases a propeller driven aircraft to seek out and find the targets and then dirct the "fast movers" to attack.
Most of the aircraft tested by the Army for the close air support mission were actually not suitable for use in the field where they would have succumbed to the environment and primitive conditions. Cheap, easy to maintain, and user friendly would be the guidelines to abide by with the creation of your "army cooperation aircraft." When the A-4 was evaluated by the Army it was modified to allow it to operate from primitive airfields by using dual wheels on the main landing gear. The A-4 might have been close to what was needed but keep in mind it was originally designed to carry one nuclear weapon and two fuel tanks and conventional ordnance was something that was designed in later when it was discovered that the next war was not going to be fought with atomic bombs and the Marines needed something that could drop conventional weapons.
OK, let's resucitate this interesting thread:
What if the condition for US Army aircraft were: US Army can have any flying thingf that does not need a prepared runway or a facility that can be properly called 'Air Base'. Then, I am thinking on:
US manufactured Fiat G-91
US Army customized A-4
Of course, AV-8 (any VTOL, in fact)
and ... US Army customized F/A-16 http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,16952.0.html
A-7's maybe? ANG units have used these, A-10's also. Maybe when the USAF selected the A-10, the Army may have gone with the A-9? Carlos, you know I don't need an excuse to bring up the BAe SABA concepts, but there US counterparts, the Boeing Skyfox & Rutan ARES may have been very useful to the US Army.
EDIT, Carlos, don't forget the MERDC Gina that Jeff did for you!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoomisland.com%2Fimages%2Fwhif_profiles%2Fus%2520army%2520fiat%2520g-91.jpg&hash=985d81b238b58cf5350e7c39d4ec9d023181af60)
^^^^
I think that A-10 was tested in unprepared airfields. But I do not know the result.
Do you think that A-7 and A-9 could be used in such condition?
BTW, I am thinking in SABA too. :wub: :mellow: :wub:
I am already working in MERDC Gina: seat modified :thumbsup:
Yeah, I'm sure I've seen somwhere about A-10's being trialed on roads & dusty strips. It's got a realtively short takeoff performance, so that would help & it's engines are well protected from FOD. I'm guessing the A-9 would have had similar advantages, although the engines would have been at more of a risk from hovering up debris.
A-7's, I'm not sure now I think about it. That intake would have been pretty FOD hungry & I think it's unasisted take off run was of it's time, i.e. pretty long. I think it's undercarriage could have held up though, maybe with a little modification like the A-4.
I think that had the Army had/been allowed to field their own aircraft then we may have seen some types specifcally designed for the purpose. That was my thinking with the ARES & Skyfox.
Looking forward to seeing this MERDC Gina!!! :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
I've speculated on this theme as well. I generally considered that if the Army had been allowed to keep some fixed wing CAS machines, the AF probably would have limited the size, speed and range to avoid any potential conflict in the "sacred" Air to Air or long range strike missions. So the Army, most likely, would have been limited to subsonic A/C. Adding the ARMY need for fixed wing CAS machines that could operate from front line and uminproved fields, we can come up with a lot of potentials. So, I suspect that the criteria would have eliminated some A/C like the A-7, G-91, F-5, A-4... One that I think would have worked as an Army CAS bird was the Rutan ARES. That might look good in OD or MERDC with a few Hellfires hanging under the wings. Of course, the obvious ones of an updated Skyraider, the OV-10, Piper Enforcer, A-37, T-28 would make interesting WHIFF models. Plus, the OV-1 could also have been modified into a more CAS specific version. If the Army had kept fixed wing CAS assests, then (IMO) the A-10 never would have been developed. The AF wouldn't have had a need for it and the Army would never have been given the budget resources for anything this big and expensive.
(hmmm, scratchbuild, ARES, MERDC....)
Ed
Hmmm, OV-10, got something somewhere, (bangs) nope, not there (scratches), maybe here - no, (more bangs)... Ahh, that's it! Recoilless rifle instalation, that might have suited the Army well.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FOV-10RecoillessRifle.jpg&hash=b0177bafd4a5ebd3da41594d03f53925e08b3983)
Thinking in SABA..
Could the same history happen between RAF and Royal Army?
It's a possibility. Apart from a few light utility types the Army have never had their own fixed wing aircraft, similar with the Royal Marines. The RAF has types dedicated to both the Army & Marines, but they tend to be helicopters. If the SABA was purely a battlefield aircraft like it was intended, the Army might make a case for operating it, but the RAF holds a lot of clout politically within the forces & I think it would end up operating them. Inter-service rivalry is as hot in the British Armed Forced as it is in the US.
With the SABA, several NATO countries were interested, although I don't know who. The model & illustraions in BSP appear to be wearing a Luftwaffe style camouflage, maybe it was aimed at them or the Heeresflieger? Which other countries would be likely customers?
PS, Sorry Carlos, I've got my nitpickers hat on, it's British Army, not Royal Army. Why the Army has never picked up the 'Royal' title in it's lifetime I don't know, someone else here might be able to explain.
Quote from: B777LR on May 11, 2007, 06:40:17 AM
US army needs U-2s to cover the battlefield ;)
Now that would freak out the U.S Air Force 'Top Brass!!!!
Quote from: ysi_maniac on February 26, 2008, 06:00:36 AM
^^^^
I think that A-10 was tested in unprepared airfields. But I do not know the result.
Do you think that A-7 and A-9 could be used in such condition?
BTW, I am thinking in SABA too. :wub: :mellow: :wub:
I am already working in MERDC Gina.
It would make for an interesting pic or film to see the A-10 taking off and landing from unprepared airfields.
I would pay to see that!
M.A.D
An S-67 Black Hawk would have been a good alternative to the AH-1 Cobra and later on the PC-7/9 aircraft to replace the older prop jobs in Army service. A-37s serving dual roles of CAS/FAC like they did at the end of their service with the USAF and the same with A-4s. A-10s to provide escort for SpecOp Helos and CAS for attacks against tanks.
I would expect a certain distinction between the roles:
OV-1D Mohawks - armed, for surveillance, but with the weapons needed to deal with anything spotted
OV-10 Broncos - helo escort and light strike
A-37s - for genuine strike missions, delivering bombs on target as needed
A-4 Skyhawks - 'heavy' strike, putting heavier weapons on target than the A-37s and OV-10s can manage
Post Vietnam era (these types could easily survive into the '90s if wanted):
A-10 Warthogs - replacing the A-37s and A-4 Skyhawks
SABA type turboprop engined twin seater - replacing both the OV-1s and OV-10s, carrying either recon gear (OV-1 replacement) or weapons (OV-10 replacement)
With fixed wing aviation remaining a possibility for the Army, the DHC-4 Caribou would be replaced by the DHC-5 Buffalo, probably in good numbers. We would also likely see gunship versions, probably using 20mm Gatlings fore and aft, probably moving to 25mm GAU-12s and then 30mm cannon.
There would probably also be something a bit bigger than a modified King Air for Guardrail duties, possibly either DHC-5s, DHC-7s or perhaps modified Gulfstream Is (the turboprop engined ancestor of all the Gulfstream bizjets we all know and love!).
Quote from: ysi_maniac on February 26, 2008, 05:19:13 AM
Quote from: jeffryfontaine on May 12, 2007, 06:03:42 AM
One of the primary things to keep in mind with any Army combat aircraft or support aircraft is the requirement to operate from forward bases that would consist of packed earth and very primitive conditions. These same conditions would not allow most USAF aircraft to operate from anything other than a hard surface runway with major factilities.
If the Army was to have an aviation element with fixed wings that would support combat operations it would have been something much more robust in design and construction. Not unlike the OV-1 Mohawk which was capable of limited use from airfields that would be conisidered primitive or austere by USAF standards.
The main thing to keep in mind with any combat support aircraft would be to keep it easy to maintain and have the ability to stay in the field with the troops where it was needed. The USAF was never organized to provide this kind of support to the Army and that is one of the reasons why there was a need for an organic combat support aircraft in Army markings and under Army control.
The jet aircraft of the day required a very large support organization or infrastructure to keep them flying. Most of the USAF combat aircraft had a primary mission of nuclear weapons delivery and a secondary mission of providing limited air support with conventional weapons. Combat aircraft that demonstrated good close air support qualitities were not the same qualities that the USAF wanted for an aircraft that was to attack targets with nuclear weapons which is why you had very fast fighter aircraft that needed a slow moving and in most cases a propeller driven aircraft to seek out and find the targets and then dirct the "fast movers" to attack.
Most of the aircraft tested by the Army for the close air support mission were actually not suitable for use in the field where they would have succumbed to the environment and primitive conditions. Cheap, easy to maintain, and user friendly would be the guidelines to abide by with the creation of your "army cooperation aircraft." When the A-4 was evaluated by the Army it was modified to allow it to operate from primitive airfields by using dual wheels on the main landing gear. The A-4 might have been close to what was needed but keep in mind it was originally designed to carry one nuclear weapon and two fuel tanks and conventional ordnance was something that was designed in later when it was discovered that the next war was not going to be fought with atomic bombs and the Marines needed something that could drop conventional weapons.
OK, let's resucitate this interesting thread:
What if the condition for US Army aircraft were: US Army can have any flying thingf that does not need a prepared runway or a facility that can be properly called 'Air Base'. Then, I am thinking on:
US manufactured Fiat G-91
US Army customized A-4
Of course, AV-8 (any VTOL, in fact)
and ... US Army customized F/A-16 http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,16952.0.html
Speaking about the US Army A-4 wheels. Would not be better low pressure bigger single wheels?
Do you think that A-4 was good enough in STOL performance? ... Would it need some changes in wings? ... In control surfaces?
Well, one could use RATO:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2Fa4rato.jpg&hash=6b90d202e8bbabc6d3419f467c49bfa1904100d7)
regards,
Greg
BTW, last night toying with unstarted models I saw that the wings of a Mustang fit fairly well with skyhawk's fuselage (Italeri kit) :o :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mossie on February 26, 2008, 12:44:18 PM
PS, Sorry Carlos, I've got my nitpickers hat on, it's British Army, not Royal Army. Why the Army has never picked up the 'Royal' title in it's lifetime I don't know, someone else here might be able to explain.
The army was raised by the barons in time of need for the Crown's service, so it wasn't the King's army.
Plus ever since the Restoration it has to be voted into existence each year by Parliament -the UK dosn't have a "Standing Army" as such
I didn't know either of these facts, thanks for clearing that up guys! :thumbsup:
The latest issue of the USNI's "Proceedings" magazine has an article about basing US Army aircraft on USN carriers. This was done once already, to carry a contingent of US Army helos to Afghanistan.
While I don't see the US Army obtaining their own nuclear carrier, what about a CVH/LHA/LHD? They are capable of launching OV-1s and OV-10s. It would be classified as a US Army Transport, or USAT.
Instead of LCACs, they would have lighters and landing craft. There would also be a vehicle ramp, as these ships would not be launching assaults from offshore, but carrying up to a wharf or dock.
How's that for an idea for a model? ;D
JoeP, keeping it seabourne
Joe, The Japanese army had their own fleet in WW2 that included carriers of sorts. But as iy was at the end of the war most were sunk before getting into action, they also had their own supply subs as well which I have only just found out.
GeoffP
Hi GeoffP,
I have read about those; they were about the size of escort carriers, but were able to only launch observation and liaison type aircraft, and not land them due to masts and cranes. Rather odd designs, more like airplane transports than carriers.
Another possibility I thought of, based on the article in Proceedings, is to temporarily augment a carrier's air group with a few army special forces helos. The only problem is that Army helos aren't designed with folding rotors, so they can't be put into the hangar, and take up more deck space than comparable USN and USMC helos. Still, for a short deployment, as a way to get a small group of special ops to a theater with their transportation, it might work.
JoeP
Upengined B-25 Mitchells used in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and possibly Kuwait. Shaved turrets and concentrated forward firepower.
RB-57's for that high altitude surprise.
F4U-7's
Daryl J.
The Army having fixed wing CAS assets would change a lot of things - not just which service owns which type, but also which types are developed. A 'quick-fix' might be to copy the US Marine Corps, with aircraft such as the A-4 Skyhawk, OV-10 Bronco, and then either Navy types, or USAF types for the heavier-hitter roles, e.g. A-6 Intruders? C-123s in US Army Troop Carrier Command(?), and AC-123s for night-time support.
Perhaps the USAF would even have moved to have TAC operating an equivalent of the Navy's carrier air wings, with Phantoms, Thuds, and perhaps even re-winged B-47s in the tactical bomber role!
I think that the real restriction on fixed air, and maybe even helicopters, should be is the air units organic to the army units (brigades?). The army air force came about in WWII because of the realization that splitting ground support mission up under the command of ground units was preventing the concentration of forces need for breakthroughs according to the battle plan. So although there is a fuzzy middle that moves with changes in technology it is clear to me that big missions; nuclear attack, air superiority, belong to the air force, small missions like what is 500 yards ahead, belong to army units.
That seems to me say that jet's aren't likely to be a good deal, because the planes should be based close to the units needing support, speed doesn't seem that important. Cheap operation, v/stol, simple maintance, quick launch is what is needed.
Quote from: JoeP on June 12, 2008, 07:44:44 PM
Hi GeoffP,
I have read about those; they were about the size of escort carriers, but were able to only launch observation and liaison type aircraft, and not land them due to masts and cranes. Rather odd designs, more like airplane transports than carriers.
JoeP
Yes, their role was also to transport planes similar to what the RAF did resupplying Malta from USN carriers with Spitfires.
One of the later Japanese Imperial Army carriers, I forget the name, was supposed to have an airgroup of Ki-44 Tojos, but there was no provision to recover them. They either landed at an IJA airbase or made a "special attack" against an enemy position when their fuel ran out. "Banzi!"
Edit it was the "Yamashiro Maru"
Do you think the search for a common aircraft - like the one that gave us the F-111, might have been used to give a "common" CAS aircraft? I still think the Scooter would have been a good option myself in the 60's. [A-4's :wub:]
Quote from: tinlail on June 19, 2008, 10:35:44 AM
I think that the real restriction on fixed air, and maybe even helicopters, should be is the air units organic to the army units (brigades?). The army air force came about in WWII because of the realization that splitting ground support mission up under the command of ground units was preventing the concentration of forces need for breakthroughs according to the battle plan. So although there is a fuzzy middle that moves with changes in technology it is clear to me that big missions; nuclear attack, air superiority, belong to the air force, small missions like what is 500 yards ahead, belong to army units.
I agree, though we could simply 'raise the eschelon', i.e. group the aircraft at Corps level, which should be high enough for post-war operations. You would notionally assign aircraft at lower levels, but they would be pooled at Corps level, and able to be massed for specific operations. Each Corps would probably have a pool of OV-10s, A-37s and possibly A-4s. I would argue that A-4s would be appropriate, since they carry the right balance of warload and speed, to allow fast response. USAF Tactical Air Command would still handle interdiction and general strike roles, as well as the normal air-to-air missions. In effect, the Army air units would function similarly to the USMC air units, hence they would focus on direct support missions, rather than the broader conflict, e.g. they would fly most missions in support of a specific ground objective, supporting ground manouver units. The USAF, like the USN, would still be available for CAS, but would fly fewer missions in direct support of ground objectives, and more in support of general war goals. The USAF would still operate types like the F-100, F-4, and other types; later types like the A-7 Corsair might be more of a question mark - there is justification for buying it, but you never know. A-10s would go to the Army, perhaps operating more in a helicopter supporting role, alongside slower Cobra gunships, possibly replacing the OV-10s.
Replying to Lawman.
I am weak on army organization so the question of what level of unit is appropriate, I can't really debate. I would like to point out that the air force also used the A-10 for scud hunting in the Iraq war, a mission that seems to be appropriate for the air force, so some planes might fly in both services (or all 3 after my folding wing a-10 is done)
However I would also like to suggest a plane type you haven't seemed to ponder yet. Take a EMB-314 extend the wings for more efficient loiter time, hang a sniper-x pod on the centerline and hellfires off the wing. A predator class plane that the air force doesn't control.
I would, however, argue that the Air Force hasn't had a brilliant record with the A-10, notably in terms of blue-on-blue incidents (USAF pilots misidentifying targets and going in guns blazing), and using the A-10 for roles it isn't well suited to. The USAF would probably just stick with A-7s and strike-roled F-16s, rather than buying a 'low and slow' gunslinger like the A-10. If you are permanently assigned the close support role, more like helo gunships, you are less likely to make mistakes in targetting (because you always know to be careful of friendlies in the area), and more likely to be damned careful to put rounds on target!
As for aircraft like the ALX, I disagree, they are just too vulnerable to MANPADS; they aren't really well suited to higher altitude work either, not without a major redesign. As it is, aircraft like the Predator boast endurances that simply can't be beaten, and allow the operators to sit in safety, not risking a pilot. The US Army are increasingly interested in using UAVs as enduring top cover, something the Air Force haven't been as commited to. A UAV can just sit at 20,000ft for twelve hour shifts, right over Army units (e.g. a convoy or over an operation or a firebase), and be available to drop weapons at a few minutes notice, where a manned fighter can easily take 30-60 minutes to get there. A manned aircraft, on the other hand, can't really sit overhead for more than a couple of hours, without risking major mistakes due to exhaustion.
You might recognize this model; I've posted it before. Just an idea I had about US Army aircraft, and vehicles, and more.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quuxuum.org%2Frajens_list%2FUSAS%2520aft.jpg&hash=030a725a5d9189d341a264b197bb71fc5387936a)
We are a modeling group, after all. :lol:
Nice model, and I like the Amtracks onboard - they could have been a good option for Army riverine operations, able to move troops and materiel around river bases. I often thought that they had made a minor mistake in WW2 with the 'DD' tanks, by trying to make a Sherman float, when they might have been better using larger numbers of the LVTs (which were capable of mounting plenty of armament), and building a 'LARC' (basically a bigger LVT, capable of carrying heavy loads, up to a tank, and driving ashore) to move the Shermans.
Back on subject, I doubt the Army would push things too far into either the Navy/Marine role, or the USAF's role. We would probably have seen the 1st (Air) Cavalry Division being the hallmark unit, with OV-10s as escorts and airborne artillery for the Huey-borne troops, with Army A-4 Skyhawks providing top-cover. They would probably have hundreds of Hueys, OV-10s, and dozens of A-4s assigned, far more so than any of the other Army units.