Us Army Aircrafts...

[Archibald]

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 Piston-engined machines were withdrawn, and replaced by more Broncos, completed by new-build, T-56 powered Skyraiders.

[Archibald]

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.

[elmayerle]

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).

[Archibald]

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!  

[ysi_maniac]

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.

   

[B777LR]

US army needs U-2s to cover the battlefield    

[Bryan H.]

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.

Bryan  

[Geoff]

They also trialed the F-5 as well.

Would they have got the F-4D as a heavy CAS aircraft in the 70's?  

[Archibald]

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...  

[Bryan H.]

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.

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.

Bryan  

[elmayerle]

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.  

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.

[Lawman]

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!  

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...

[Archibald]

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.

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.

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    

[Geoff]

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.

IIRC the "Hun" flew the majority of the CAS missions south of the DMZ so I could see it being operated by the USAr.

[Lawman]

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.