Us Army Aircrafts...

[Jeffry Fontaine]

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...

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.    

[Geoff]

AV=8A's then?

[GTX]

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 article.

BTW, the ER/MP is the General Atomics Warrior extended-range/multipurpose (ER/MP) UAV.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

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.

See here  (towards bottom) for some photo's of said aircraft.

Regards,

Greg

[upnorth]

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?

[famvburg]

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.

      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.

[dy031101]

The 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.

[Joe C-P]

The 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

[Archibald]

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   )

[ysi_maniac]

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

[Mossie]

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!

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^
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.

I am already working in MERDC Gina: seat modified

[Mossie]

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!!!

[Ed S]

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

[Mossie]

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.