Us Army Aircrafts...

[ysi_maniac]

Thinking in SABA..

Could the same history happen between RAF and Royal Army?

[Mossie]

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.

[MAD]

US army needs U-2s to cover the battlefield    

Now that would freak out the U.S Air Force 'Top Brass!!!!

[MAD]

^^^^
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.

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

[Archangel]

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.

[Lawman]

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!).

[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

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?

[GTX]

Well, one could use RATO:



regards,

Greg

[ysi_maniac]

BTW, last night toying with unstarted models I saw that the wings of a Mustang fit fairly well with skyhawk's fuselage (Italeri kit)

[Geoff]

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.

[NARSES2]

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

[Mossie]

I didn't know either of these facts, thanks for clearing that up guys!

[Joe C-P]

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? 

JoeP, keeping it seabourne

[Geoff]

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

[Joe C-P]

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