The armed Army Caribou

[maxmwill]

Yeah, I remember that. In fact, WEB Griffin mentioned that a number of times in his Brotherhood of War series.

One thing the Army was able to get away with was helicopter gunships, which Griffin touched on with his "Big Bad Bird" black H19 with a Woody the Woodpecker tossing beer bottles painted on the side of the helo.(be an interesting whif)

In reality, I think that at first the Air Force did try to put a stop to it, but the Key West Accords specified that the Army could have helicopters(at the time, the Air Force probably thought that helicopters wouldn't amount to very much).

[PR19_Kit]

If the US Army hadn't used its Hellfire toting Apache gunships during Gulf War I the USAF would have had a much tougher time getting through the Iraqi radar on the border. They should be thankful that armed 'choppers WERE allowed within the Army's bailiwick.

[NARSES2]

I can't remember who said it but a famous R.N. Admiral of the Fleet once described the R.A.F. as being a "100 Year Experiment"

Interesting observation and no I'm not taking sides 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Max M Will

While I might've been the recipient of tall tales from one of my uncles, recently, this got me to thinking.

My uncle was stationed in the Army as one of the crew chiefs in a Caribou squadron, around the time the Army lost all its Caribous to the Air Force.

One the reasons the Air Force demanded and got all Army Caribous was because supposedly there were three hard points on each wing, and the pilot had a joy stick which controlled a pair of 50s on each side of the nose, and that at the one and only demonstration in which this mod was shown, there happened to be several high ranking Air Force officers attending. The inboard and second hard points held napalm tanks, which were dropped on a simulated enemy convoy. The outermost hard points each held a Tiny Tim missile. And the pilot strafed the convoy as well. The Air Force officers were outraged.

1. You sure you aren't mixing this up with the OV-1A?  It could carry 3,200 pounds of external ordinance...

2. If true: I could imagine they were sorry they got caught

3. What's the lesson to learn from this?  They should have built it as a transport with a provision of carrying the hard-points, but made sure it was in service and committed to mass development: Then you build a new variant that can actually carry the ordinance, and develop a simple kit to refit all the older versions to the new standard.  You basically put your foot in the door and jam it firmly there before anybody can try and close the door.

NARSES2

I can't remember who said it but a famous R.N. Admiral of the Fleet once described the R.A.F. as being a "100 Year Experiment"

Actually, when you think about it: The idea of an independent Air Force is largely an aberration caused by a series of specific events

• The Zeppelin Raids
  
• The development of larger bombers that could carry significant loads
  

.
With the exception of nuclear-bombardment, most research has actually found an Air-Force works best when it's aims are subservient to the aims of the ground-force or sea-force commander, or better yet, actually part of the land or sea-force.  To make it better, an Army or Navy with an aviation arm could probably do everything an independent Air Force is capable of.

Interesting observation and no I'm not taking sides  

Why is an independent Air Force's existence a touchy subject?

[maxmwill]

No I wasn't mixing the OV-1 with the C7, because I know for a fact that my uncle was a crew chief in a Caribou squadron in the Army, and after hearing certain of his stories which involved the R2000, such as when the pilot didn't want to fly, but was ordered to do so anyway(that good military order, y'know), somehow one or three of the bottom jugs were loaded with grease, mysteriously, washing that flight out, and later in life, as an A&P, I learned about that trick elsewhere at a radial engine repair station I worked at.

And too many of the stories made too much sense, especially looking back at the memories with what I have since learned.

One thing about the Caribou, though might be an apocryphal story about when De Havilland of Canada was asking around for a input on a twin engine bush plane, and that anyone interested could bring anything they thought might help out, and a couple farmers brought with them a barn door, and told the engineers that that would make a fine rudder, which supposedly went onto the fin of the first prototype. Not really sure if that was actual fact, but in aviation, I have found out, sometimes the hard way, that some of the craziest stories might have some basis of fact. And, y'know, from the people I've met who were in bush aviation, such as Orville Wilbur Tosch, really were bigger than life, and actually existed. Tosch came south and settled in Gig Harbor in the Tacoma area later in his life, and brought with him a restored Boeing 80 that was used up in Alaska until recently(this being back around 1988, or so when I worked for a bit for him. He hired me to do a full blade inspection on a privately owned Piasecki Banana, little realizing that that was all he wanted to hire me for, after the inspection was completed, he let me go, which was just as well, as I had a job waiting for me at Paine Field in Everett. Tosch also had the fuselage of a Hall transport, that looked like a small Quonset hut section. Tosch was born Dec. 17, 1909, and you can guess who he was named for, as that seemed to have predestined him for aviation. Tosch was the kind of guy you couldn't trust any further than you could toss him, but he sure did have some good stories for hangar flying, and was best P51 mechanic on the entire West Coast, Bob Hoover being one of his regular customers, and wouldn't let anyone else work on his yellow Mustang. One of the planes he hated the most was a Do-28 that some guy talked him into working on. He was ecstatic to see that leave the hangar, finally. Tosch finally retired entirely when he was cutting some spruce on a band saw, and accidentally sliced off four fingers of one hand, and didn't feel a thing. I'm not sure when he passed away, but with him went a little bit of history into the mists to fade away).

[Captain Canada]

Great stories. Both army aviation and the bush plane ones !

[maxmwill]

Well, that's just it about aviation, it is all great stories, and, as previously mentioned, even the more ridiculous have the ring of truth, and, all taken together, it is what is known as hangar flying, or, if you like, war stories, although I prefer hangar flying, because even when telling the tales, one is, in some sense, flying.

To me, it can be boiled down to that wonderful poem, High Flight, by a Canadian Spitfire pilot, who was, I think, later shot down.

But, even those of us who work on the silly things, we ourselves are in the air as well as the pilot when what we worked on, even in a huge soulless repair station working heavy jets like TRAMCo or Evergreen, we are in the bird when she takes wing.

And if you think I'm one of the general public who oohs and aahs at an airshow and then goes home to tea, think again, because for me, the romance is in the airframe, the shooting of rivets, the perfume of scorched Jet A, and even the occasional tiny drop of skydrol that gets past the safety goggles and causes a horrific burning sensation. I've sat in the wheel wells of a Beech 18(yes, the C45 is still earning her keep here and there) and sprayed safety solvent inside, and ended up with the only pale skin being where the safety goggles covered my eyed(and boy, was my wife horrified when I came home after shift and gave her a big hug and kiss). I've lived, eaten, breathed, and, sometimes, have even slept aviation, from nearly the cradle, and at Spartan, because the FAA required I take the course in order to qualify for my tickets, I flew rings around the instructors there, and had a ball every day there. And even had fun with an elderly Voodoo that the school was about to scrap(it is still amazing how much fun full afterburner is on that old gal).

And, as always, I keep in mind the words of that gentle philosopher, Red Skelton, when he said, "why take Life Seriously? Nobody's gonna get out of it alive".

[kerick]

What's the difference between fairy tales and war stories?














One starts out "Once upon a time" and the other starts out "No $h!t, there I was"!

[maxmwill]

Some, but actually very little, at least not the pre-Disney fairy tales, or the original Brothers Grimm stories.
Both could be considered cautionary tales, as is a lot of Hangar Flying, some could be jocular or bawdy, as in, "there I was, at 10,000 feet with nothing but a blonde and aluminum sheet between me and the ground", or some such.

And others could actually hold more than just a kernel of truth, wrapped up to be entertaining, or couched on gallows humor.

Or all of those, or even none of those, but more.

And it would all depend upon how willing the listener is to actually listen.

And some are just outright frauds, like that interesting poem about the Ride of Paul Revere, which centered upon Revere simply because Revere rhymed with hear, and was not even close to reality, at least as the actual history of the event recounts, but is far less romantic and entertaining.

At least that's the best way I can understand it, and I might even be mistaken, and am don't mind admitting to that.

[PR19_Kit]

Why is an independent Air Force's existence a touchy subject?

You have the answers in the US already. Because Army Generals and Admirals consider any arm that's out of their direct control to be an insult to their history and tradition etc.

With the exception of nuclear-bombardment, most research has actually found an Air-Force works best when it's aims are subservient to the aims of the ground-force or sea-force commander, or better yet, actually part of the land or sea-force.  To make it better, an Army or Navy with an aviation arm could probably do everything an independent Air Force is capable of.

Total rubbish...............

Just as a starter the Battle of Britain would not have been won had the RAF not been able to generate it's own method of operating prior to WWII kicking off, and I wouldn't have existed to enable me to contradict you!

And what 'research' where?

[maxmwill]

I think he might have been slightly mistaken, or a tiny tad confused with the two concepts of ground attack and troop support and aerial superiority and long range strategic bombing.

While Ground attack and troop support could be better served with an air arm of the Army(the Marine Corps is not even related, even though the Corps does fight on the ground, as it is traditionally an infantry arm of the Navy, and is to a point subservient to the Navy, yet at the same time retaining a certain amount of autonomy with regard to having operations of its own, as well as its own air arm, and until relatively recently, as the Marines had been considered to be little more than semi-literate red-headed step children the Navy was required to tolerate, which resulted in many aircraft the Marines acquiring being second-rate or castoff, which was interesting to consider, as when the Navy was about to give up on the F4U, as it had been proving to be more an ensign eater than an effective fighter, the Marines, being delighted to have an up to date fighter handed to it free and clear(with some carrier pilots quietly whispering, "you'll be sorry"), actually proved that the F4U, instead of a simple hungry beast waiting to devour innocent pilots, showed how it was supposed to be used, and even invented a few techniques of its own, and the Navy turning around and deciding to demand more Corsairs of its own, and since then, the Corps had been acquiring more and more first line equipment, yet retaining the can do attitude it grew when having to make do with second rate equipment. At least until the what eventually became the Harrier was demonstrated, and, I apologize if anyone who loves and adores the Harrier might get the ire up, for the Marines, the Harrier has proven to be something less than the stellar flying machine they thought it would be. And the anticipated F35B will prove an even bigger mistake, but that's my personal prejudices kicking in, coupled with reports and safety records of the AV8 and what the B model F35 has done to the design itself, which is somewhat less than wonderful, but might even prove to be tragic, especially given what the latest news on the cannon has reported. But, both those could be another thread, and really, I'm not trying to start a fight, or step on any toes, just trying keep the perspective)

But for the Army, the troop supported afforded by the A10(when it first came out, a lot of people were amazed that Fairchild would build such a flying machine, as it was anything but within the tradition that was set by Sasha Kartvelli, designer of, among other things, the P47 and the F105, both aircraft being, for their respective times, tough, rugged and fast flying machines, the 47 being dubbed the Thunderbolt(and quietly the Thunderjug, which was more a term of endearment than anything else, which is what I got for having a grand uncle who flew Thunderbolts during the war, and liked to talk about his exploits, including the requisite, "there I was......" tales, which mortified my mother,but delighted me and my siblings), and the 105 the Thunderchief. But, when the A10 was first shown, some people wanted to dub it the Thunderwonder, as Thunder, in keeping with Republic tradition, and Wonder, as it was a wonder that anyone could even like it. But, in later conflict, someone did indeed like it, the pilots, because it was one of the most survivable aircraft flying, the Air Force bean counters, because it was(and still is) one of the most economical aircraft flying, from fuel consumption savings, to ease of mainteance, and to the sheer ease that it would return to base, near frightfully shot up, and to the ground pounders, the grunts, because not only did it carry sufficient punch to quell anyone silly enough to try to stand up to it, but also because it had a very reassuring loiter time on station, and soon acquired the moniker, Warthog, because not only was it so ugly that even its mother might have qualms about affection for it, but also the animal could zip a man's gut open in under 15 seconds(the warthog roots when it hits the belly and those tusks are sharper than they look), and Warthog kills everything it aims for. And both are pretty much unstoppable(as an aside, as is the Russian Razorback, which may be a problem in the US in a few years, but another tale for another time).

But, as the A10 is an armed fixed wing aircraft, due to the 1947 Key West Accords, which created the Air Force as an independent military entity, the Army couldn't "own any". Helicopter gunships, yes, fixed wing aircraft, no. And so the Air Force flies ground support missions for the Army(and also goes hunting on its own).

Now as to aerial superiority and bombing, strategic and tactical, an independent Air Force is necessary, as was the RAF on the eve of and during WW2.

Apologies for the rambling account, but so much is so deeply intertwined that sometimes it is very difficult to render it down to bite size, palatable pieces. You grab one thread, and all of a sudden there are a dozen or so threads attached with seemingly Gordian knots, so the tale expands like a beer drinker's belly after a number of years of lots of beer.

[kerick]

I beg to differ concerning Army control of air assets. During the first battles in North Africa that involved US Army troops the air assets were assigned to individual Army units as if they were artillery pieces. This resulted in units that lost their aircraft having to do without while neighboring units had aircraft to spare. Needless to say, these units got over run and battles were lost. Only when air assets were moved to centralized control did the full power of air support come into its own. Its just two different ways of thinking. Army commanders jealously guard their own troops and equipment, the idea of turning it over to some other commander is very difficult. When it comes to close air support the Army still picks and approves targets up to the Corp level but the Air Force controls which aircraft go to which target. This way maximium air power can be directed to the units that need it the most and redirected if the situation changes. I'm sure that if the Army actually gained control of fighter aircraft the old way of thinking would creep back in again.
The Army has had some legitimate complaints over the years. The Air Force during Desert Storm finally ditched the Air Tasking Order. At least when it came to CAS and BAI. The ATO was a 24 hour cycle assigning missions to individual aircraft 24 hours ahead of time so crews could be ready for a specific take off time. Well, the enemy doesn't wait around 24 hours to get your stuff organized. As a member of a Tactical Air Control Party it was always my job to explain to an Army commander why he couldn't have an air strike when he needed it. Not a pleasent time. Glad to see that when real shooting started things got better.

[rickshaw]

I'd suggest any problems the USMC might have had with the AV8 could well be because of their failure to adopt the training version of the aircraft, preferring to go straight from conventional aircraft to solo in the Harrier.

[Captain Canada]

Anybody find more info on the Gun Bou ? Less talk, more find ! lol

[maxmwill]

Regardless of any source problems, and there were more than just that, the AV8 was not the wunder waffen that the Marines had been so ready to fall on their collective sword in order to get.

The biggest problem was the aircraft/engine combination itself, which, until some radically economically fuel efficient powerplant is ever developed(and it'd have to be utilizing an energy source more compact and cheap to produce than liquid hydrocarbon fuel), because the selling point of the Harrier, that the Marines have been lusting after ever since vertical flight went from a mechanical curiosity to that with the vaguest of weapons potential, was the fact that the Harrier can magickally launch vertically, transition from hover to horizontal flight with greater speed than rotary wing aircraft will ever be able to achieve(Igor Sikorski said it best in an interview. "Do you know when helicopters will fly faster than conventional aircraft?" Igor: "Yes, yes I do". "And when will that be?" "Never".), and yet inorder to do so, it has to carry sufficient fuel for hoverng, which cuts very substantially into the war load carrying capacity, by a very large fraction. And as a weapon system which is supposed to operate very close to the front line, to take off vertically and engage the enemy, it doesn't ever have sufficient ordinance or ammunition to make it operationally practicable. And it really can't, because in hover mode, the Pegasus is very hungry, far hungrier than STOL or conventional rollouts. And in the STOL mode, it needs a paved runway, which in a forward operating area, just ain't possible or doable.

And B model F35 will be even worse, on all accounts.

The lemon may have been reinvented with sparklers to make it seem attractive, but it is still a lemon, a very rotten lemon. And the Marines pitched a huge collective hissy fit to have the B produced, and the A and C models use the same airframe(with few changes), and will be saddled with equal dis-potential.