Forward Air control aircraft

[TsrJoe]

traditionally the AAC. has used the Auster and later Beaver as FAC. spotter
RAF. used Chipmunk for FAC. in Cyprus and as a 'spotter' over Berlin
Provost was used in a similar role in Oman
RAF. tasked the Jet Provost T.3 in the FAC. role in the 80's and trialled the Hawk in same

[Dizzyfugu]

The US Army tested the Fiat G.91 for FAC duties, but IIRC the OV-1 was chosen instead.

[AS.12]

You could say the same thing about the Cessna Bird Dog

Indeed, but the Bird Dog dated from a rather more innocent pre-Vietnam era; it first flew in 1949.  Bear in mind that most armies at that time had, at best,  semi-automatic rifles and a sprinkling of manually-laid MGs with which to harangue the FACs.

I would have expected that the subsequent 20 years that saw the emergence of ubiquitous radar-laid AAA and IR-homing MANPADs would have caused the SIAI ( and, indeed, Aermacchi* ) designers to consider a few changes to enable the pilots to survive more than five minutes.

* As an example: the AM.3C in SAAF service was notoriously noisy and signalled its approach to the enemy at several KM distance.  Whoever signed that off as a FAC platform? 

[KiwiZac]

The US Army tested the Fiat G.91 for FAC duties, but IIRC the OV-1 was chosen instead.

Interesting - was that in addition to the trials with the Skyhawk and F-5? Or all part of the same deal?

[jcf]

The US Army tested the Fiat G.91 for FAC duties, but IIRC the OV-1 was chosen instead.

Interesting - was that in addition to the trials with the Skyhawk and F-5? Or all part of the same deal?

Yep, all part of the same program.

[rickshaw]

I don't think the G.91/A-4/F-5 programme was intended to be used for FAC.  I believe they were part of a light-strike aircraft programme.  Which was killed 'cause the USAF didn't like the Army "muscling in" on their provision of strike aircraft, even if they didn't like doing it...

[NARSES2]

I think you are right in that the US Army was looking for light strike types but if they had said it was for FAC maybe they'd have stood a greater chance of getting it, not much more but maybe ?

Wasn't it someone in the Admiralty back in 1918 who, on the creation of the RAF called it a "100 year experiment" ? Well only a couple of months to go 

[PR19_Kit]

Wasn't it someone in the Admiralty back in 1918 who, on the creation of the RAF called it a "100 year experiment" ? Well only a couple of months to go 

If it gets much smaller he could well have been right! 

However, having bought the RAF Yearbook today I'm feeling a little less cynical, it really does read pretty well. Although I wish they'd come up with a more distinctive colour scheme (and name....) for the F-35B. You can't tell an RAF one from a USAF or USM one at more than 10 feet, and a 'Lightning' has two LOUD engines and climbs vertically (nose up) off the end of a runway..........

[DarrenP2]

Wasn't it someone in the Admiralty back in 1918 who, on the creation of the RAF called it a "100 year experiment" ? Well only a couple of months to go 

They do say that the First person to join the RAF was its first Admin Warrant officer who took the follow up telegram from the king and files it unopened....its meant to have said "April Fools"

[NARSES2]

Wasn't it someone in the Admiralty back in 1918 who, on the creation of the RAF called it a "100 year experiment" ? Well only a couple of months to go 

They do say that the First person to join the RAF was its first Admin Warrant officer who took the follow up telegram from the king and files it unopened....its meant to have said "April Fools"

Brilliant 

[Mossie]

If it gets much smaller he could well have been right! 

However, having bought the RAF Yearbook today I'm feeling a little less cynical, it really does read pretty well. Although I wish they'd come up with a more distinctive colour scheme (and name....) for the F-35B. You can't tell an RAF one from a USAF or USM one at more than 10 feet, and a 'Lightning' has two LOUD engines and climbs vertically (nose up) off the end of a runway..........

51st state and all that...  I wonder how many USAF aircraft are stationed over here compared to the UK ANG, whoops, RAF....

[PR19_Kit]

If it gets much smaller he could well have been right! 

However, having bought the RAF Yearbook today I'm feeling a little less cynical, it really does read pretty well. Although I wish they'd come up with a more distinctive colour scheme (and name....) for the F-35B. You can't tell an RAF one from a USAF or USM one at more than 10 feet, and a 'Lightning' has two LOUD engines and climbs vertically (nose up) off the end of a runway..........

51st state and all that...  I wonder how many USAF aircraft are stationed over here compared to the UK ANG, whoops, RAF....

Actually surprisingly few.

They've only got one active airfield left here, that being Lakenheath, hosting the 48th TFW and that's it as far as flying units are concerned.

[jcf]

I don't think the G.91/A-4/F-5 programme was intended to be used for FAC.  I believe they were part of a light-strike aircraft programme.  Which was killed 'cause the USAF didn't like the Army "muscling in" on their provision of strike aircraft, even if they didn't like doing it...

Jet-powered 'Fast FAC', 'Tactical Recon' and 'Ground Attack' was always the intent of
the program, with the first two being the primary missions.
They weren't happy with how the USAF scotched their T-37 buy in '57, so they tried
again. They eventually got their way in a limited fashion with armed Mohawk's they
used in 64-65, but they had to end that as well due to USAF pressure.

They wanted a fast mover they could station forward that could be used for FAC and
emergency direct support before the USAF could get there, it wasn't intended to be
a full-time attack aircaft.

[KiwiZac]

I didn't realise Fast FAC was part of it. Very interesting. I'd still like to do an Army A-4 one day, the extra mainwheels make for a subtle bit of whiffery.

[DarrenP2]

its a shame the US army didn't go into the LARA project and get the OV10. given some US agencies are still using them in Iraq