Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 8/20/2010 4:58:30 PM EDT


I've no military experience, but from what I've read about this aircraft, it seems very suited for the current war in Afghanistan. Some of the attributes:

Specifications (A-1H Skyraider)

General characteristics

* Crew: One
* Length: 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)
* Wingspan: 50 ft 0¼ in (15.25 m)
* Height: 15 ft 8¼ in (4.78 m)
* Wing area: 400.3 ft² (37.19 m²)
* Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)
* Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Wright R-3350-26WA radial engine, 2,700 hp (2,000 kW)

Performance

* Maximum speed: 322 mph (280 kn, 518 km/h) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
* Cruise speed: 198 mph (172 kn, 319 km/h)
* Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km)
* Service ceiling: 28,500 ft (8,685 m)
* Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s)
* Wing loading: 45 lb/ft² (220 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (250 W/kg)

Armament

* Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M2 cannon
* Other: Up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance on 15 external hardpoints including bombs, torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, or gun pods


It seems very suited for low level, low speed operations against ground forces.

While the Warthog can carry more ord and is MUCH more advanced in terms of electronics, it seems to me that if we had this aircraft still in inventory it might find a niche role in AFG.

Does anyone have any thoughts?





Link Posted: 8/20/2010 4:59:38 PM EDT
Hang a PT6 on the front and yeah maybe, but piston engines have no place in military aviation.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:00:35 PM EDT
Too susceptible to ground fire? That's always been one of my favorite warplanes though.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:01:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GomerPyle:
Too susceptible to ground fire? That's always been one of my favorite warplanes though.


I thought they were fairly heavily armored. Is that wrong?
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:03:19 PM EDT
IIRC, they had something like an 8 hour loiter time while on CAS duty in Vietnam, which might be kind of useful.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:03:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2010 5:07:21 PM EDT by Rogue-Sasquatch]
You would need to swap the corncob Wasp Major for a turboprop (probably get better performance / fuel economy from it, too), and add some important modern battlespace electronics, but yeah... I bet a lot of guys on the ground would sure appreciate it being there.

EDIT: I've always had to wonder, there is a LOT of space in that fuselage, way more than the engine equipment and fluid tanks could be taking up. What the heck is in there, anyway?
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:06:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Slavac:
Originally Posted By GomerPyle:
Too susceptible to ground fire? That's always been one of my favorite warplanes though.


I thought they were fairly heavily armored. Is that wrong?


For it's time it had decent crew protection..but the ENGINE didnt. Dont get me wrong, If i hit the lottery tomorrow I;d have a Spad sitting in front of my house As soon as i could find one. LOVE that aircraft and the Loiter time is great..however, if the Hadjis have Manpads, the Spads would end up getting creamed IMO.... NOW take out the Manpads, and yeah the A-1 would probably do well, Even the Fennec version of the T-28 would probably work there. The IMPORTANT thing in CAS, especially in close is precision..which can be spotty once you have Fast Movers. During Vietnam the Spad Drivers could pay in Snake, Nape, and CBO like Surgeons in support of Ground troops..which the A-10 did for It's generation.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:09:52 PM EDT
I don't know about Afghanistan, but I know I'd love to have one of those....
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:10:03 PM EDT
Google the Super Tucano.

Asked a JTAC the other day what he looks for in an aircraft, assuming that it has a targeting pod. He told me loiter time and loadout were his only two concerns.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:10:23 PM EDT
Better than what we have now, for sure.
But not optimal.
A-37B or the OV-10 would be even better.
I don't need lots of firepower. I need loiter and observation.
Single seater low wings aren't the best.
Firepower is the least of my problems.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:12:00 PM EDT
dont we have our own ST in development?
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:12:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Better than what we have now, for sure.
But not optimal.
A-37B or the OV-10 would be even better.
I don't need lots of firepower. I need loiter and observation.
Single seater low wings aren't the best.
Firepower is the least of my problems.


I'll look into that.

If you can use an ASIP to talk to a UAV would that do the trick? Because they can deliver mensurated grids to HIMARS for GMLRS (M31).
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:12:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Google the Super Tucano.

Asked a JTAC the other day what he looks for in an aircraft, assuming that it has a targeting pod. He told me loiter time and loadout were his only two concerns.

Which is why a JTAC is an FO and not a senior ground commander.
I need observation and the ability to communicate with the ground element. Loadout? Hell, killing them is easy. Finding and fixing them is the hard part.
JTACs are company level assets at best.
90% of all TICs are platoon level or lower in A-Stan.
So JTACs are pretty much functionally worthless.

Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:13:29 PM EDT
Check!
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:17:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Better than what we have now, for sure.
But not optimal.
A-37B or the OV-10 would be even better.
I don't need lots of firepower. I need loiter and observation.
Single seater low wings aren't the best.
Firepower is the least of my problems.


I'll look into that.

If you can use an ASIP to talk to a UAV would that do the trick? Because they can deliver mensurated grids to HIMARS for GMLRS (M31).

I had UAVs over head and never was able to talk to them. I had to BFT the TOC and the TOC JTAC would communicate back with BFT Free Text. Not optimal. Plus, UAV weapons release was a ridiculously stupid process. Somehow the airforce thinks a UAV operator in Bagram knows better than the senior ground commander what is going on.

Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:20:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Google the Super Tucano.

Asked a JTAC the other day what he looks for in an aircraft, assuming that it has a targeting pod. He told me loiter time and loadout were his only two concerns.

Which is why a JTAC is an FO and not a senior ground commander.
I need observation and the ability to communicate with the ground element. Loadout? Hell, killing them is easy. Finding and fixing them is the hard part.
JTACs are company level assets at best.
90% of all TICs are platoon level or lower in A-Stan.
So JTACs are pretty much functionally worthless.



TICs? What's that?
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:21:22 PM EDT
What? That would be an ultra joke. A Sidewinder missile has more electronics and computer equipment than that plane. It does not fit the tactical needs of the US military in Afghanistan. A mule has more tactical benefits than that plane.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:23:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tripledouble:
What? That would be an ultra joke. A Sidewinder missile has more electronics and computer equipment than that plane. It does not fit the tactical needs of the US military in Afghanistan. A mule has more tactical benefits than that plane.


You realize that there are mule units on the ground right now, right?
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:25:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Slavac:
Originally Posted By GomerPyle:
Too susceptible to ground fire? That's always been one of my favorite warplanes though.


I thought they were fairly heavily armored. Is that wrong?


Heavily armored and air craft are kind of an oxymoron.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:28:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tripledouble:
What? That would be an ultra joke. A Sidewinder missile has more electronics and computer equipment than that plane. It does not fit the tactical needs of the US military in Afghanistan. A mule has more tactical benefits than that plane.


Better than a single seat jet fighter.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:28:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tripledouble:
What? That would be an ultra joke. A Sidewinder missile has more electronics and computer equipment than that plane. It does not fit the tactical needs of the US military in Afghanistan. A mule has more tactical benefits than that plane.


This is why we have aircraft that are 10s of millions of dollars a copy.

Not every thing the US uses needs to have the cutting of whiz bang bullshit. Sometimes a strapped on pod and an upgraded engine will be enough and cost effective to do the job at hand.

Spend big dollars on the next big thing but don't have it be your only option.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:33:13 PM EDT
Cot projection on the Embraer Super Tucano is $5M up front and $1,000 to $2,000 and hour. We could fly the wings off them and then torch them for scrap in five years and we would come out ahead.

Not sure what the cost would be for A-37s or OV-10s. Probably lower.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:34:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Slavac:
Originally Posted By GomerPyle:
Too susceptible to ground fire? That's always been one of my favorite warplanes though.


I thought they were fairly heavily armored. Is that wrong?

The wing roots, belly and bottom of the engine are covered in about an inch of steel plate. At least the one I got to climb on did.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:37:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
You would need to swap the corncob Wasp Major for a turboprop (probably get better performance / fuel economy from it, too), and add some important modern battlespace electronics, but yeah... I bet a lot of guys on the ground would sure appreciate it being there.

EDIT: I've always had to wonder, there is a LOT of space in that fuselage, way more than the engine equipment and fluid tanks could be taking up. What the heck is in there, anyway?

A turbo prop won't get better economy than a Wasp Major. Period. And I doubt it would have a longer loiter time, even though a turbo prop weighs about half as much, meaning more fuel can be carried.

The one problem with this is the fuel, avgas is not common in the federal supply system, the early Predators needed it and that was a major shortcoming as it was delivered in 55 gallon drums.

What is in the fuselage? Passenger space.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:43:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Cot projection on the Embraer Super Tucano is $5M up front and $1,000 to $2,000 and hour. We could fly the wings off them and then torch them for scrap in five years and we would come out ahead.

Not sure what the cost would be for A-37s or OV-10s. Probably lower.


I would guess higher, as they are both twin engines. The super Tucano is a good bird, but I prefer the two seater high wing concept of the OV-10. The tweet was OK, as a twin jet, but it was side by side (which I have learned is not a good solution for observation).
The super tucano B is a two seater. Two seater is non-negotiable for this shit.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:43:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mazawakhan:

Originally Posted By Slavac:
Originally Posted By GomerPyle:
Too susceptible to ground fire? That's always been one of my favorite warplanes though.


I thought they were fairly heavily armored. Is that wrong?

The wing roots, belly and bottom of the engine are covered in about an inch of steel plate. At least the one I got to climb on did.


Ahhh neat thanks. So the pilot has some protection but his bird really doesn't.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:45:00 PM EDT
The other thing is it is a high wing loading tail dragger. Not the easiest bird to land.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:49:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2010 5:52:57 PM EDT by newbushmaster]
The AT-802U (Air Tractor) carries 9,000lbs of ass-kick with 10hrs of endurance and some cockpit and engine armor.

Picture I lifted off of wiki;
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:49:59 PM EDT
No dog in this fight. Here's a cool picture of a Skyradier

Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:51:57 PM EDT
I'm thinking just about any modern MANPAD would turn that into a smoking hole in the sky.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:55:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bcw107:
I'm thinking just about any modern MANPAD would turn that into a smoking hole in the sky.

I dont know! I would think it would actually be a bit harder to hit if it were a heat seeking missile.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:58:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcw107:
I'm thinking just about any modern MANPAD would turn that into a smoking hole in the sky.


We have ways of dealing with those.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 5:59:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mazawakhan:

Originally Posted By bcw107:
I'm thinking just about any modern MANPAD would turn that into a smoking hole in the sky.

I dont know! I would think it would actually be a bit harder to hit if it were a heat seeking missile.

I wonder what the Soviets thought when it started raining Hinds in Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:05:56 PM EDT
I'm thinking a B-29 with a specific ordinance would be ideal.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:06:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2010 6:10:16 PM EDT by -Duke-Nukem-]
We have other assets that are vulnerable to MANPADS, such as Chinook helicopters and AC130 gunships for example. That doesn't stop those assets from deployed in multiple theaters and serving very useful roles. If you are worried about MANPADS then call in the high altitude bombers or stealth fighters or whatever. But high altitude bombers and stealth fighters can't win wars all by themselves, unless your name is Bill Clinton and the war is Kosovo, and you have no shame.

EDIT: My vote goes to the Super Taco.

Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:09:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcw107:

Originally Posted By Mazawakhan:

Originally Posted By bcw107:
I'm thinking just about any modern MANPAD would turn that into a smoking hole in the sky.

I dont know! I would think it would actually be a bit harder to hit if it were a heat seeking missile.

I wonder what the Soviets thought when it started raining Hinds in Afghanistan.


It never did. Few helicopters were actually lost to stingers. The soviets adjusted their tactics to safer and less effective TTPs.
which is what most CAS in the air force has been doing from day 1.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:14:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mazawakhan:

Originally Posted By bcw107:
I'm thinking just about any modern MANPAD would turn that into a smoking hole in the sky.

I dont know! I would think it would actually be a bit harder to hit if it were a heat seeking missile.

Much harder. The cowl exits are not hot enough and the exhaust is too diffuse. Turbines have much greater exhaust volume as they operate with excess air for TIT limitation. Gasoline engines have a definite fuel-air ratio.

Prop wash effectively diffuses the exhaust on recip planes. The exhaust on turbines must extend past the fuselage for thermal reasons, meaning it is less diffused.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:17:30 PM EDT
skyraider ftmfw
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:17:30 PM EDT
Doesnt Piper make a plane similar to the Super Taco?
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:20:37 PM EDT
Ask the Brits to borrow some of their captured Pucaras, if they still keep a few in mothballs? Or I'm sure Argentina would be thrilled to sell us a few...


Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:24:51 PM EDT
AT-6B Texan 2...
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:25:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:


EDIT: I've always had to wonder, there is a LOT of space in that fuselage, way more than the engine equipment and fluid tanks could be taking up. What the heck is in there, anyway?


In Vietnam, a Mormon Pilot landed it on a makeshift runway, and rescued a downed airman...

From what I heard, there was enough "space" in there to hold another pilot.



He won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:26:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By juni4ling:
Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:


EDIT: I've always had to wonder, there is a LOT of space in that fuselage, way more than the engine equipment and fluid tanks could be taking up. What the heck is in there, anyway?


In Vietnam, a Mormon Pilot landed it on a makeshift runway, and rescued a downed airman...

From what I heard, there was enough "space" in there to hold another pilot.

http://famousmormons.net/bernard-fisher.jpg

He won the Congressional Medal of Honor.


Colonel
Bernard F. Fisher
USAF (retired)
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:34:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Google the Super Tucano.

Asked a JTAC the other day what he looks for in an aircraft, assuming that it has a targeting pod. He told me loiter time and loadout were his only two concerns.

The Super Taco would be cheaper and and available faster than trying to bring back the A6.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:36:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By only1asterisk:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Google the Super Tucano.

Asked a JTAC the other day what he looks for in an aircraft, assuming that it has a targeting pod. He told me loiter time and loadout were his only two concerns.

The Super Taco would be cheaper and and available faster than trying to bring back the A6.


Well, in air force logic, that is 2 strikes against it right off the bat.
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:40:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By only1asterisk:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Google the Super Tucano.

Asked a JTAC the other day what he looks for in an aircraft, assuming that it has a targeting pod. He told me loiter time and loadout were his only two concerns.

The Super Taco would be cheaper and and available faster than trying to bring back the A6.


Well, in air force logic, that is 2 strikes against it right off the bat.


Strike 1 being its not a fighter jet
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:43:03 PM EDT
The OV-10 would work out great. They are cheap to build and fly and can hang much longer than the pilots bladder can hold out
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:43:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
I had UAVs over head and never was able to talk to them. I had to BFT the TOC and the TOC JTAC would communicate back with BFT Free Text. Not optimal. Plus, UAV weapons release was a ridiculously stupid process. Somehow the airforce thinks a UAV operator in Bagram knows better than the senior ground commander what is going on.


What if you had something like organic Army UAVs and streaming video from them? At what level should UAV data be fed back into ground units?
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:45:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cyclone:
Doesnt Piper make a plane similar to the Super Taco?


Piper made the Enforcer. Kinda looked like a turbine P-51.

Skyraider for the win. The only thing better is the A10
Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:45:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By juni4ling:
Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:


EDIT: I've always had to wonder, there is a LOT of space in that fuselage, way more than the engine equipment and fluid tanks could be taking up. What the heck is in there, anyway?


In Vietnam, a Mormon Pilot landed it on a makeshift runway, and rescued a downed airman...

From what I heard, there was enough "space" in there to hold another pilot.

http://famousmormons.net/bernard-fisher.jpg

He won the Congressional Medal of Honor.


He was flying an A-1E, which has penty of "space" to hold another pilot.


Link Posted: 8/20/2010 6:50:47 PM EDT
The AD-4W had 2 radar operators in the rear fuselage.










Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top