Wouldn't the A-1H Skyraider be a good fit for service in Afghanistan? (Pics)

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wouldn't the A-1H Skyraider be a good fit for service in Afghanistan? (Pics) (Page 1 of 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?

Posted: 8/20/2010 4:59:38 PM EDT

[#1]

Hang a PT6 on the front and yeah maybe, but piston engines have no place in military aviation.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:00:35 PM EDT

[#2]

Too susceptible to ground fire? That's always been one of my favorite warplanes though.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:01:02 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
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?

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:03:19 PM EDT

[#4]

IIRC, they had something like an 8 hour loiter time while on CAS duty in Vietnam

, which might be kind of useful.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:03:30 PM EDT

[#5]

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?

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:06:38 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:09:52 PM EDT

[#7]

I don't know about Afghanistan, but I know I'd love to have one of those....

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:10:03 PM EDT

[#8]

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:10:23 PM EDT

[#9]

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:12:00 PM EDT

[#10]

dont we have our own ST in development?

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:12:12 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
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).

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:12:31 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:13:29 PM EDT

[#13]

Check!

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:17:33 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:20:22 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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?

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:21:22 PM EDT

[#16]

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:23:55 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
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?

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:25:17 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:28:38 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:28:46 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:33:13 PM EDT

[#21]

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:34:05 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:37:50 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:43:19 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:43:56 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:45:00 PM EDT

[#26]

The other thing is it is a high wing loading tail dragger. Not the easiest bird to land.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:49:19 PM EDT

[#27]

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;

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:49:59 PM EDT

[#28]

No dog in this fight. Here's a cool picture of a Skyradier

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:51:57 PM EDT

[#29]

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

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:55:23 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:58:44 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 5:59:16 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:05:56 PM EDT

[#33]

I'm thinking a B-29 with a specific ordinance would be ideal.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:06:45 PM EDT

[#34]

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:09:31 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:14:48 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:17:30 PM EDT

[#37]

skyraider ftmfw

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:17:30 PM EDT

[#38]

Doesnt Piper make a plane similar to the Super Taco?

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:20:37 PM EDT

[#39]

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...

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:24:51 PM EDT

[#40]

AT-6B Texan 2...

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:25:51 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:26:26 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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)

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:34:39 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:36:37 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:40:57 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:43:03 PM EDT

[#46]

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

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:43:09 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
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?

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:45:44 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
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

Posted: 8/20/2010 6:45:57 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.