While discussing some modelling projects, my friend and I were wandered into the nature of the latest US military actions. Not politics, just the vastly assymetric nature of the forces deployed. I threw out the idea that the cost and maintenance of even the helicopter gunships has to be enormous for the amount of ordnance and loiter time over generally “soft” targets. To make a long discussion short, I played a “what if” game. What if the US formed a couple squadrons of piston engined attack aircraft using an old design (such as the venerable Spad). WIth updated avionics, I would think it could deliver a JDAM or a LGB (not to mention unguided goodies) just as well as it’s bigger jet cousins? And, wouldn’t maintenance, fuel, and construction be a fraction of it’s brethren’s cost? Certainly it would be as survivable as a helo? Anyway, I thought it was a neat talking point, and wondered if anyone had any educated thoughts or opinions on what my arm chair wannabe wing commander flight of fancy.
Secondly, since I’m going to build my “Spad II” how should I dress her up? I was kind of thinking a MARPAT finish might be interesting [:)]
All you say is potentially true. A couple of problems I see with are:
Fuel. I’m not positive but I don’t think 115/145 AVGAS is refined anymore in
any significant quantity.
Maintainance Skills: I doubt there’s anyone left in our modern military that has ever
worked on a large radial engine.
Parts availability: Those large radials aren’t even manufactured anymore.
Interesting idea. But, isn’t that what the A-10 is supposed to be? They are, after all, paid for. And the most low-tech tactical machines in the inventory. Certainly more expensive to operate than the venerable SPAD, but compared to, say, an F-15E or even an F-16, it pretty cheap to operate. And, from what I read, they have a better per-unit readiness record than the Apaches operating in the desert, though I am sure the Army might argue that point. And let’s face it, based on what we paid for them and what it costs to replace an Apache, the A-10 is indeed a bargain. It’s the crews who are the irreplaceable, obviously. But, if you go back and read your history, and I’m repeating myself here so forgive me, the A-10 was pretty much ordered up as a replacement for the SPAD, since the A-7 was still not the CAS a/c the USAF was looking for.
Any way you look at it, when a $25 million helicopter can be and are brought down by a hundred buck RPG, or a two thousand dollar shoulder fired SAM, some new tactical thinking might not be a bad idea. And I don’t mind someone bringing up an occasional off-topic “what if” question, as long as we don’t fall into these trite political pronouncements that get made from time to time. Around here, modeling comes first, second and third, as far as I’m concerned. But as well as modelers, I think most of us consider ourselves amateur aviation historians as well, and questions will come up.
TOM
I think it would be asweet idea. A company (I forget who) tried to bring the stang back in the early 70’s with a turbo prop engine and upgraded avionics and whatnot. If I am remembering correctly it lost to the A-10, but not by much. I dont think the military are interested in props anymore, no matter how practical.
The old piston engines are maintanence intensive. That’s one of the main reasons why commercial airlines were so keen to switch to jets. Though the initial cost for turbine engines may be higher, they don’t have to be torn down and rebuilt regularly, so they’re cheaper in the long run, in addition to being more powerfull and reliable.
Then there’s the logistics problem of having to keep different sorts of fuel on hand.
Piper made that turbo prop Mustang, they called it the Enforcer.
Another low-tech turbo prop that fit’s into this scenario might be the Pucara, an Argentian plane, 2 engines, 2 crewmembers (altough there was one single seater developed). Fixed arnament consisted of 4 machine guns ( 0.30) and two 20 mm canons. There was room for improvement, there has been a prototype with two 30 mm canons instead of the 20 mm. Other cadidates might be the Bronco or cheap jettrainers such as the Hawk.
But in the end I must agree with Sharskin that the A-10 probably is the best aitcraft for the job, considering factors as loitering time, total cost, arnament etc.
Or maybe it’s Russian eqiuvalent, the Su-25…
The Enforcer reminded me of another ill-fated attempt to breathe new life into an old warhorse. Remember in the early 80s a prototype of a rebuild of the T-33 was made, and a proposal to rebuild hundreds of them as light attack machines. But as I recall, there would have been only about a 50 percent commonality between the T-bird and the Mean T-Bird, making it pretty impratical. But, as I noted the other day, our Military Assistance Program was sending the standard bomb-racked, twin .50-cal.-armed T-33’s to the Mexican Air Force as late as 1990, though I was just told last week by someone down there who knows that every one of them is now grounded due to poor or no maintenance. It wasn’t for lack of parts. And, while I’m thinking of it, same source told me the entire Mexican F-5 fleet is also down. Leaving them with no tactical air force.
How did I get off on that?
TOM
A bunch of years ago, I attended an Agricultural Aviation convention (Crop Duster Gathering) with my boss. At one of the booths, a bunch of us cornered one of the Pratt & Whitney representatives and got on him about why Pratt didn’t put the R-985 and the R-1340 back into production. His response was that as all the tooling and jigs used for the manufacturer of the engines had been modified, sold or scrapped and by the time that all those items had been remanufactured and a new plant was built to manufacture the engines, the new radials would cost what a turbo-prop of the same horsepower would cost. In other words, 150,000 to 300,000 bucks a pop at that time.
And as far as the availability of 115/145 octane Avfuel, Shell used to (and I believe still do) brew up several thousand gallons each fall for the Reno Air Races.
There are’nt enough of those old babies to go around anymore. The only plane in any quantity is the T6 and it can’t compete with today’s weapons systems. All of those sweet oldies would never stand a chance in modern warfare.
The RAF had a prop driven type for CAS missions, it was intended for WWII combat but came along a bit late. It was the Bristol Brigand and I don’t think it had a long service life after the FB marks of the DeHavilland Vampire came into service.
Whats interesting about the CAS mission aircraft is that usually they aren’t purpose built but a modification to some existing airframe that is seen as suitable. A few examples are the A-37 being derived from the T-37, the afore mentioned FB marks of the DH Vampire family… In the extreme case, we have the A-7 being a complete rework of the F-8. The MiG-27 was a direct development of the MiG-23…
The A-10 and Su-25 are exceptions to this trend.
Many of the South American air forces were using WWII aircraft in CAS missions well after WWII. I think Brasil was using P-47s into the mid 70s and Bolivia was doing the same with P-51s until the same time frame. I think the Dominican Republic had P-38s in service until the early 1960s.
On the surface, its not a bad idea to keep some low tech around, however it comes with its own issues As has been pointed out.
Even in the modern sense of lower tech prop aircraft, the idea doesn’t seem to catch on well. If I recal correctly, Pilatus tried to market CAS capable variants of its PC-7 and PC-9 trainers and neither of them sold.
sharkskin, I can tell you from a groundpounders point of view. There will be no arguments in the differences between the A-10 and Apachee. We love the A-10. If it wasnt for restrictions on the Army operating armed fixed wing aircraft we’d gladly take them off the USAF’s hands. That why Army brass throws a coniption fit everytime the AF tries to replace the A-10 with the F-16 or F-15E. I personally own a couple warthog drivers a cold beer If I can ever find out who was at the stick when we asked for support.
The Apachee’s a great aircraft but given a choice Id rather have A-10’s flying cover. They’re harder to shoot down
An UCAV based on an AV-10 Bronco for example could carrie JDAM, machine guns, canons. If the avionics is simple (without enhanced ECM for example) it is possible to build some cheap UCAV.
It is cheap, no pilots for those dangerous misions and it is an old concept plane, as the other in this topic [;)]
(I read last year that it was thinking about an UCAV version of the A-10 named Robohog. Is that true or fake?)
Special Ops in Afganistan have also fond feelings for the AV 8 and F 18 which have produced fine results with their capabilities to put the load on where it’s needed.
I wonder what an A-37 would look like in Oeration Iraqi Freedom garb? These little guys could do the job of an Apache at a fraction of the cost. Plus they have the ability, like the A-10, to high-tail it if need be. This is a great “what-if” subject for a group build.
Folland tried to sell the RAF their Gnat as a cheaper alternative to the Hunter. The RAF felt that as the highest financial investment was in the pilot that you should not put an expensive man in a cheap aircraft. Seriously, a Piper enforcer would work well against bandits, but would you fly one against an enemy equipped with modern infantry anti aircraft weapons?
Well how about a Zeppelin??? what the heck great loiter time, can use helium, you could shoot alot of holes in it an MAYBE hit a vital spot. great launch platform for shootin back with RPG’s. couple of turbo props for some get up and go!! Hey! if you got air superiority what the heck!!!
There hasn’t been a Colt produced in years, and most of them are in civil hands these days. Its a very popular platform for skydiving and glider towing.
Interestingly, Bilek offers a version of its 1/72 Colt kit outfitted for the CAS mission; It has North Vietnamese AF markings and a rocket pod under each lower wing. Looks kind of ridiculous actually.[:p]
