T2K Air Support

[Raellus]

This kind of blew my mind.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the...0-a65e39df1085

But in a T2K U.S.A.? Perhaps...

[Damocles]

What Congress should have been pushing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Damocles

What Congress should have been pushing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg

Holy crap, Dammy did you really just link a Mike Sparks vid. x-(

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

This kind of blew my mind.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the...0-a65e39df1085

But in a T2K U.S.A.? Perhaps...

I'd love the see the Mustang brought back. I don't think it would be hard to redesign its airframe and allow it to carry the GPU-5gun pod and tons of ordnance on its wings. A more powerful engine would be needed, but stretching the airframe and reinforcing its protection to the level of the A-10 would not be that hard. It would be cheap too, how many upgraded mustangs could you get for the price of an F-35?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

A GPU-5A would shake that plane apart.

Anyway, if we're talking about T2k prop-driven late war air support it would be OV-10Ds plus whatever A1 Skyraiders they could pull out of Davis-Monthan.

[Matt Wiser]

All the A-1s flyable in the U.S. were in warbird collectors' hands. No known A-1s in AMARC since the late '70s.

[Apache6]

According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...A-1_Skyraiders
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...t_F4U_Corsairs


There are 14 airworthy A-1 skyraiders and 26 F4U Corsairs in tbe US. Since the Naval Aviation community is tight knit, and retired pilots remain closely tied to the active force, I'd suggest that a squadron of Skyraiders and a Squadron or two of Corsairs could be available to US Navy and USMC in T2K to support counterattacks.

Here is how it could have gone down. When the Mexican forces crossed the border, the Commander of 2nd Fleet, the Aviator Admiral Hank Jones reached out to his friend and former mentor, retired Navy Captain Tom Gracion and asked him what the Naval Avaition Association could provide. The Assocaition, consisting of Navy and Marine Corps pilots had access to a extensive collections of aircraft but no weapons. The call went out and the Association was able to scrounge together from numerous sources 10 A-1 skyraiders and 20 Corsairs. Over a period of a year, these aircraft were flown into Naval Air Station Pensacola where they were rearmed mostly with .50 cal machine guns and modernized bomb racks.

The Graybeards of the Naval Aviation Association served as trainers to help convert active pilots to the older aircraft and sometimes flew them operationally. Eventually, after many delays and a huge amount of improvisation the Navy was able to field a squadron of 10 Skyraiders (assigned to reconstituted Navy Attack Squadron (VA -2) the Beasts) and 20 Corsairs. 10 Corsairs were assigned to VA-6 (Fist of the Fleet) and 10 Assigned to Marine Attack Squadron VMA242 (the famous Black Sheep).

Though operations were extremely limited by fuel supplies the aircraft though obsolete were relatively easy to maintain and provided effective close air support.

Similarly a wide range of commercial aircraft operated (and often owned by) members of the Naval Aviaition Association were used for recon, scouting, light cargo and liaison duties.

VA

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Throw in some skilled techs, and you could see Corsairs (and Sandys) dropping LGBs and firing Hellfire missiles.

Also the cargo hauling abilities of the Skyraider aren't to be ignored. I think there was one variant that could carry up to five troops in a pinch.

[Olefin]

I have the following in Kenya supporting the forces there in the East African Sourcebook

2nd Battalion/228th Aviation Regiment
(fixed wing)

o Manpower: 260 men
o Aviation: three OV-10 Broncos,
ten Skyraiders (four AD-4, two
AD-4N, four AD-6), two O-2A,
three FTB337G Milirole

The Skyraiders in Kenya came both from private sources here in the US or that were sitting in Mombasa that had been obtained in Chad that were supposed to go to private collectors and instead were used in Kenya.

(The idea for the Skyraiders in Africa and the ones obtained from Chad came from Raellus and his discussions with Frank Frey in posts elsewhere on the forum.)

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I have the following in Kenya supporting the forces there in the East African Sourcebook

2nd Battalion/228th Aviation Regiment
(fixed wing)

o Manpower: 260 men
o Aviation: three OV-10 Broncos,
ten Skyraiders (four AD-4, two
AD-4N, four AD-6), two O-2A,
three FTB337G Milirole

The Skyraiders in Kenya came both from private sources here in the US or that were sitting in Mombasa that had been obtained in Chad that were supposed to go to private collectors and instead were used in Kenya.

(The idea for the Skyraiders in Africa and the ones obtained from Chad came from Raellus and his discussions with Frank Frey in posts elsewhere on the forum.)

I thought you had a couple of Warthogs in Kenya too, Olefin.

[Olefin]

No was thinking about having A-10's there but they needed tank killers a lot in Europe and Korea and the Middle East - whereas in Africa they needed ground support more against infantry assaults once the Tanzanian armor was taken care of plus a small silver bullet force of F-16's to be able to take on any jets and also provide ground suppport

I added instead the 169th Tactical Air Squadron - This squadron was created in early 1998 using retired pilots familiar with the A-37B. Nine aircraft, due to be transferred to the Colombian Air Force but delayed by the start of the war,
were assigned to the squadron.

169th Tactical Air Support Squadron (IL
ANG)
o Manpower: 80 men
o Aircraft: six OA-37B
Dragonfly,

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Olefin

No was thinking about having A-10's there but they needed tank killers a lot in Europe and Korea and the Middle East - whereas in Africa they needed ground support more against infantry assaults once the Tanzanian armor was taken care of plus a small silver bullet force of F-16's to be able to take on any jets and also provide ground suppport

I added instead the 169th Tactical Air Squadron - This squadron was created in early 1998 using retired pilots familiar with the A-37B. Nine aircraft, due to be transferred to the Colombian Air Force but delayed by the start of the war,
were assigned to the squadron.

169th Tactical Air Support Squadron (IL
ANG)
o Manpower: 80 men
o Aircraft: six OA-37B
Dragonfly,

Yeah; the Dragonfly can still haul a lot of modern ordinance (LGBs, Laser Hellfires, Laser Mavericks) as well as dumb iron and hits the slow-and-low sweet spot. Good call.

[Sanjuro]

When the Afghan campaign was at its height, the available fixed wing ground attack aircraft were all basically overkill, because they were designed to survive an environment with enemy aircraft and a lot of SAMs. At the same time, they didn't have that great a weapon load.
One suggestion was to take either the Tucano or the Pilatus PC9 and use them as "cheap and cheerful" ground attack platforms. Neither are fast by modern standards (although both will outperform the P51), but they could be modified to carry large weapon loads and have long loiter capability. Just don't try and use them in an area with either air defence aircraft, or modern SAMs...

[copeab]

The Enforcer probably wouldn't have been a bad choice as a COIN aircraft in Third World countries.

[Canadian Army]

I found these other airworthy craft in the US on Wikipedia:

North American F-86 Sabre: 20

Douglas A-26 Invaders: 33

North American B-25 Mitchells: 41

Douglas A-4 Skyhawks: 20

Vought F4U Corsairs: 17

Consolidated PBY Catalinas: 28

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk: 27

North American P-51 Mustangs: 137

Saab 35 Drakens: 15

Grumman TBF Avenger: 32

The Saab 35 Drakens was the real weird one, eight active with another six stored or under restoration. I can't figure out why so many Swedish fighter aircraft in the US?

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Canadian Army

I found these other airworthy craft in the US on Wikipedia:

<SNIP>

Saab 35 Drakens: 15

The Saab 35 Drakens was the real weird one, eight active with another six stored or under restoration. I can't figure out why so many Swedish fighter aircraft in the US?

There are not that many jet fighters that a private citizen can find to own.

JD Webster, author of a variety of air combat games and a former fighter pilot, at one point bought a Polish MiG-21 to restore (back in the 90s).


Uncle Ted

[kalos72]

Sure these military developed/purposed aircraft are awesome but I am sure there are some civilian ones that could be used in a pinch no? A Cessna 172 has to be good for something...

Surely a stripped 747 could become a troop transport in no time...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by copeab

The Enforcer probably wouldn't have been a bad choice as a COIN aircraft in Third World countries.

The Iraqi military (if there still is one) could use some of these.

[Canadian Army]

I should also add

The Grumman OV-1 Mohawk: 33

North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco: 30

There would also be large numbers of Beechcraft T-34 Mentor and Cessna T-37 Tweet, which could easily be converted to combat aircraft.

[Tegyrius]

250+ Aero L-39s in 2012, per Wikipedia. Not sure how many of those would have come over between the Wall coming down and the date of the TDM.

- C.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Sure these military developed/purposed aircraft are awesome but I am sure there are some civilian ones that could be used in a pinch no? A Cessna 172 has to be good for something...

Actually, not much due to a lack of carrying capacity. That's the main thing you get in military aircraft - lots of spare lift capacity due to the engine power available. Before we discuss adding ordnance delivery systems, or targeting systems.

(And the speed and the ability to maneuver (without falling apart), before we discuss targeting systems available in post WW2 aircraft.

Surely a stripped 747 could become a troop transport in no time...

Stripped? Why waste the time. 747s and other large jets were already tagged to be put into immediate use to move troops to meet pre-positioned US equipment. They'd have been used in 1995/96.

Uncle Ted

[copeab]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The Iraqi military (if there still is one) could use some of these.

The Enforcer is a rather old design. It is probably better to use something similar but much newer.

[Adm.Lee]

32 Avengers is pretty amazing, and those would have reasonably good bomb-loads and ruggedness.

[headquarters]

Considering the amount of infrastructure, technical expertise and advanced high technological parts and equipment needed to deploy modern combat aircraft I think that a reverse to more basic aircraft would occur.

Obsolete or inferior aircraft can fill many roles - scouting, fire direction, transportation and indeed - attempt attacking enemy positions or troops.

It is far better to have some sort of arial observation and fire direction capability - maybe even from ultralight aircraft than to have none due to lack of technicians and spare parts.

Not to mention fuel.

I guess all of us have a certain view of what would be the situation in game terms. In my personal and humble opinion crop dusters, civvies prop planes and choppers and what not would suddenly be utilized in military operations of many kinds.

In our campaign I have found that adding some 1930s, 1940s and 1950s combat aircraft have added to the overall enjoyment and scope of the game.

Civvie prop craft are used by all sides in our game as scouts etc. Dogfights between two wholly inadequate combat aircraft with handheld m249s etc blasting away at each other at 4000 feet is good fun.

Having an aircraft attack the party with a good ole LMG strafing run from 400 feet is far more entertaining than a laser guided bomb from 15 000 feet.

[chico20854]

A more likely wartime stopgap for CAS in a low-threat environment would be the Boeing Skyfox - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox

At the time there was a large number of surplus T-33s on the market, being retired from various air forces due to age. In fact, the company that developed the aircraft purchased 80 of the retired trainers, with hundreds more available.

The various Broncos and Mohawks would still be on the US military's rolls, doing their mission!!!!

[copeab]

Originally Posted by headquarters

Considering the amount of infrastructure, technical expertise and advanced high technological parts and equipment needed to deploy modern combat aircraft I think that a reverse to more basic aircraft would occur.

This is certainly possible. In 1944, for example, one American, not content acting as an artillery spotter in his military version of the Piper Cub, lashed three bazookas together and placed them under each wing (next to the connection for the support strut) and went tank hunting.

The firing of 5.6mm and 7.62mm MGs shouldn't damage the plane mounting them and simple rocks probably only require some sort of metal sheet under the wing to prevent the rocket exhaust from burning the wing (such a modification was made for the Swordfish biplane to allow it to carry 60-lb rockets). Light bombs are also possible.

MGs could fire through the prop arc, using metal wedges on the back of the prop . This is what was used before the invention of synchronizing gear in WWI.. The prop will eventualay need to be replaced, but won't be splintered in seconds.

[kalos72]

Think of the "Airlords" module, look at how much a couple of blimps did for them?

Throw a couple of bombs on the undercarriage...or have some crude door mounts with MG's...

Lots of options...

My guys in Texas have alot of the T34 trainers on hand...gotta love air power when your the only ones with aviation fuel.

[Sanjuro]

I've said it before... in a really fuel-starved environment, consider the use of high performance gliders. Given suitable launch sites on a windy ridge, they can be bungee launched, then wave soar to higher altitudes than an unprotected human could survive. Being white, they are almost invisible in a bright sky, silent and with a small radar signature. The 2 seat trainer versions can carry an observer with a camera for hundreds of miles. Yes, hundreds- I had a student once who flew several times from France to Yugoslavia and back- all without burning a gallon of fuel.
Given small amounts of avgas, the self-launching motor gliders come into play- as the name suggests, they have a small engine for takeoff, which is switched off for gliding flight. Although they do not have the extreme glide performance of dedicated sailplanes, they can still cover long distances without using their engines, while having the versatility to land and takeoff behind enemy lines for such missions as agent extraction.

[copeab]

I have been aircraft with (turbocharged) diesel engines for improved fuel economy but it does add extra weight.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Charles Carpenter, AKA Bazooka Charlie. His loiter speed was low enough that he could really draw a bead on enemy tanks, and top-down attacks with ATRLs were enough of a threat to Panzers that he could make them withdraw. Plus the German troops were in a pickle; if they heard/saw an LH-4 and it was him, there was a good chance he'd attack their armor if they did nothing. On the other hand if they shot at the aircraft and it wasn't him, but a spotter, they'd have artillery called in on them.