Morrow Aviation Assets

[ArmySGT.]

“This is Black Bird four one to Recon Mike seven, over”.
“This is Black Bird four one to Recon Mike seven, over”.
“Hey you Scouts listening to your radios, over?”
“This is Black Bird four one to Recon Mike seven, over”.
“Mike Seven to Blackbird four, go ahead”“Good to hear you Mike Seven, Black Bird 41 is inbound yours with a drop, over”
“Black Bird four one, Dee Zee is hot. Hostiles on North and East flanks with 2 plus, crew served heavy belt feds, and on Arrr Pee Gee, probable platoon strength”
“Mike Seven, this is Black Bird four one, this drop will happen in two passes. South side approach, mark your DZ with smoke. Jumpers need air ground speed and direction, over”
“Black Bird four one, did you say jumpers, over?”
“Mike Seven, affirmative, Jumpers four total, say again Jumpers four total, MARS detachment”.

“Black Bird four one, Roger four jumpers, MARS, air speed is still too low from the west. “

“Mike Seven, first drop in nine minutes, two pallets, will home on your location and south 100 meters.”
“Black Bird four one, confirm two pallets in drop. My location plus 100 meters South, time now plus nine minutes, over”
“Affirmative, Mike Seven”

C-23 Sherpa A/B




C-23A

Data from Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1988-1989

General characteristics

Crew: Three (Two pilots plus one cabin crew)
Capacity: 30 passengers, or 18 Litter based passengers
Length: 58 ft 0 in (17.69 m)
Wingspan: 74 ft 9 in (22.78 m)
Height: 16 ft 3 in (4.95 m)
Wing area: 453 ft² (42.1 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 63 series, modified
Empty weight: 14,200 lb (6,440 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 22,900 lb (10,387 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-45-R turboprops, 1,198 hp (894 kW) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 281 mph (245 knots, 453 km/h) at 12,000 ft (2,273 m)
Cruise speed: 255 mph (221 knots, 410 km/h)
Stall speed: 85 mph (73 knots, 136 km/h) with flaps and landing gear down
Range: 770 mi (670 nm, 1,239 km) passenger version, 1,966 kg payload with no reserves
Service ceiling: 27,000 ft (5,114 m)
Rate of climb: 2,100 ft/min (10.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 50.6 lb/ft² (247 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.052 hp/lb (170 W/kg)

C-23B/C

Data from U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947

General characteristics

Crew: Three (Two pilots plus one flight engineer)
Capacity: 18-20 passengers
Length: 58 ft 0 in (17.7 m)
Wingspan: 74 ft 10 in (22.8 m)
Height: 16 ft 5 in (5.0 m)
Wing area: 456 ft² (42.4 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 63 series, modified
Empty weight: 16,040 lb (7,276 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 25,600 lb (11,610 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-65AR turboprop, 1,424 shp (1,062 kW) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 291 mph (252 knots, 468 km/h)
Cruise speed: 262 mph (228 knots, 422 km/h)
Range: 1,185 mi (1,030 nmi, 1,907 km)
Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (5,303 m)

C-23 Sherpa
Specifications
Contractor Short Brothers PLC
C-23A Sherpa C-23B Super Sherpa
Power Plant 2 Pratt-Whitney PT6A-45R turboprops 2 Pratt-Whitney PT6A-65AR turboprops
Take-off power
[Sea level static, uninstalled] 1197 shp 1424 shp
Design output shaft speed 1700 rpm 1700 rpm
Speed 218mph at 10,000ft
range 770 miles with 5000lb payload
Span 74ft 8in
length 58ft
height 16ft 3in
Weight Gross 25,500lb max
Accomodations Crew of three
up to 7000lb of freight, including 4 LD3 containers, and engines the size of F100 series
Date Deployed Entered USAF inventory 1984

[ArmySGT.]

“Kenworth two Alpha, this is Kenworth two Charlie, over”. The voice came across the digitally encrypted frequency hopping radios with minimal distortion of the woman’s warm Midwestern tenor.
“Kenworth two Charlie, this is Kenworth two Alpha; go ahead, over” Likewise answered with another woman’s Midwestern tenor plus some drawl in the bored tones that pilots exudes to display superior confidence.
“Kenworth two Alpha, This is Kenworth two Charlie, On Station, ready for Mission Hand off, over”.

“Kenworth two Charlie, This is Kenworth two Alpha, Affirmative, Mission is yours, I am Arrr Tee Bee, don’t cut to many circles out of the sky before Bravo is up to relieve you, over”

“Kenworth two Alpha, this is Kenworth two Charlie, thanks, will do. Keep it above angels seven thousand. The dust storms coming up from Colorado and Kansas are kicking up fallout, over”.

“Thanks Charlie, will do, Alpha, Out”.

The Project discovered that the greater proportion of multi-engine off center line pilots with military and commercial experience easiest to recruit were women. The Project was looking for skills and not genders to fill roles in the desperately understaffed Morrow Project. Women had been flying various large cargo aircraft in various military non-combat roles, airborne surveillance being one.












Grumman
E-2 Hawkeye
Airborne Early Warning
And Control Aircraft

DESCRIPTION:
Although the US Navy had long desired an airborne surveillance platform, it took several years for electronics to sufficiently decrease in size to be fitted within an aircraft that could operate from an aircraft carrier. Even so, it took several more years for computers to become powerful enough that they could track and process more than a few targets at once. These conditions were finally met, however, culminating in Grumman being named the winner of a Navy contract to develop an airborne early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft.

The Grumman design featured twin turboprop engines fitted beneath a high-mounted wing. The long fuselage housed a crew of five, including three mission specialists, and featured a large rotating radome mounted on a pylon above the wing juncture. To compensate for the airflow around the radome, the tail assembly incorporated four fins on a horizontal tail with significant dihedral. This design, first flown in 1960, was originally known as the W2F-1 but was later redesignated the E-2A Hawkeye before entering service.

The Navy took delivery of 59 E-2A airframes by 1967, but these were quickly upgraded to the E-2B standard with the installation of a more powerful processing computer and inflight-refueling equipment. Shortly thereafter, Grumman began production of the E-2C model with far superior avionics and more powerful engines. These aircraft have been continuously upgraded with new radar and sensors, improved avionics, more powerful processing equipment, and software upgrades allowing the E-2C Hawkeye to track over 250 targets and control 30 interceptors at once.

In addition to protecting the US fleet, the E-2 has also been used in cooperation with law enforcement agencies to interdict drug traffickers. The E-2 has also proven popular with the French Navy and a variety of foreign air forces.

As production of the E-2C has wound down, development of a new variant called the E-2D with improved electronics is underway. The US Navy currently plans to purchase 75 of the E-2D model with deliveries beginning in 2010.

Data below for E-2C
Last modified 06 April 2011

HISTORY:
First Flight (W2F-1) 21 October 1961
(E-2C) 20 January 1971
Service Entry

(E-2A) 19 January 1964
(E-2C) November 1973

CREW: 2 pilots, 1 radar operator, 1 air control officer, 1 combat information center officer

ESTIMATED COST:

$51 million

AIRFOIL SECTIONS:
Wing Root NACA 63A216
Wing Tip

NACA 63A414

DIMENSIONS:
Length 57.56 ft (17.54 m)
Wingspan 80.58 ft (24.56 m)
Height 18.31 ft (5.58 m)
Wing Area 700.0 ft² (65.03 m²)
Canard Area

not applicable

WEIGHTS:
Empty 37,945 lb (17,210 kg)
Normal Takeoff unknown
Max Takeoff 51,815 lb (23,505 kg)
Fuel Capacity 19,015 lb (8,625 kg)
Max Payload

unknown

PROPULSION:
Powerplant two Allison T56-425 turboprops
Thrust 9,820 ehp (7,322 kW)

PERFORMANCE:
Max Level Speed at altitude: 390 mph (625 km/h)
at sea level: unknown
cruise speed: 310 mph (500 km/h)
Initial Climb Rate unknown
Service Ceiling 36,955 ft (11,275 m)
Range typical: 1,500 nm (2,780 km)
ferry: 1,540 nm (2,850 km)
Endurance 6 hr 15 min
g-Limits unknown

ARMAMENT:
Gun none
Stations none
Air-to-Air Missile none
Air-to-Surface Missile none
Bomb none
Other none

KNOWN VARIANTS:
W2F-1 Original designation for the E-2
E-2A Initial production model; 59 built
TE-2A E-2 trainers modified from E-2A airframes; 2 converted
E-2B Designation for upgraded E-2A airframes modified with an improved computer and inflight-refueling capability
E-2C Improved model with far more capable avionics; over 150 built by 2000
TE-2C Trainer model based on the E-2C; 2 built
E-2C+ Upgrade for US aircraft including improvements to the radar, software updates, and installation of more powerful engines
E-2D New build model equipped with an improved radar system, new workstations, better satellite communications gear, and advanced cockpit displays; 75 to be built from 2009 to 2020
E-2T Former E-2B aircraft upgraded for use by Taiwan; 6 converted
C-2 Greyhound

Ship-to-shore transport aircraft derived from the E-2 airframe

KNOWN COMBAT RECORD:

Vietnam War (USN, 1965-1972)
Lebanon (Israel, 1982)
Libya - Operation El Dorado Canyon (USAF, 1986)
Iraq - Operation Desert Storm (USN, 1991)
Bosnia - Operation Deliberate Force (USAF, 1995)
Afghanistan - Operation Enduring Freedom (USN, 2001-present)
Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom (USN, 2003-present)
Libya - Operation Unified Protector / Harmattan (France, 2011)

KNOWN OPERATORS:

Egypt, Al Quwwat al Jawwiya il Misriya (Egyptian Air Force)
France, Aéronautique Navale (French Naval Air Arm)
Israel, Tsvah Haganah le Israel - Heyl Ha'Avir (Israeli Defence Force - Air Force)
Japan, Nihon Koku-Jieitai (Japan Air Self Defence Force)
Singapore (Republic of Singapore Air Force)
Taiwan, Chung-Kuo Kung Chuan (Republic of China Air Force)
United States (US Navy)

3-VIEW SCHEMATIC:

E-2 Hawkeye


SOURCES:

Bishop, Chris, ed. The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Weapons: The Comprehensive Guide to Over 1,000 Weapon Systems from 1945 to the Present Day. NY: Barnes & Noble, 1999, p. 347.
Bonds, Ray, ed. The Modern US War Machine: An Encyclopedia of American Military Equipment and Strategy. NY: Military Press, 1987, p. 184-185.
Donald, David, ed. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. NY: Barnes & Noble, 1997, p. 472, Grumman E-2 Hawkeye/TE-2/C-2 Greyhound.
Donald, David and Lake, Jon, ed. The Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft. NY: Barnes & Noble, 2000, p. 185-187, Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.
Gunston, Bill, ed. The Encyclopedia of Modern Warplanes. NY: Barnes & Noble, 1995, p. 128, Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.
Laur, Timothy M. and Llanso, Steven L. Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons. NY: Berkley Books, 1995, p. 54-57, Hawkeye (E-2).
Miller, David, ed. The Illustrated Directory of Modern American Weapons. London: Salamander Books, 2002, p. 184-185, Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye.
Müller, Claudio. Aircraft of the World. NY: Muddle Puddle Books, 2004, p. 258-259, Northrop Grumman Hawkeye 2000.
Rendall, David. Jane's Aircraft Recognition Guide, 2nd ed. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999, p. 167, Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye.
Taylor, Michael. Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory 1996/1997. London: Brassey's, 1996, p. 191-192, Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye and Hawkeye II.
Taylor, Michael J. H. Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory 1999/2000. London: Brassey's, 1999, p. 169-170, Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye, Group II Hawkeye II and Hawkeye 2000.
US Navy E-2 Fact Sheet

[rcaf_777]

I think another good aircraft would the Grumman S-2 Tracker, and it Variants
the C-1 Trader COD, E-1 Tracer AWACS, and the Conair Firecat (Water Bomber)

[Old Fart]

F4's or A4's would be a good choice as some are still in the bone yards and still in use in some third world Air Forces. If updated with more modern capabilities (electronics) and engines these would be good backbone forces, kind of like the B-52's. On that note if it were possible for the MP procurers to get their hands on some A-6 intruders these would be the B-52's of the project.

[rcaf_777]

I am thinking if the project needs a low cost quiet low level reconnaissance aircraft they might have Lockheed YO-3 "Quiet Star"

Lockheed YO-3 "Quiet Star"

General characteristics
Crew: Two
Length: 30 ft 0 in (9.14 m)
Wingspan: 57 ft 0 in (17.37 m)
Wing Area: 180 sq. ft. (16.70 sq. m)
Powerplant: 1 × Continental six-cylinder horizonally-opposed, 210


Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YO-3

[ArmySGT.]

General characteristics

Crew: 1-2
Capacity: 4-5 passengers
Length: 23 ft 0 in (7.01 m)
Rotor diameter: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m)
Height: 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m)
Disc area: 544.63 ft² (50.60 m²)
Empty weight: 1,320 lbs (599 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 3,000 lbs (1361 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × One Allison 250-C20B Turboshaft, 420 hp (313 kW)

Performance

Maximum speed: 160 mph (257 km/h)
Range: 230 miles (370 km)
Service ceiling: 13,800 ft (4,205 m)
Rate of climb: 1,650 ft/min (503 m/min (8.4 m/s))

Armament

four TOW anti-tank missiles, or
two 7.62mm General Electric M134 Miniguns plus ammuntion, or
four General Dynamics Stinger air-to-air missile, or
Mk 44 or Mk 46 lightweight torpedoes (ASW Version), or
two seven-shot rocket pods

[stormlion1]

One of the bad things about aircraft and helicopters is they have a logistics chain. Fuel we can take care of with handwaving. But what about parts, grease, repairs, and dedicated tools? The Morrow Air Assets are all great five years after the war. But if they survive a hundred fifty years the maintenance alone will ground everything real damn fast.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

One of the bad things about aircraft and helicopters is they have a logistics chain. Fuel we can take care of with handwaving. But what about parts, grease, repairs, and dedicated tools? The Morrow Air Assets are all great five years after the war. But if they survive a hundred fifty years the maintenance alone will ground everything real damn fast.

So far the canon aircraft have all been located inside a Morrow facility, Prime Base. It would be expected that these would operate from a dedicated facility established pre-War. Even a bolt hole style with one aircraft, two crews, and a 5-10 person maintenance team.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

One of the bad things about aircraft and helicopters is they have a logistics chain. Fuel we can take care of with handwaving. But what about parts, grease, repairs, and dedicated tools? The Morrow Air Assets are all great five years after the war. But if they survive a hundred fifty years the maintenance alone will ground everything real damn fast.

This is a great argument for the Project to limit the models for all vehicles as much as possible. It might be desirable to have a dozen different types of aircraft, but logistically that becomes much harder to support. The Project would be best served by a single multi-mission combat-capable aircraft (V-22 or H-60 perhaps?) supported by a single dirt-strip-capable transport aircraft (C-130 or C-23 perhaps?). I cannot see reducing the numbers any further than that and I cannot see any overreaching need that would justify any more models.

At the same time, it should be noted that electric vehicles in general have significantly lower maintenance requirements than ICE vehicles. There are a LOT fewer moving parts and that makes everything a lot easier. Your supply and support needs are going to be a lot lower for Morrow vehicles than the original versions required.

[stormlion1]

Very true, for Fourth Edition we have much more in the way of options for air assets. But there all also much more fragile-tech wise and expensive. So I think that older gear is better. Aircraft like the Huey or the Little Bird for Helicopters. Tried and true designs and C-130's for aircraft. Does the Project need anything more than those? Not really.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Very true, for Fourth Edition we have much more in the way of options for air assets. But there all also much more fragile-tech wise and expensive. So I think that older gear is better. Aircraft like the Huey or the Little Bird for Helicopters. Tried and true designs and C-130's for aircraft. Does the Project need anything more than those? Not really.

I don't see any particular inherent virtue in "older" - certainly something that is brand new is going to be a risk, but (for example) the H-60 and C-23 have been around plenty long enough to be "safe". I would say that, for aircraft, a decade of use is an adequate buffer to ensure that (a) the kinks have been worked out, (b) there is an adequate supply chain, and (c) there is a supply of trained, experienced pilots. And that's a soft decade - the C-27 should certainly be in consideration! There is a tendency in this country to underestimate how long our military aircraft have been flying, and while the Project could make do with pre-Vietnam War aircraft like the C-130 or UH-1, there is not really any benefit in doing so.

The Little Bird bugs me for a different reason - it is too little. It is fine for observation and even light attack, but if it cannot transport a typical MARS or Recon team, along with standard crew including a door gunner or two, then it is going to be too limited in the missions it can handle. It would be fine as part of an assortment of helicopters, but an assortment of helicopters is what the Project should avoid.

[mmartin798]

I always try to reign in the "Oooo... Pretty! Me Want!" reaction by thinking how it would fit into the reconstruction plan. When I apply this to aircraft, I keep coming back to a short list for my manned depot/manufacturing incubator base. There are two VTOLs that usually make the list, CH-47 and V-22, and the C-130. I can make a good case for the C-27 as well. All these aircraft are proved, some with a shaky start, and have reconstruction uses as well. The CH-47 makes for an suitable sky crane, carries 10 tonnes and has the ability to transport many patients as an air ambulance. V-22 is much faster than the CH-47 with half the payload. The C-130 can carry a newly rebuilt or manufactured CNC Mill in the cargo bay for delivery to a plant with an improvised runway far way. The fact that all these aircraft are multi role from early warning, in-flight/ground vehicle refueling, vehicle and troop transport to support MARS operation is good too.

I think this is a needed conversation. It is completely unreasonable to assume the Project would not have air assets. But I keep going back to thinking why they would have them first and then picking airframes that make sense.

[stormlion1]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I don't see any particular inherent virtue in "older" - certainly something that is brand new is going to be a risk, but (for example) the H-60 and C-23 have been around plenty long enough to be "safe". I would say that, for aircraft, a decade of use is an adequate buffer to ensure that (a) the kinks have been worked out, (b) there is an adequate supply chain, and (c) there is a supply of trained, experienced pilots. And that's a soft decade - the C-27 should certainly be in consideration! There is a tendency in this country to underestimate how long our military aircraft have been flying, and while the Project could make do with pre-Vietnam War aircraft like the C-130 or UH-1, there is not really any benefit in doing so.

The Little Bird bugs me for a different reason - it is too little. It is fine for observation and even light attack, but if it cannot transport a typical MARS or Recon team, along with standard crew including a door gunner or two, then it is going to be too limited in the missions it can handle. It would be fine as part of an assortment of helicopters, but an assortment of helicopters is what the Project should avoid.

I find the Little Bird to be perfect is a few ways for a Recon team. There small yes, but if you think about it, they can actually be stored inside a Bolthole with all there maintenance gear. Every other helicopter will need a larger hanger. Most teams are only four members large anyway and a Little Bird can carry six, two up front and four in the rear and with cargo pods attached they can carry all the excess gear. An advantage is that with a four man team you need two pilots and the other two can man guns in the rear and have excess room for gear inside and weapon pods on the outside.
Of course a Little Bird and any helicopter is just fine five years after the nukes, but a 150 showing up in one really isn't the way to recon a settlement.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

I find the Little Bird to be perfect is a few ways for a Recon team. There small yes, but if you think about it, they can actually be stored inside a Bolthole with all there maintenance gear. Every other helicopter will need a larger hanger. Most teams are only four members large anyway and a Little Bird can carry six, two up front and four in the rear and with cargo pods attached they can carry all the excess gear. An advantage is that with a four man team you need two pilots and the other two can man guns in the rear and have excess room for gear inside and weapon pods on the outside.
Of course a Little Bird and any helicopter is just fine five years after the nukes, but a 150 showing up in one really isn't the way to recon a settlement.

Either 5 years or 150 it is still excellent for reconnaissance of roads, highways, bridges, rivers, railroad.......

It can take video or still images for assessment and using milimeter wave radar or LIDAR make accurate measurements for assessing areas to rebuild.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

I find the Little Bird to be perfect is a few ways for a Recon team. There small yes, but if you think about it, they can actually be stored inside a Bolthole with all there maintenance gear. Every other helicopter will need a larger hanger.

I am not sure what you are talking about here - are you suggesting that this helicopter be issued as an auxiliary vehicle for Recon teams in addition to their regular MPV? In addition to their other skills, they are supposed to have a couple of experienced helicopter pilots? Chopper pilots don't exactly grow on trees, you know.

And it has twice the footprint of a Stryker, so I am not sure how you figure fitting one into a bolthole is going to be easy, but then again boltholes aren't standardized anyway.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Most teams are only four members large anyway and a Little Bird can carry six, two up front and four in the rear and with cargo pods attached they can carry all the excess gear. An advantage is that with a four man team you need two pilots and the other two can man guns in the rear and have excess room for gear inside and weapon pods on the outside.

That doesn't change that it is one of the least versatile helicopters out there. It can carry a six man team, but only 4 can then dismount and fight (2, if you insist on the helicopter being protected as it leaves), and they can't really bring anyone or anything back with them. Even without passengers it has a minimal cargo capacity. Unless the Morrow aerial inventory is large enough to permit this kind of specialization, something that can do all this stuff and carry an actual team or their MPV or large sensor pods or serve as a medevac might be a better choice.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

It can take video or still images for assessment and using milimeter wave radar or LIDAR make accurate measurements for assessing areas to rebuild.

I am honestly not even sure if an OH-6 can mount a LITENING pod - the pylons are only rated to carry a couple hundred pounds (I think), and I don't think you can get much of a sensor in a pod that small. Conversely, a UH-60 or V-22 or really anything larger would be able to carry decent-sized sensors AND still carry armament and even personnel!

[cosmicfish]

I find it hard to discuss specific vehicles (especially specialized ones) without the context of the overall inventory. For those advocating the OH-6, what is your vision of the Morrow aerial force? How many aircraft of each type, and how are they distributed?

For example, I recently tossed together a TOE for my version of TMP. I had a large airbase at Prime Base and 6 much smaller regional airbases. Scattered between these I had 8 MH-53M, 16 MH-60M, 24 MV-22B, 8 C-130J, 12 Twin Otters, and 48 MQ-9 Reapers, for a Project of approximately 50,000 people.

Bear in mind that this was just a first cut, but I thought that was actually quite a lot of aircraft even though I thought it was what the Project really needs. Even still, it runs heavy simply because these aircraft need to fulfill a lot of different roles and would replace the thousands and thousands of aircraft the US has flying at any given time. And even with 68 manned aircraft I don't see the advantage of the OH-6, because pilots are hard to come by and everything the OH-6 can do, a UH-60 or V-22 can do better.

[stormlion1]

I never figured for a large Morrow Air Force but I did plan on it being scattered about. Prime Base itself only having a small number of aircraft. Its C+C, not an airbase. The Regional Bases have the same thing. Few Aircraft. The Main Supply Depots are the aircraft hubs as there the ones getting supply's out and transporting them. The various teams themselves maybe one in a dozen has a helicopter for use and never an aircraft as landing strips will be few and far between.
Say Prime Base and the Regional Hubs have maybe five Blackhawks and one or two private jets each. The Supply Hubs have a dozen C-130's (For supply airdrops), another dozens Blackhawks (for when dropping it out of an airplane cannot happen or to transport MARS teams), and maybe two dozen Little Birds (For Air Support and scouting) and space for scavenged aircraft the project might find and reuse five years after the nukes drop.. And several teams across the US are equipped with Little Birds.

[kato13]

I have 24 A/MH-6s that are to be used during the first phase of recon and then shifted to be be scouting/liason/med-evac/gunship.

They have a few advantages IMO

• Easier to fit into a bolthole
• Lower Maintenance
• Quiet (with fusion engines even more so)
• Civilian airframe
  • Ease of Acquisition
  • Ability to stockpile spare parts without notice.

Other than some small drones, they are my only dispersed aviation assets. The rest being at prime or my 8 regional bases

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Prime Base itself only having a small number of aircraft. Its C+C, not an airbase.

I agree with this - I actually have a "national aviation command" under the command of the national command, but I don't have it collocated.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

The various teams themselves maybe one in a dozen has a helicopter for use and never an aircraft as landing strips will be few and far between.

How many teams do you have? If you have a hundred teams then having 16 part-time helicopter pilots is difficult, if you have a thousand teams then having 166 is almost absurd! There are not that many helicopter pilots out there, expecting to draw a bunch of them into the Project (assuming they would even qualify) is a bit of a stretch, as is training them up from scratch.

Oh, and there are a ton of small airplanes (bush planes) that can land just about anywhere flatish.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Say Prime Base and the Regional Hubs have maybe five Blackhawks and one or two private jets each.

So perhaps 35 Blackhawks? And how do you figure jets? With fusion power, a propeller airplane or helicopter can stay aloft as long as you can keep someone conscious at the controls, jets require massive amounts of perishable, volatile fuel that the Project could not realistically anticipate replenishing. And why does the Project even need jets?

Originally Posted by stormlion1

The Supply Hubs have a dozen C-130's (For supply airdrops), another dozens Blackhawks (for when dropping it out of an airplane cannot happen or to transport MARS teams), and maybe two dozen Little Birds (For Air Support and scouting) and space for scavenged aircraft the project might find and reuse five years after the nukes drop.. And several teams across the US are equipped with Little Birds.

Now I'm confused - you said "Regional Hubs have maybe five Blackhawks" and now you say "The Supply Hubs have ... another dozens Blackhawks" - which is it?

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by kato13

I have 24 A/MH-6s that are to be used during the first phase of recon and then shifted to be be scouting/liason/med-evac/gunship.

They are terrible in either a med-evac OR gunship role. They were designed as scout helicopters back in the day when the sensor package was the Mk I Eyeball.

Originally Posted by kato13

They have a few advantages IMO

• Easier to fit into a bolthole
• Lower Maintenance
• Quiet (with fusion engines even more so)
• Civilian airframe
  • Ease of Acquisition
  • Ability to stockpile spare parts without notice.

• There is zero reason for boltholes to all be the same size. Indeed, the variety of team sizes and vehicles combined with environmental factors all but ensures that boltholes are all but unique.
• How much lower maintenance? Given that the scaling of maintenance requirements in helicopters is primarily a function of the very same systems that get replaced by fusion in TMP, the difference in maintenance between a UH-60 and OH-6 is primarily going to be in the added mission systems in the former.
• Fusion engines will kill some sound, but the Project's mission would not seem to make aircraft noise a particular issue.
• Civilian airframe
  • If the Project can acquire all the other military assets it has, acquiring a few more helicopters would hardly seem an issue.
  • Many of the spare parts would not be stock anyway, but regardless, the former point still applies - if the Project can get V-150 (or whatever) parts and scads of 20mm ammo, then this would seem a minor point. On top of that, civilian parts do not generally reach MILSPEC performance even when they come from MILSPEC suppliers - relying on civilian parts is asking for something to fail when the feces hit the giant fan over your head.

Originally Posted by kato13

Other than some small drones, they are my only dispersed aviation assets.

Small drones are unsexy, but they make tremendous sense for field teams. They require minimal skill to use, risk little in their operation, and are perfectly acceptable for most tactical needs.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

So perhaps 35 Blackhawks? And how do you figure jets? With fusion power, a propeller airplane or helicopter can stay aloft as long as you can keep someone conscious at the controls, jets require massive amounts of perishable, volatile fuel that the Project could not realistically anticipate replenishing. And why does the Project even need jets?

Most modern civilian "jets" use turbofan engines which could be converted fusion as the propulsion comes mostly from the fans and not from heated exhaust. If you are ok with a 600 mph top speed fusion turbo fans should be fine.

[stormlion1]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

I agree with this - I actually have a "national aviation command" under the command of the national command, but I don't have it collocated.

I figure Prime Base was the Main HQ, the Pentagon of the project. At most it has a small runway and a few helicopter pads for getting around. Even the pilots there have other jobs rather than being pilots alone.

How many teams do you have? If you have a hundred teams then having 16 part-time helicopter pilots is difficult, if you have a thousand teams then having 166 is almost absurd! There are not that many helicopter pilots out there, expecting to draw a bunch of them into the Project (assuming they would even qualify) is a bit of a stretch, as is training them up from scratch.

Never figured it out, just figured the Project at some point found and trained pilots and crews and froze them. Many of the Team Members can also be cross trained as pilots and Loadmasters and such as well. When I was in the Air Force I was cross trained as a Loadmaster on the side even though I was in the Security Police. A little cross training never hurt anyone.

Oh, and there are a ton of small airplanes (bush planes) that can land just about anywhere flatish.

True, but the idea is to keep numbers down. And the more and different kinds of aircraft there are, the longer the logistics chain. I can see them in service in area's though where C-130's cannot operate or at the furthest corners of the logistics chain. They would be the exception, not the rule.

So perhaps 35 Blackhawks? And how do you figure jets? With fusion power, a propeller airplane or helicopter can stay aloft as long as you can keep someone conscious at the controls, jets require massive amounts of perishable, volatile fuel that the Project could not realistically anticipate replenishing. And why does the Project even need jets?

Very few jets, and mostly private ones for moving higher ups around. They wouldn't see much use early on but only when the rebuilding requires someone of import to be there. By that point fuel supplies can be found or they just don't fly or they have Bruce Morrows lovely reactors installed.

Now I'm confused - you said "Regional Hubs have maybe five Blackhawks" and now you say "The Supply Hubs have ... another dozens Blackhawks" - which is it?

I separate the two. Regional Hubs are Regional Command Bases that report to Prime and collect info and dispatch orders. They can in the event of failure replace Prime Bases functions in part. They also exist as a point for extra personnel to congregate to then be dispatched to under strength Teams in the field. There Mini-Prime Bases in charge of the various regions. I kind of figure at most a compliment of maybe a 100 personnel. And even the aircraft there wouldn't have assigned pilots but in fact have a pilot for every two aircraft. Less stress on the aircraft themselves and can be replaced if there is a breakdown. They can also be borrowed by supply hubs for there operations if needed. Call it a Ready Reserve.
The Supply Hubs are outright Supply Bases and Airfields. They exist to be the stockpiled supply's and are the Teams Grocery Store. They like the various Recon Teams, MARS Teams, Medical Teams, etc report to there Regional Hubs who in turn report to Prime Base.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

They are terrible in either a med-evac OR gunship role. They were designed as scout helicopters back in the day when the sensor package was the Mk I Eyeball.

• There is zero reason for boltholes to all be the same size. Indeed, the variety of team sizes and vehicles combined with environmental factors all but ensures that boltholes are all but unique.
• How much lower maintenance? Given that the scaling of maintenance requirements in helicopters is primarily a function of the very same systems that get replaced by fusion in TMP, the difference in maintenance between a UH-60 and OH-6 is primarily going to be in the added mission systems in the former.
• Fusion engines will kill some sound, but the Project's mission would not seem to make aircraft noise a particular issue.
• Civilian airframe
  • If the Project can acquire all the other military assets it has, acquiring a few more helicopters would hardly seem an issue.
  • Many of the spare parts would not be stock anyway, but regardless, the former point still applies - if the Project can get V-150 (or whatever) parts and scads of 20mm ammo, then this would seem a minor point. On top of that, civilian parts do not generally reach MILSPEC performance even when they come from MILSPEC suppliers - relying on civilian parts is asking for something to fail when the feces hit the giant fan over your head.

Small drones are unsexy, but they make tremendous sense for field teams. They require minimal skill to use, risk little in their operation, and are perfectly acceptable for most tactical needs.

Drones are possible now, and if I plan a modern game with a modern wardate I use them everywhere (down to a 40mm disposable one fired from an M203). I still like to plan for an earlier wardate as well.

Duningan's how to make war has the OH-6 beating the UH-60 in Attack rating, Sortie rate and Average Availability. Personally I would go with the UH-1 over the UH-60 as there are literally thousands of retired airframes that could be brought into the program.

My project plans to use the stealth (sound) factors of the AH-6 for placement of initial recon teams. As far as my bolt holes go, yes all are generally custom, but I expected my aircraft boltholes to be placed in abandoned railway tunnels, The dimensions of the OH-6 would allow for tighter turning (not flying of course) inside of such a small space.

Yes I admit the OH-6 would not be as good as a UH-60 (or UH-1) for Medevac, but it could certainly perform the role as well as the OH-1 (as made famous by M*A*S*H) did. It did perform the role in Vietnam, so I am guessing it maybe saved a life or two.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by kato13

Most modern civilian "jets" use turbofan engines which could be converted fusion as the propulsion comes mostly from the fans and not from heated exhaust. If you are ok with a 600 mph top speed fusion turbo fans should be fine.

If you take away the fuel, what you have left is a ducted fan, not a jet - literally. And as odd as it may sound, that jet, even when dominated by fan thrust, changes everything. I started out in aerospace engineering, and the physics of fan propulsion says that ducted fans work best in a pusher configuration and at low speed, as at high speed duct drag dominates. There is a reason you don't really see ducted fan aircraft that don't have that jet running down the center.

And even if you could, why would Morrow want the added complexity? Are they really in that much of a hurry?

[stormlion1]

I'm using equipment I'm familiar with. C-130's were prime movers of gear and are old dependable aircraft with an easy to maintain airframe. Blackhawks have a relatively good safety record and can pull plenty of gear and personnel around. Huey's would be good too but I know nothing about there operations or repair. Just that there are plenty of them around. I mean if you look there everywhere. The Little Birds are on my list because of there size and multi-purpose nature. They can act as gunships, transports, small scale supply, and medevac. And most importantly there small. They can be buried in a Bolthole and pulled out when needed. larger helicopters will require a full on hanger, something that in the original 5-year timeframe can be destroyed, damaged by weather or human disaster, or just to conspicuous.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

I figure Prime Base was the Main HQ, the Pentagon of the project. At most it has a small runway and a few helicopter pads for getting around.

I agree 100%.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Even the pilots there have other jobs rather than being pilots alone.

I disagree about 97%. I work with pilots, some very very good ones. Pilots who are not pilots alone are the ones who tend to crash, especially if called upon to do anything tricky. Piloting requires constant practice, especially for helicopters.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Never figured it out, just figured the Project at some point found and trained pilots and crews and froze them. Many of the Team Members can also be cross trained as pilots and Loadmasters and such as well. When I was in the Air Force I was cross trained as a Loadmaster on the side even though I was in the Security Police. A little cross training never hurt anyone.

Being a loadmaster is not the same as being a pilot. Cross-training is indeed good, but pilots don't grow on trees and the time required to learn and maintain that skill means that any other work will be relatively minor.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

True, but the idea is to keep numbers down. And the more and different kinds of aircraft there are, the longer the logistics chain. I can see them in service in area's though where C-130's cannot operate or at the furthest corners of the logistics chain. They would be the exception, not the rule.

I never said you had to have multiple varieties of bush plane, I am just saying that it is easier and cheaper to have bush planes and bush pilots than even the cheapest and easiest helicopters and their pilots. Seriously, in the exact situations you describe, there are bush planes handling the vast bulk of the work.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Very few jets, and mostly private ones for moving higher ups around. They wouldn't see much use early on but only when the rebuilding requires someone of import to be there. By that point fuel supplies can be found or they just don't fly or they have Bruce Morrows lovely reactors installed.

I just commented on the issue of fusion-powered turbofans (i.e., they can't exist), and a jet you can only use occasionally seems a hard trade against a prop-plane you can use constantly.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

I separate the two. Regional Hubs are Regional Command Bases that report to Prime and collect info and dispatch orders. They can in the event of failure replace Prime Bases functions in part.

Alright, I have something similar.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

And even the aircraft there wouldn't have assigned pilots but in fact have a pilot for every two aircraft. Less stress on the aircraft themselves and can be replaced if there is a breakdown.

Doesn't seem particularly efficient. Most military and civilian operations reverse that ratio, having more pilots than aircraft. Throw in fusion reactors and you all but need it!

So do a little math, and list your complete Morrow Air Force. Until you have an actual inventory it is impossible to say whether or not any given aircraft makes sense.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by kato13

Duningan's how to make war has the OH-6 beating the UH-60 in Attack rating, Sortie rate and Average Availability.

I don't have Dunnigan's, but I know that the kind of reduction you are describing is very difficult in any real application. I also think that a good chunk of that changes anyway with fusion power.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Personally I would go with the UH-1 over the UH-60 as there are literally thousands of retired airframes that could be brought into the program.

There are reasons why those airframes are retired. Metal fatigue is a real issue, you know.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

My project plans to use the stealth (sound) factors of the AH-6 for placement of initial recon teams.

You really think that is adequate reason? It's a nice perk, but I can't see a trade study weighting that very highly.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

As far as my bolt holes go, yes all are generally custom, but I expected my aircraft boltholes to be placed in abandoned railway tunnels, The dimensions of the OH-6 would allow for tighter turning (not flying of course) inside of such a small space.

Boltholes are meant to be abandoned, so unless you are actually talking about using the tunnels as hangers (not a good idea, btw), then you can stow the rotors and fit anything but the heavy-lift helos in there. UH-60's can be ferried in a C-130, and that hold is 40' long by 9' wide by 8' high. There is no US railroad gauge that is so small.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Yes I admit the OH-6 would not be as good as a UH-60 (or UH-1) for Medevac, but it could certainly perform the role as well as the OH-1 (as made famous by M*A*S*H) did. It did perform the role in Vietnam, so I am guessing it maybe saved a life or two.

The standards in Korea and Vietnam were a lot different than they are now. There is no room for a medic, minimal room for any life-support equipment (or even first aid gear!), and no capacity for adding any kind of protective systems (i.e., guns) when you are using the hauling capacity for medevac. Seriously, there is a reason no one willingly uses these in this role anymore - it's not medevac, it's just giving the victim a nicer view as he dies.

[cosmicfish]

Originally Posted by stormlion1

I'm using equipment I'm familiar with. C-130's were prime movers of gear and are old dependable aircraft with an easy to maintain airframe. Blackhawks have a relatively good safety record and can pull plenty of gear and personnel around.

I agree with all of this.

Originally Posted by stormlion1

Huey's would be good too but I know nothing about there operations or repair. Just that there are plenty of them around. I mean if you look there everywhere.

Huey's are like buying cheap used cars - they're cheap and easy to find, but there's a reason they're so cheap to begin with and you really shouldn't plan on them lasting long. Heck, the newest ones are 30 years old! And the reason they are around is because they are being used for relatively gentle work by people with no better options - you can make an aircraft last a long time if you do that, but it's really just spreading the lifespan by injecting idleness. I don't know about you, but I expect ALL MPV's to be in near-constant use!

Originally Posted by stormlion1

The Little Birds are on my list because of there size and multi-purpose nature. They can act as gunships, transports, small scale supply, and medevac. And most importantly there small. They can be buried in a Bolthole and pulled out when needed. larger helicopters will require a full on hanger, something that in the original 5-year timeframe can be destroyed, damaged by weather or human disaster, or just to conspicuous.

Again, I don't understand this. Little Birds are NOT utility helicopters, for good reason - they aren't good multi-taskers! They are specialists that fill very specific roles as part of a massive collection of aircraft. And I think the bolthole/hanger divide is more than a little false - botlholes are for storage, hangers are for operation, and realistically all aircraft will require some level of access to both, and the most efficient approaches do not particularly limit the use of larger aircraft.

[Askold]

The way I see it, spare parts are going to be an issue with aircraft.

Assuming best case scenario where the Morrow teams can find intact factories (either built with stuff the Morrow project had hidden in bunkers or simply salvageable factories from before the war) aircraft parts still won't be priority number 1. Even worse if you have several types of aircraft and you would need highly specialized parts.

Worst case scenario where everything outside has been destroyed and the Morrow project has to do with the meager stuff they had in their facilities... Spare parts will run out soon. How long can you fly a helicopter without proper maintenance? Or even an airplane.

You can keep a car functional for years (although some spare parts will be required) and in that time you can: Recon the area, establish contact with the survivors, start educating the survivors (if they have lost knowledge of modern technology) and even rebuilding the society. Who knows, you could even manage to keep the cars in working condition until you can make more parts and fuel for them. (Though you might have to store the fancy fusion powered stuff for a while and switch back to bio-diesel until a few decades have passed.)

With aircraft... Well, you can achieve things that would otherwise be impossible but they will be nearly one-shot devices. "Do you have a battle where air-support is absolutely vital? Do you need to pick up someone/something from a location that cannot be accessed by foot? Yeah, we can do that. ...Once."