|
|
|
#1
11-29-2010, 08:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
MP Airforce
Here's an idea that I am working on, a group of five aircraft operating in a COIN role I was think of P-51D Mustangs, I mean small aircraft, easy to fly and carry a guns and bombs, and they fly from improvised runways, still trying to work out some details, well post once done, any thoughs
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. 
|
|
#2
11-30-2010, 02:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Have you thought something more and proven and/or designed for COIN like the OV-10 Bronco? Or if you want something more WWII-ish, the good old Skyraider? With these multirole planes you carry a lot more munitions, plus they can carry passengers too. While the Mustang certainly can carry out ground-attack roles (and tangle with any 4th Reich FW-190s to boot) they would seem a little on the exotic side. Tony
|
|
#3
11-30-2010, 05:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have to agree with Tony, the ole Bronco or Spad would be better choices. The Bronco has turboshaft engines and the Spad, has a great big, old-fashioned radial, one that you can shoot a couple of cylinder heads off and it'll still work.
The Bronco also has the advantage of having a cargo bay, useful for light loads and it can even drop 3-4 paratroopers! The Spad has four 20mm cannons for strafing and carry quite an extensive ordnance load for a long time. The Mustang uses a liquid-cooled RR Merlin, the radiator and coolant lines all run down the belly of the fuselage, NOT a good location when working close to the ground (as an aside, most of the Mustangs lost were due to ground fire). Ordnance loadout is limited as well, there are only two hardpoints.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#4
11-30-2010, 06:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I choses the Mustang due to is size, beacuse your going to have take it apart to have fit underground for storage, the mustang will just fit a 40 Ft Seacan, I also though the MP would'nt want to attractive attention by building a some what modern frontline combat aircraft, I ,mean mustangs are used for racing and by aircraft collectors, so a small compnay building mustangs would be not be out of place. But I do like the Skyraider but can is operate from small grass fields, I mean was it a carrier based aircraft? You will need a aircraft and fly off any small airfeild since I woudl assume that COIN unit would move around based on the local security concerns. I also though that the MP could try and start a plant building and training pliots for this aircraft, (an idea I though about after reading the In the Ashes Series)
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
|
|
#5
11-30-2010, 09:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Spad started life as the replacement for the TBF Avengers in carrier air wings, it was used in Korea from the modified Essex-class carriers as well as with the Marine attack squadrons, so it is capable of short take off as well as rough strip usage. Of the three proposed, the Bronco is the best at short take off and was purpose built for rough fields.
Just a couple of suggestions, but you may want to consider a couple of other aircraft. From the Vietnam-era how about the CV-2B Caribou, a purpose-built short-take off from rough stips cargo carrier. Its a twin-radial engine, high wing design that has a crew of 3, has a cruising speed of 150mph and a useful endurance of 6hrs, 30mins and a max load of 9,924lbs it could carry up to 32 troops or 20 litters w/2 medics. I know its not a COIN bird, but...it could be modified into a poor man's gunship! And you get the ability to transport a useful load of cargo. Just a thought!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#6
11-30-2010, 11:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here the problem that I have here are the lenghts of the above metioned aircraft
P-51D Mustang - Length 37 ft A-1 Skyraider - Length 38 ft 10 in CV-2 Caribou - Length 72 ft In the United States domestic standard containers are generally 48 ft and 53-ft. This is what I had though would make a good bolt hole it would shape in 12 spoke wheel here what I have for contents Underground Layout Center Ring Elevator/Access Containers 1-5 One 51-D Mustang COIN Aircraft Container 6 Portable Machine Shop Container 7 Spare Parts Container 8 Airfield Equipment – see below Container 9 Airfield Equipment – see below Container 10 Ammunition Container 11 Aircraft Tug and APU Container 12 Bolthole with Bugout Vehicle still working on the team layout too
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
|
|
#7
11-30-2010, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hmmmm, may not be as much as a problem as you think.
In WWII, when that Army Air Forces were shipping planes to everywhere, a fighter would be broken down into its major components, they'd remove the wings and stow them along the fuselage, ditto with the tail planes, pull the rudder assembly, remove the prop (sometimes the engine) so that the entire package would fit into a standard cargo container. As long as the crew reassembling the thing had the correct instructions, a good lifting jig and tool set, there was little problem with the reassembly. The Caribou, is a different problem. Twin engined aircraft had the wings outboard of the engines pulled, stored on a platform under the fuselage, ditto for the props, and they would often have the entire tail assembly dismantled and stored with the wings/props. Might not fit into a standard cargo container, but I've always considered the Caribou to be just too useful an aircraft not to be included. Yes its dated tech, yes the Air Farce got rid of theirs just as quickly as possible, but while the Army had them they were excellent, easy-maintained machines able to get their cargo wherever it was needed.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#8
11-30-2010, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm currently in the process of writting down some ideas for a mini module that revolves around an MP Airbase for my website. I'm considering the Bronco or Skyraider, but I'm also kicking around the idea of a more modern aircraft like the EMB-314 as well.
|
|
#9
11-30-2010, 04:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
dose the MP have a fussion powerplant for aircraft?
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier.
|
|
#10
11-30-2010, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yes. The Prime Base module has a C-130 Herc and a helicopter listed. I believe they where to be fusioned powered. The big problem I see with this is the aircraft can fly around the world non stop, which will make it very difficult on the PD to control the players.
Some sort of impossed limitations need to be imposed.
|
|
#11
11-30-2010, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rcaf,
I don't see why you couldn't use the P-51 Mustang. My only criticsm would be that (unlike the Hercules and the helicopters) the Mustang is not really a multi-role aircraft - and the Project might want something with a little more versatility My suggestions for the (fixed-wing) MP Air Force would include 1. Sadler Piranha: an armed ultralight, with folding wings (make that a HEAVILY armed ultralight) 2. Cessna 337: twin engine utility (also known as O-2 Skymaster or FTB337G Milirole) 3. Britten-Norman Defender: armed STOL light transport Incidentally, are you considering any variants of the Mustang, such as the Piper PA-48 Enforcer?
|
|
#12
11-30-2010, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Spad is in similar shape as far as spares go, there was even a brand new production run during the 1960s to insure that an adequate supply of parts were on hand. And for OT entertainment, the US government sold as surplus five M-4A3E8 Sherman tanks....that have been setting in a warehouse since they were built in 1951. Sold to collectors/museums in 2010. Remember that scene at the end of the first Indiana Jones? Hmmmm 
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#13
12-01-2010, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuke11, if you are considering light modern coin aircraft might I suggest the Air Tractors AT802U longsword.
|
|
#14
12-01-2010, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
12-01-2010, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#16
12-01-2010, 08:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think MP aircraft (rotor and pro-driven) can be fitted with fusion-electric motors, even jet propulsion (via MHD turbine). Because this gets into "HAAM expensive" territory I don't see MP aircraft aircraft as being common but there could be some useful ones stashed here and there, say, a dozen or so. As far as technical notes go a Mustang with a fusion-electric power plant would be less vulnerable but there are probably platforms that give you a much better bang for your buck. Further, like the Bronco the Spad/Skyraider can have passenger seats (12) installed in the rear fuselage or be used as an air ambulance. If you're looking for ground attack aircraft that isn't used by the US or a front-line aircraft, other contenders might be a licenced version of the FMA IA 58 Pucará for "foreign military sales". The Bronco was technically a front-line aircraft in the canon timeline, although it was being replaced by OV-37s and Warthogs in the 80's. Assuming the Project expects to be activated some time in the 90's or later, the Bronco is no longer going to be a front line platform. The Skyraider much less so, of course. It's important to remember that almost no Project equipment or weapons need be former military surplus or relics, and government intervention need rarely be an issue, if at all. Military weapons and vehicles are built by private companies all the time, in fact, they pretty much all are. (That is, via "defense contractors".) "Morrow Aerospace" (a hypothetical wholly-owned subsidiary of Morrow Industries) could build armed Broncos under licence (that is, legally) from North American-Rockwell International (if it isn't already a COT-owned company) for "foreign military sales/export", "technology demonstrators" and/or "prototypes offered for future USAF/USMC military sales". Presuming that Morrow Industries is already a major US defence contractor, as long as the paperwork is in order and the taxes paid the US government wouldn't think twice. In the real world, Boeing is developing the OV-10X to offer to the USAF and because of growing interest from foreign customers; it's not like they worry about the feds breaking down their doors, guns drawn! It's unlikely that new Spads/Skyraiders could be built, but they are common enough and some Morrrow/COT company could be contracted to refurbish and update some found in a warehouse for a 3rd-world US ally (Guatamala? Colombia? Indonesia?) as COIN aircraft under some US-funded 80's drug war/communist insurgency program. Of course, the orders eventually "fall through" (due to bribery, corruption, budge cuts, etc.) and Morrow Industries is left holding the bag. The same slight-of-hand could be used to legitimately and legally build Broncos that are diverted for Project use. Actually operating out of a bolthole or similar small cramped installation would be the least desirable option under almost any circumstances. With STOL aircraft the teams using COIN aircraft would first try and secure aboveground facilities, preferably at an airport or air base and then move the aircraft there in a disassembled or partially assembled state. If that's not possible, STOL aircraft like the Bronco could operate out of any group of buildings big enough to store it, given a suitably straight stretch of pavement. Teams need to get out and see the world more... Tony Last edited by helbent4; 12-01-2010 at 09:07 PM.
|
|
#17
12-02-2010, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
May I suggest the following aircraft for possible use by the Project at different times during it's history.
Initial Setup When the project was being set up in the 1960's it bought surplus military aircraft from the US and other friendly governments which had sold for scrapping these included the following:
Main Stage During the main stage of the project being installed the following aircraft where obtained secretly from companies allied to the Council of Tomorrow. These models were stock models as supplied to the US Armed Forces at the time.
GM's Notes If you want to have a WWII Fighter in a cache, I would go for the Corsair, it is rugged, reliable, more damage resistant and carries a more heavier warload than a P-51, it also has folding wings, so it is easier to store. Same for the B-26, a most excellent Light Bomber with a good warload and still in service in the 1960's with the USAF and other air forces. I personally feel that the OV-10 Bronco is the perfect aircraft for the Project, in fact, If I ever get round to running a MP game, in my campaign, the Bronco replaces the Airscout as the Project's primary recon and strike aircraft.
|
|
#18
12-02-2010, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hadn't seen this mentioned about the spad yet is it's versatility.
I don't know how well this is known but there is the AD-5 COD -carrier on board delivery- add on kits that could allow it to carry up to 10 people in the back, and one for cargo and yet another kit allowing up to 4 litters. I don't know if there are pictures of those kits online but I have a few pictures of these kits being demonstrated if there is any interest in seeing them. These kits would increase the spads value to the MP. I beleive it would be the aircraft with versatility that would be of more use to them than a regular fighter bomber because they will have to make do with what they have when the time comes.
|
|
#19
12-02-2010, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Suggested personnel for MP Air Base operating 5 fixed-wing recon/utility/strike aircraft and one Transport/CSAR aircraft
Flight crew Pilot x 6 Navigator/Observer Transport Loadmaster Flight Engineer Maintenance Crew Chief x 2 Maintenance Specialist X 14 Rescue/Survival Specialist x 2 Paramedic Base: Commander OPerations/Intelligence Meteorolgist Logistics/Supply x 2 Information Management Communications Specialist Aircrew Life Support Specialist Flight Surgeon Security: Security Team Leader Deputy leader Security/Police specialist x 8 Total personnel = 47
|
|
#20
12-03-2010, 01:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This transport capacity of the Spad was brought it up, but not in as much detail. "The French frequently used the aft station to carry maintenance personnel, spare parts and supplies to forward bases. In Chad they even used the aft station for a "bombardier" and his "special stores" – empty beer bottles – as these were considered as non-lethal weapons, thus not breaking the government-imposed rules of engagement, during operations against Libyan-supported rebels in the late 1960s and early 1970s." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider I could see a small air team as a national-level asset, or maybe a regional asset (one per). Original issue (60's) would be mainly Skyraiders, to be augmented/replaced during the Project-wide upgrade by the Bronco. Chinooks would be fine for air transport, probably no real need for a gunship or tank-killer helo. Another suggestion would be a local-built copy of the Mil Mi-8/17. Say, Morrow Industries buys one from Israel they captured from Egypt and reverse-engineers it for the 1987 update. What are the Soviets going to do, even if they find out? It's a great platform and be both a transport and attack ship. Still, a little risky flying a helo closely resembling those of an enemy that has nuked your cities! Not to mention being mistaken for being part of the UN occupation army. Tony Last edited by helbent4; 12-03-2010 at 02:10 AM.
|
|
#21
12-03-2010, 02:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This seems pretty feasible. To expand operations, additional needed could be hired and trained. (Following the cadre model, of course!) For hybrids the Canadair CL-84 is an interesting tilt-rotor. It seemed like a solid design that could be revived by "Morrow Aerospace" for development for future military and civil sales. Unlike the V-22 Osprey the aircraft can take-off and land with the wings in the forward position, making transition less risky:  Tony
|
|
#22
12-03-2010, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE][*]Vought F4U Corsair Fighter Bombers[*]Douglas B-26 Invaders[*]Douglas C-47 Dakotas[*]Sikorsky H-34 Choctaw Heliocopters[*]Grumman HU-16 Albatross Amphibians
[QUOTE] I had quite forgotten about the ole F4U...instead of the B-26, go with the A-26 COIN version...just think eight .50s in the nose, six .50s in the wing, four .50s in cheek mounts and two turrets with twin .50s and still able to carry 4,000lbs of bombs....eighteen .50s in a strafing run....hmmmm [QUOTE][*]North American OV-10 Bronco LAARP[*]DHC-4 Caribou STOL utility transport[*]Lockheed C-141 Starlifters[*]Hughes OH-6 LOH[*]Sikorsky S-61R Medium Lift Heliocopter[*]Sikorsky S-65 Heavy Lift Helicopter [QUOTE] I can pretty much agree with this list with one exception, I'd dropped the C-141 and use a C-130 simply because the Herky has a better rough field capability than a 'Lifter does. The argument can be made that with the 5yr time frame, there will be a lot of airfields that can support the 'Lifter, it's just that most of them are near newly irradiated areas. My 2 cents!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
|
#23
12-03-2010, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 Quote:
That's a lot of ammo to be using up for strafing runs, the MP is going to need it's own dedicated ammo factory just for the air force as it is. If your going to tear up acreage like that you might as well just give MP an AC-47 or AC-119 
|
|
#24
12-04-2010, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was actually thinking about a late model B-26C variant, as this was the glassed nose variant rather than either the B-26B or K variants. The reason was that I suggested this aircraft is that it is more versatile than the B version capable of being used for Photo Recon and limited cargo-carrying as well as stike mission.
A late model C version was armed with 2 x 0.5HMG in the nose as well as another three in each wing. Take out the lower turret and use the space to carry extra fuel and a navigation/bombing radar, as well control gear for AGM-12B 250lb Bullpup Missiles. The reason I suggested the C141 was that it was primary used pre-war to move heavy project equipment around the US and the world. The aircraft could carry a maximum of 42 Tons. For those of you who can remember the TV series UFO, think of the SHADO heavy lift aircraft carrying the SHADO ATV's around the world. However, I still recomend the OV-10 s the main Project aircraft, it was as though it was designed especially for the Project. Please see the following link for further details: OV-10 Bronco
|
|
#25
12-04-2010, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Well anything worth doing is worth overdoing! Seriously, a neighbor was a A-26 pilot during the Korean War and from what he tells me, you could select nose guns, cheek guns or wing guns or go for the whole lot...
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
