Aviation Assets.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes I agree having the assets spread out would make sense, but being able to use them as unit would help too.

[Webstral]

In the Gulf, CENTCOM concentrates its surviving attack helicopters in 6th ACCB.

Webstral

[waiting4something]

Would it be possible for a private army to still have a bunch of air assets? I mean one's off the radar. Or would something like that be easily detected by intel? It'd be bad ass if everyone's air assets are thought to be gone and out of nowhere some A-10's or something start messing stuff up.

[jester]

The craft are not the issue, but the issue is the support structure for strike aircraft, or a large fleet of any size.

ALTHOUGH!

An aviaton museum could be the perfect front for such an operation, just keep the aircraft involved to be older planes.

Instead of a AC131 Spectre, have a DC-3 Puff the Magic Dragon

Have a couple F-4 Phantoms, a P51 or two and some FU Corsairs. Or even a F105 Thunderbolt.

There are many air museums that keep several of their vintage planes in flying condition. And they had spares which is a plus. I can see a force moving in taking over and poof! Instant Air Force. Of course where do they get the fuel for them? Pilots, Aircraft mechanics and even systems can be had or found. Old engines can be replaced with more modern engines with some fabrication, but the fuel to keep them in the air, hydraulic fluid, oil and similiar consumables is the problem that I see, however!

Those can also be raided from other planes at the airport, as well as the onsite mechanics shop and the hangars where private piliots restore and repair their own craft. But even these items will run out.

And then we also have the issue of ordinance?

Machineguns could be found and aquired. Ammo for say a .50 or a .30 caliber can be had or made. But the more advanced ordinance, could become an issue, as well as rockets, and anything other than homemade dumbbombs, or even retarded bombs. There is napalm, but would you use the fuel for that? Or would you use it to fly your planes? Then again they have those fuel air bombs which could be useful.

A cool thought for sure.

[pmulcahy11b]

Although -- most display aircraft are essentially hollow. They're a more-or-less sealed airframe, but not much else.

[Dog 6]

by law all display aircraft in the USA are "cut" . they can't and couldn't be made to fly.

[jester]

Ah, but I am thinking of the working planes at places like Chino's "Planes of Fame" museum and a few other places that do have working models. Or the Confederate now the Commemorative Air Force, these tend to also work in conjunction with many of the air museums.

As for planes with which are "cut" it all depends on what is cut, I would argue that statement, someone with an A&P certificate or a couple people with such with the proper materials could probably make it happen. After all alot of those folks have recovered planes from wrecks that crashed and sat for decades and returned them to flying order.

And, a old style piston inline or radial engine fighter or attack aircraft would require ALOT of maintenance. But, it is doable compared to what a more modern jet would require in terms of maintenance, materials and support and service.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by jester

An aviaton museum could be the perfect front for such an operation, just keep the aircraft involved to be older planes.

Instead of a AC131 Spectre, have a DC-3 Puff the Magic Dragon

Have a couple F-4 Phantoms, a P51 or two and some FU Corsairs. Or even a F105 Thunderbolt.

Great idea. The F-4 Phantom probably isn't a good example though. I may be wrong but IIRC the Phantom required a lot of maintenance man hours per hour of flight time. Piston powered aircraft would be very viable though, IMO.

[copeab]

Not just a preference for piston engines, but radial piston engines. They are more reliable than inlines (note how virtually every carrier plane in WWII used a radial engine*). Also, being air-cooled instead of liquid-cooled, it doesn't require a radiator and thus is less vulnerable to battle-damage (a single bullet can knock out an inline engine -- it's very difficult for a single bullet to knock out a radial engine).

Crop dusters are useful for conversions to emergency ground attack aircraft. They are fairly common, nimble, and have a useful payload capacity.

[jester]

Yes, I too preffer radial engines, but, one can not argue with the inline engines of the Alison variety that powered the Spitfire or the P-51 Mustang, two planes that were some of the best of their class. And the P-51 was still in service with some nations into the 70s.

As for F-4, it would be cool, but the amount of JP-4 they would require is insane. Hit after burner and forget it.

As for man hours, if you have the personel then it doesn't matter that much. Heck, even today the CH-53s and CH-46s require an ungodly amount of maintenance hours for each flight hour. It is what comes with using old airframes. My main thing with Jets vs piston driven is one requires alot of technology to keep it in the air. Others, well you can work on them in a garage and even use a regular mechanic for some of its maintenance, as well as high grade vehicle items. And parts can be fabricated easier than those for a new F-18. And all the other support services needed to keep them in the air.

As for biplanes! Oh yeah! Those could be made quite easily, and some of them flew on kerosene which would be interesting. Or how about a small fleet of dirgibles? They follow the wind, fly about the enemy lines taking pictures and dropping bombs as they pass enemy positions. then, they return with the wind several hours later to freindly lines.