Modernized/Turboprop Skyraider

[yulzari]

Things change as technology changes. There is a good reason why even A10s release smart bombs from many thousands of feet. The Skyraider always needed air superiority (like WW2 dive bombers) but these days low level light A/A weapons (heavy machine guns, cannon and shoulder type missiles put any aeroplane at risk at low levels.

It was a wonderful COIN bomber but now air defence rules it out, except against the most primitively armed ground forces. Modern attack helicopters rely on minimum exposure, suppressive fire and armour as a last resort in order to survive. A Skyraider, no matter how updated, cannot compete on minimum exposure and suppressive fire. It's day has gone.

Air Forces that need a COIN type against lightly armed ground forces (eg drugs gangs) will choose the cheaper armed trainer with turbo prop engines or light jet trainers. No longer can you empty crates of mortar bombs out of Twin Pioneers or use Shackletons as bombers as was done in the Radfan in the 1960s.

 

[Matt308]

How's that for a buzzkill, OldMan?

 

[OldManP]

I do love a solid buzzkill, there's nothing I love more in this forum. Only because I think I have arguments to counter. When the day my answers run out, I'm sure I'll be upset.

I would argue that A-10s release smart bombs at altitude because of tactics, deconfliction, and (I agree) the threat envelop. A-10 pilots still practice delivering dumb bombs, but current tactics require low CDE engagements in order to reduce collateral damage, so smart bombs are the first way this is possible. By increasing accuracy and restricting ordnance size, collateral damage and CDE can be reduced. "Smart bombs" don't generally lend themselves to low attack profiles, so I would say a modernized Skyraider would do the same. The A-10s still practice (and employ) utilizing their gun, which must be in the generic surface to air envelop, as would the A-1. This issue is not always the first resort, but nevertheless a logical one when the threat is low. So, in order to utilize weapons of this nature, or fly lower profiles needed for terrain masking (on infil or exfil or radar evasion), a proper LAIRCM with flares, ALQ pod, and chaff should provide the needed threat avoidance for most shoulder launched SAs. Aircrews are briefed about threats before they fly and employ tactics needed to minimize the threat and maximize their success...with this being said, I am not advocating low level engagements in a high threat SA environment, at least with radar guided SA capability.
With the advent of sensor pods in both fighter/attack aircraft and ISR platforms, the former route recce and enemy identification that required <5000ft AGL flights are now performed from much higher altitudes. This allows positive identification,while remaining outside most threat envelops. This is not to say that A-10s now (and a modernized skyraider) won't fly low in order to accomplish their mission, it simply affords them different opportunities that were not available in the past.
On the order of comparison to helos, an A-1 employed at altitude with a modern turboprop reinforced with modern armor around the cockpit and engine could serve as well or much better than a helo in the same threat envelop. The mission requirements and execution would be performed differently, but the A-1 would be faster, have a more difficult IR signature to lock onto, and be more maneuverable in addition to having the capability of carrying an EW jamming pod like other modern aircraft carry.
Concerning your last argument, we will alway need ground support aircraft. As an Air Force, this requirement is not clear, but the requirement whether unwritten or unstated remains. Yes drug lords do not often employ the greatest firepower, but neither does the enemy in every sector of a major battle. In the areas that superior firepower exists, superior fighter aircraft will be used to exploit it and suppress it.

This drives me to another point which I did not mention when I started this thread. I didn't want to get into the weeds of my thinking, since I didn't want to stifle or stovepipe discussion, but...Let us think in terms of specialized use by a highly trained individual. I'm not talking about standard US military pilots. I'd like to think in terms of a modernized skyraider in limited number (1 squadron) used to support Special Operation Forces. This stems from several things that I won't bring up here, but originally used by Air Commando Squadron and Special Operations Squadrons in Vietnam. Granted, they were used for Sandy's, but they offered on-call persistent support for small teams of SOF. A modernized skyraider would (could) be developed to operate with minimal footprint (unorthodox in today's Air Force but it is happening as I type) of logistics, maintenance, and aircrew, while being placed in direct support of SOF. This forward deployed unit would be capable of supporting multiple facets of the mission while supporting a ground user and reducing transit and response time. If you'd like more clarification/thoughts/philosophy on this, I can try to go into more detail. BLATE (Bottom line at the end): a modernized, flexible ground support aircraft with high loading capability and the ability to employ an array of ordnance from surface to approx 30K' would greatly increase SOF sustainability, flexibility, and survivability.

OMP

 

[yulzari]

Hmm. So, if it is to support special forces away from normal support, I wonder if the Gannet, or at least the Double Napier Mamba could be a model? With 1950's technology it had a 6 hour cruise but modern turboprops should enable it to loiter much longer on one engine. Folding wings are a godsend if you are looking to shelter it in a civilian hanger.

 

[Civettone]

I like the idea, but I believe a better option was out there: the amazing Piper PA-48 Enforcer !

A much evolved turboprop variant of the P-51. Great range and payload. Protected by ceramic armour.

Kris

 

[OldManP]

So I might agree with the Piper, but I think the ability to (re)develop an aircraft that already had augementation for a single seat and a vrew style aircraft is favorable. THe Piper appears to have limited real estate if one wanted to include additional crew members at a later date. Also, if current designers would look at the A-1 as an example of fileding a workable platform and them altering it to fit their mission set, like the C-130, then the procurement and acquisition process could be shortened, deliver a product then build additional airframes for different missions. This would differ from the current production style of trying to fit each platform with the abilities to perform all mission sets prior to production. Exampole would be A-1 or C-130 v. F/A-35 and F/A-22.

 

[OldManP]

I don't remember if I added this in the past forum, but I think I neglected to add it to this forum because I wanted y'all's opinion prior to showing ya this (even though some of ya may have seen it)

Greg Plummer's Model Cars and More

If you click on the pictures of the turboprop skyraider, it almost embodies what I've been thinking about. I found the site after googling several things I was wondering about. Seem differences I would change compared to the model seen @ that site: 1) keep the folding wing concept, 2) add a second seat, 3) use leading edge anti-ice boots, and 4) keep 2x internally mounted 30x113mm cannons (1/wing). Also, if the tip tanks were removeable and oculd be replaced with something of the AIM-9X persuasion for contested airspace A/A enemies, the transformability would pay off. Tip tanks would be nice for long transits or ferrying.

Things I do like: 1) CG might not change b/c the more forward engine is also ~1K lbs lighter and 2) the exhaust leaving the fuselage above the wings. I think that has some key tactical advantages.

OldManP

 

[OldManP]

Maybe I'd get a better response elsewhere, but does anyone know the size of external fuel tanks that were used on the A-1? I have seen a diagram with 275 gallon tanks, but the tanks on some photos look much larger (especially the pictures of the A-1 used as an aerial-refueling tanker).

Thanks.

P.S. With the A-10s possibly going away, and the F-35 never able to fill the A-10s role--sounds like a great time to dream a bit and get a better medium-attack, medium ISR platform like the A-1K model!

OMP

 

[FLYBOYJ]

P.S. With the A-10s possibly going away, and the F-35 never able to fill the A-10s role--sounds like a great time to dream a bit and get a better medium-attack, medium ISR platform like the A-1K model!

OMP

Just make sure it's not a tail dragger

 

[OldManP]

Not a fan of the conventional gear? But they're so beautiful, majestic, and rare these days...much like quality leaders, both in politics and the military--but I digress.

Are tail draggers that much less desirable to everyone?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not a fan of the conventional gear? But they're so beautiful, majestic, and rare these days...much like quality leaders, both in politics and the military--but I digress.

Are tail draggers that much less desirable to everyone?

YES - at least to those running almost every modern air force.

 

[OldManP]

Agreed, except I wouldn't say I agree with how the AF is currently being ran... Many AF personnel may feel the same way by the number of people requesting volunteer separation. I also wouldn't say leadership direction always has the best knowledge of the way ahead, nor of its need and actual requirements. Lots of influences at the top, while there's lot of hard working souls at the bottom--and below them a lot good men on the ground that need protecting.

So...was 300 gallons the right answer on external fuel tanks?!

 

[GrauGeist]

Regarding tail-draggers...

There's nothing wrong with 'em, nearly every legendary fighter of WWII was a T/D and nearly every legendary pilot of that war flew one.

If they brought back the Skyraider, the training routing would certainly cover the aspects of hauling yourself across the ramp by your arse, just like they taught them "back in the day"

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Regarding tail-draggers...

There's nothing wrong with 'em, nearly every legendary fighter of WWII was a T/D and nearly every legendary pilot of that war flew one.

If they brought back the Skyraider, the training routing would certainly cover the aspects of hauling yourself across the ramp by your arse, just like they taught them "back in the day"

I could tell you that the USAF (and probably the USN) wants nothing to do with them - more training and higher probability of accidents. When was the last time a modern combat tail dragger was produced and operated by a modern air force?

I'm not at liberty to go into details but a "tail dragger type aircraft" was operated by a branch of our military in a training capacity for a short period of time. After a few ground loops and runway departures, these aircraft disappeared very quickly.

 

[RpR]

I'm not at liberty to go into details but a "tail dragger type aircraft" was operated by a branch of our military in a training capacity for a short period of time. After a few ground loops and runway departures, these aircraft disappeared very quickly.

Is that the fault of the aircraft or a pilot who is not as good as he thinks he is.

Question.
Beyond the fact they do not produce them and parts are not there, in what way are turbine engines better than piston engines for a COIN type aircraft.

Air-cooled radials showed they were far superior to water-cooled vee engines for ground attack; would not turbine engines suffer from similar weaknesses to flak as water-cooled engines suffered.
Not literally the same but if a turbine take a hit, it usually stops working just as a water-cooled engine taking a hit to its coolant was running on borrowed time.

 

[tyrodtom]

It wouldn't be impossible to redesign the wing structure of a A1 for a nose wheel type landing gear, plus they'd have to rearrange some components in the forward fuselage for the nose wheel.
Sort of like the T-28 on steroids.

 

[GrauGeist]

I could tell you that the USAF (and probably the USN) wants nothing to do with them - more training and higher probability of accidents ... After a few ground loops and runway departures, these aircraft disappeared very quickly.

My thoughts were along the lines that if a global war was once fought with virtually all trail-draggers (there were several fighter types with a nosegear assembly, yes...but a small percentage in contrast to the majority of tailwheel equipped types), then it would be safe to assume this is not a lost art. As mentioned, it would take additional training and even back in the war years, there were accidents with tail-gear qualified pilots.

It would certainly be interesting to see how an A-1 would handle GA in this day and age, that's for sure.

...but if a turbine take a hit, it usually stops working just as a water-cooled engine taking a hit to its coolant was running on borrowed time.

Even a radial would come apart if hit in the right area or with a large enough shell. The P-47 was able to make it back home with half the engine blown apart once in a while, but many more did not.

You can armor-plate the cowling (as was done in many instances - various types) but now you're taking a penalty for the additional weight. if you want to make the engine completely immune to enemy fire, you would be better off putting tracks on it and attacking the enemy from the ground.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is that the fault of the aircraft or a pilot who is not as good as he thinks he is.

Pilot who never received proper tail wheel training.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When designing aircraft, you want to build in features that mitigates risk. No matter how you slice it, there is more risk for accidents in a tail dragger than there is an aircraft with conventional landing gear. Multiply that with a multi-million dollar aircraft carrying a horde of bombs and you want basic operation as risk free as possible.

 

[RpR]

I read recently that when British Spitfire pilots started flying U.S. aircraft they had to be re-educated NOT to do a perfect three-point landing as that was a good way to do a ground-loop in U.S. aircraft.

If pilots can learn to do carrier landings in miserable weather, it should not be that hard to learn how to land an aircraft with tail wheels.

I am sure there are enough surviving T-6 Texans, the real one not the new wannabe, that training could be done.

A bit off topic but not really when speaking of expense and safety.
Flyboy while your logic makes sense, what does not make sense, and leading journals of aviation have mentioned and said the military is aware of this, are aircraft that rely on digital systems that not can, but will be made useless by an EMP.
The new F-35 will simply fall out of the air and it has been shown that a nuclear (it has been written also that non-nuclear emp weapons are being developed) warhead at high altitude covers thousands of square miles in area for an effective radius.
The Mig-25 had vacuum tubes because vacuum tubes can be reset to function, if need be, after being hit by an emp, i.e. it could take a licking and keep on ticking.