Does the USN need a new skyraider?

[scratchshipnut]

It seems like the job that attack helecoptors and harriers do could be done cheaper with a robust fix wing plane like the skyraider was. All the talk of F35s and what not make me wonder what we're really getting that we dont have allready. Seems like you could fly spads off an LHA

[Werner]

There's this dreadful creep in US military procurement. It starts out with (for example) an aircraft with a single, clearly defined mission and out the other end pops a budget busting multipurpose aircraft with every bell and whistle.

Remember, the AD1 was originally a replacement for the Avenger torpedo bomber at a time when private companies fronted the development costs for the design and prototype process.

[Lesforan]

Sure you could. Might need some arresting gear for getting back down.

There is a tendency in this country to go all out with bells and whistles, and to try to make a minimum number of aircraft cover a maximum of roles. It is not considered cost-effective to build a specialized aircraft when an existing design can be modified to cover a specialist job.

The problem with that, of course, is that a "one size fits all" approach is not only very expensive (thus the need for multirole aircraft to justify the cost), but the fact that a specialized aircraft can usually do the job better than a modified "something else".

A good example of this was the A-10. It was supposed to be retired, to have its role filled by a modified F-16. Experience proved that the F-16 was no substitute for the A-10 (slow speed loitering ability, gun armament, armor), thus giving a new lease on life for the Warthogs.

How about a cost-effective A-1 replacement? A low-tech aircraft with high-tech weapons systems?

If the thing did not have to double as a fighter to defend itself from an air
threat, it would seem a turboprop with a high-lift wing would be a good combo. The turbine engine would use the same fuel as the other aircraft, and get good fuel efficiency. The high-lift wing could lift a lot of ordinance, and maybe get off the deck without the need for a cat.

Don't expect to see anything like this (I think the British had such a design), because there would not be enough profit in it for the contractor.

[Sean Hert]

Now, a navalized A-10....

[Werner]

In turn, Democratic political interests were highly critical of both the A-10 and F-16. Before the Gulf War, the TV show "60 Minutes" held an expose on the A-10 in which their experts called it a useless deathtrap which ought to be scrapped. They disappeared rather quickly after the War was over.

The F-16 was also subject to an expose by the same discredited network ("CBS") in "60 Minutes", which accused the Air Force of turning a lightweight, daylight interceptor into an all weather fighter-bomber which would do nothing well, was a financial boondogle and would endanger the flight crews. They even kept this up through the first few casualties when a wing deployed to Korea accidently flew two into a mountainside.

[Lesforan]

I propose that CBS News is no more qualified to evaluate combat aircraft than I am. Let's hope the Pentagon doesn't put a lot of stock in thier review.

I do propose that if someone isn't going to make a ton of money off a new aircraft, it just isn't going to happen. The old days of field improvisation seem to be long gone.

When money is tight and the need is immediate, some good conversions have appeared. Consider Col. "Pappy" Gunn and his modified B-25s. The bombadier's position was occupied with all the heavy machine guns that would fit, and a good-sized cannon was mounted A-10-style. Bomb capacity was retained. This design raised heck with Japanese shipping until North American designed factory-built versions (B-25H). One of my college professors was a field agent for the War Department that was personally involved with that project.

Or, how about the AC-47 conversions in VietNam? Take an obsolete transport aircraft, line the interior with side-firing guns (including a cannon), and you have a slow-flying gunship. This too, was picked up by the manufacturers as the AC-130 Hercules (apparently because the C-47 was out of production).

If I recall correctly, during the VietNam War, serious consideration was given to putting the A-1 back into production. A slow-flying attack bomber had been missing from the inventory since the "dump truck" attack jets of the Korean War. Eventual Spad replacement: the A-4 Skyhawk (another Heineman design).

The true test of an aircraft's value is its ability to adapt to new roles during its lifetime. The Avenger-replacement Skyraider not only replaced the TBF/TBM in the attack/torpedo bomber roles, but also in the AEW role.
It finally wound up in an electronic warfare role for the Air Force! In the meantime, it outlived many of its "replacements" in the same way the C-47 had.

I was on a training operation last week with a Lockheed-Martin engineer.
He did field testing on C-130s, and, reminesing about this aircraft, we realized that next year it will have been in production for 50 years! Still coming out with new versions, too.

The features that make the C-130 such a great plane would make a turboprop shipboard attack plane great, too: Turboprop power and a high-lift wing. Turboprops have great lifting ability and endurance. Consider the continuing production runs of the two premier long-range patrol bombers: the Lockheed-Martin Orion, born as the Electra airliner the same year as the C-130; and the Tupelov TU-95, which I think preceded these two shortly and remains in low volume production to replace worn-out airframes.

[Werner]

As I recall the C-130 has run out of variation suffixes... C-130A through C-130Z

[chuck]

Turbo prop can't be made stealthy, and turbo prop aircraft would be incapable of any high speed dash.

[Werner]

The is a large contingent in NavAir who believe they need a low-tech "bomb truck". They wanted to keep the P-3 for just this purpose.

With GPS or precision guidance in low threat areas, one of these turboprop aircraft could release a Bone or Buff for more dangerous missions.

[chuck]

The is a large contingent in NavAir who believe they need a low-tech "bomb truck". They wanted to keep the P-3 for just this purpose.

With GPS or precision guidance in low threat areas, one of these turboprop aircraft could release a Bone or Buff for more dangerous missions.

A bomb truck like that would only have a role in counter insurgency war.

[Werner]

The is a large contingent in NavAir who believe they need a low-tech "bomb truck". They wanted to keep the P-3 for just this purpose.

With GPS or precision guidance in low threat areas, one of these turboprop aircraft could release a Bone or Buff for more dangerous missions.

A bomb truck like that would only have a role in counter insurgency war.

You know as well as I that military planning only looks back one or at most two wars. For the two wars with Iraq and the one in Afghanistan the "bomb truck" makes sense. Against India or China, forget it.

[scratchshipnut]

Well you know Im thinking, war with the US navy usually means getting jackslapped, and quick, then provide fire support for soldiers. Seems the ability to defend itself from other jets could be fullfilled by superbug CAPs anyway. Not to mention pilot survivability was high in spads

[Seasick]

Hey guys the stories on "60 Minutes" weren't a leftwing conspiracy.

1. The Air Force was trying to get rid of the A-10. They were litterally forced by the Pentagon to adopt the aircraft. The 60 Minutes story came up a few weeks before the USAF was going to try and ask Congress to retire the aircraft. The F-16 thing happened before the USAF was trying to get more F-15E from Congress.

Beware that the military does have friends on the left.

Donald Rumsfeld ran much of the US Military into the ground while Secretary of Defense. The vaunted missile defense that Rumsfeld poured so much money into can't do a thing to stop terrorist attacks or cruise missile attacks.

[Lesforan]

Well, of course something like that would be best suited to counter-insurgency. That's the name of the game.

Stealth? Who needs it, dumping on Taliban types. Payload capacity and survivability are the top priorities. They could be outfitted to handle various "smart" munitions.

I, for one, love the idea of a heavy attack version of the Orion. I recall some time ago that Lockheed proposed a heavy bomber version of the Orion to the Air Force as the B-3. Maybe the proposal was just ahead of its time.

The P-3 is indeed a patrol bomber, capable of dropping not only bombs, but mines and homing torpedoes as well. When the thread started out as looking for a replacement for the Skyraider, it was in the context of US Marine assualt carriers. Thus, a carrier-borne aircraft. But the Orion has become the world standard patrol bomber, and remains very adaptable to other roles.

[Werner]

The P-3 replaced the Essex-based CVS hunter-killer groups. Vietnam consumed important upkeep and operations dollars, and the choice was to adapt the strategic SOSUS net to tactical purposes by covering the Atlantic (and Pacific) with long-range, very long-loiter aircraft coordinated from the NCA.

In the 1980s, SOSUS needed an upgrade or replacement to keep the system effective. It was decided to supplement the net with two dozen towed long-array Sonar ships based on commercial trawlers (Stalwart class).

The P-3 is in the process of being replaced by the P-8, which is based on the Boeing 737-400. These aircraft are inferior to the P-3C-IV in all aspects but cruising speed and operational cost. Furthermore, SOSUS has been closed down and the Stalwart class has been largely abandoned.

It would appear to me that the sensor aspect of a national antisubmarine defense has been completely abandoned. I can't see how we will recover a comfortable defensive posture without years of investment and rebuilding. The P-8 aircraft might give the illusion of the ASW powers possessed in the 1960s-1980s, but it is only one side of the coin. The other side appears blank to me.

The main problem with modern antisubmarine warfare is you must have defensive assets deployed everywhere the enemy submarine might be.

An Akula in the North Atlantic is as undetected as a WW.II U-Boat in 1940. The P-8 will have to stumble over it in order to find it.

In the short run we can adapt our surplus of Burke class ships to act as the sensor platforms for a smaller aircraft carrier (CVS) with 20-25 ASW aircraft, probably based on the V-22 and H-60.

The old number was 16 for the number of ASW task forces required. With modern equipment we might be able to get along with 12. They would need to look like Principe de Austrias at a minimum.

Maybe your new Skyraider could be designed to operate from these, just like the original was intended for the Essex.

I simply do not see how the Navy can protect the US sea frontiers or necessary shipping unless we address these issues.

In addition, who knows... in five years we may have to dust off the REFORGER plans and relabel them REFORPOL.

[scratchshipnut]

Whats the deal on V-22s? I cant find anything about hardpoints and hellfire missles etc. Are they my skyraider?

[Werner]

The current V-22 replaces the CH-46, CH-47 and CH-53 helicopters. There have been so many problems with this monster that no one has even considered weapons.

A quick check of the requisition indicates the following characteristics:

• "Have a weapons load consisting of: internal or turreted 20 millimeter cannon+1500 rounds of ammunition, 4 AIM-9L air-to-air missiles, and 4 AGM-114 air-to-ground missiles."

Candidates are the "V-22 Escort", or the HV911 UCAV helicopter.

[scratchshipnut]

So then we dont want to put the CH-46, CH-47 and CH-53 helicopters in line behind the tomcats at the chopper just yet?

[Werner]

So then we dont want to put the CH-46, CH-47 and CH-53 helicopters in line behind the tomcats at the chopper just yet?

Have you seen operational V-22 squadrons yet?

I think there's only about 30 built, and some are so below current revision level as to be nothing but demonstrators. Some of the early lot units have severe restrictions on hover time and altitude or the fuselage skin melts.

According to Jane's, the V-22 will achieve it's first deployment with Marine Squadron VMM-263 in September, 2007. The V-22 project started in 1982.

[chuck]

So then we dont want to put the CH-46, CH-47 and CH-53 helicopters in line behind the tomcats at the chopper just yet?

Have you seen operational V-22 squadrons yet?

I think there's only about 30 built, and some are so below current revision level as to be nothing but demonstrators. Some of the early lot units have severe restrictions on hover time and altitude or the fuselage skin melts.

According to Jane's, the V-22 will achieve it's first deployment with Marine Squadron VMM-263 in September, 2007. The V-22 project started in 1982.

The project actually started in the 1960s. 1982 was merely an occasion to rename the project to shed some of the unpleasant technical odor the project generated during the decade before.