WI: An updated AD-1 Skyraider returns to service

I recently read an article about how the V-22 Osprey flies faster than the Cobra gunships that are supposed to escort it. Also I've read about how the USAF purchased the A-29 Tucano a prop airplane to equip the Afghan Air Force.

What if the AD-1 Skyraider, the famed "Able Dog" of Korea and Vietnam was rebuilt and updated for service in Afghanistan and other remote third world trouble spots in the world.

What I mean by rebuilt is not pulling a Skyraider out of a museum but recreate the airframe in a factory with modern updates like GPS. How would it do in the mountains of Afghanistan?

The Skyraider had a top speed of 322 mph according to Wikipedia faster than the Osprey (316 mph).

Does this sound like ASB?

Not quite ASB, but it would be extremely difficult. The problem is mainly related to the engine, namely that no one builds high output radial aircraft engines. You could replace it with a turboprop, but the changes would be a nightmare. Might as well start with a fresh sheet of paper.

I love the idea of the SPAD making a return, but it would be far easier, not to mention more cost effective, to simply produce more of the A-1's true successor, the A-10, then to reinvent the wheel (even if it was a REALLY great wheel).

viperjock said:

I recently read an article about how the V-22 Osprey flies faster than the Cobra gunships that are supposed to escort it. Also I've read about how the USAF purchased the A-29 Tucano a prop airplane to equip the Afghan Air Force.

What if the AD-1 Skyraider, the famed "Able Dog" of Korea and Vietnam was rebuilt and updated for service in Afghanistan and other remote third world trouble spots in the world.

What I mean by rebuilt is not pulling a Skyraider out of a museum but recreate the airframe in a factory with modern updates like GPS. How would it do in the mountains of Afghanistan?

The Skyraider had a top speed of 322 mph according to Wikipedia faster than the Osprey (316 mph).

Does this sound like ASB?

Click to expand...

Given that it was suggested by Colonel Mark Brilakis the commanding officer of the Weapons Training Battalion, Quantico, Virginia in the cover story of US Naval Institute Proceedings in January 2006 no, I don't see it as ASB.

The link is http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2006-01/martian-alert

The article was titled 'Mars Alert!' and in it the argument was made that the only reason for buying the sort of equipment the US was buying in the quantities it was would be because they expected a Martian invasion.

He pointed out that the work the US Navy actually does from its carriers could be carried out by the A-1, all it would need would be avionics for smart bombs and GPS added.

Don't need to go that far back...

Don't need to go that far back... along with the A-10, there are more than a few of these airframes still knocking around:

Grumman OV-1

Rockwell OV-10


The Scorpion, from Cessna & Textron, is a likely candidate for a lo-end CAS platform.

Best,

Updates?
What kind of updates?
The basic airframe was sound, just needs a few updates to share the playing field with modern airplanes.
Heads up display, IFF, secure com radios, IR cameras, satellite up link, turbo-prop engine, low-observable propeller, low observable paint, IR suppressor on engine exhaust, catapult probe under nose, nose wheel, chaff dispensers, etc.

Would you not want your V22 escort to be VTOL capable so it can fly (and land) with the V22s ?

I think you just go with an armed version of the V22 as the easiest solution, fit a cannon and some missiles instead of the cargo payload ?

New-build Spads would be fun, but I don't see anything wrong with Super Tucano, for realistic and budgetary reasons. For arming the Osprey, the original under-belly mini-gun was a wash-out, but I've read that Bell-Boeing have undergone development of cheek hardpoints capable of missile carriage, including 2.75 rockets with laser seekers, $30G a pop but maybe get you wholesale later. Maybe it takes other missiles and maybe gun pods. Maybe it's all BS. It's just a report, with a picture.

Just Leo said:

New-build Spads would be fun, but I don't see anything wrong with Super Tucano, for realistic and budgetary reasons. For arming the Osprey, the original under-belly mini-gun was a wash-out, but I've read that Bell-Boeing have undergone development of cheek hardpoints capable of missile carriage, including 2.75 rockets with laser seekers, $30G a pop but maybe get you wholesale later. Maybe it takes other missiles and maybe gun pods. Maybe it's all BS. It's just a report, with a picture.

Click to expand...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-v-22-osprey-finally-gets-the-missiles-and-rockets-i-1668338371

This was the article I read about arming the Osprey. I believe with some of the comments that were made after the article about just making a gunship version of the Osprey and stop worrying about trying to maintain cargo capability. Now that would be a true successor to the Spad. I also feel why not look at some low tech gun mounts. Hell try putting some good old fashion 50 cal. machine guns in the nose.

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=15612.0




Modernized Skyraider with a T-56 turboprop borrowed from an Hercules and a tricycle landing gear

riggerrob said:

Updates?
What kind of updates?
The basic airframe was sound, just needs a few updates to share the playing field with modern airplanes.
Heads up display, IFF, secure com radios, IR cameras, satellite up link, turbo-prop engine, low-observable propeller, low observable paint, IR suppressor on engine exhaust, catapult probe under nose, nose wheel, chaff dispensers, etc.

Click to expand...

Everything you mentioned is what I meant by updates. You have to admit It would make an awesome prototype for someone to build!

Archibald said:

Modernized Skyraider with a T-56 turboprop borrowed from an Hercules and a tricycle landing gear

Click to expand...

What does that give you that an A10 cant ?

jsb said:

What does that give you that an A10 cant ?

Click to expand...

lower operating costs.

If you are dropping PGMs, that big cannon represents a lot of weight that isn't being used.

marathag said:

lower operating costs.

If you are dropping PGMs, that big cannon represents a lot of weight that isn't being used.

Click to expand...

But compared to making new skyraiders removing a cannon might be cheap.(or just swapping in a smaller 20mm)

I'm just not convinced that since you have A10s that the USAF wants to get rid off building something else not better makes sense ? (and why not go for a drone if you care about cost it could be much smaller and you might be willing to risk it using a cannon)

jsb said:

But compared to making new skyraiders removing a cannon might be cheap.(or just swapping in a smaller 20mm)

Im just not convinced that sinse you have A10s that the USAF wants to get rid off building something else not better makes sense ? (and why not go for a drone if you care about cost it could be much smaller)

Click to expand...

If you want a gun, the Marines been using a bolt on 25mm gun pod for the Harrier


Don't need the gun? Bolt on something else in place of the GAU-12/U

A-10 is built around the cannon. Little sense in removing it.

But on the next platform, the main role just isn't shooting hordes of Soviet MBTs with a powerful cannon anymore.

A-10s are getting old, eventually the airframes will wear out.

What is next?

One advantage of a VTOL escort for V-22s is that the escort could take off from the same helicopter-pad and share the same logistics chain.
This points to the primary reason the US Army does not want A-10 Warthogs: they would need additional runways and a different supply chain than helicopters.

Super Tucano costs 1/10 as much to operate as an attack helicopter firing the same weapons. Super Tucano is good-enough for a third-world nation hunting infantry rebels. Super Tucanos are very good for controlling rebellious citizens. A Super Tucano is good-enough as long as neighbouring nations don't fly jet fighters.

While not being for a revived Spad in particular there are a lot of old school pieces of kit, particularly from the Vietnam era, that would serve admirably in the current fighting in the Mid East. STOL aircraft like the DHC5 Buffalo and OV10 Bronco could do a vast amount of missions currently assigned to helicopters at a fraction of the cost, indeed the now abandoned purchase of the C27J was to provide a capability between the Hercules and big helicopters as a lower cost.

The problem is Murphy's Law. Pretty much 5 minutes after you convert a squadron of F16s to a wing of Spads or Broncos or a sqn of Hercs to a wing of Buffalo a war will flare up with Iran, China, Nth Korea or whoever. All of these sweet COIN assets, procured at such cost with the stand-alone supply chains and unique niche training requirements, will be friggin useless.

What about converting older models of fighters and interceptors to strike aircraft? The role is more forgiving of less advanced airframes, and it would allow existing supply chains and knowledge to be used. Also, high altitude strike aircraft can avoid systems such as MANPADS and AAA that helicopters and lower altitude strike aircraft cannot.

Riain said:

The problem is Murphy's Law. Pretty much 5 minutes after you convert a squadron of F16s to a wing of Spads or Broncos or a sqn of Hercs to a wing of Buffalo a war will flare up with Iran, China, Nth Korea or whoever. All of these sweet COIN assets, procured at such cost with the stand-alone supply chains and unique niche training requirements, will be friggin useless.

Click to expand...

But chances of WWIII was always remote where the cheaper stuff was deployed for a low intensity conflict

But a Nu-Spad or OV-10 or Blackhawk will all be very vulnerable if the other guy is flying MiG-29s.

Not as much if Su-25s

Delta Force said:

What about converting older models of fighters and interceptors to strike aircraft? The role is more forgiving of less advanced airframes, and it would allow existing supply chains and knowledge to be used. Also, high altitude strike aircraft can avoid systems such as MANPADS and AAA that helicopters and lower altitude strike aircraft cannot.

Click to expand...

I would say the A-4 Skyhawk and/or the A-7 Corsair would both fit the bill here. The A-4 was an excellent aircraft and well loved by the Navy and Marines, being produced until 1979, an impressive production run considering it began in 1954. Let's say it get's produced a couple more years and some Navy and Marine units keep using them instead of switching to Hornets because they are cheaper late production aircraft with an extensive spares and support pool. Assuming Singapore upgrades them like OTL, the Navy takes interest and embarks on a similar upgrade for their's and the Marine's Skyhawks. They get structural overhauls along with an extensive avionics refit giving them the ability to carry PGMs and a re-engining with the F404. These upgraded Skyhawks prove their worth over Iraq and Afghanistan where they become a favorite of troops on the ground for fast response times and extremely accurate munitions delivery.

The A-7 could survive in a couple of ways. You could have a scenario where the A-10 never comes to fruition and more upgraded Corsairs are bought (earlier YA-7F?) with an Oerlikon KCA 30mm gun to satisfy the CAS mission, this would've been my choice had I been running things. There could be more hang-ups in the Hornet program and the Navy procures more Corsairs and eventually upgrades them. Or when the Air Force was contemplating replacing the A-10 with the A-16/upgrading the F-16 for all-weather strike (what became the Block 40) you could have them choose the YA-7F which would've been the smarter choice considering the conflicts we got into.