T2K Air Support

[unkated]

Anyone want a used jet fighter

I found these other airworthy craft in the US on Wikipedia:

<SNIP>

Saab 35 Drakens: 15

The Saab 35 Drakens was the real weird one, eight active with another six stored or under restoration. I can't figure out why so many Swedish fighter aircraft in the US

There are not that many jet fighters that a private citizen can find to own.

JD Webster, author of a variety of air combat games and a former fighter pilot, at one point bought a Polish MiG-21 to restore (back in the 90s).


Uncle Ted

[kalos72]

Sure these military developed/purposed aircraft are awesome but I am sure there are some civilian ones that could be used in a pinch no A Cessna 172 has to be good for something...

Surely a stripped 747 could become a troop transport in no time...

[pmulcahy11b]

The Enforcer probably wouldn't have been a bad choice as a COIN aircraft in Third World countries.

The Iraqi military (if there still is one) could use some of these.

[Canadian Army]

I should also add

The Grumman OV-1 Mohawk: 33

North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco: 30

There would also be large numbers of Beechcraft T-34 Mentor and Cessna T-37 Tweet, which could easily be converted to combat aircraft.

[Tegyrius]

250+ Aero L-39s in 2012, per Wikipedia. Not sure how many of those would have come over between the Wall coming down and the date of the TDM.

- C.

[unkated]

Civilian Aircraft

Sure these military developed/purposed aircraft are awesome but I am sure there are some civilian ones that could be used in a pinch no A Cessna 172 has to be good for something...

Actually, not much due to a lack of carrying capacity. That's the main thing you get in military aircraft - lots of spare lift capacity due to the engine power available. Before we discuss adding ordnance delivery systems, or targeting systems.

(And the speed and the ability to maneuver (without falling apart), before we discuss targeting systems available in post WW2 aircraft.

Surely a stripped 747 could become a troop transport in no time...

Stripped Why waste the time. 747s and other large jets were already tagged to be put into immediate use to move troops to meet pre-positioned US equipment. They'd have been used in 1995/96.

Uncle Ted

[copeab]

The Iraqi military (if there still is one) could use some of these.

The Enforcer is a rather old design. It is probably better to use something similar but much newer.

[Adm.Lee]

32 Avengers is pretty amazing, and those would have reasonably good bomb-loads and ruggedness.

[headquarters]

lo-tech airpower

Considering the amount of infrastructure, technical expertise and advanced high technological parts and equipment needed to deploy modern combat aircraft I think that a reverse to more basic aircraft would occur.

Obsolete or inferior aircraft can fill many roles - scouting, fire direction, transportation and indeed - attempt attacking enemy positions or troops.

It is far better to have some sort of arial observation and fire direction capability - maybe even from ultralight aircraft than to have none due to lack of technicians and spare parts.

Not to mention fuel.

I guess all of us have a certain view of what would be the situation in game terms. In my personal and humble opinion crop dusters, civvies prop planes and choppers and what not would suddenly be utilized in military operations of many kinds.

In our campaign I have found that adding some 1930s, 1940s and 1950s combat aircraft have added to the overall enjoyment and scope of the game.

Civvie prop craft are used by all sides in our game as scouts etc. Dogfights between two wholly inadequate combat aircraft with handheld m249s etc blasting away at each other at 4000 feet is good fun.

Having an aircraft attack the party with a good ole LMG strafing run from 400 feet is far more entertaining than a laser guided bomb from 15 000 feet.

[chico20854]

A more likely wartime stopgap for CAS in a low-threat environment would be the Boeing Skyfox - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox

At the time there was a large number of surplus T-33s on the market, being retired from various air forces due to age. In fact, the company that developed the aircraft purchased 80 of the retired trainers, with hundreds more available.

The various Broncos and Mohawks would still be on the US military's rolls, doing their mission!!!!

[copeab]

Considering the amount of infrastructure, technical expertise and advanced high technological parts and equipment needed to deploy modern combat aircraft I think that a reverse to more basic aircraft would occur.

This is certainly possible. In 1944, for example, one American, not content acting as an artillery spotter in his military version of the Piper Cub, lashed three bazookas together and placed them under each wing (next to the connection for the support strut) and went tank hunting.

The firing of 5.6mm and 7.62mm MGs shouldn't damage the plane mounting them and simple rocks probably only require some sort of metal sheet under the wing to prevent the rocket exhaust from burning the wing (such a modification was made for the Swordfish biplane to allow it to carry 60-lb rockets). Light bombs are also possible.

MGs could fire through the prop arc, using metal wedges on the back of the prop . This is what was used before the invention of synchronizing gear in WWI.. The prop will eventualay need to be replaced, but won't be splintered in seconds.

[kalos72]

Think of the "Airlords" module, look at how much a couple of blimps did for them

Throw a couple of bombs on the undercarriage...or have some crude door mounts with MG's...

Lots of options...

My guys in Texas have alot of the T34 trainers on hand...gotta love air power when your the only ones with aviation fuel.

[Sanjuro]

I've said it before... in a really fuel-starved environment, consider the use of high performance gliders. Given suitable launch sites on a windy ridge, they can be bungee launched, then wave soar to higher altitudes than an unprotected human could survive. Being white, they are almost invisible in a bright sky, silent and with a small radar signature. The 2 seat trainer versions can carry an observer with a camera for hundreds of miles. Yes, hundreds- I had a student once who flew several times from France to Yugoslavia and back- all without burning a gallon of fuel.
Given small amounts of avgas, the self-launching motor gliders come into play- as the name suggests, they have a small engine for takeoff, which is switched off for gliding flight. Although they do not have the extreme glide performance of dedicated sailplanes, they can still cover long distances without using their engines, while having the versatility to land and takeoff behind enemy lines for such missions as agent extraction.

[copeab]

I have been aircraft with (turbocharged) diesel engines for improved fuel economy but it does add extra weight.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Charles Carpenter, AKA Bazooka Charlie. His loiter speed was low enough that he could really draw a bead on enemy tanks, and top-down attacks with ATRLs were enough of a threat to Panzers that he could make them withdraw. Plus the German troops were in a pickle; if they heard/saw an LH-4 and it was him, there was a good chance he'd attack their armor if they did nothing. On the other hand if they shot at the aircraft and it wasn't him, but a spotter, they'd have artillery called in on them.