OK, in order... if I miss anyone, just remind me.
OldSolduer: An upgraded bipe works for me as long as it's open cockpit, painted in garish colours and the aircrew wear white scarves. Please note, the scarves must be silk, none of this new-fangled synthetic stuff. ;D
SupersonicMax : The AT-6B already has a MIL Standard 1553 databus built in and computer/display capabilities for the new sensor. Added weight would be a factor, but primarily in increased structure for the mount, power/datalines for the radar and possibly a larger alternator. Based on similar mods I've taken part in, the increase would be 300 Lbs for the APG-76, maybe 350 if the alternator required upgrade. That's inclusive of the radar itself. Both radars are designed for small airframes and small electrical loads. Fitting, as previously stated would probably need to be similar to the Corsair or Hellcat night fighters. Check out http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/korean/cleaverf4u5n.htm It's a model of a Corsair night fighter, but does give a good idea of how the radar was fitted. Not ideal, as I said previously there would probably be limitation on the radar field of view.
Michael O`Leary:
and now are busily waving away any suggestion that your argument isn't fully developed from a task assessment or capability requirement perspective.
Exactly where have I done that? The only thing I have waved away is the sidetrack discussion of the CP-142. That isn't, and never was part of the discussion. It was an example only, on a separate point. Perhaps a bad example, but as something not on topic in the first place it's something that should be ignored or left for a different discussion. As for selection of airframe, I haven't selected one... I've suggested that the BA SABA comes close, or that the Piper Enforcer is close (with one huge obvious drawback), but haven't selected any airframe as being truly suitable. For you edification, I did read the passage you quoted. I ran into a basic problem though in compliance... as I haven't identified a platform that might fit the perceived need, it isn't yet possible to start trying to generate numbers.
If this is such a great idea, then lay down the basics of the estimate showing why we need it, and how we can afford it. If it's not worth that effort, then it's just another wild-assed wish list idea.
Fair enough. Please excuse me if I keep this short at this juncture. The basic question underlying my concept is this: "What does the Air Force bring to the rear-area security table?" There are loads of front-line assets (but never enough), but can the Air Force only contribute by diverting those assets just as they are needed at the front? I considered the possibility that a role-specific rear-area asset might actually free more front-line assets to the main fight rather than divert resources. Force balance would require careful assessment, at what point does it become a diminishing return?
I selected a new acronym early in order to avoid the rather extensive baggage associated with COIN. As you are, no doubt, aware there has been a rather large amount of resistance in First World air forces to acquiring COIN-type aircraft. Most of that has centered, IMHO, on the lack of insurgents to counter. The platform has an inherent capability of doing other things, but COIN aircraft get swept under the COIN rug and those 'other things' get done by higher value units. This has lead to accelerated use of things like USAF F-16's in roles where a lower value unit would be suitable, if available. Citation available upon request.
Kirkhill: The potential of a 'modern' Mosquito is very high, perhaps ideal for the role envisioned. My only concern would be maneuverability on the air-air side. A twin engine configuration solves the radar fit question ideally, but cost might make the diminishing return point very low. As for selecting a Mustang knock off... haven't done it, haven't any idea how you might have got that idea. I said the Enforcer would be a better match (than the CF-156B), but immediately qualified that by discounting a tailwheel configured aircraft.
CDN Aviator: Says he has me on ignore, so this space intentionally left blank.
Ex-Dragoon:
Not as active, hmmm? Well 21,000+ members is nothing to sneeze at in my opinion.
Not a derogatory statements, just a simple statement of fact. I'm currently active in communities that have far more frequent posts. In one case the forum has generated approx 950K posts in the last 4-4 1/2 years (I was a mod there, but stepped down to get more free time.). In another case the forum has generated only 15K posts, but that counter was reset when the software crashed and was unrecoverable... on the 27/Sept/2008. My most active forum was while working as a flight-simulation administrator for one of the premier online gaming leagues... that place was a madhouse, generating 3000 posts/day! Almost made a killing there on the buyout, damn tech crash.
My Air Force background, coupled with a life-long involvement with Flight Sim had lead to an ownership stake in a company that was being targeted for potential takeover by Microsoft. The opening moves had been made when the bubble burst and our company, like a great number of others folded. Don't take me to mean those places are better, but it does require a somewhat more stringent enforcement of staying on topic. I've been involved with places like that since I got my first Internet connection and doubt that I'll be changing using that form of conduct anytime soon.
x-zipperhead: Nope, wasn't you I was referring to. I always appreciate a free exchange of ideas, but do try to limit myself to one conversational topic per thread. I notice that your user-image is a CP-140. If anything I said here, by way of example, makes you want to discuss a patrol-related topic with me... sure ( Why do I have a feeling the CP-142 leaps to mind?). But how about we do it elsewhere than a thread about CAS? I'm not as conversant on patrol issues as I might be, but my time in 414 (EW) did teach me more than a few things concerning how to conduct combined training and operational taskings. 414 had to train all it's Navs to the task, there really wasn't any assets available to do that training other than what we had flying, and the only spares that might have been used as training aids were there as well. We also had to convert pilots to the CT-133, train transport guys to fly the CC-117 in a fighter-type environment and train ground crew to the rather unofficial "tech crewman" ideal. That unit also deployed... a lot. I lost count of exercise deployments when I crossed 50. I went to Cool Pool so often during the initial Hornet workups that Base Flight Cold Lake thought I worked there. A unique Sqdn leads to unique problems and unique solutions... and we all know just how well received any suggestion from the new guy in the unit is when he starts with "At my last unit...". Some of that stuff may never have been spread throughout the rest of the military, EW was always the red-headed bastard stepchild of Fighter Group.
I think that covers it, apologies to anyone I might have missed.
