Advanced A-4 SkyHawks: USN VA (L) and for the U.S. Army CAS competition

[cluttonfred]

U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947 by Stephen Harding includes some details of how each of the planes above, including the modified A-4, fared in the tests, as well as some information on other Army fixed-wing aircraft evaluated (Cessna A-37) and actually used in combat (Grumman OV-1).

 

[Rickshaw]

Interesting that the F-5 is seen with both single and twin nose wheels.

 

[famvburg]

Is that Grumman OV-1 or North American OV-10?

 

[cluttonfred]

Grumman, fixed it.

 

[Pioneer]

Wow Fightingirish your link http://sobchak.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/i-jet-dellu-s-army-1956-1961-e-la-battaglia-army-usaf-sul-close-air-support/
is a fantastic and informative find (once, with the help of the forum, I ascertained the language it was written in and translated it!!). For years I’ve been looking for more substantial info on this actual U.S. Army fixed-wing CAS trials. Especially that of the Douglas A4D-2N Skyhawk and N-156F.
I particularly like and appreciate the photo of the A4D-2N Skyhawk conducting rough-field take off trials!
There has to be more info and pictures out there of this given U.S. Army trial. Let’s also hope that there is video/film footage of this!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Jos Heyman]

The Italian article is fascinating and revealing info I had not seen before.
First of all (and I may be repeating earlier information published in this forum) four G-91s were shipped to the US in 1961.
Two of these, a Fiat built G-91R/1 (c/n 42, ex MM6276) and a Dornier built G-91R/3 (c/n 65, no Luftwaffe ID found) went to the US Army where they were flown with the c/n as serials. The other two, another G-91R/1 and another G-91R/3 (presumably built by Fiat and Dornier) went to the USAF where they were tested. As far as I know they did not receive USAF serials and I suspect they were not even flown (and if, just very limited). The ID of these aircraft is not clear, but Scramble.nl's listing of the Luftwaffe G-91s does not make mention of c/n 65 and 66. Since we know 65 went to the US Army, one can assume with a fair degree of certainty that 66 went to the USAF. No such assumptions can be drawn for the Fiat built USAF aircraft.
By the way, Scramble.nl list the US Army Fiat G-91R.1 as 0052 (c/n 52), which, I guess is an error, as the Italian article makes it clear that it was 0042.
But the most interesting thing in the Italian article is the G-91T with serial 0002. I assume that this was c/n 2, which, based on Scramble.nl data, crashed in Italy on 13 April 1964. Could this aircraft have been used as a training aircraft for US Army pilots and never left Italy? The US Army markings could perhaps have been for legal reasons - may be US Army pilots are not allowed to fly foreign registered aircraft.

 

[bigvlada]

Could this aircraft have been used as a training aircraft for US Army pilots and never left Italy? The US Army markings could perhaps have been for legal reasons - may be US Army pilots are not allowed to fly foreign registered aircraft.

I don't think it's the correct assumption. For instance, US pilots tested Soko G-4 Super Galeb in late eighties in Yugoslav markings when that aircraft entered the JPATS competition.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is early sketches for Douglas A4D Skyhawk aircraft.


McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk,by Brad Elward.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

A4D-6 and A4D-5 comparison.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fileouglas_A4D-5_and_A4D-6_Skyhawk_models_1962.jpg

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

A recent EPay acquisition to add to the thread. Thanks to Paul for smoothing the image out.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[famvburg]

I couldn't find a thread dedicated to the US Army's CAS competition and since this includes the other types in addition to the A-4, I'll ask here. Had the FIAT G.91 been chosen, any ideas as to what its designation would have been? Just curious since the others already had US designations, I guess the worst case would have been a sub-type to the main designation, but the G.91 wasn't in the system.

 

[ZacYates]

Mark that painting is great! I've pinched it to use as inspiration for an Army Scooter model.

Re the G.91 - perhaps A-8?

 

[famvburg]

Hmm, I hadn't thought of A-8 since the Harrier was "intended" to fill the A-8 slot by being mis-designated. Yeah, that would work!

 

[TomS]

Hmm, I hadn't thought of A-8 since the Harrier was "intended" to fill the A-8 slot by being mis-designated. Yeah, that would work!

Wouldn't this have predated the AV-8?

 

[elmayerle]

Hmm, I hadn't thought of A-8 since the Harrier was "intended" to fill the A-8 slot by being mis-designated. Yeah, that would work!

if they were being honest, the Harrier probably should have been the AV-6B rather than the AV-8A.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Greetings All -

A recent EPay acquisition to add to the thread. Thanks to Paul for smoothing the image out.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

A beautiful piece of art - thanks for sharing it.

 

[masher47]

Some where out there on the web is a very interesting thesis paper done by a Lt., done remember which service. Its on the demise of the AH-56. He points out that the stress between the Army and Air Force over the AH-56 was so great that the only way the AF would proceed with the AX program was for the Army to kill the AH-56. The day after the AH-56 was killed the AF announced the AX program that ultimately resulted in the A-10. When the AF wanted to retire the A10 after Desert Storm, the Army said they'd take them so the AF put them into the USAFR and Air Guard units.
Keep in mind part of the 1947 Key West agreement was that the AF would be the procuring and selecting agency for all Army aircraft. But after Korea and the big fight over nuclear weapons and super carriers with the Navy, the Army found a friend there and started to pair with the Marines/Navy. Navy would sponsor a type the Marines could use but the Army wanted. that is how the OV-1 came about. When the 1st Cav got to Vietnam with their OV-1's they had two .50 cal gun pods on wing pylons. When the AF found out they tried to take them away. They were unsuccessful as the Army just removed the pods, but the fight resulted in the Army loosing all the Caribou transports. the only large fixed wing aircraft the Army used in Vietnam were the P2V Neptunes on "loan" from the Navy.
The Army National Guard was given a limited number of Caribou's back after the war to use stateside between logistic centers such as their AVCRAD's. As these wore out they were replaced with C23 Sherpa's (Shorts 330). By now the Army had been given the right to launch, test and select their own aircraft (ie helicopters). When Desert Storm hit the Serpa's were found to be invaluable to supplying forward units not engaged. With the second invasion and then the occupation after 2001, the Sherpa's were rotated through Iraq until nearly worn out. That called for a need for a replacement. The AF already was operating G222 designated C27's out of Panama. They were our supply link when the National Guard deployed to Guatamala in 1995. It fit the bill and the Army was designated as the Project Branch with the AF tagged on. The AF didn't want it, tried to get it replaced with a 'light' C130. When the aircraft began to arrive they lobbied in Congress and got themselves designated a Project Leader as they requested more than the Army. Then once they got them they killed the program. The AF will do anything and everything to protect their domain. Fortunately they tried to get control of ALL UAV's in the military and that was killed. There is a new book out "Grounded: A case study for abolishing the Air Force."

 

[xv107]

I don't think that this is the paper you mean, but it makes very similar points:


The Warthog. The Best Deal the Air Force Never Wanted

 

[yasotay]

My distaste for the USAF Inc. comes from the Headquarters in the Pentagon. I know the Army officer who managed the Army program to acquire the replacement for the Sherpa, the C-27J Spartan. The USAF Inc. went along with no issue until the Army had actually selected the aircraft and started the program, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the aircraft and components. Then the USAF Inc. struck and got the program and in effect shut it down in the next two years. The very same generals who had sat with the Army during the acquisition process, were the ones who went to the civilian leaders to argue the case of USAF Inc. taking the program.

Now that might be a great corporate strategy, but as a tax payer I find it reprehensible for a service to do that.

Only good news to come of it was that when Congress discovered that the USAF Inc. was flying several hundred million dollars of the tax payers money from the factory straight to the boneyard, they got a bit upset (the Air and Army National Guard did the prodding). In the insuring desperate search for ANYONE (except the Army) to take the embarrassing situation off there hands, the Army Special Operations slipped in and took some of the brand new aircraft off of the USAF Inc., even thought the boys in blue initially objected.

Nothing is simple in the five sided funny farm.

Finally, my apologies for the rant that is far from the topic of the thread, but this very same internal war raged over almost every Army aircraft program.

 

[masher47]

Thanks first to “Fightingirish” for that valuable link with all the photos of the evaluation of the G91, N-156F, and A4D-2N.

The document I earlier mentioned was “The Army and the A-10: the Army's role in Developing Close Air Support Aircraft, 1961-71” by Maj Charles E. Kirkpatrick, analysis Branch U.S. Army Center of Military History. It deals primarily with all the Agreements and letters and handshakes between different Army and Air Force chiefs during this period. 46 single sided pages, eight of which are bibliography.

There was a lot of jumping around on this thread between two different topics which had no other thread to fall into. That and some assumptions made like – Cobra was developed because of Lockheed's problems with the Cheyenne. Because of that I put together the following calendar of events of the evaluation of fixed wing aircraft by the Army for the CAS mission as well as the primary events of the Cobra and Cheyenne.

1958 – Three T-37A's (56-3464 thru 3466) evaluated by US Army in Project “LONG ARM”.

1960 – Army “borrows” two Fiat G91's, one Italian and one Germany built.

1961 – Project “CROSS FEED” sees the G91's evaluated at several Army bases against two Douglas A4D-2N's and the Northrop N-156F prototype. During tests the N-156F is modified with dual nose wheels. The A4D's had been given dual main gear with each aircraft featuring a different arrangement for wheel fairing/doors.

1963 Oct – Kaman H-2 Tomahawk (UH-2Seasprite #149785) evaluated as “interim gunship”. It mounted stub wings for weapons and two sets of duel 7.62 mg's mounted in individual turrets in nose, left and right. Both turrets could be slaved together or operated individually for either pilot.

1963 Nov – Congress authorizes purchase by the Army for 220 H-2 Tomahawks.

1963 Nov – Five days after the H-2 purchase is authorized, JFK is assassinated and LBJ becomes President. The H-2 purchase is withdrawn and instead more UH-1B's are obtained from Bell with whom Lady Bird Johnson is a large shareholder.

1965 (Early) – AAFSS – Advanced Arial Fire Support System requirements are finalized and submitted to industry.

1965 Apr – Tripartite Squadron formed in the UK from pilots of the US, UK, and Ger. The US pilots include two Army and one each from the USN and USAF. Purpose is to evaluate the Hawker P1127 and determine if it is suitable for operational consideration and examine problems its unique capabilities create.

1965 Dec – On 7 Dec Bell makes first flight of Model 209, a self financed gunship designed around the tail, rotor and drive train from the UH-1.

1965 Dec – Army evaluates a new “interim gunship competition”. Boeing (AH-47A) and Piasecki's Model 16H were paper eliminations. Fly off is between an updated Kaman H-2, Sikorsky S-61 (company prototype/demonstrator), and Bells Model 209.

1966 Mar – Lockheed named winner of the AAFSS.

1966 Apr – First order for Bell's Model 209, now renamed AH-1G (G following thinking that it was still in the UH-1 family and latest iteration was the UH-1F).

1966 Jun – Tripartite Squadron is disbanded. Three P1127's are sent to each country. Germany decides to pursue its own VTOL programs, VFW 101, and VAK 191 and ship their three P1127's to the US. The UK ships one of their three also to the US. Six of these aircraft receive serials 64-18262 thru 18268, while the UK machine retains XS695. All aircraft retired in late 60's as USN and USAF concentrate on conventional types. USAF closes door on Army and CAS.

1967 Mar – USAF releases AX requirements to 21 manufacturers.

1967 Sept – AH-56 Cheyenne makes first flight on the 21st.

1967 Dec – Army orders 375 AH-56's.

1969 Mar – Third AH-56 crashes.

1969 Apr – Army sends “cure” letter to Lockheed.

1969 May – With no satisfactory solution put forth by Lockheed, Army terminates production contract six months prior to delivery off first production aircraft.

1969 Jul – AH-56 flight testing resumes.

1970 May – USAF releases new and more specific AX request.

1970 Dec – Fairchild and Republic awarded AX contracts to build respectively the A-9 and A-10 for a flyoff.

1972 Aug – AH-56 program terminated.

1973 Jan – Republic awarded contract for production of A-10.

 

[.Tyler H]

1973 Jan – Republic awarded contract for production of A-10.

Wasn't the A-10 built by Fairchild?

Cheers,
Tyler

 

[TomS]

Yep. The A-9 was Northrop. The A-10 was Fairchild Republic.

 

[masher47]

Sorry about that flub, Northrop A-9, Fairchild A-10, Republic, daaah. Brain Blockage.

 

[elmayerle]

Yep. The A-9 was Northrop. The A-10 was Fairchild Republic.

Funny thing is, when Fairchild Republic got out of aerospace, Grumman took over design responsibility and now Northrop-Grumman has it.

 

[hesham]

From Air Pictorial 9/1955,


the Douglas company intended to develop a supersonic fighter version of A4D Skyhawk for USAF,
and I am asking,what was it ?.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

zimmerlip

Anyone else out there who thinks the 1947 Key West Agreement needs to be abrogated?

Frankly, I think they should have done what they could to free themselves from it in the 1950's or 1960's.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I'd love to see that jet Trojan.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

I'd love to see that jet Trojan.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19535.0.html

I'd like to more about a supersonic A4D for the Air Force...

 

[yasotay]

zimmerlip

Anyone else out there who thinks the 1947 Key West Agreement needs to be abrogated?

Frankly, I think they should have done what they could to free themselves from it in the 1950's or 1960's.

Sadly to much big money for that to happen. USAF Inc. has so invested the Pentagon that there is a higher probability of getting rid of the standing Army, than a significant revisit of the Key West Accord. The Army remains inept at Washington political posturing and sees this as a core value. Not that they would admit it.

 

[RAP]

Some drawings of the CA-4F from 1965. Source: Douglas Skyhawks CA-4E and CA-4F Technical Description. Other options included some recon pods, 20mm pod and Sidewinder missile system installation.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Always liked the A-4 but that looks... a bit fat.

Cool stuff, thanks for sharing.

 

[jsport]

Some drawings of the CA-4F from 1965. Source: Douglas Skyhawks CA-4E and CA-4F Technical Description. Other options included some recon pods, 20mm pod and Sidewinder missile system installation.

What a magnifco creature. Thank you for posting.

 

[Jos Heyman]

Is there any further explanation in the Technical description for the unusual CA-4E and F designation. I kind of guess it is a company designation and that the C stands for 'Camera'.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Canadian!

CA-4F
A proposed variant for the Royal Canadian Navy to replace the retired F-2H3 Banshee on HMCS Bonaventure. Canada expressed little interest and so it was never placed in production

http://a4skyhawk.org/content/canada-skyhawk-proposal

 

[RAP]

Unfortunately there were no details regarding the designation. The document did state Douglas was having discussions with (unspecified) European countries regarding the aircraft. There is a second document that was an addendum to the original report which addressed questions raised by these unidentified countries.

 

[Jemiba]

Perhaps somehow related (another of those European countries) ?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2021.msg17179.html#msg17179

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

According to Brad Elwood in his Crowood volume on A-4 Skyhawk:

Douglas later considered a special export Skyhawk, designated CA-4E for the single-scat, and CA-4F for the two-seat variant, that offered many of the added capabilities developed over the years. An advanced trainer version, TCA-4F, was also offered. Based on the A-4F model but stripped of its weapons, the TCA-4F was powered by the 9,300lb (4,222kg) thrust J52-P-8A, although other options were provided, including the 12,000lb (5,448kg) thrust Rolls-Royce RB 168 Spey and the 11,650lb (5,290kg) thrust General Electric non-afterburning J79.

Douglas introduced the designations CA-4E (single- seat) and CA-4F (two-seat) to identify export variants based on the US Navy A-4F. A third export designation. CTA-4F. was used for the advanced two-seat trainer variant.

 

[Mossie]

Unfortunately there were no details regarding the designation. The document did state Douglas was having discussions with (unspecified) European countries regarding the aircraft. There is a second document that was an addendum to the original report which addressed questions raised by these unidentified countries.

 

[64jmb]

Army A-4 Proposal model by Microwest

(Source: Ebay)

Do you own this model? Or where I can find one?

 

[allysonca]

Army A-4 Proposal model by Microwest

(Source: Ebay)

Do you own this model? Or where I can find one?

FYI all, I doubt it was a Micro West model, but probably a Marketing Aids. I saw a plethora of A-4's being painted there. Being the official Douglas Model Shop and partnered by one of my best friends, Al Parker he did move on to create Micro West when they closed Marketing Aids. He sold it to Paul Williams who ran it till his passing a few years ago and I never saw them paint any A-4's. Now on the other hand I did see DIck Nyland of Westco fame do a few over the course of a few years. Here are a few that I have done myself recently since I had a box of blanks and some free time. I am in process of making a CA-4F as well and will post pictures when done. I had a factory one in my years ago sold collection that was actually done in Navy white and orange that I quite liked, even with the Quasimodo humpy bumpy. Douglas was really trying to keep the model alive I guess and I quite like the bright colors.