The lighter rougher plane makes sense if it is going to be forward deployed, which works well for expeditionary forces but that is not China's circumstance. A smaller plane is always going to have less range/endurance, damage resistance, and payload compared to a larger plane. It would be more cost and mission effective for China to have fewer air bases further away from potential ground attack and larger planes which can both deal and survive more damage and engage the enemy for longer periods further away from friendly targets.
COIN aircraft for the PLAAF?
- Thread starter Miragedriver
- Start date
The lighter rougher plane makes sense if it is going to be forward deployed, which works well for expeditionary forces but that is not China's circumstance. A smaller plane is always going to have less range/endurance, damage resistance, and payload compared to a larger plane. It would be more cost and mission effective for China to have fewer air bases further away from potential ground attack and larger planes which can both deal and survive more damage and engage the enemy for longer periods further away from friendly targets.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Fixed-Wing Escorts for Transport Helicopters
It seems a straightforward assumption that helicopter escorts must necessarily be helicopters themselves. This ignores the nature of the helicopters escort role. These escorts provide firepower to dissuade hostiles on the ground from engaging the transports. To do this, the escort needs a sufficient speed advantage to 'sweep' potential ambush spots along the flight path before it rejoins the formation. The transports are at their most vulnerable once landed. Here, the escorts – whether rotary or fixed-wing must circle the landing area to avoid becoming targets themselves.
COIN aircraft would need unimproved airfield capabilities (ruggedized, long-travel undercarriage with lower-pressure tires for rough- field operations). These aircraft could fit would be comparable to the Apache and certainly superior to any helicopters in quick response and lower acquisition and maintenance costs.
As a helicopter escort, the COIN aircraft has other advantages over rotary-wing escorts. In flight, the fixed-wing aircraft is much quieter than a helicopter. It is also much faster. At low altitude, top speed of 498km/h (584km/h at altitude). The Apache type, by comparison, cruises at 260km/h (its never-exceed-speed is only 365 km/h).
Of course, such comparisons are selective. Attack helicopters are well-armored and, if needed, can hover over targets. Impressive though the Apache type may be, however, to do what it does requires three times the engine power of a COIN aircraft. Needless to say, the COIN aircraft also has superior range. So, the COIN can travel further and get there quicker on much less fuel.
Interesting article of the French requiring COIN aircraft in Mali
Don’t forget to check out the World Picture of the Day
In honor of Popeye bottling has stopped for the week and labels are at half mast
It seems a straightforward assumption that helicopter escorts must necessarily be helicopters themselves. This ignores the nature of the helicopters escort role. These escorts provide firepower to dissuade hostiles on the ground from engaging the transports. To do this, the escort needs a sufficient speed advantage to 'sweep' potential ambush spots along the flight path before it rejoins the formation. The transports are at their most vulnerable once landed. Here, the escorts – whether rotary or fixed-wing must circle the landing area to avoid becoming targets themselves.
COIN aircraft would need unimproved airfield capabilities (ruggedized, long-travel undercarriage with lower-pressure tires for rough- field operations). These aircraft could fit would be comparable to the Apache and certainly superior to any helicopters in quick response and lower acquisition and maintenance costs.
As a helicopter escort, the COIN aircraft has other advantages over rotary-wing escorts. In flight, the fixed-wing aircraft is much quieter than a helicopter. It is also much faster. At low altitude, top speed of 498km/h (584km/h at altitude). The Apache type, by comparison, cruises at 260km/h (its never-exceed-speed is only 365 km/h).
Of course, such comparisons are selective. Attack helicopters are well-armored and, if needed, can hover over targets. Impressive though the Apache type may be, however, to do what it does requires three times the engine power of a COIN aircraft. Needless to say, the COIN aircraft also has superior range. So, the COIN can travel further and get there quicker on much less fuel.
Interesting article of the French requiring COIN aircraft in Mali
Don’t forget to check out the World Picture of the Day
In honor of Popeye bottling has stopped for the week and labels are at half mast
Good advertizing, but also: the only objection against such aircraft is that they are not glamorous and perhaps, looking at the possibility for corruption, that they are too cheap. I remember a proposal to replace the Rols-Royce Merlin engine, that was produced under licence by Packard in the '40's, by a Rolls-Royce Dart engine in that old beauty the P-51 Mustang for use in Vietnam in the '60's.
Miragedriver
Brigadier
You are on the money with your first statement. This type of aircraft is not glamorous as a fast jet. However to a pined down infantry man on the ground it is probable the most beautiful thing he’s seen.
Sometimes we lose track of what is important in winning a conflict. Being cook in the Army is not glamorous either, but as Napoleon said “an army runs on it stomach.”
Don’t forget to check out the http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/general-pictures/world-picture-day-7025.html
I will now get back to bottling my Malbec