Low-cost, muti-role aircraft for small militaries

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

Miragedriver said:

Argentina is also producing a non-GPS UAV for battlefield surveillance and artillery observer similar as to what you have described:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It however, cannot carry a payload.

Click to expand...

another good example. with the proliferation of cheap MANPADs, traditional light COIN aircraft are becoming too vulnerable. even in the relative low intensity theater of Afghanistan, we don't see manned COIN aircraft be deployed. instead we see unmanned drones taking over all the duties traditionally assigned to light attack aircraft.
the CH-3 probably still use GPS navigation. by satellite support I mean satellite communication link. the 200km operational radius is limited by the range of its S-band LOS datalink. It certainly has the fuel to fly for more than 200km. one possible way to get around that limitation is to use another drone as communication relay.

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

Turboprop-driven armed-attack aircraft are making a comeback, such as the Pentagon's purchase of Embraer A-29 Super Tucanos for Afghanistan. And foreign air forces tend to opt for multipurpose trainers that can also perform light-attack missions.

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

Drones are getting all the press. That doesn't mean they are all that is flying. Fighters, bombers, helicopters, tankers, transports, gunships have been used quite widely. The key weakness for most drones at. This point is payload and control.
control in that more and more they are open to hacking, payloads in that few can carry the shear fire power. The latter of that is slowly changing the sooner is demanding more and more sophisticated security.

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

shen said:

another good example. with the proliferation of cheap MANPADs, traditional light COIN aircraft are becoming too vulnerable. even in the relative low intensity theater of Afghanistan, we don't see manned COIN aircraft be deployed. instead we see unmanned drones taking over all the duties traditionally assigned to light attack aircraft. .

Click to expand...

That is correct . Even more rugged traditional strike aircraft like Su-22 or Mig-23BN are vulnerable to MANPADs if they fly too low , as we can see from Syrian example . Therefore term COIN (counter-insurgency) comes into question - as soon as your average guerrilla organization gets MANPADs whole game is changed .

Now , as someone pointed out , not every country is able (financially ) to operate drones . Therefore , solution could be to arm light turboprop aircraft with lighter smart weapons and targeting pods . For example , one Tucano could carry targeting pod , and another would carry weapons . Both will fly above and beyond MANPADs range and pass tarheting information . One will act as a hunter (detecting targets) , other will be a killer (attacking targets) .

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

thunderchief said:

That is correct . Even more rugged traditional strike aircraft like Su-22 or Mig-23BN are vulnerable to MANPADs if they fly too low , as we can see from Syrian example . Therefore term COIN (counter-insurgency) comes into question - as soon as your average guerrilla organization gets MANPADs whole game is changed .

Now , as someone pointed out , not every country is able (financially ) to operate drones . Therefore , solution could be to arm light turboprop aircraft with lighter smart weapons and targeting pods . For example , one Tucano could carry targeting pod , and another would carry weapons . Both will fly above and beyond MANPADs range and pass tarheting information . One will act as a hunter (detecting targets) , other will be a killer (attacking targets) .

Click to expand...

That's certainly one alternative, and it would be a good choice for some countries. two problems.

1) I'm not sure if drone operation would be more expensive than operating an aircraft like Tucano. Drone uses less fuel, no need for pilot training, the purchase cost of most drones is also less than something like Tucano (especially if you upgrade it sensor and designator to use standoff weapons). The only additional cost of drone is the satellite communication infrastructure necessary to control it over extended distance. But that can be mitigated by purchasing bandwidth on foreign satellite. If you want complete operational autonomy, just use other drones as comm-link relays.
2) Since you are going to fly at medium altitude to stay outside MANPAD range, the Tucano pilot would have rely on sensors to pickup targets anyway. So what's the point of risking a valuable pilot in the first place?

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

shen said:

That's certainly one alternative, and it would be a good choice for some countries. two problems.

1) I'm not sure if drone operation would be more expensive than operating an aircraft like Tucano. Drone uses less fuel, no need for pilot training, the purchase cost of most drones is also less than something like Tucano (especially if you upgrade it sensor and designator to use standoff weapons). The only additional cost of drone is the satellite communication infrastructure necessary to control it over extended distance. But that can be mitigated by purchasing bandwidth on foreign satellite. If you want complete operational autonomy, just use other drones as comm-link relays.
2) Since you are going to fly at medium altitude to stay outside MANPAD range, the Tucano pilot would have rely on sensors to pickup targets anyway. So what's the point of risking a valuable pilot in the first place?

Click to expand...

1. Drones use somewhat less fuel , but you still need to train pilots & technicians , cost is about the same (MQ-9 Reaper is more expensive then Super Tucano) . And then you come to main question , and that is do you want to depend on others or you want autonomy . Secure datalink with comm relays , all the necessary equipment and personal - you need all that to operate drones . For a relatively poor country , one solution could be to hire foreigners as you suggested , but in that case your drone air force could become completely useless if someone declares your insurgents to be noble freedom fighters (again hint Syria )

2. Cynical as it may sound , pilots of "crop-dusters" like Tucano or AT-802U are not that difficult to train or replace . These are not your highly trained jet fighter pilots - they could be even sport pilots with some extra training . It is good enough for some small and undeveloped country .

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

thunderchief said:

1. Drones use somewhat less fuel , but you still need to train pilots & technicians , cost is about the same (MQ-9 Reaper is more expensive then Super Tucano) . And then you come to main question , and that is do you want to depend on others or you want autonomy . Secure datalink with comm relays , all the necessary equipment and personal - you need all that to operate drones . For a relatively poor country , one solution could be to hire foreigners as you suggested , but in that case your drone air force could become completely useless if someone declares your insurgents to be noble freedom fighters (again hint Syria )

2. Cynical as it may sound , pilots of "crop-dusters" like Tucano or AT-802U are not that difficult to train or replace . These are not your highly trained jet fighter pilots - they could be even sport pilots with some extra training . It is good enough for some small and undeveloped country .

Click to expand...

whoa, that's cold man
I see your points. Secure communication and operational independence are indeed potential problems. That's one reason many countries buy from China I think Pakistan already purchased the Ch-3 system. There is now a Ch-4, with payload approaching Reaper, been marketed.

I'm not really saying turboprop light attackers don't have a role to play. For example, if you want to intercept a Cessana drug smuggler, a drone is not the best choice. But for many COIN roles, drones are undoubtedly more suited due to their unmatched loiter capability.
oh, and because we love our pilots, even the "crop-dusters".

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

One thing about these Turboprop-driven armed-attack aircraft I don't like is that they are usually operating closer to battlefield compared to jet fighters. Which makes these aircraft very vulnerable targets when they are on the ground, especially when you don't have a strong defense force in the airfield/dirt strip and the enemy force has a sophisticated commando/raiding force. The British beta-tested this during the Falklands war and it proves to be crippling for the Argentine force:



SAS Commandos inspecting the Argentine Pucara they sabotaged after the Pebble island raid.

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

shen said:

But for many COIN roles, drones are undoubtedly more suited due to their unmatched loiter capability.
oh, and because we love our pilots, even the "crop-dusters".

Click to expand...

In a war , everybody risks their lives : infantry , artillery , armored units etc... Pilots are not exception . For military point of view , person's life is valued by how crucial that person is for war effort and how fast could you replace him . Armies sent millions of infantrymen to their death because they knew they could replace them quickly . On the other hand , good pilots of fighter jets or bombers are hard to replace - you need years to train them . Yet , even they risk their lives . Pilots of COIN aircraft are somewhere in the middle - you could train them for about same time as you train let's say tank crew . Therefore , their value is about the same .

As for loiter time , drones do not have inherently longer loiter time then COIN aircraft . It all depends on type of engine and size of fuel tank .

ToxicStar said:

One thing about these Turboprop-driven armed-attack aircraft I don't like is that they are usually operating closer to battlefield compared to jet fighters. Which makes these aircraft very vulnerable targets when they are on the ground, especially when you don't have a strong defense force in the airfield/dirt strip and the enemy force has a sophisticated commando/raiding force.

Click to expand...

Any airfield without sufficient security force could be attacked by commandos , saboteurs or insurgents . Only possible exceptions are airfields in distant countries for long range bombers like B-2 , B-52 etc ... Even Taliban managed to destroy large number of US aircraft in a daring raid :

Re: Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft

The aforementioned triad is the best decription of CAS aircrafts. The difference between helicopters and turboprops are stall speed, maximum speed and endurance. A compound copter can be the best mix for these different demands. With various tilt-crafts such a solution has been attempted and with the Osprey finally implemented. For this reason the Osprey or AW609 are likely the basic design for future CAS aircrafts.