With the development of the Brazilian Super Turcano and other low-cost turboprop and jet fighter aircraft a new niche market for military hardware has developed. Do you think any older jet or turboprop fighters could be modernized for the role and, if so, which ones? What might their specs look like with composites and more modern parts/engines?
Low-Cost Fighter Aircraft: Old Planes Reborn
- Thread starter M79
- Start date
thorr97
Banned
It all depends on what you want out of it and how much you're willing to spend.
If the idea is to make use of inexpensive turbo-prop aircraft for close air support and do so as inexpensively as possible then that's one thing. You could get away with simply strapping some infantry type machine guns and grenade launchers to the wings of an existing crop duster plane and then going to it. Communications would be no more sophisticated that what already came with the bird to begin with.
Most militaries however, couldn't stand for just that.
The communications suite would have to be drastically improved such that it could participate in secured channels and division level command and control networked environments. The guns would go up in sophistication, firepower, reliability, weight and cost. The wings would have to have hard points for the plane to lug around various other bits of ordnance. And, of course, an ejection seat would have to be mounted. All of which has vastly driven up the cost per unit. Still a lot less than even an older F-16 but a whole helluvalot more than that bare bones machine gun toting crop duster.
Look at the history of the US military's developing a similar type of machine for the fighting in Vietnam. The original concept really was little more than a crop duster type plane with some infantry type guns attached. It would've been able to land and take off from dirt roads - exactly the sort you'd find right up at the frontlines - and its weapons loadout was exactly that which you'd find the infantry already lugging around thus it could rearm directly from the same supplies the infantry already had on hand. No armor, no fancy comms, no ejection seat. And truly "cheap" in terms of acquisition and operations.
Suffice to say, that concept didn't last long at all. We got the Bronco out of it and, while that is an awesome little plane, it also isn't close to being that cheap to buy or operate or afford to lose.
If the idea is to make use of inexpensive turbo-prop aircraft for close air support and do so as inexpensively as possible then that's one thing. You could get away with simply strapping some infantry type machine guns and grenade launchers to the wings of an existing crop duster plane and then going to it. Communications would be no more sophisticated that what already came with the bird to begin with.
Most militaries however, couldn't stand for just that.
The communications suite would have to be drastically improved such that it could participate in secured channels and division level command and control networked environments. The guns would go up in sophistication, firepower, reliability, weight and cost. The wings would have to have hard points for the plane to lug around various other bits of ordnance. And, of course, an ejection seat would have to be mounted. All of which has vastly driven up the cost per unit. Still a lot less than even an older F-16 but a whole helluvalot more than that bare bones machine gun toting crop duster.
Look at the history of the US military's developing a similar type of machine for the fighting in Vietnam. The original concept really was little more than a crop duster type plane with some infantry type guns attached. It would've been able to land and take off from dirt roads - exactly the sort you'd find right up at the frontlines - and its weapons loadout was exactly that which you'd find the infantry already lugging around thus it could rearm directly from the same supplies the infantry already had on hand. No armor, no fancy comms, no ejection seat. And truly "cheap" in terms of acquisition and operations.
Suffice to say, that concept didn't last long at all. We got the Bronco out of it and, while that is an awesome little plane, it also isn't close to being that cheap to buy or operate or afford to lose.
By pure chance, yesterday I stumbled across information that in 1971 a US manufacturer seriously considered bidding the PA-48 Enforcer for the contract that eventually resulted in the Warthog.
The Enforcer was essentially a turboprop update of the P-51 mustang for 1/10 the cost of a Hog.
The problem of course was that the pilot cost savings were not as great
and the expected losses much higherAnd its only got worse with the prevalence of hand held SAMs.
So I think all these ideas have become vanity projects ..
low cost ... even one shot .. drones will take over even in the crudest COIN situations
SsgtC
Banned
It really depends. Will the aircraft be used in contested airspace? Or will it be used only in low risk environments ala COIN operations? What type of weapons will it need to carry to accomplish it's mission? Will rifle caliber guns do the job or is something heavier needed? Can it accomplish it's mission with just straffing or will it need to drop bombs as well? Will those be guided weapons or dumb bombs? Do you need rough field capability or will you be operating solely from prepared airfields? How sophisticated do the avionics need to be? Secured comms or off the shelf? Do you need it to survive battle damage? If so, you need multiple redundant systems. What about crew protection? Cockpit armor? Ejection seat? What about countermeasures? ECM? Flares? Chaff? Do you want one or two crew? A model with both configurations? How much speed do you need? What kind of G loads do you need to handle? Do you need long range or will short work? Pressurised cockpit or will the pilot need to stay on oxegen?
Basically, the more items from that list you need or want, the more expensive your bird becomes. You also mentioned composites and modern engines. Building a combat aircraft out of composites is a VERY bad idea. The repair process for composites is fairly complex and time consuming. Patching a bullet hole on a composite aircraft could take your bird out of action for weeks. Whereas a metal CAS plane can get a patch riveted on in a few minutes. Plus composites are hideously expensive. Especially if you need the plane to stand up to combat stresses.
By pure chance, yesterday I stumbled across information that in 1971 a US manufacturer seriously considered bidding the PA-48 Enforcer for the contract that eventually resulted in the Warthog.
The Enforcer was essentially a turboprop update of the P-51 mustang for 1/10 the cost of a Hog.
The problem of course was that the pilot cost savings were not as great
And its only got worse with the prevalence of hand held SAMs.
So I think all these ideas have become vanity projects ..
low cost ... even one shot .. drones will take over even in the crudest COIN situations
I believe that is an excellent summation. What ever window of use existed in the recent past for cheap aircraft in anything other than a low threat environment was closed by the combination of mass produced MANPADs and the expanding use of drones.
Aren't high endurance bombers like the B-52 or the B-1 a great option for CAS because they can be already loitering on station when needed (or at least a few minutes away) and laser guided bombs allow them to attack the enemy with precision while staying well above manpad range? If they are at 10,000 meters, you don't need to worry about battle damage.
So instead of a supertucano capable of taking off from unprepared runways with plenty of spare parts to repair damage from light weapons or a ruggedized attack plane capable of flying after a nearby explosion of a handheld sam, the ideal cost effective COIN platform is a converted cargo plane, maybe with turbofans instead of turboprops so it can fly to where it's needed faster. Ideal requirements would be a large fuel load, large cargo capacity for bombs, effective comm gear to coordinate strikes with ground forces and low maintenance costs.
So instead of a supertucano capable of taking off from unprepared runways with plenty of spare parts to repair damage from light weapons or a ruggedized attack plane capable of flying after a nearby explosion of a handheld sam, the ideal cost effective COIN platform is a converted cargo plane, maybe with turbofans instead of turboprops so it can fly to where it's needed faster. Ideal requirements would be a large fuel load, large cargo capacity for bombs, effective comm gear to coordinate strikes with ground forces and low maintenance costs.
Isn't that what the F16 is going through today? Not for the export market-yet, but most European nations flying the F16 have airframes that are 25 years old but with top-notch electronic systems fitted to it. 10 years from now we might see the first if them, again refurbished with the newest avionics, make their way to minor African, Asian or Latin-American air forces while the original owners use the sales money as a down payment on a next batch of F35's or Griffens
I once started a thread about bringing back the AD-1 Skyraider. It was brought to my attention that the engines for the Old Skyraider are no longer produced. It would be easier and cheaper to just design and produce a new aircraft. There isn't a squadron of F4U Corsairs in storage somewhere shrink wrapped just waiting to be used!
I can't see such an aircraft like the Enforcer doing well against an enemy with sosphicated weaponry like the Warsaw Pact.
But still on the subject, I'm somehow reminded of how in the Metal Slug games, the air force of the enemy you fight seem to be made of mostly propeller planes; and yet in real life we have some real life militaries having them outside of transporting and gunship roles like the Super Turcano and the Bronco, talk about defictionalization.
BAe Hawk 200 - add a sniper pod on the centre line - strengthen the wings - allow it to carry Brimstone II (pack of 3 on each wing) and 500 KG LGBs (1 under each wing) - Conformal fuel tanks to allow it longer time on station
Ta daaa - 'Close' air support without needing to actually get that close!
Ta daaa - 'Close' air support without needing to actually get that close!
FBKampfer
Banned
Frankly, CAS aircraft have two major roles. Support in COIN operations. And expendable blunt-force instrument in major conflicts to be husbanded and then expended when the time is right or the need arises.
The A-10's will suffer astonishing casualty rates in a major war against a peer opponent, but in the week or two it takes to grind the squadrons down, they'll hammer targets, tear up armor columns, and buy you precious time on the defense, and help break through on the offensive.
For example, during the cold war, the Swedish airforce expected to be annihilated in 48 hours, but they were to splash bridges, tear up roads, hit logistics, and buy the Army enough time to mobilize and deploy, and Allies to come to their aid.
But the lesson to be learned is that in war, there will be losses. This is unavoidable, and trying to eliminate them is folly. The trick is not to expend lives needlessly.
The A-10's will suffer astonishing casualty rates in a major war against a peer opponent, but in the week or two it takes to grind the squadrons down, they'll hammer targets, tear up armor columns, and buy you precious time on the defense, and help break through on the offensive.
For example, during the cold war, the Swedish airforce expected to be annihilated in 48 hours, but they were to splash bridges, tear up roads, hit logistics, and buy the Army enough time to mobilize and deploy, and Allies to come to their aid.
But the lesson to be learned is that in war, there will be losses. This is unavoidable, and trying to eliminate them is folly. The trick is not to expend lives needlessly.
thorr97
Banned
FBKampfer,
That's a point lost on too many A-10 fanboys. To them, the Mighty Warthog is a veritable flying M-1 Abrams tank that is well neigh indestructible.
The reality of the conflict that it was designed to operate in is that A-10s would be getting blown out of the skies with an appalling a steady frequency. That the Warthog's success in the modern age is primarily due to our enemies not having much in the way of AAA - if any - and what little they do have is easily enough countered by the flares and chaff and automated systems built-in to the A-10s. Against the likes of the PLA or the RAF the A-10s would be getting nailed at breathtaking rates.
Which takes nothing away from how awesome is the 'Hog nor why we have a profound need for it in our arsenal.
For conflicts that don't require that high a level of capability however, the A-10 is mucho overkill. Hence the concept of turbo-prop trainers being adapted to CAS / COIN. Even there however, those things are still expensive and somewhat overkill. Taking a genuine crop-duster machine and arming it with a couple of M-60 type machine guns on each wing would be a huge force multiplier that could acquired on the cheap and in such volume as to easily absorb the high operational loses while accomplishing their mission.
That's a point lost on too many A-10 fanboys. To them, the Mighty Warthog is a veritable flying M-1 Abrams tank that is well neigh indestructible.
The reality of the conflict that it was designed to operate in is that A-10s would be getting blown out of the skies with an appalling a steady frequency. That the Warthog's success in the modern age is primarily due to our enemies not having much in the way of AAA - if any - and what little they do have is easily enough countered by the flares and chaff and automated systems built-in to the A-10s. Against the likes of the PLA or the RAF the A-10s would be getting nailed at breathtaking rates.
Which takes nothing away from how awesome is the 'Hog nor why we have a profound need for it in our arsenal.
For conflicts that don't require that high a level of capability however, the A-10 is mucho overkill. Hence the concept of turbo-prop trainers being adapted to CAS / COIN. Even there however, those things are still expensive and somewhat overkill. Taking a genuine crop-duster machine and arming it with a couple of M-60 type machine guns on each wing would be a huge force multiplier that could acquired on the cheap and in such volume as to easily absorb the high operational loses while accomplishing their mission.
FBKampfer
Banned
I think something like a Bf 110 airframe would be a good balance.
Twin turboprops would yield a high 400mph-range top speed. Redundant engines to help with combat damage, big nose bay for modular armament, deep fuselage for a closed or recessed weapons bay. Broad wings for heavy lift and room to absorb damage and generate useful lift, enough room for heavy spars for high weight hard points.
But still cheap enough if you don't pack too much onto it.
Twin turboprops would yield a high 400mph-range top speed. Redundant engines to help with combat damage, big nose bay for modular armament, deep fuselage for a closed or recessed weapons bay. Broad wings for heavy lift and room to absorb damage and generate useful lift, enough room for heavy spars for high weight hard points.
But still cheap enough if you don't pack too much onto it.
SsgtC
Banned
Now to convince the Air Force in question to do that. IDK about you, but I've never met a zoomie who didn't think more was better.
You're thinking about something like the Argentine IA-58 Pucará
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA_58_Pucará
But it can only carry 1,5 tons of ammunitions, it was never modernized, it suffered looses to ground fire and its engines (and spare parts) are no longer produced. Top speed is 311 mph
With the advent of the SDB all you need is the ability to pack a 250 to 300 lb bomb to do significant damage . The main cost will be avionics the airframe itself is not as important . If COIN is what you want then take a C-130 and add in a reloadable bomb pylon that can take either Brimstone or SDB and provide the information needed to launch them . The Brimstone 11 from low altitude will go 40 km , this is enough to use a hill as protection from FEB missile defences and still wallop a target . The SDB can also be fitted with a rocket booster as the surface launch version shows . A c-130 could carry 160 of them even allowing 200 kg per bomb/missile . BTW the SDB is 129kg and the Brimstone is 50kg . If the extra mass is used for avionics and weapon handling it would make for an interesting COIN aircraft . Even half the number makes it worthwhile .
What would be interesting would be taking an F-20 and giving it an AESA radar and AIM-120 compatibility . Throw in a new engine , namely the F-414 engine . It would be cheap and relatively capable .
What would be interesting would be taking an F-20 and giving it an AESA radar and AIM-120 compatibility . Throw in a new engine , namely the F-414 engine . It would be cheap and relatively capable .
thorr97
Banned
Note the almost immediate escalation here in functionality you all are contemplating.
It's great 'n all but you're doing exactly what the folks at the Pentagon do and then everyone wonders why what started as such a simple, basic, and cheap concept winds up costing billions and taking decades to field.
To go up against a peer opponent, fine, we do need a weapons platform that can be readily plugged in to our military's "network centric" warfighting approach.
For anything less than that?
What about something little more advanced than a Piper Cub armed with machine guns strapped to its wings? That turbo powered crop duster with M-60s would be a level up from that.
Seriously, what do the troops on the ground need? An aerial platform to engage the enemy from directions that they can't. Multi-thousand rounds per minute 30mm cannon fire is awesome - and expensive. Is it really necessary to deal with a couple of Jihadis crouched behind some rocks up on a hill? A few strafing runs by that M-60 armed turbo powered crop duster could easily do that. And if that thing started running low on fuel of ammo it could just land on the nearest dirt road next to the troops and fill up from their gas cans and reload from the same sort of ammo they're already lugging around. No having to fly back to an airbase a hundred miles away. Unit cost would, at most, be in the hundreds of thousands each - and that's really pushing the upper end.
Something made out of fabric covered metal tubing would be even cheaper and better for that limited role.
It's great 'n all but you're doing exactly what the folks at the Pentagon do and then everyone wonders why what started as such a simple, basic, and cheap concept winds up costing billions and taking decades to field.
To go up against a peer opponent, fine, we do need a weapons platform that can be readily plugged in to our military's "network centric" warfighting approach.
For anything less than that?
What about something little more advanced than a Piper Cub armed with machine guns strapped to its wings? That turbo powered crop duster with M-60s would be a level up from that.
Seriously, what do the troops on the ground need? An aerial platform to engage the enemy from directions that they can't. Multi-thousand rounds per minute 30mm cannon fire is awesome - and expensive. Is it really necessary to deal with a couple of Jihadis crouched behind some rocks up on a hill? A few strafing runs by that M-60 armed turbo powered crop duster could easily do that. And if that thing started running low on fuel of ammo it could just land on the nearest dirt road next to the troops and fill up from their gas cans and reload from the same sort of ammo they're already lugging around. No having to fly back to an airbase a hundred miles away. Unit cost would, at most, be in the hundreds of thousands each - and that's really pushing the upper end.
Something made out of fabric covered metal tubing would be even cheaper and better for that limited role.
Admiral Beez
Banned
Not to mention the RCAF's CF-18 Hornets. They've been flying since the early 1980s.
Looking at Canada's needs for fighter/strike aircraft;
1) for NORAD we need something with sufficient speed and range, modern fire control and weapons to chase down miscreant commercial aircraft and the occasional Bear or Backfire.
2) for NATO/UN we need a bomb truck that can operate under USAF/NATO air superiority and can work with today's communication, fire control system and weapons. In this role we're basically moving mud around third world despots.
In the first need, we can get by with any 1960s or 70s level, supersonic interceptor with remaining fatigue hours and updated weapons and fire control. F-106, A-5, Mirage IV or even a converted business jet would do the trick.
The problem is that for just about every mission proposed so far, any of the "cheap" options are inferior to the current mix of armed drones and high-end aircraft. One issue is that people are fixated on guns rather than the effect on the target (something the A-10 fanboys suffer from too). The A-10 makes a lovely BRRRRRRRRRT! noise and the gun raises a lot of dust around the target, but because it's a manually aimed weapon that is cued on by voice the accuracy is actually very poor. Forward Observers today can designate targets themselves and bring in firepower to land within a metre or so of the target - producing a modest bang with a far smaller danger area around it and a far greater effect on the target.
That's ultimately the problem with the A-10 and this idea - a cheap drone can orbit friendly forces all day long and provide immediate, highly accurate fire support on demand. If the environment is too dangerous for an (unmanned) drone to operate, it's far too dangerous for a modified crop duster or A-10 type plane too, and only high-end aircraft with modern countermeasures can survive, using stand-off weapons.
That's ultimately the problem with the A-10 and this idea - a cheap drone can orbit friendly forces all day long and provide immediate, highly accurate fire support on demand. If the environment is too dangerous for an (unmanned) drone to operate, it's far too dangerous for a modified crop duster or A-10 type plane too, and only high-end aircraft with modern countermeasures can survive, using stand-off weapons.