Air power on the cheap

[gubbi]

Air power on the cheap

Interesting article. Makes sense, does it not? So why need super-jets when simple turboprops can do the same COIN job better and more economically.

Small, slow and inexpensive propeller-driven planes are starting to displace fighter jets
Sep 20th 2010

JET fighters may be sexy in a Tom Cruise-ish sort of way, but for guerilla warefare—in which the enemy rarely has an air force of his own with which to dogfight—they are often not the tool for the job. Pilotless drones can help fill the gap. Sometimes there is no substitute for having a pilot on the scene, however, so modern air forces are starting to turn to a technology from the yesteryear of flying: the turboprop.

So-called light-attack turboprops are cheap both to build and to fly. A fighter jet can cost $80m. By contrast the 208B Caravan, a light-attack turboprop made by Cessna, costs barely $2m. It also costs as little as $500 a hour to run when it is in the air, compared with $10,000 or more for a fighter jet. And, unlike jets, turboprops can use roads and fields for takeoff and landing.

Nor is it only jets that light-attack turboprops can outperform. Armed drones have drawbacks, too. The Reaper, made by General Atomics, can cost $10m or more, depending on its bells and whistles. On top of that, a single drone can require a team of more than 20 people on the ground to support it, plus satellite communications. A manned turboprop can bomb an insurgent for a third of the cost of using a drone, according to Pat Sullivan, the head of government sales at Cessna. And there are strategic considerations, too. Many countries’ armed forces rely on allies such as America for the expertise and satellite networks needed to run drones. Such allies can let you down in a pinch. Piloted light-attack planes offer complete operational independence—and, being lower-tech than many drones, are less subject to restrictions on exports in the first place.

They are also better, in many ways, than helicopters. To land a chopper safely in the dirt requires sophisticated laser scanners to detect obstacles hidden by dust thrown up by the downdraught of the rotors. On top of this, such dust makes helicopter maintenance even more difficult than it is already. Maintaining turboprops, by contrast, is easy. According to Robyn Read, an air-power strategist at the Air Force Research Institute near Montgomery, Alabama, they can be “flown and maintained by plumbers”. Thrush Aircraft, a firm based in Albany, Georgia, is even more expansive. It claims that the Vigilante, an armed version of its cropdusting plane that costs $1m, can be disassembled in the field with little more than a pocket screwdriver.

Turboprops are also hard to shoot down. Air Tractor, another firm that makes cropdusters, branched out into warplanes last year. One reason was that a fleet of 16 unarmed versions of its aircraft had been used by America’s State Department to dust South American drug plantations with herbicide—an activity that tends to provoke a hostile response from the ground. Despite the planes’ having been hit by more than 200 rounds, though, neither an aircraft nor a pilot has been lost.

In part, this is because of the robust mechanics of turboprops and in part because Air Tractor’s fuel tanks have rubber membranes which close around bullet holes to slow leaks. Add extra fuel tanks, which let the plane stay aloft for ten hours, six 225kg precision-guided bombs and more than 2,000kg of missiles, rockets and ammunition for two 50-calibre machineguns, and you have the AT-802U, a formidable yet reasonably cheap (at $5m) warplane.

Light-attack aircraft also now sport much of the electronics used by fighter jets. The MX-15, an imaging device made by L-3 WESCAM, a Canadian company, allows a pilot to read a vehicle’s license plate from a distance of 10km. It is carried by both the AT-802U and the AT-6, a top-of-the-range light-attack plane made by Hawker Beechcraft.

Not surprisingly, then, many countries with small defence budgets are investing in turboprops. Places that now fly them, or are expected to do so, include Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco and Venezuela. And the United States. For the biggest military establishment in the world, too, recognises the value of this new old technology. The American air force plans to buy more than 100 turboprops and the navy is now evaluating the Super Tucano, made by Embraer, a Brazilian firm.

In aerial combat, then, low tech may be the new high tech. And there is one other advantage that the turboprop has over the jet, at least according to Mr Read—who flew turboprops on combat missions in Cambodia during the 1970s. It is that you can use a loudspeaker to talk to potential targets before deciding whether to attack them. As Winston Churchill so memorably put it: “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”

AT-802U

I've seen this cropduster in action (I believe it was this aircraft) spraying pesticides on fields - a lumbering graceful flight! Its an awesome plane.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Air power on the cheap



AT-802U

Super Tucano

Is today April 1st or are my eyes lying to me?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Originally Posted by gubbi View Post
"Air power on the cheap"

As a conceptual idea, may be it has its merits. But on a practical level it can have serious flaws.
Consider a COIN scenario in Afghanistan, and this aircraft is in use. The insurgents can send up a stinger and it will fall out of the sky.
What has been described above was used in Viet Nam and it worked then; now MANPADs have changed the rules of the game.
AFAIK, the AT-802U is made by Air-Tractor, the Super Tucano is a different bird.

 

[CardSharp]

I'd absolutely agree with the article. When air-to-air combat is not a consideration, these planes can perform magnificently. Take the example of the growing popularity and usefulness of the A-10 warthog, an ugly low tech beast from the 1970's. It has great time over target, perfect for supporting troop in prolonged action against insurgents.

This is also true of prop intruders in the jet age like Douglas A-1 Skyraider and Vought F4U Corsair. The A-1 served well into Vietnam and was well liked by the pilots.

 

[Tuahaa]

When it comes to close air support, slow is always good because you get more time to drop as many bombs as you like

 

[amalakas]

When it comes to close air support, slow is always good because you get more time to drop as many bombs as you like

The argument against slow prop planes because of manpads isn't that valid, because it applies also to attack helicopters which apparently we have plenty of. ..

I totally agree... for close in air support nothing can beat a prop plane, for price performance and persistance over the battlefield.. and they can take a hell of a lot more punishment than a traditional jet..

 

[Chogy]

While they can do excellent work, control of the air better be 100%, because these aircraft are easy meat for counter-air fighters. COIN, yes. CAS in a heavy shooting war with a mechanized and powerful opponent, no.

That is why I would prefer aircraft like the A-10, which can do both.

 

[gubbi]

While they can do excellent work, control of the air better be 100%, because these aircraft are easy meat for counter-air fighters. COIN, yes. CAS in a heavy shooting war with a mechanized and powerful opponent, no.

That is why I would prefer aircraft like the A-10, which can do both.

Thats exactly the point this author is trying to make. Advanced jets to COIN are like bringing a wreaking ball on a crane to destroy a sand castle. OTOH, turboprops to CAS is like bringing a small hammer to bring down a concrete compound wall.

I love the Warhogs. Hopefully come year end I can get pictures of some hogs from an airshow in town (theres gonna be Thunderbirds display!). A-10s are indeed a class apart.

 

[nForce]

How about the Grand Daddy of Close Air Support???The Su-25.It is like a tank flying in the air.

The Su-25, which is no longer in serial production, made its first flight in 1979. This single seat ground attack aircraft is a very durable airplane - it is fairly heavily armored -- and easy to service - all service equipment can be stored in a container and transported by the airplane itself. It is armed with one twin barrel 30mm gun in the bottom of the fuselage with 250 rounds. There are 8 pylons under the wings which can carry about 4,000 kg of air-to-ground weapons, including 57mm to 330mm rockets. There are two small outboard pylons for AA-2D/ATOLL or AA-8/APHID AAMs.

The wings are high-mounted and back-tapered with straight trailing edges. There are pods mounted at the square tips. There are two turbojets mounted alongside the body under the wings. There are semicircular air intakes forward of the wings’ leading edges. There are exhausts to the rear of the wings’ trailing edges. The fuselage is long, and slender and has a rounded nose. The body tapers to the rear section that overhangs the exhausts. There is a stepped canopy. The tail is swept-back and fin is tapered with a square tip. The flats mid-mounted on the fuselage, unequally tapered with blunt tips.

Su-25, a multirole twin-engine attack fighter for close air support (this type of aircraft is called ”shturmovik” in Russia) was developed in the 1960s. The Su-25 is designed for highly precision destruction of ground targets in all weather conditions by day or night, primarily destruction of armoured targets, bridges, means of transport, firing positions, command and control elements, convoys, motorways, railways, combat helicopters etc. Its combat capabilities, resistance, striking power and efficiency make it fully comparable with its American counterpart A-10 Thunderbolt. Its structure, universal electronic equipment and especially wide range of multipurpose weaponry and the possibility of its application in the most demanding conditions make the Su-25 suitable for close air support of ground units.

Sukhoi Design Bureau started work to produce the Su-25 attack aircraft in 1968. The new plane was meant for support of troops from directly over the battlefield and was designed to be an extremely easy-to-use and maintain subsonic jet aircraft with superior manoeuvrability and damage control. In the period 1970-1971, the Su-25 aeroplane design project was entered for an attack aircraft pilot design competition along with projects by the Design Bureaus of Yakovlev, Ilyushin and Mikoyan, and emerged as winner over the competing bids as the most advanced design.

The conceptual design and mock-up were reviewed in September 1972, and the prototype T8-1 completed in November 1974; it was taken up for its maiden flight by the design bureau's chief pilot V.S. Ilyushin on 22nd February 1975. The bureau's testing of the two Su-25 prototype planes went on till October 1976, with the aircraft subsequently returned for engineering follow-up. Official testing of the aeroplane started in 1978. It was decided to combine the first stage of Su-25 governmental testing with the plane's trials under the army's field conditions in Afghanistan. To this end, a joint task force was formed of the Air Forces R&D Institute test team and representatives of the industry, which was given, in addition to seconded technical personnel, two prototype planes: T8-1D and T8-3, as well as four pilots: A.A. Ivanov and N.F. Sadovnikov from the Design Bureau, and V.N. Musyka and V.V. Solovyov from the R&D Institute of the Air Forces. Between 16th April and 5th June 1980, the Shindand airfield in the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan saw the task force arrange 100 test flights, including 44 actual tactical missions. In the course of testing, the Su-25 demonstrated superior combat performance. The governmental testing was completed in December 1980.

The Su-25 was produced at a plant in Tbilisi, with the first production plane flight tested 18th June 1979 by the design bureau's test pilot Yu.A. Yegorov. Over the period of its series production the aircraft underwent large-scale reengineering. 1984 saw a special export variant developed, which was called Su-25K (T-8K), and supplied to Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Iraq, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and to Angola. Following the battlefield testing in Afghanistan, the plane underwent extensive redesign in 1987-88 to improve its damage control; it passed trials in 1989-90 and was put into series production as a Su-25 version with a new R-195 engine; a batch of Su-25BM target-towing aircraft was produced in 1991. After 1991, Su-25 planes decommissioned from the Air Forces of Belarus and Russia were exported to Peru and Ethiopia.

A distinctive feature of the Su-25 as an attack aircraft designed for close battlefield support missions in an ADF asset-populated environment, is its improved damage control. With the extensive reengineering that was carried out the plane received an armoured cockpit, and PU-foam-filled reinforced explosion-proof fuel tanks, among other features. Prior to incorporation into the plane, these features were bench-tested by the Design Bureau to be subsequently validated in the course of the aeroplane's operation during the hostilities in Afghanistan.

The USSR Air Forces entered the Su-25 into service as part of the inventory of separate attack aircraft regiments (SAAR) under district (army) command. The first 11 production planes were assigned in April 1981 to 80 SAARs stationed at the Sital-Chai airfield (Transcaucasian MD). The resources of the regiment were used to put together the 200th separate attack aircraft squadron (SAAS), which was deployed in June 1981 as part of the Air Forces’ 40th army in Afghanistan to become the first combat unit of the USSR Air Forces to fly missions on Su-25 attack aircraft. Throughout the subsequent entire period of the Soviet troops' engagement in Afghanistan, the Su-25 was a key asset of air support for the troops on the battlefield. The Su-25 attack aircraft demonstrated superior combat performance and damage control. The hostilities saw the aeroplanes fly 60,000+ combat missions, with a mere 23 planes lost in total as a result of battle damage in the air, i.e., the average accrued flying time per plane was 2,600 hours, which is significantly higher than the showing for any other combat aircraft used in Afghanistan.

The Su-25 was officially put into service by a decree of the government of 31st March 1987. By that time, the aeroplane had already been in series production for 8 years, 6 of which had been spent in active service, including flying combat missions in Afghanistan. As part of Russia's Air Forces inventory, Su-25 planes have been used since 1994 in combat operations against insurgents in the Chechen republic. Abroad, Su-25Ks were extensively used in combat operations by the Iraq Air Force in the 1981-88 war against Iran, and by Angola's Air Force during the '80s-'90s civil war.

Development of a trainer version of the Su-25 was ordered by a decree of the government of 29th June 1976. The two-seat trainer was to be produced at the aircraft factory in Ulan-Ude. Su-25UB prototypes (T-8U) were assembled in Ulan-Ude in 1985. The first flight of the Su-25UB first prototype, T8U-1, was performed on 10th August 1985 by the design’s bureau test pilot A.A. Ivanov. Official testing was conducted in 1986-87; the plane was produced from 1986 to 1991 in two variants: the Su-25UB for the USSR Air Forces and Su-25UBK for export.

In August 1988, the Ulan-Ude mass-produced Su-25UB was used by the Design Bureau as the platform for a Su-25UTG two-seat trainer version for naval aviators of aircraft carrier-based planes. All its attack and weapons systems were removed and an arrestor hook installed. The plane’s main function was to train pilots to take off and land on the deck of an aircraft carrier of project 1143.5. The first flight of T8UTG-1 prototype took place on 1st September 1988, the machine piloted by the design bureau's test pilot I.V. Votintsev. On 1st November 1989, in the course of Su-25UTG flight development tests, the crew of design bureau pilot I.V. Votintsev and FRI test navigator V.A. Krutov performed the T8UTG-1's first landing on the deck of the Tbilisi ACHC (later renamed the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov). The Su-25UTG went into series production in 1991, with the planes handed over to Naval Aviation.

There are two versions of the aircraft with almost identical parameters, a single-seat Su-25K, and a two-seat Su-25UBK which is used for training of pilots for this type while keeping all the advantages of a single-seat modification and all capabilities of a combat application. Standard equipment of the aircraft is an internal 30 mm AO-17A gun with 250 rounds. Other optional weaponry includes pods with 57 mm up to 330 mm rockets, and a number of air-to surface missiles including Ch-23 (AS-7 Kerry), Ch-25 (AS-10 Karen) and Ch-29 (AS-14 Kedge). A built-in laser target illuminator in the nose permits homing of air-to-surface missiles, sliding and cluster bombs and multi-purpose laser-guided weaponry. For longer distances, a laser target illuminator can be mounted in a pod under the wing. R-60 (AA-8 Aphid) air-to-air missiles provide self defence against enemy aircraft. For ground targets destruction, it can be additionally fitted with a SPPU-22 machine gun. Su-25 can take off and land with armament load on limited runways even without reinforced surface. In mountainous regions at the altitude of about 3,000 m above the sea level, take-off and landing runways of 1,200 m are sufficient to permit its operation. This makes it possible to reduce the distance from the theater of operation, frequently change the take-off site, and conduct surprise strikes against enemy ground targets.

Two aircraft of the Sukhoi Attack Aircraft Concern (Sturmoviki Sukhogo in Russian) shown at a static display during the MAKS 2001 air show. The Su-39 (Su-25TM) had been displayed earlier and was well known, while the Su-25SM upgraded by the Air Force's 121st aircraft repair plant at Kubinka was shown for the first time.

 

[Super Falcon]

turbofine engines planes ar easy tragets for AK 47 when they fly low sir and easy target for Medium range SAM systems

 

[nForce]

turbofine engines planes ar easy tragets for AK 47 when they fly low sir and easy target for Medium range SAM systems

We are talking about a scenario here where SAMs are absent.

 

[Chogy]

These days, just about anything airborne is vulnerable to the modern SAMS like Patriot or S-300, unless the airborne platform is supported by ECM, anti-radiation missiles like HARM, and similar countermeasures.

I am not a huge fan of the converted crop duster mainly due to the thick bars in the cockpit, and the lack of visibility. If the idea is a turboprop COIN aircraft, my favorite is an old one, the OV-10 Bronco.

Great visibility, plenty of power, dual-engine for survivability, can carry plenty of weapons, and in a pinch, there is room in the pod for cargo and even several armed troops. It can do anything the Tucano or AT-6 can do, and do it better. And it dates from the 1960's.

 

[Sinnerman108]

These days, just about anything airborne is vulnerable to the modern SAMS like Patriot or S-300, unless the airborne platform is supported by ECM, anti-radiation missiles like HARM, and similar countermeasures.

I am not a huge fan of the converted crop duster mainly due to the thick bars in the cockpit, and the lack of visibility. If the idea is a turboprop COIN aircraft, my favorite is an old one, the OV-10 Bronco.

Great visibility, plenty of power, dual-engine for survivability, can carry plenty of weapons, and in a pinch, there is room in the pod for cargo and even several armed troops. It can do anything the Tucano or AT-6 can do, and do it better. And it dates from the 1960's.

How much does a single SAM missile cost ? over it's age.
and how much does a drone cost

If I were to order a sortie of 6 Air craft,

I will be happy to send 30 Drones which can make big enough radar noise
to deplete that area of SAMs

Heck, don't even order the sortie, just deplete the $$ !

 

[Chogy]

Not a bad notion, but waves of drones will tell an enemy that you are interested in a particular target area, prompting reinforcements and possibly manned aircraft.

Sometimes, the best mission is get in fast, do the job, get out, without tipping your hand.

 

[Tang0]

These days, just about anything airborne is vulnerable to the modern SAMS like Patriot or S-300, unless the airborne platform is supported by ECM, anti-radiation missiles like HARM, and similar countermeasures.

I am not a huge fan of the converted crop duster mainly due to the thick bars in the cockpit, and the lack of visibility. If the idea is a turboprop COIN aircraft, my favorite is an old one, the OV-10 Bronco.

Great visibility, plenty of power, dual-engine for survivability, can carry plenty of weapons, and in a pinch, there is room in the pod for cargo and even several armed troops. It can do anything the Tucano or AT-6 can do, and do it better. And it dates from the 1960's.

You know it is funny, most of the OV-10's from Vietnam got sold in South America (Venezula, Columbia, and Argentina from what I can tell).And now Brazil is selling back the same idea to the US and the rest of the world with the Super Tucano..... And so the world turns.

A fair amount of the OV-10's got recycled to US domestic federal agencies in the early and mid 90's, but have since aged out of their respective fleets. The Philippines and Thailand also purchased a number of the aircraft. If you see something all of these countries have in common....Say Jungle. ...