What's new

Concept Design of a CAS Aircraft For The Needs Of Pakistan Military

The Need for Close Air Support can be very closly related if you read the Three War history between India and Pakistan....

Both Airforce played crucial role in it. The Battle of Longevala. best Example would be Vietnam War
 
.
One point is that you can't economically employ you premium multi role jets to close air support as it will be prone to AAA & moving SAM batteries. light fighters like LCA, Migs-21, JFTs are feasible...which will be in good numbers IMO
 
.
IB has detailed the doctrine of the PAA in support of the army. its main function is logistical except for its armed assets mainly the Cobra gunships which would be used to stop/deter any mechanised push by the adversary. the army would use these limited assets only if the situation demands their need - meanwhile the PAF will continue to provide the bulk of the CAS duties with their Thunders assigned for CAS duties. while its F-16s, J-10B's (when inducted) and JFT's would provide top cover. until or unless there is a change in the doctrine (which is highly unlikely) the PAA would continue in its current role.
 
.
One point is that you can't economically employ you premium multi role jets to close air support as it will be prone to AAA & moving SAM batteries. light fighters like LCA, Migs-21, JFTs are feasible...which will be in good numbers IMO

exactly. And its a waste of resources too. using precision strikes from F-16s in WoT for example is an overkill. since we dont have a cheaper alternative we had to do that.

well the whole war is a risky venture and those who make the decision do consider and accept the losses. by the way the whole concept of CAS is to fly below radar range, near the ground lobbing bombs from 20k feet is not CAS, it maybe interdiction, away from the friendly forces but not CAS because its too risky with a chance of blue on blue.

as far as SAM or AAA is concerned, the premise is that the Air force is already taking care of such threats through its SEAD and interdiction. if not? then too bad, put your practice and exercises in use and hopefully you get the enemy before he does. Also, if CAS is provided on a defensive positions against an assault then AAA and SAMs can be ruled out unless if they are self propelled or mobile. by being mobile, they are also exposing themselves to defender's Artillery and defending troops fire and so forth.

Surprise, speed, reinforced fuselage and flares are at the disposal of the CAS pilot to save him from MANPADs or AAA and then he has his own friendly ground forces to take care of that part. if not.. well then send another one to carry on the job of the first.

this was the strategy adopted by RAF in its war with the Germans in Africa. where they came up with the concept of "Cab rank"
one aircraft attacked the enemy ground forces, the second flew in the zone and the third one rearmed and refuled at base. if the first one got shot or didnt finish the mission then the one flying in the zone would head for the target to finish off the mission and by then the third aircraft will be ready to fly. and so forth.

apart from providing the fire power, the CAS provides a morale booster to the troops on the ground. showing that their commanders care for them. close air support also performs the supply, transport and evacuation, recce as well in addition to engaging the hostile forces every role has its element of risk involved to it from the enemy and the enemy is also facing almost the same type of risk.
 
.
If we (PAF) go for customization of JF-17 for CAS role the in my opinion we would require following changes, I would take A-10 for comparisons in this case (the known dedicated CAS aircraft).

1st priority. Armour (can take punishment)

A-10 : hull incorporates over 1,200 pounds (540 kg) of armour
JF-17: the belly of the aircraft would need armour reinforcement, specially under cockit.


2nd Priority. Dedicated Armament.
A-10:
Guns: 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds
Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
Rockets:
4× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× / 7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively)
4× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets)
6× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× 127 mm (5.0 in) Zuni rockets)
Missiles:
2× AIM-9 Sidewinders air-to-air missiles for self-defense
6× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles
Bombs:
Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs or
Mk 77 incendiary bombs or
BLU-1, BLU-27/B Rockeye II, Mk20, BL-755 and CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs or
Paveway series of Laser-guided bombs or
Joint Direct Attack Munition (A-10C) or
Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (A-10C)
Other:
SUU-42A/A Flares/Infrared decoys and chaff dispenser pod or
AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pods or
Lockheed Martin Sniper XR or LITENING targeting pods (A-10C) or
2× 600 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for increased range/loitering time.

JF-17:
We would need to rethink the Gun on JF-17, interesting thing is following JF-17 is fitted with 23 mm gun but can be replaced with 30 mm gun. CAS JF-17 would need to carry a lot of ammo for its 30mm gun. Remeber A-10 was designed around the GAU-8 Avenger, a heavy rotary cannon which forms the aircraft's primary armament (and is, to date, the heaviest rotary cannon ever mounted on an aircraft) it is a different beast all to gether.

current Guns: 1× 23 mm GSh-23-2 twin-barrel cannon (can be replaced with 30 mm GSh-30-2)
More ground support ammo such as rockets, Air to ground Missiles, Bombs. (apologies avoiding details to keep the post concise)
No more than 2 AoA sidewinders (any heat seaking missile) for self defence against other aircrafts / heli


3rd Priority; but equally important. Speed (aim loitering the battle feild)
Note fastest is not the best here.
A-10 : never exceeds 518 mph, usual max speed 439 mph, the thrust to weight ratio of A-10 is 0.36
JF-17: we are not looking for Mach 1 and above in this case, I think when the airframe strengthened and armour is reinforced then the aircraft would be slower. We would not require a thrust to weight ratio of 1 because we are not doing vertical climbs.


4th Priority takeoff weight
A-10:
Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg) On CAS mission: 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)
On anti-armour mission: 42,071 lb (19,083 kg)
Max. Takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)
JF-17:
Will need to strengthen the aircraft to be able to carry more ammo to support ground forces for longer.
Current takeoff weight is 12,383 kg, low for a dedicated CAS aircraft.

Note: priority order above can be changed. Also the resulting aircraft from changes would be hugely different.

Below A-10 Thunderbolt II suffered heavy anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) damage over Baghdad in early 2003. It successfully returned to base.

Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg
 
.
IB has detailed the doctrine of the PAA in support of the army. its main function is logistical except for its armed assets mainly the Cobra gunships which would be used to stop/deter any mechanised push by the adversary. the army would use these limited assets only if the situation demands their need - meanwhile the PAF will continue to provide the bulk of the CAS duties with their Thunders assigned for CAS duties. while its F-16s, J-10B's (when inducted) and JFT's would provide top cover. until or unless there is a change in the doctrine (which is highly unlikely) the PAA would continue in its current role.

My idea behind this Thread/article was to explore further into how PAA can be helpful is dedicated CAS role.
Knowing the importance of CAS and its effective contributions in present and past, my idea here was to highlight its importance and how to best utilize the infrastructure of PAF and PAA for improved CAS.

Keeping in mind current doctrine of PAA, it is well integrated with ground forces CAS operations can be handled and better coordinated if they come under PAA command, just my opinion, a little out of the box thinking.
Senior Air Force leadership of US did not see the effectiveness of a good CAS aircraft like A-10 till gulf war. Not many were concerned with helping the forward ground forces but more interested in delicate high flying air superiority and multi role fighters with limited CAS capability. But in Gulf war everyone was amazed by the A-10 , an aircraft that is dedicated for CAS and well integrated with ground forces.

Over 1800 sorties
Half of enemy’s armour and artillery destroyed by A-10s.
Assisted in research and rescue
Hunted Scud missiles.
Operated with a mission capability rate of astonishing 96%
only 6 out of 144 A-10s were lost in gulf war

Whether or not we want to change the PAA doctrine, one thing i strongly believe is that a good CAS aircraft is a great help.
 
. .
Dedicated CAS sqdns. are good. But is it economically feasible for Paksitan? Also I raised a question in another thread without much effect, so here goes again- If/when a war starts against India, IAF would be 'aggressing' and the PAF would have to be defending. IAF will have a huge numerical superiority over PAF and would be conducting Strike and establishing aerial superiority missions day and night. Common sense tells us that PAF would have to call upon all it's resources to counter the IAF. Where is the room left for CAS or anti-ship roles, when the PAF doesn't have enough resources to defend it's airspace?
 
.
Dedicated CAS sqdns. are good. But is it economically feasible for Paksitan? Also I raised a question in another thread without much effect, so here goes again- If/when a war starts against India, IAF would be 'aggressing' and the PAF would have to be defending. IAF will have a huge numerical superiority over PAF and would be conducting Strike and establishing aerial superiority missions day and night. Common sense tells us that PAF would have to call upon all it's resources to counter the IAF. Where is the room left for CAS or anti-ship roles, when the PAF doesn't have enough resources to defend it's airspace?

valid point if its only an air war. then there is no need for even buying or making air to ground munition. but since the big element of any assault will be enemy ground forces so CAS will be needed to assist the defending friendly forces. the idea of the fixed wing ground attack aircraft for PAA is based on the same reason the Gunship Helicopter squadrons were raised for.

its always a question of the best allocation of funds that are limited vs the requirements. My guess is that PAA assets were raised without taking away the money from PAF. So, if the military planners decide that dedicated Airstrike aircrafts under the PAA will be a better and efficient way to respond to the CAS requests then they will be provided from the army allocated funds.

the army is already too much personal intensive instead of the machinery. this model might have worked till late 70s but time has changed now. an unprotected soldier on foot is gun fodder now it might make sense to save money by raising another battalion instead of getting an aircraft but do recall the duck shoot during both Gulf wars.

raising an maintaining an army is a costly affair there are no two views about it. but the challenge is to get the best mix of man and machinery to have the best impact.

consider the 1 million army of malnourished North Korean Soldiers who only have a clone AK-47 in their hands and the Love of dear leader in their hearts vs. a much smaller but very well equipped and equipment intensive South Korean force (excluding the Yanks).

the mere soldiers make a good spectacle on national day parades in front of Kim Jong Il or Sadam Hussain. (ok maybe quelling the dissent of the unarmed civilians) but thats about it


Dont forget the drones though. I dont see anyone touching that aspect.
 
.

Nice Article linked in that post, and it pleased me that most of stuff in the article supports the theory i tried to present here.

Only thing I think that could be a over kill is vertical takeoff, expensive and in my opinion not as important as 4 priorities mentioned in this thread, also Vertical Takeoff would require a complete new design. (A-10 designers didnot bother with it because of less value for money and tradeoffs such as reduction is maximum takeoff weight)

CAS aircraft in my opinion should be rugged, resilient and cheap (cost effective), the good thing about the A-10 is it is way cheaper than any fragile multirole aircraft, and performs CAS better than anything else.


Purpose of this thread is more in terms of
How dedicated CAS should be incorporated into PAF/PAA
What current options do we have?
Should we go for new design?
Can we use current aircrafts as a base starting point?
 
.
Antibody's original post

just one thing. I guess the number of rounds suggested in point 4 have a a typo. the rounds should be in excess of 500 or 1000 to be of any use in the CAS role.

40 rounds will be spent within a second.
The following key characteristics / roles have been identified:

1. Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing (VTOL/STOL).
2. Be able to withstand a burst of up to 12.7 caliber weapons in vital areas. Be invulnerable to small arms fire. Kevlar panels used for armoring.
3. Be able to carry up to 6 TOW or Hellfire or similar weapons for a stand-off anti-armour role.
4. Have a 12.7 mm main gun with about 50 rounds of ammunition.
5. Capable of flying at exceedingly low speeds and maintaining high manoeuvrability at such speeds. Speed range of 10 mph to 200 mph.
6. Ability to operate at night. FLIR.
7. Run on diesel.
8. Turbo Prop single engined aircraft.
9. Have provision for flare cartridges, effective RWR, basically a good passive and active deco arrangement, to counter man-portable SAMs
10. Ease of maintenance and a basic low-cost solution.



To make Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) possible from unprepared strips, it is proposed that the aircraft have an angled wing and an angled propeller

Another proposition is to have large, very low aspect ratio, thick and slightly forward sweeping wings (by about 5 degrees). This has shown to decrease take offs and landings as well as enable even slower flight (while maintaining agility and maneuver). This will also help towards condition 5, particularly towards the kind of agility required for Nap of the Earth flight. Lastly, the aircraft should have a strengthened under-carriage, landing gear with large low pressure tires and air brakes.

Mounting the wings high would give great visibility for the ground attack role and will aerodynamically provide better streamlining for cruising, provide more lift at less drag for climb and glide efficiency. Clearance will also be better and a useful attribute in semi/unprepared landing strips.

The use of composite armor and new materials like Kevlar should make protection against up to .50 caliber weapons easier. The wing design characteristics of thick, low-aspect ratio wings should also ensure greater survivability.

The attached diagrams illustrate sketches of such an aircraft. A more conventional design along the lines of the IL-2 is an alternative design possibility

Some Explanations and thoughts on this idea:


In reality, my idea is not really geared for the future war that the US will fight, where there is less of a need for a "cheap" solution, I'm gearing my work towards a "medium weight" power - ranging from China to Eastern Europe to South Africa to Brazil to the more controversial Indian Subcontinent. Most such armies would end up dedicating most of their air assets to the A2A war, as high tech (and expensive) aircraft are better employed winning the air war first. my solution attempts to create a cheap solution that "Army Aviation" can use while the air force can focus on other things. Further, the heart of my idea is to solve the disjoint between ground forces and air operations. "support" remains support, whether its oversimplified to blowing up stuff or to destroying enemy communications and channelizing his advance or retreat; the crucial element is that the vital information as to where the enemy is and what the course of action should be is channelized to the air unit, which is constructive but also limiting - it limits the ability of the pilot to improvise and be proactive with the battlefield, which in fact, they are never really trained to do or have the necessary wherewithal for - combat pilots fly too fast and stay in the vicinity for too less a time to have a real ground level feel of the battlefield. This is not just a technical problem but is rooted in doctrine and most importantly, real logistics. That's what I am trying to solve

The biggest problem I actually see with this is vulnerability from enemy air defence. Something like what I have proposed, flying in good numbers are always likely to be vulnerable, no matter how tactically innovative you are. Good ejection are always an advantage though...
Grande Strategy: 21st Century Combined Arms Operations: Integrating an Air Component

1 comment..
A quick look at what most gunship helos carry will tell you that unguided rocket pods and cannon fire still have a place on the modern battlefield. With laser guided kits for unguided rockets you can have an appropriate weapon for most CAS targets. The reality is that most ATGMs have too much penetration and not enough blast and fragmentation effect for most targets on the battlefield other than tanks. Most countries in the world today don't have a large supply of well armoured tanks and those that do are not likely to be using their forces against an enemy well equipped with such vehicles. Therefore having ATGMs that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is a waste of money. A guided rocket that costs a few thousand dollars and has a warhead able to deal with a wider range of targets makes much more sense.
Equally the 50 cal HMG with 50 rounds is just silly. To effectively use such a weapon you need to get within 50 cal range, and once you are in 50 cal range of them they are within 50 cal or 57 cal or 23mm range of you... they will always win that fight.
At least with a cannon on board you can rely on shell power rather than kinetic energy. For example the HE shell for most 20mm cannon is effective at any range because it relies on HE power for effect rather then velocity. This means you can start firing at area targets at long range, which makes your fire platform safer and more likely to survive.
 
.
Nice Article linked in that post, and it pleased me that most of stuff in the article supports the theory i tried to present here.

Only thing I think that could be a over kill is vertical takeoff, expensive and in my opinion not as important as 4 priorities mentioned in this thread, also Vertical Takeoff would require a complete new design. (A-10 designers didnot bother with it because of less value for money and tradeoffs such as reduction is maximum takeoff weight)

CAS aircraft in my opinion should be rugged, resilient and cheap (cost effective), the good thing about the A-10 is it is way cheaper than any fragile multirole aircraft, and performs CAS better than anything else.


Purpose of this thread is more in terms of
How dedicated CAS should be incorporated into PAF/PAA
What current options do we have?
Should we go for new design?
Can we use current aircrafts as a base starting point?


the thread is suggesting using K-8 and propeller planes as well for CAS which is my idea too. once their body is reinforced they can do the job very well with much less cost and provide a constant presence over the battle field. the only slight modification will be arming them with rockets and 30 mm cannon and ATGMs. number of hard points and type of ammo can vary at any given time.

sending F-16s and JF-17s over tribal areas to destroy mud houses is very expensive specially because Uncle is no longer funding this war. so cheaper but effective alternatives must be found
 
.
the thread is suggesting using K-8 and propeller planes as well for CAS which is my idea too. once their body is reinforced they can do the job very well with much less cost and provide a constant presence over the battle field. the only slight modification will be arming them with rockets and 30 mm cannon and ATGMs. number of hard points and type of ammo can vary at any given time.

sending F-16s and JF-17s over tribal areas to destroy mud houses is very expensive specially because Uncle is no longer funding this war. so cheaper but effective alternatives must be found

I agree totally .. i just don't understand why doesn't PAF take some k-8's and put them to work or perhaps PA should buy a few k-8's for it's self for the role.:hitwall:
 
. .
the thread is suggesting using K-8 and propeller planes as well for CAS which is my idea too. once their body is reinforced they can do the job very well with much less cost and provide a constant presence over the battle field. the only slight modification will be arming them with rockets and 30 mm cannon and ATGMs. number of hard points and type of ammo can vary at any given time.

sending F-16s and JF-17s over tribal areas to destroy mud houses is very expensive specially because Uncle is no longer funding this war. so cheaper but effective alternatives must be found

Agreed Sir. Makes much more sense.

Why not work with a lighter and a locally manufactured aircraft (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex)
So to make K-8 viable as CAS is the platform of k-8 capable of incorporating weapon systems as follows? (by capability of platform i mean viability of adding avionics and weapon systems to fulfil
Beefing up the armour of the aircraft.
Incorporating Avionics to carry air to surface missiles X 2
Being a smaller Aircraft may be fitting 23mm Gun ? – able to carry 1000+ rounds.
Rockets (already done pics below )
Bombs: although would not be able to carry as much an A-10 or larger aircraft but whatever the platform can permit – sort of CBU-52/58/71/87/89/97 cluster bombs.

A very basic wiki check gives us following current capabilities.

General characteristics
Crew: 2 (PAF should able to convert it to single seater?)
Empty weight: 2,687 kg (5,924 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 4,330 kg (9,546 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Garrett TFE731-2A-2A turbofan, 16.01 kN (3,600 lb)- Maybe with a better engine we can keep the performance to standard once aircraft is armoured and weapons mounted.

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 0.75 (800 km/h, 498 mph) –speed is right in my opinion
Range: 2,250 km (1,398 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,000 m (42,651 ft)
Wing loading: 254.40 kg m-2 ()


Max. airframe load factor: +7.33 g / -3.0 g

Armament
Guns: 1× 23 mm cannon pod (mounted on centreline hardpoint)
Hardpoints: 5, total capacity 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) external fuel and ordnance:
4× under-wing, capacity 250 kg each
1× under-fuselage (23 mm cannon pod mount)
Rockets: 57 mm unguided rocket pods, capacity 24 rounds (2 x pods with 12 rounds each)
Air-to-air missiles: PL-5, PL-7
Bombs: 200 kg, 250 kg unguided bomb, BL755 cluster bomb
Others:
2× 80 gal fuel drop-tanks mounted on outboard under-wing hardpoints (good for loitering purpose)

Avionics
EFIS

Question : how many hard points can be incorporated? To carry as much firepower as possible?

Below pics courtesy Windjammer
Thraed http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-air-force/51303-k8-karakorum.html

JiaoLian-8+%2528JL-8%2529+K-8+Karakorum+Light+Attack+Jet+Trainer+Aircraft+rocket+gun+pod+Hongdu+Aviation+Industry+Corporation+%2528HAIC%2529+of+China+Aeronautical+Complex+%2528PAC%2529++Pakistan+Air+Force+%2528PAF%2529+People%2527s+Liberation+Army+Ai+%25282%2529.jpg


JiaoLian-8+%2528JL-8%2529+K-8+Karakorum+Light+Attack+Jet+Trainer+Aircraft+rocket+gun+pod+Hongdu+Aviation+Industry+Corporation+%2528HAIC%2529+of+China+Aeronautical+Complex+%2528PAC%2529++Pakistan+Air+Force+%2528PAF%2529+People%2527s+Liberation+Army+Air+Force+%25286%2529.jpg


JiaoLian-8+%2528JL-8%2529+K-8+Karakorum+Light+Attack+Jet+Trainer+Aircraft+rocket+gun+pod+Hongdu+Aviation+Industry+Corporation+%2528HAIC%2529+of+China+Aeronautical+Complex+%2528PAC%2529++Pakistan+Air+Force+%2528PAF%2529+People%2527s+Liberation+Army+Air+Force+%25284%2529.jpg
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom