Should Pakistan try to obtain the Su-25 Aircraft for the CAS and COIN Role?

[Philip the Arab]

Be it Hurkus or Bader, if there's a turboprop COIN plane in the pipeline, it'll probably be the same as the basic trainer platform (simplified logistics and maintenance).

As for anti-armour ops, the only risk with using a slower turboprop aircraft is that it'd be susceptible to opposing fast jets and SAMs. These turboprop platforms weren't meant for contested air space -- hence why the JF-17 with longer-range weaponry (especially guided AGMs, ARMs, and AAMs on multiple ejector racks) would be better.

Ultimately, there's no way the PAF (or most countries) will get the 'ideal' CAS platform. It'll have to be a mix of turboprops and JF-17s in the end. That said, the PAF tried in the 1970s by asking for the A-7 and the Jaguar, but those efforts didn't come to pass, so it settled on the Chinese A-5. Then the COIN/CT ops of the 2010s happened, and the PAF relied on the F-16s (and appears to be moving towards giving the work to the JF-17s).

The one plane that looked really good -- i.e., the Brazilian-Italian AMX -- somehow came too late for the PAF (i.e., after the 1970s when the PAF first thought of an attack aircraft) and too early (production ended pre-2001). Had the AMX just entered production in the late 1970s or after 2001, we probably wouldn't be having this convo.

To be fair the A-10 isn't meant for contested airspace either. USAF will have air superiority in 9/10 conflicts and A-10s are unharmed throughout the conflict. In an Indo-Pak war I think an A-10 would be an easy target due to low speeds, and low fighting capabilities.

 

[Quwa]

To be fair the A-10 isn't meant for contested airspace either. USAF will have air superiority in 9/10 conflicts and A-10s are unharmed throughout the conflict. In an Indo-Pak war I think an A-10 would be an easy target due to low speeds, and low fighting capabilities.

Yup, that's why for contested airspace, the PAF's approach (if it has one) will probably center on the JF-17. And even then, it might not come as close to the place as A-10. I think the preference now would be to use stand-off weapons (SOW) wherever possible.

And the two SOWs we all have an eye on is the CBU-105 and Brimstone: if the PAF can get non-US equivalents to both, I'm confident the JF-17 will be the PAF's primary CAS option.

The YJ-9E can fill in the same role as the Brimstone (albeit not as much range).

The CBU-105 is a tougher find, but the Chinese GB6 can be an option, albeit with unguided bomblets. I'm surprised we haven't yet seen China push for a true CBU-105-like capability.

 

[Philip the Arab]

Maybe if the K-8 got a more powerful engine, and was up-armored it could work as a CAS platform. The Payload will have to be more than 1000kg; perhaps at least 2000-2500 kg would be adequate enough to carry enough munitions to rival an attack helicopter like the AH-1Z and Apache.

The Guizhou WP-13 a version of the Tumansky R-13 maybe a suitable engine to upgrade to. At a max thrust of 43 kn, it has enough power to carry 2000-2500 kg of payload and allow the aircraft to be better armored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumansky_R-13

The WP-13 is the engine used on the Soar Dragon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_Soar_Dragon

The Honeywell HTF7000 is also a good engine, and if the PAF K-8 stick to using honeywell enignes, this a modern engine that can also do the trick at a max thrust of 33kn; about double the thrust of the current engine. It is a smaller diameter but nearly double the length of the current engine on the K-8.

The change in engine and the need for better aircraft protection, as well as pilot protection will require modifications to the design, and building new aircraft either way.

....

Actually if you look at the stats of the old A-5, it could carry 2000 kg of payload, but needed 2 engines each generating nearly 30 kn of dry thrust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanchang_Q-5

The JF-17's single engine has a dry thrust of nearly 50 kn.
An Attack Variant of the JF-17 maybe the most sensible option. we already have the factory to produce the jets, and commonality of all but some parts can make maintenance a piece of cake. Using only the dry thrust part of the RD-93 or the WS-13, to save cost and space, a modern single engine attack variant maybe best for Pakistan.

A Pakistani Harrier

What do you mean an attack variant? What weapons do you want to see on it?

Yup, that's why for contested airspace, the PAF's approach (if it has one) will probably center on the JF-17. And even then, it might not come as close to the place as A-10. I think the preference now would be to use stand-off weapons (SOW) wherever possible. And the two SOWs we all have an eye on is the CBU-105 and Brimstone: if the PAF can get non-US equivalents to both, I'm confident the JF-17 will be the PAF's primary CAS option.

What do you think about a Delilah size cruise missile for use on aircraft? It could in theory be used on a whole lot of platforms (200kg size). Helicopters could also carry it possibly.

 

[Quwa]

What do you mean an attack variant? What weapons do you want to see on it?


What do you think about a Delilah size cruise missile for use on aircraft? It could in theory be used on a whole lot of platforms (200kg size). Helicopters could also carry it possibly.

Interesting concept, I'd only question scale, cost, and bang for the buck. A cruise missile uses a miniature air-breathing engine and a flight control system of some kind, those are very expensive. So, you're not going to use Delilah-like ALCM/LACMs for tanks and the like, rather, for high-value targets.

The main difference is that you can use your helicopters or light armoured vehicles to launch the missile, so that might help in terms of flexibility. Not sure if you'll keep many of those on hand, so manufacturing them may not be feasible for Pakistan. But I like the concept.

A side-note: It'd be interesting if one can create a global cruise missile platform with a common engine and flight control system, but create multiple missile designs of varying ranges, payload capacity, and capability. That way, you can shift to making new Delilahs, Ra'ad, Baburs, Harbas, etc based on what you need at any given time.

 

[Armchair]

Anything we can get on the fast and on the cheap right now, we should go for. I'd say right now we should be requesting China for a squadron of J-10 ASAP.

The benefit of the Su-25 is that it is cheap, and extremely rugged. Designed to be maintained by a farmer with basic tools. It is hard to shoot down even with a SAM! Fast and nimble, it can takeoff from almost anywhere.

 

[Philip the Arab]

Interesting concept, I'd only question scale, cost, and bang for the buck. A cruise missile uses a miniature air-breathing engine and a flight control system of some kind, those are very expensive. So, you're not going to use Delilah-like ALCM/LACMs for tanks and the like, rather, for high-value targets.

The main difference is that you can use your helicopters or light armoured vehicles to launch the missile, so that might help in terms of flexibility. Not sure if you'll keep many of those on hand, so manufacturing them may not be feasible for Pakistan. But I like the concept.

A side-note: It'd be interesting if one can create a global cruise missile platform with a common engine and flight control system, but create multiple missile designs of varying ranges, payload capacity, and capability. That way, you can shift to making new Delilahs, Ra'ad, Baburs, Harbas, etc based on what you need at any given time.

Yeah, I agree that cruise missiles can be expensive but guidance system(GPS) isn't really expensive today and with past Pakistani experience I'm sure it could be done. I hadn't thought about LAVs launching them which could be done and would make the launching system hard to destroy and costs shouldn't be over a few hundred thousand usd per missile which isn't expensive considering that TOW missiles can reach costs like this. Intelligence gathering of strategic sites (airbases, depots, etc) could be done via satellite and coordinates compiled.

Say 20 Delilah type cruise missile with anti runway cluster munitions could be launched towards each Western command airbase which would be hard to intercept due to very low RCS and sheer number of missiles being launched. This would completely devastate and probably put out of service most airbases that are in close proximity and threaten Pakistan in a conflict.

If scale is correct, a missile of this size could be used on a truck TEL with about 6 missiles. Only major modification would be a rocket motor to get the weapon to altitude.



About the engine, it is only about 55 pounds and provides 175 lbs of thrust. Can't be super expensive even if precise machining is needed.

 

[Quwa]

Yeah, I agree that cruise missiles can be expensive but guidance system(GPS) isn't really expensive today and with past Pakistani experience I'm sure it could be done. I hadn't thought about LAVs launching them which could be done and would make the launching system hard to destroy and costs shouldn't be over a few hundred thousand usd per missile which isn't expensive considering that TOW missiles can reach costs like this. Intelligence gathering of strategic sites (airbases, depots, etc) could be done via satellite and coordinates compiled.

Say 20 Delilah type cruise missile with anti runway cluster munitions could be launched towards each Western command airbase which would be hard to intercept due to very low RCS and sheer number of missiles being launched. This would completely devastate and probably put out of service most airbases that are in close proximity and threaten Pakistan in a conflict.
View attachment 572764

If scale is correct, a missile of this size could be used on a truck TEL with about 6 missiles. Only major modification would be a rocket motor to get the weapon to altitude.



About the engine, it is only about 55 pounds and provides 175 lbs of thrust. Can't be super expensive even if precise machining is needed.

I think using cruise missiles to that effect had been the general hope in Pakistan, at least from an observer's standpoint.

The net-benefit of cruise missiles is that you have a long-range attack asset that you can launch through any type of platform, so doubling down on that is a good idea.

In fact, the neat thing about these small cruise missiles is precisely the flexibility in deployment platforms: LAVs, miniature submarines, < 100-ton attack boats, etc.

The hope I had was that the PAF would invest in a 'Ra'ad Lite' (i.e., an ALCM in the size and weight class of the Turkish SOM) so that the JF-17 can offer an air-launched attack element which Pakistan can use in sync with land and sea assets.

 

[Philip the Arab]

I think using cruise missiles to that effect had been the general hope in Pakistan, at least from an observer's standpoint.

The net-benefit of cruise missiles is that you have a long-range attack asset that you can launch through any type of platform, so doubling down on that is a good idea.

In fact, the neat thing about these small cruise missiles is precisely the flexibility in deployment platforms: LAVs, miniature submarines, < 100-ton attack boats, etc.

The hope I had was that the PAF would invest in a 'Ra'ad Lite' (i.e., an ALCM in the size and weight class of the Turkish SOM) so that the JF-17 can offer an air-launched attack element which Pakistan can use in sync with land and sea assets.

Don't the Chinese have some system like this? It seems as if they have a product matching the role of every Western cruise missile. Should be able to be used on JF-17.

 

[Quwa]

Don't the Chinese have some system like this? It seems as if they have a product matching the role of every Western cruise missile. Should be able to be used on JF-17.

Technically, you can just use the C-802A AShM as a LACM. Otherwise, you can use the Ra'ad's engine and flight control system, but develop a smaller/more compact airframe (i.e., resulting in less range and payload capacity) -- aka 'Ra'ad Lite.'

 

[denel]

How would you further exploit its potential for the COIN Role and the CAS Role.
here is where it stands: a 23 mm gun pod and two rocket pods; one under each wing. Each Rocket pod carries 13 Rockets.

Source: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion....or-k-8-light-attack-and-jet-trainer-aircraft/

I can think of modern Datalinks/Comms/SatCom, a modern E/O pod with a small AESA radar to guide PGMs (as well as operate as part of an EW Suite) would be a good start (Similar to the Sensors on the bird below), but don't you think it needs better armoring?

Also; Pakistan will have to procure/purchase or produce under license the HJ-10 to maximize the utility of these upgrades. The HJ-10 has a range out to 10 km but in battle, once again, max ranges may not be possible, and the plane will have to get in closer

To stay outside of the enemy's SAM ranges; the K-8 may have to carry a couple Chinese SDBs to knock out air defenses and then go in to knock out enemy armour

Again it is stand off weapons capability that needs to be added; having a gun/unguided rockets is fine but it is a shotgun approach and waste of ROI on transporting unguided payload.

 

[Armchair]

for dropping PGMs from a height or a distance, K-8 or a turboprop is okay. But these are not survivable for a CAS mission against India, because they are not armored, lack speed, range and payload. Even a fellow with a rifle and a lucky shot can shoot them down.

 

[Arsalan]

dreams, imaginations...
Is Russia selling it to Pakistan?
Baseless Threads on shikh chilli dreams.
at least post a news/tweet something to start with.

Just my POV, you can allow in any case I just spread propaganda.
@The Eagle @waz @Arsalan @Dubious

It is just discussing a possibility and clearly mentions the words "try to obtain" unlike many other threads and posts that claim that we "ARE GETTING" this and that!

No harm is discussing various systems, their merits and demerits. Its a defense forum after all!

 

[FuturePAF]

What do you mean an attack variant? What weapons do you want to see on it?


What do you think about a Delilah size cruise missile for use on aircraft? It could in theory be used on a whole lot of platforms (200kg size). Helicopters could also carry it possibly.

Delilah is a great weapons system. For under 200 kg it has a range out to 250 km, and a CEP of 1 meter. I agree, we should have something similar for knocking out enemy air defense or command posts, early on. This is overkill for tanks and artillery pieces.

In the original A-X program from 1968 there was a design for a single engine turboprop design. Pakistan could adopt the design but put in the non-heat only portion of the RD-93/WS-13. The design is well armored and has room to fit modern sensors as well as enough space on the wings to carry a lot of ordinance. They will need escort protection from enemy fighters as they are designed to be CAS platforms and not fighters.

@All Members

Details of the Following Design can be found in this very informative article:

The Single Engine Observation Attack Aircraft from the 1968 program that led to the A-10.
Replacing the Turboprop for the non-reheat portion of the RD-93 could work for the PAF

 

[Philip the Arab]

Delilah is a great weapons system. For under 200 kg it has a range out to 250 km, and a CEP of 1 meter. I agree, we should have something similar for knocking out enemy air defense or command posts, early on. This is overkill for tanks and artillery pieces.

In the original A-X program from 1968 there was a design for a single engine turboprop design. Pakistan could adopt the design but put in the non-heat only portion of the RD-93/WS-13. The design is well armored and has room to fit modern sensors as well as enough space on the wings to carry a lot of ordinance. They will need escort protection from enemy fighters as they are designed to be CAS platforms and not fighters.

@All Members

Details of the Following Design can be found in this very informative article:

The Single Engine Observation Attack Aircraft from the 1968 program that led to the A-10.
Replacing the Turboprop for the non-reheat portion of the RD-93 could work for the PAF

View attachment 572800

I have been thinking more and is getting low and close really needed in modern CAS? What can you not do from low* altitudes that you can do from medium altitudes?
In Iraq and Afghanistan it was actually high flying aircraft like B-1, and F-16 performing the majority of missions.

 

[FuturePAF]

I have been thinking more and is getting low and close really needed in modern CAS? What can you not do from high altitudes that you can do from medium altitudes?
In Iraq and Afghanistan it was actually high flying aircraft like B-1, and F-16 performing the majority of missions.

Sometimes a good Gun run, or a strafing run with rockets can flush out an enemy force. Sometimes enemy are well dug in on a mountain ridge, and while a PGM may destroy that position, there are friendlies nearby.

I give the scenario of 24 Spec. Ops troops assaulting a position, then finding out instead of 12 enemy forces in a mountain town, there are 120. the enemy is all around and you have to provide air support quick (hence the need for a jet) and close, so a CAS plane that can get in close. You maybe able to land bombs near enemy positions, but getting in close allow more effective fire, when you have to positively identify enemy positions.

CAS Planes can also loiter longer and cover an Landing zone with suppressing fire, using unguided rockets but using their ability to get close to hold back the enemy, while reinforcements either evaluate the 24 Spec. Ops troops or reinforce their position and finish off the enemy.

Helicopters can do all of this, but they cost cost several times as much as a simple well built CAS plane.

Imagine a battle like Wanat in Kunar province, Or the Pakistan Army operations in Swat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wanat

Here is a DCS simulation of CAS with Fast Jets and Simple CAS Harriers. you can see how hard it can be to positively Identify a target unless you get close enough. I'll grant better sensors can ID a target, especially and AESA equipped JF-17 with an Aselsan Targeting pod, but the PAF may not be able to spare JF-17 from the A2A fight if India launches a massive attack, hence why we need to consider a separate dedicated CAS force.