Thread: Modified Cropduster COIN Aircraft

Originally Posted by meridian

No, just playing devils advocate

I expect the threat remains from MANPADS but if you look at helicopter losses you would probably find a mix of mechanical problems, bad luck and weather are a biger hazard than enemy action. That said its a testament to the tactics, skills and equipment that we have that has meant we havent suffered.

Perhaps the threat is just as great from AAA and RPG's than exotic missiles anyway.

Of course its the things that wont be commented on.

On the main subject I used to think that turboprops were a no brainer but having been educated by Magic Mushroom, Johny Paveway and others on here its obviously not as clear cut as one might expect and things are as usual a delicate balance of pros and cons with the answer not being an either or type. The consensus seemed to be that something like the Super Tucano, Caravan (being used by the Iraqi Air Force with Hellfire as above), AT-6 or some other similar type would be a great addition rather than replacement, relieving some pressure on AH and FJ in certain roles rather than replacing.

And there's the rub! No money - although I agree with you 100%. As an aside the RPG 7 monocular sight has an inbuilt anti-helicopter set of graticules.

At least a ‘combat crop duster’ is a slightly different slant on the normal ‘Skyraider/Bronco/Super Tucano (STuc) v fast air’ arguments!

Originally Posted by tropper66

I have wondered why the RAF don't use a tooled up Tucano in Afghanistan…

As already mentioned by B_S, RAF Tucanos have no under wing stress points for pylons. Even if they did, they’d need to have defensive aids, Mk 12 IFF, comms upgrades, NVG cockpits, appropriate avionics/databus for weapons, sensors and targeting pods added which would be very expensive. It would be easier to purchase new Super Tucanos.

Originally Posted by rampant

Interesting point: would there be a case for maybe using a Hawk derivative, such as the Hawk 200 models, used by the Saudis, Indonesians, Omanis and Malays.

The fast jet boys alrady have experience on type with the Hawk Trainers, so costs of re-training would be kept to a minimum.

No. The Hawk has too limited a payload. A STuc would be more useful.

Additionally people need be clear that a Hawk 200 bears little similarity to the basic Hawk. Likewise, a Super Tucano is a completely different aircraft to the original. Each has different avionics, hydraulics, electrical and fuel systems, performance and flying characteristics. Therefore, any thought that an RAF Hawk T1 or Tucano T1 pilot could quickly convert to a Hawk 200 or STuc respectively is unrealistic. Completely different conversion training, logs and engineering would need to be established.

To illustrate my point, when the USAF first got the F-16C, experienced F-16A pilots had to do exactly the same conversion course as ab initio pilots. Likewise, the first RAF Hawk T1 pilots to convert to the new T2 (Hawk 12 variant are doing a full type conversion.

These are very different aircraft to their forebears and little if any cost savings would be accrued.

Originally Posted by tropper66

Having just read " Joint Force Harrier" it seems that they dont very often drop more than one weapon so a light ,cheap Coin aircraft might not be a bad idea

CAS engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq will generally (but by no means always) use a relatively limited number of weapons against a target. However, it is common for fast air to be employed on several engagements over the course of a mission and it is not unusual for an aircraft to return with no stores remaining.

However, no matter how many stores are employed, an asset such as a GR9 has the advantage of having several types of weapons available for use. Responses can therefore be better tailored to the scenario taking into account factors such as collateral damage (ie, how close are the tea towel wearing bad guys (TTWBG) to that mosque?), target characteristics (ie, are the TTWBGs firing from the open or from a thick walled mud hut) and weather (ie do I have to drop my bomb onto the TTWBGs through cloud?).

Finally, people need to stop focusing on weapons employment. ISR is at least as important, if not more so, than kiiling TTWBGs and breaking their stuff. Any asset should ideally therefore also be able to carry some sort of recce system.

Originally Posted by tropper66

…for the cost of one fast jet you could have a shed load of them, and with the Tornado servicing ramp c***-up it would be worth looking into as almost every fast jet jocky would be type quilified

Errr, so then you’d need more ramp space?!!! See my previous comments regarding type qualification.

Originally Posted by bangstobleeps

…I'm amazed that our airforces in afghanistan have not encountered MANPADS so far…

We have.

There’s no OPSEC issue here as long as the specific type fired is not discussed. Look on any Jihadist website and you’ll see several examples of MANPADS being employed against a range of coalition types.

The fact that the UK has the finest defensive aids in the world provides credence to the old adage ‘lies, damned lies and stats’ and is why many people consider AAA/RPG to be the greater threat.

Turning now to the pros and cons of the Air Tractor specifically:

Pros:

1. Robust design offers genuine rough field capability (which, despite the sales brochures, even fast turbo prop types such as the STuc lack).
2. Relatively decent payload.
3. Some potential for ISR.
4. Low operating costs.
5. Err, can’t think of much else really!

Cons.

1. Painfully slow Unmanned Air System (UAS – we’re not allowed to call them UAVs anymore!) speeds so unable to conduct a Show of Force (SoF) at low level (probably the most common form of ‘effect’ employed by CAS assets) without being extremely vulnerable to ground fire. If it did do one, it’s fair to say the TTWBGs probably wouldn’t be all that intimidated! The slow speed would also severely limit it’s capability to be retasked (do not underestimate how big a place the Stan is). At least a STuc can do a SoF at around 300kts and make a bit of noise.

2. Extremely limited range and therefore endurance.

3. Limited weapons options (unless you want to pay for it!). Given the speed of the beast and the altitude it would need to descend to to engage with the guns and grenade launchers, it’s vulnerability to ground fire is again emphasised. To be honest, it also suggests that the Company's understanding of the CAS mission is tenuous at best.

4. No de-icing systems that I can see. So that’ll be a predominantly clear weather, no icing asset then!

5. I suspect no oxygen system either. Again that means it’ll be unable to climb over the often scary Afghan weather.

In short, the AT-802U is not a credible CAS asset for anything beyond dropping bombs on a drug factory in the Columbian jungle imho. It has a degree of utility as an ISR asset to augment smaller UAS such as Hermes 450/WK. Its advantages in this area would be greater payload but lower costs, manpower and J6 requirements. Conversely however, its endurance is very limited indeed.

The utility of turbo props in a COIN construct are limited by their ‘non-kinetic’ versatility (ie they lack impact and are far more vulnerable to ground fire during SoF), their slower speed limiting reaction time, and the fact that they are less able to operate in all weathers than aircraft with higher performance.

Yes we could afford more of them but HMG is extremely reticent to sanction increased numbers of personnel in theatre for a variety of reasons. CGS had his troop surge firmly refused and the same restrictions apply to airborne assets. So the ‘more v less’ argument to overcome transit times doesn’t hold water even if we ignore the ramp space issues.

I am not suggesting that an asset such as a STuc or PC-21 would not be without utility. However, this is more in a lower intensity op than we currently see in Afghanistan or host nation training and mentoring roles. I would therefore rather see our limited funds spent on subtly different ISR turbo prop types (which could still potentially be lightly armed) such as Shadow (a fantastic asset!), PC-12 and Grand Caravan. In fact, the cost effectiveness of such types is why they are increasingly being seen as a more effective and economic alternative to UAS ISR rather than manned CAS by the USAF and US Army in particular.

Gunships such as the AC-130 are great and very effective; if the USMC are willing to absorb the lead customer development costs for a gunship variant of the C-130J (all previous ‘Spooky’ variants being based on the ‘classic’ Herc) then that may offer a way for the RAF to procure a couple (the USAF are also developing an AC-27J gunship). I’d love to see that but such gunships are still extremely expensive to procure.

A more viable market place would be for ‘gunship lite’ variants of a Metro, King Air/Shadow, PC-12 or Grand Caravan type asset. Such an installation could perhaps be a Ro-Ro option alongside other EW and ISR payloads (although I acknowledge the calibration factors every time the kit was ‘ro-ro’ed’ would not be inconsiderable) These types also have the option of being used for light transport or Air Dispatch.

Originally Posted by meridian

Who owns the King Airs and those manned ISR types we have just purchased

The Shadow R1 is operated by 5 Sqn, RAF.

Regards,
MM

The Super Tuc is a popular COIN platform in several south american countries, although the prospect of an 8000lb payload on the duster suddenly makes them seem much less attractive.



Blackwater were planning to set up their own little air wing of Super Tucs, but I guess the shines gone off of that idea now.

The Diamond DA-42 Twin Star is the type I think you're referring to Meridian.

Originally Posted by meridian

Saw in the news that the Sea King ASaCS are off to Afghanistan (all open source news stuff) and when Sentinel gets operational I am sure it will all mesh together well with Predator, the Shadows you mentioned, the Hermes 450 and other stuff.

I haven't seen any SKASAC deployment in a MoD sponsored release yet so best not comment. However, were it to go, it would indeed compliment ASTOR (and other coalition GMTI assets such as JSTARS and the P-3C Land Surveillance Radar System (LSRS)) very well!

Finally, ASTOR (remember that Sentinel is just half the system) is already operational and contributing to HERRICK.

Regards,
MM

PS. B_S, is that a very polite way of calling me a sad spotter?!!

Gosh!!

The Sea King stuff was on Janes

UK deploys ASAC Sea Kings to Afghanistan to intercept insurgents
The UK will deploy Westland Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Area Control (ASAC) Mk 7 helicopters from 854 Naval Air Squadron (NAS) to Afghanistan by late May to "detect, follow and intercept insurgents before they can lay improvised explosive devices [IEDs] or threaten local people," a Royal Navy (RN) spokesperson has told Jane's . The RN Sea Kings, which are usually used as fleet airborne early warning assets, have been modified for service in Afghanistan with the fitting of a defensive aids suite

[first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 28 May 2009]

Incidentally, so was the announcement about the MoD scrapping the AWACS upgrade

Puccara, would suit the job nicely - sure we must have a couple we can re-furb for next to nowt compliments of our Argie friends:

Don't assume I'm correct chaps!! I may just be talking out of my arrse!! I don't have the copyright on good gouge anymore than the next person but I try to add to a debate by providing comments with the benefit of my own experience eating high quality galley food at FL350!!

Talking of which...

Originally Posted by Hoochie

Puccara, would suit the job nicely

No it wouldn't!

Regards,
MM

Originally Posted by blue-sophist

Why?
Do tell?
Your admirers await ...

We broke them during the Falklands Campaign:D

Pros:

1. Twin engine reliability.

2. Martin Baker recovery option.

Cons:

1. A big target so pretty vulnerable to SMARMs/AAA/MANPADS as the Pucara proved so well on the few occasions it got anywhere near British troops in the Falklands! Just as well it has the Martin Baker recovery option!

2. Would need addition of defensive aids, modern weapons and sensors (and therefore probably a 1760 databus avionics refit) and Mk12 IFF to be credible.

3. Not as manoeuvrable as a STuc type but lacks the performance, payload and versatility of a larger type such as a King Air. In other words it’s neither one thing nor another.

4. No aircon. A tongue in cheek point from the Boscombe Down evaluation of captured examples in 1982. Joking apart however, imagine standing GCAS cockpit alert for an hour or so at KAF then sitting under a large Perspex canopy in flying kit whilst working hard at low level for a further hour or 2 all without AC!!! Sri Lankan Pucara operators have found this to be a real limitation for crews in hot and humid conditions.

5. 1970s technology.

If you wanted a twin engine type in the mould of the Pucara, I’d go for an OV-10.

Regards,
MM