Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 400

Thread: Aviation in COIN (merged thread)

  1. #361
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default South Africa companies developing the Ahrlac

    While not directly related to our DoD pursuit of a "COIN" a/c capability, this fella looked interesting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...143821174.html

    Two South African companies are attempting to elbow their way into the global defense market with an unusual new aircraft developed on home soil.

    Paramount Group and Aerosud Holdings Ltd. on Tuesday will unveil the Ahrlac, a compact plane that they say merges the capabilities of a drone, an attack helicopter and surveillance aircraft.

    "There's nothing like it in the marketplace," says Paul Potgieter, managing director of closely held Aerosud.

    The Ahrlac—short for Advanced High Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft—aims to fill a niche left by less-versatile and more-expensive rivals. Most countries on the continent rely on modified cargo planes or turboprop fighters for surveillance work, but the Ahrlac is a multipurpose alternative that's marketed for perform military and civilian reconnaissance. It will cater to African governments involved in combat, peacekeeping and humanitarian work, he says.


    More at the link.

  2. #362
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    While not directly related to our DoD pursuit of a "COIN" a/c capability, this fella looked interesting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...143821174.html





    More at the link.
    No way, the airforce lobby will kill any aircraft program that jeopardizes their longing for slik, sexy, dollar-burning fighter jets. And if you ask why, they will cram you with their latest Warden-Deptula five-ring theory that supposedly offers an answer to all warfighting problems.

  3. #363
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Gentlemen,

    I just found this thread again after a very successful and unique deployment to Afghanistan with my AVN TF that ended in NOV 2010.

    I will spend a few days gathering my thoughts and post them here -- suffice it to say we definitely did find a way to more effectively participate in COIN ops in OEF.

    And our method was promptly dismissed by the unit that took over from us.

  4. #364
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,221

    Default

    LtFuzz,

    It will be good to read some feedback and within reason what your pre-deployment syllabus was too.

    As for your successors it happens in virtually every profession.
    davidbfpo

  5. #365
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3

    Default Light Strike Aircraft - Question de Jour

    Given that the US DoD is currently undergoing death by a thousand cuts and also given that the USAF has just announced a $355 million contract for the Afghan Air force Light Strike aircraft to the Super Tucano, (http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Con...ontractID=4695) what are the chances that the USAF would cancel said contract if ISAF (NATO++++) passed around the hat to fund another aircraft of the same gendre, with adequate supply chain and training support? Letís face it, this will probably blow out to 0.5billion, which is not an insubstantial amount in the current climate? I note also that Hawker-Beechcraft is challenging this contract as it's AT6 lost out, will that stall the procurement in anyway? ( http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-6-bid-365163/ )

  6. #366
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default an OA-X for effective and efficient CAS

    Latest issue of Armed Forces Journal has an interesting article on CAS and logistics by COL Michael Pietrucha. [ http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8792325 ]

  7. #367
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default A COIN proposal using a turbo prop in pusher configuration

    The Stavatti proposal got my thinking cap going and I propose the aircraft The structure is graphite/kevlar/spectra composite. The armour is a spectra compressed UHMW/carbide composite rated for 50 cal at 200 m

    The gun and 70mm rockets are laser targeted. Brimstone is fire and forget. Pars 3 LR can target both tanks and helos. Maverick is for targeting fortified positions, bridges and other targets requiring the larger warhead.

    The regimen is to attack ground targets from 1500-5000 m, which is beyond the range of most ground fire.

    The plane's cockpit, electrical and piping conduits, and engine are armoured. Fuel tanks are self sealing.

    The plane uses the APS-30 recoil operated gun. Mags are in the fuselage, guns in the wing root fairings.

    Engine drives a contra rotating prop 10 ft dia.

    Wings have slats and two component fowler flaps. Airfoil is a NASA natural laminar flow airfoil as developed by Hitachi for their business jet offering. This combo develops a lift coefficient of 4 at 20 degrees angle of attack.

    Plane is designed to take off at 60 knots at Max Gross and land at 40 knots, light.

    Plane is meant to use 30X113 gun ammo, 70 mm rockets, as commonly used by helos, with the addition of Brimstone, Pars, and Maverick, to
    permit use as a Front Line aircraft attached at brigade level, operating just behind the artillery positions.

    shown in the attached Jpegs.

    The stats are as follows (lb):

    ___________________Take Off__________Landing
    Fuel------------------------------3,854.4____________771
    Engine---PW 127G------------1150____________1150
    Airframe_____________2000 ___________2000
    Armour___________ ___2000 ____________2000
    2 - ASP-30 suto cannon____228.80___________229
    30mm 600 rds __________590.75___________ _59.
    38 - 70mm AIPKWS _____1330______________ 0
    6 - Brimstone missile______642______________0
    2 - AIM 9X______________376 _____________0
    6 - Pars 3 LR____________660______________0
    2 - AGM 65 Maverick_____1090____________0
    Pilot _________________ 200_____________200
    Ejection Seat ___________120 _____________120
    _____________________14,242__________ 6,526

    PW 127G TurboProp HP 2920 MTOW 14250

    INDY
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by goprisko; 07-01-2012 at 06:00 PM.

  8. #368
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    So am I, because the lack of insight so far is quite worrying. Things that fly are utterly irrelevant except for the sensors and the weapons. A Hellfire type weapon does not care if it comes off an MQ-9, C-130, or an A-10.
    Surely the sustainability, endurance and survivability of a given platform are important to the Hellfire missile (on its happy way to suicide) given that a hellfire only has a range of 8km (12km in the brimstone variant). It therefore needs a means of conveyance that can get it within at least its maximum effective range given enemy air defences. No?

  9. #369
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default COIN Aircraft & Weapons

    Brimstone, very similar in size to Hellfire, has two seekers, and proved itself
    exceptionally useful in Libya. It is cheaper, and can be fired from the Tornado, ie fixed wing aircraft.

    The AIPKWS 70mm laser guided rocket has a CEP of a meter or so.


    Today, LASER targeting is used on the MP-230 chain gun on the Apache Helo, for setting the fuze and directing fire. LASER targeting of 30mm cannon on a fixed wing aircraft should permit attacks beyond the effective range of 50 cal machine guns, ( a common platoon weapon ).

    In my proposal above, the AGP-30 recoil operated 30mm cannon firing the 30X113 DEFA round ( same as the Apache ) was specified because that loading offers more projectiles, including a proximity fuzed HE round (effective against troop concentrations & trucks)., and a shaped charge AP round effective aginst up to 50mm of armour. This cannon has no spool up time and 750 Lbs of recoil vs 3000 Lbs for the M230 chain gun and 8000 Lbs for the GAU-8 This cannon's 1 second burst is 8-9 rounds.

    My proposed aircraft has two cannons, one in each wing root fairing, fed from magazines in the fuselage. My proposal has the magazines at CG, which means no change in trim or pitching moment during or after firing.

    My proposed aircraft mounts the rest of the armament load on under wind pylons at the CG, which also means no change in trim or pitching moment during or after firing.

    My proposal mounts 2 - 19 tube 70mm AIPKWs launchers with 3 Kg warheads each, totaling 38 rockets.

    It mounts 2 AIM-9X sidewinders for use against hostile fixed wing aircraft.

    It mounts brimstones on pylons, 3 missiles / pylon for use against everything up to and including tanks.

    It mounts the Pars-3L dual purpose missile on pylons, 3 missiles / pylon for use against hostile helos, or ground targets up to and including tanks.

    It mounts the Maverick missile, one each on 2 fuselage pylons, for use against hardened targets requiring the 300 Lb warhead.

    The missiles have ranges on the order of 6-12 km, which is within effective visual range, with sufficient standoff to permit attacks from beyond the effective range of most ManPads and company level AAA.

    Regardless, the plane is armoured against 50 cal at 200m, with the cockpit, fuel lines, electrical lines, and engine armoured. Fuel tanks are self-sealing. The armour system consists of 6mm Titanium 25mm extreme high Mol Wt Polypropylene/silicon carbide matrix and 10mm of Titanium.

    The airfoil chosen is a NASA natural laminar flow as modified for the business jet offered by Hitachi, with slats and 2 segment fowler flaps to generate a lift coefficient of 4 at an angle of attack of 23 degrees. The wing planform is that of the P-51, chosen for the same reason, it's straightforward to build.

    The gear legs are long to provide ample prop clearance when landing at 15 degrees nose up attitude, and to permit rotation at take off.

    The aircraft can take off at full gross at 60 knots and land empty at 40 knots. With a 5lb/ hp ratio, acceleration is quick, rate of climb is > 5000 ft / min. Large tires and moderate gross mean the aircraft can operate from grass or unimproved strips as short as 400 ft.

    The combination of weapons and STOL abiity means this aircraft can operate from strips at battalion level, generally within 25 miles of the front, or from firebases, ala Vietnam.

    This aircraft is not designed for, or meant to battle hostile jet fighters to gain air superiority. It is expected that a CAP of such aircraft will operate from Division or Corps level, and this aircraft will function under the protection they afford.

    This aircraft is designed for maneuverability and attacks against ground targets in the speed range of 100-300 knots at 500 ft AGL, with a max speed of 450 knots at 20,000 ft, and a VNE of 480 knots.

    This aircraft at gross has fuel for 6 hours and can be refueled in mid- air.

    This means this aircraft can loiter much longer than helos, striking targets as designated by controllers at the platoon level. Using laser target designation, this aircraft can fire against targets illuminated by itself or by FACs in the air, or on the ground.

    A few notes on the configuration:

    The "T" tail was chosen to provide full access to the engine compartment, which is a major problem with the SM-27. The canard is retained to
    give the aircraft a tight turning radius, and a high degree of maneuverability.

    The rudder is large to eliminate any tendency to flat spin, via provision of excellent lateral control.

    The wing has dihedral to make the plane stable, simplifying the control system, and reducing pilot work load.

    The pilot sits upright with a good view of his surroundings which improves his ability to find targets.

    There is ample space beneath the pilot for an electronics suite, so this aircraft can have a high degree of automation, reducing pilot workload, additionally
    this location is within the armour belt. Shown in the drawing is a nose mounted targeting radar and targeting laser, with associated electronics.

    I'm thinking a fly away price of $10 million

    Given directions, I will gladly upload a larger image, to facilitate study.

    INDY
    Last edited by goprisko; 07-04-2012 at 02:45 PM.

  10. #370
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Goprisko:

    I have a few questions.

    Will the pusher propeller really work out? I can't think of a single aircraft design with a single pusher propeller that was truly successful except some sport designs. I read that an insurmountable disadvantage is that the prop has to operate in constantly disturbed air. Are the advantages of that configuration really worth it?

    Will a laminar flow airfoil be work if the aircraft is going to be operating at low levels? In North America in the summer the leading edge will be fouled, horribly fouled, by smashed bugs, sometimes in just a few minutes.

    Why just one seat, why not two? Perhaps an aircraft like this would be used for simply scouting out areas as much as anything else. Two pairs of eyes are a lot better for that.

    All that being said, it would great from just an intellectual point of view to see something like this built. I get tired of reading about the latest delay in the F-35.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  11. #371
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Aspects of the proposed COIN aircraft.

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Goprisko:

    I have a few questions.

    Will the pusher propeller really work out? I can't think of a single aircraft design with a single pusher propeller that was truly successful except some sport designs. I read that an insurmountable disadvantage is that the prop has to operate in constantly disturbed air. Are the advantages of that configuration really worth it?

    Will a laminar flow airfoil be work if the aircraft is going to be operating at low levels? In North America in the summer the leading edge will be fouled, horribly fouled, by smashed bugs, sometimes in just a few minutes.

    Why just one seat, why not two? Perhaps an aircraft like this would be used for simply scouting out areas as much as anything else. Two pairs of eyes are a lot better for that.

    All that being said, it would great from just an intellectual point of view to see something like this built. I get tired of reading about the latest delay in the F-35.

    To improve airflow into the propellor please note that only the rudder lies ahead of it, the stabilizer is above it, and the wing is well ahead of it. Ever hear
    of the B-36? Had 6 pusher propellors. Was the largest aircraft fully operational, the largest was the Spruce Goose.

    The prop proposed is a contra-rotating one 10 ft in diameter with a 6 blade prop ahead of a 5 blade one, to minimize vibration.

    Pusher propellors are actually more efficient than tractor propellors, and this one is operating behind a fuselage that is extremely fair and has minimal cross section.

    The NASA natural laminar flow airfoil proposed was thoroughly investigated by Hitachi at speeds from 80-600 knots and at reynolds numbers from 3 million up. so yes it will operate effectively at low altitudes and at speeds between 40-500 knots.

    Please also note that unlike the Stavatti Proposal, MTOW is held to no more than 5 X HP or 12,900 lbs. This provides the sort of performance inherent in the Thunder Mustang, with an engine that does not suffer from performance losses with altitude, the PW127G

    One seat vs two, to keep MTOW low, with the pilot using a heads up display, in a fully automated airplane. Remember, that this cockpit is armoured against 50 cal so this pilot adds nearly 1500 lbs to MTOW when armour, ejection seat, oxygen system, and pilot are included.

    Composite construction provides an extremely smooth, low drag skin, contributing greatly to performance.

    The intended use of this aircraft is attack and destruction of ground targets found by the pilot, identified by a CAS observer elsewhere, or identified by ground forces. To do this job, this aircraft must have direct radio communication with friendly forces below, direct communication with whoever is supplying CAS, whether a L-19 bird dog, an officer attached to ground forces, or another aircraft, and direct communication with G-2(intelligence) at battalion or regimental level, (whomever this plane is attached to.

    To minimize friendly fire incidents, this aircraft uses a combination of high definition RADAR and laser target designation, virtually identical to that used by attack helos.

    However, the maintenance effort necessary to keep this aircraft operating is a fraction of that needed to maintain a helo,

    Please also note that low level operations, in helos are no longer performed due to the prohibitive amount of maintenance necessary to repair ground fire, and airframe damage, from evasive maneuvering.

    To fulfill it's role, this aircraft is not part of the airforce. If a Marine Aircraft, it is attached to an expeditionary force commander, if an Army Aircraft, it is attached to Brigade or a Batallion Commander, and those commanders organize logistics for it, prepare bases for it, and provide ground personnel to service and arm it.

    The airforce provides air supremacy via aircraft such as the F-16/F15 at altitudes above 10,000 ft..

    The airforce conducts strategic bombing campaigns against infrastructure, behind enemy lines, it no longer conducts bombing runs at the tactical level.

    This change will incorporate the lessons learned from the WWII performance of the RAF in France following the Normandy Invasion.

    Like the USAF, the RAF focused development on air superiority aircraft, and refused to support the design and implementation of a purpose built ground attack aircraft.

    In counterpoint, the US Army Aircorps produced several competing ground attack designs, the most successful of which was the P-47 Thunderbolt, and it was the US Army which broke out first from the Normandy Beach head, despite inferior tanks, and less field experience fighting the Germans.

    INDY
    Last edited by goprisko; 07-06-2012 at 01:33 AM.

  12. #372
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Pusher Propellors

    There have been several successful aircraft using pusher propellors powered
    by engines of the size advocated in the COIN proposal above.

    The Beechcraft Starship is one.
    The most relevant is the SAAB 21, which
    had a 1450 hp engine and was a fighter and was considered successful.

    AND

    The Douglas XB-42 MixMaster, which has virtually the exact same layout
    as my proposal, equivalent horse power (2650 vs 2920), but was 3 X heavier.

    The XB-42, due to clean design, was faster than the DeHavilland Mosquito. It did have handling problems, which were correctible, but lack of interest due to the end of the war called a halt to the program. With today's experience in Canard pusher design, and jet aircraft design, the handling issues should be readily solvable, given the only difference between jet design and prop pusher design, is the source of the thrust, and in both cases, the engine is aft, so the CG issues are similar.

    INDY

  13. #373
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Douglas XP-42 vs Proposal

    Please compare the Douglas XP-42 to the proposal. Note several important
    differences, as follows:

    1. The proposal's propellor circle lies above the bottom of the fuselage, while that of the XP-42 extends 20% below the bottom of the fuselage.

    2. The propellor of the proposal is much closer to the trailing edge of the
    wing than that in the XP-42/

    3. The distance between the aft landing gear and the propellor is much shorter in the proposal than in the XP-42.

    4. The departure angle from the main gear to the prop is much greater in the proposal than in either the Stavatti SM-27 or the XP*42, 20 degrees in
    fact, to permit landings at high angles of attack

    5. The ventral rudder is fixed, for yaw stability only, and is there to protect the prop in the event of high angle of incidence landings.

    INDY
    Attached Images Attached Images

  14. #374
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Police and Coast Guard helicopters; fire retardant aircraft, etc. all these are good examples of "COIN" aircraft, as the best COIN is prophylactic and the day to day equitable provision of necessary services by a government perceived as drawing its legitimacy from the populace that it serves.

    We need to stop seeing our FID efforts to support the high end COIN efforts of the failing governments we create or sustain through our own military efforts as "COIN" if we are ever to get back to healthy understanding of that particular type of operation.

    What we are discussing here are more accurately "Irregular warfare" aircraft, and this is indeed a major effort that our air services should take every bit as seriously as they do their drone, strategic and air superiority programs.

    We need a robust fleet of relatively small, durable platforms that can haul 12-15 men and their equipment from one unimproved airfield to the next without a visual signature that stands out much from the other private and commercial activity in the area. We need platforms that can linger on station providing all manner of ISR and fires (tailored to the likely target set) that have a pilot working to support the leader on the ground below him, rather than a drone working to support some far senior commander watching the whole drama on a video feed in his CP miles away.

    There simply isn't much appetite among those who work in the air to commit to such aircraft as desired by those who work on the ground. Instead we get CV-22s and F-35s; or in SOF we continue to invest in MC130s, though these aircraft and crews are typically far too busy practicing for a mission they'll likely never conduct to actually be out supporting the very forces they exist to support. A proverbial "self-licking ice cream cone" in many regards. And really not the platform we need for a major infiltration or day to day low vis, low intensity operations either one.

    As we continue to pursue the promise of "JOINT" operations, healing the breach between the air and the ground is one area still in need of major work. Getting to the platforms we all really need, rather than the platforms that an elite few really want.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  15. #375
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yes.

    What he said...

  16. #376
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    We need a robust fleet of relatively small, durable platforms that can haul 12-15 men and their equipment from one unimproved airfield to the next without a visual signature that stands out much from the other private and commercial activity in the area. We need platforms that can linger on station providing all manner of ISR and fires (tailored to the likely target set) that have a pilot working to support the leader on the ground below him, rather than a drone working to support some far senior commander watching the whole drama on a video feed in his CP miles away.
    An AN-28 or a Twin Otter should do the trick. Twin Otters are going back into production and I think the AN-28 is still produced in Poland as the M-28 Skytruck. Both would do about what you want and you could hang sensors and weapons on the outside and have enough room on the inside for operators and equipment.

    You are right though that the Skygods in the various services, even the Army, wouldn't go for it. Not sexy enough. I can't understand that attitude. The type of missions you seem to want these aircraft to fly would be a blast for the pilot, stick and rudder, using your eyeballs, skill, wits and being closely involved with the action on the ground. The kind of thing the Raven FACS and Air America guys did. But I suppose guys who like that don't make rank in any of the services. Besides, that kind of flying stresses the skill of the man, not the sophistication of the machines. We don't seem to go for that anymore.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  17. #377
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Goprisko:

    I can understand why only 1 pilot. 1,500 pounds is a lot of weight.

    You know far more about aerodynamics and configurations than I. I only know very general stuff. I still question whether the pusher configuration is really worth it though for a single engine airplane.. If it was there would have been more aircraft with it in the history of aviation. The Saab 21 did fly and see service for a while but I don't think it was all that successful. The Swedes bought P-51s as soon as they could. The XB-42 was a remarkable airplane but only a one or two of.

    Laminar flow airfoils are great but will it work in a low level buggy environment?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  18. #378
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default The SM-28 COIN proposal...`

    Further enquiry into the aerodynamics of fighter aircraft brings up significant changes needed.

    1. the Ogive nose shown, can and should be shortened, as it is a supersonic nose, and this aircraft will not exceed 0.7 Mach.

    2. Work at Northrop on the F-20 program showed that the nose should be
    elliptical with the major(long), axis being horizontal. to improve directional stability and reduce the size of vertical stabilizer needed.

    3. The SAAB Viggen showed that the canard eliminated down forces from the horizontal stabilizer, improving lift at all speeds by 10%, so the proposal should have the rear stab deleted to minimize drag.

    4. Work on various projects has shown that roll control can be effected by using the rudder and canard in concert, provided the Canard is "flying" that is fully rotatable, and provided the two sides can be rotated together in the same direction, or in opposite directions, as directed by the flight comnputer. This means the ailerons can be dispensed with, infavor of spoilers, and the entire leading edge of the wing given over to a slot, and the entire trailing edge given over to fowler two component flaps. This would greatly improve short field performance.

    5. The gun placement shown, is a vast improvement over that on the A-10, given a much simpler mechanism, a rate of fire nearly equal that of the M230 chain gun, due to no spin up time, and mounting of two cannon means 1 second bursts of 16 rounds, vs the A-10's 30. Gun placement so the magazine is on the centerline, above the wing, means improved protection from ground fire, no CG changes consequential to gun use, and simplified reloading.

    6. The dorsal inlet for the PW 126 G eliminates FOD and was proved on the UK test aircraft nearly 50 years ago.

    7. A nearly 6' long landing gear leg on all gear provides improved ground clearance to enable rough field operations, and the wider stance of the revised main gear placement, provides great cross wind handling during landings. This coupled with a low landing speed of 40 knots empty, means cross runway landings, similar to those routinely performed by twin otters, will be the norm, and thus cross wind landings are un-necessary.

    8. Carriage of rockets,missiles, and bombs externally, means simplified armouring, simplified launching of ordinance.

    9. Location of external stores hardpoints so as to eliminate CG changes during release of weapons, simplifies design of the rudder and canard, eliminates yaw due to firing, and reduces pilot workload.

    10. I am seriously looking into changing the rudder into two rudders canted 40 degrees, to reduce RADAR signature, improve roll control using the rudder, and reduce drag, via elimination of the aft norizontal stabilizer.

    INDY

    INDY

  19. #379
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    23

    Default

    I work as a contractor in International Affairs, and one of the things we keep our eyes on is the Light Attack Armed Recon platform for Afghanistan. Lots of good suggestions in here regarding a good COIN platform, how it should be multi-role, simple to fly and maintain, be pretty much off the shelf so it can be rapidly fielded, etc.

    With all that being said, at least from an AF perspective, it would seem that the Embraer Super Tocano would be the ideal solution. It's already being flown in armed variations for COIN and counter-drug missions, can be outfitted for multi-role missions, is much simpler to fly and maintain than a comparable UAS, and can probably be used to bring partner nation air forces online faster in a COIN or CT capacity.

    Just like the USAF, I doubt there's a "one size fits all" when it comes to a platform that can do both COIN and light mobility. A twin-engine Otter, C-27, etc. could probably be outfitted in a gunship version for COIN operations, and still have light mobility capabilities, so that might be something worth pursuing. But then the pilots would have to be multi engine-rated, and with the countries that are most in need of COIN air assets like these, the simplest solutions would probably be best.
    "We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it." from the move, Crimson Tide

  20. #380
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default Armouring the Proposal

    Turns out that armouring attack aircraft is most advanced in helos.

    Helos must operate at altitudes subject to ground fire, and operate at speeds varying from stationary to 170 knots.

    Helos get lots of AAA, MANPADS, and even RPG-7 attacks.

    Helos also have severe gross weight limitations, so lots of effort has gone into light weight armour systems to defeat 50 cal and 30 cal machine gun AP rounds, which are the most common threat. A much smaller effort has gone into defeating 20 mm cannon rounds, mostly because these require heavier armour which generally is beyond the capabilities of a helo.

    The proposal allocates 120 lbs for the armoured seat, and BAE systems, as it turns out, has a seat of this mass that can defeat 30 cal which is in use on the CH-47 Chinook Helo.

    Given the 2000 lbs allocated for armour, this leaves 1880 lbs for everything else.

    Armouring the canopy is necessary, and Diesenroth Engineering offers AMAP-T which is a transparent ceramic armour with the following properties:
    "AMAP-T offers excellent transparency and, due to the extreme strength of the material, ensures excellent protection Ė in meeting the STANAG requirements of Level 1 to 4. The system is also unaffected by temperature changes, produces only minor surface reflections, allows the use of night-vision goggles and can be equipped with a system to shield it from detection by radar. ?

    One of the advantages of ceramic armour vs metallic armour, is reduced RADAR signature, which greatly reduces threats from AAMs fired by hostile aircraft or SAMs fired from the ground. Turboprops, of course, emit much less heat, and the exhaust is run through the propellor, which promptly mixes it with ambient air, further reducing the signature.

    The proposal includes provision of the AN/ALR-67(V)3 radar receiver, as part of an advanced digital countermeasures radar warning system including the ALE 50 decoy system integrated into the AN/ALQ-184(V9) self-protection jamming pod designed to defeat radar guided surface-to-air and air-to-air threats, weighing 638 lbs.

    An ECM / anti missile system like the ALE-47 counter measures dispenser and the AN/AAR-47 missile approach warning system is also provided. The AN/AAR-47 threat receiver, weighing 50 lbs, provides passive warning against infrared and laser guided missiles fired at its host platform. In addition to providing warning to the aircrew, it cues the ALE-47 onboard expendables dispenser weighing 32 lbs, to eject expendable infrared countermeasures in order to defeat incoming missiles. The system includes four sensor units providing 360-degree protection.

    Total mass of these systems is 710 lbs.

    Provision of the above takes the proposal far beyond the capabilities of the AT-6B and the A-26B Super Tucano. The proposal grosses only 3,000 Lbs more than the Super Tucano, has nearly twice the horse power, has a HP:MTOW ratio of 1:5 vs the Tucano's 1:7.5, has a rate of climb > 5000 Fpm, and carries 7400 Lbs of ordinance vs the A-26b's 3000 Lbs and the A6's 1500 lbs.

    All this in a package with a stall speed at MTOW of 75 mph, taking off in < 250m and clearing a 16m obstacle within 300m, while operating from unimproved strips.

    INDY

Similar Threads

  1. Counter-insurgency aircraft plans gain momentum in Defense Dept.
    By 120mm in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 08-30-2012, 09:02 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:00 PM
  3. COIN & The Media (catch all)
    By Jedburgh in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 02-28-2009, 11:55 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •