Counter-insurgency aircraft plans gain momentum in Defense Dept.

[carl]

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?

[goprisko]

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

[socal1200r]

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.

[goprisko]

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 – 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

[socal1200r]

Goprisko - simple question: is your proposed platform currently available for immediate COIN operations? You list a bunch of techno-babble and aeronautical big bang buzz words, but it's all moot if such an aircraft is only on paper.

I think what would be the best of both worlds, for most of the COIN/CT environments these platforms are anticipated to be used in, is some sort of twin-engine light mobility aircraft, armed as a gunship, with some upgraded sensors and targeting systems, that still has cargo-carrying or troop-carrying capabilities, like a twin-engine Otter, C-27, etc.

It can be designed with limited self-defense capabilities like armor and chaff/flares, but let's be realistic. In these types of COIN/CT environments, I don't think these platforms really need to have robust air-to-air capabilities. They're main mission will be offensive air-to-ground, insertion/extraction, and resupply. Another key component is the country that gets these platforms has to be capable of acquiring, flying, and maintaining them over the long-term, so they can't be overly sophisticated.

Could some be lost to the occasional and highly lucky RPG or small arms fire, perhaps. Would I factor in MANPADs or maybe even SAMs into the equation? Maybe, but again, keeping in mind the anticipated COIN/CT environments these platforms would be operating in, I'd have to put those at the low risk end of the spectrum.

[carl]

Originally Posted by socal1200r

I think what would be the best of both worlds, for most of the COIN/CT environments these platforms are anticipated to be used in, is some sort of twin-engine light mobility aircraft, armed as a gunship, with some upgraded sensors and targeting systems, that still has cargo-carrying or troop-carrying capabilities, like a twin-engine Otter, C-27, etc.

When you say "armed as a gunship" do you mean with side firing guns like and AC-130 or armed with something like GPS guided 120mm mortar shells and small missiles like Hellfire or a combination of all of the above?

Allow me to put in a plug for the AN-28/M-28. It loads from an openable (sic) back and has the best forward visibility of any airplane I ever sat in. And since the Russians built it, it is built stout.

[socal1200r]

I'm thinking more forward-firing armaments, like gun pods, missile launchers, etc., which will be easier to train the pilots to use effectively, in more of a CAS and strafing role. There's another thread on here about the Rhodesian Light Infantry, and they had a pic of one of their helos outfitted with four .303 Browning machine guns, which replaced a 20mm gun. They said the Brownings were much more effective, since the 20mm rounds had a tendency to explode at tree-top level. So I'm thinking maybe .50 cal gun pods on hardpoints under the wings, or possibly on the fuselage, would be pretty decent for a COIN/CT platform like this. Maybe add a side-firing weapon on each side for self-defense purposes, like another .50 cal or 7.62 chain gun, and that should do it. So something like this should be able to come in to a hot LZ, provide suppressive fire while orbiting, offload some troops and cargo with engines running, then do a combat takeoff and make it home.

[carl]

Small twins like the Twin Otter and AN-28/M-28 are small compared to a C-130 or Dakota and agile compared to those airplanes. But they are huge and clumsy compared to one of those Rhodesian helos. And they are dead slow compared to one of the old strafers like the B-26. Making a strafing run, which means getting fairly close I think, at 100 knots in a Twotter might not be such a good idea.

That is why I asked about fixed side firing armament like all the AC airplanes. You could stay further away from the ground while still providing good fire support with the guns and whatever else you wanted to hang on the thing.

That might require more skilled pilots but I would rather keep the systems simple and put the money into pilot training. To do a good job with whatever you have you must have skilled pilots, so I would rather have that known and concentrated on from the start.

Do you mean the same individual airplane would do the fire support and the cargo and people carrying? If you do, I don't think that is such a good idea. Guns, ammo, bombs and rockets weigh a lot and would not leave much weight and room available for cargo and people. I think it would be a much better idea to have some of the M-28s set up as armed airplanes and others set up as cargo and people carriers, like the Huey gunships and Huey slicks from Vietnam. The pilots wouldn't have to divide their attention and training between different missions either.

[socal1200r]

Carl - understood, but a good take away is the same platform, configured a little differently, could do just about everything. Something like the Otter, C-27, or one of the Russian planes you mentioned, is already available. I'd think they could be configured as the minimally armed troop transport/resupply aircraft, along with the separate gunship version, and have the same general procurement, operation, and maintenance costs/requirements.

What I'm getting at is, there's something available RIGHT NOW, that with minimal work, can be configured to do the COIN/CT mission for 99 percent of the projected operational environments they're expected to work in, without bankrupting those partner nations in the process. As they say, don't let perfect stand in the way of good enough...

[carl]

We are agreed then. It makes perfect sense. Bob Jones' idea was a very good one. But I think we both know it will never happen. There is no cool tech. No trons to dazzle nerds with. No complex project that would need project officers whose careers could be made by seeing something complicated halfway through. And it would depend mainly on the men in cockpits and turning the wrenches. All it would have going for it is effectiveness, simplicity, sensibleness, flexibility and lack of big expense. Sigh. It would be a cool project though.

[socal1200r]

Originally Posted by carl

"...All it would have going for it is effectiveness, simplicity, sensibleness, flexibility and lack of big expense..."

Yup...unfortunately, that's WAY too much common sense, and not sexy or Gucci enough for the residents in the Puzzle Palace...

[goprisko]

Experience during the Normandy, Ardennes Campaigns, and likely in Vietnam, showed strafing to be the most hazardous ground attack activity.

Advances in missile and gun targeting via LASER designation, now permit targeting of ground targets at ranges up to 5 km, depending upon atmospheric conditions. Should all weather be necessary, LIDAR or similar RADAR technologies need be used, with the disadvantage of emissions which call attention to the aircraft.

The pusher design was chosen to open the nose of the aircraft for targeting electronics, both LASER and RADAR, and for mid-air refueling to increase
loiter time.

A single engine, armoured was chosen to minimize drag, and to simplify handling. Earlier twin engine COIN designs suffered massively when one engine went out, to the point of an uncontrolled barrel roll leading to a flat spin. Further, the engine is aft and shielded by the wing from ground fire during low level attacks.

I admit that this specific design does not exist. This is a concept based upon sound aeronautical design, to show what is immediately feasible, given current technologies.

Note that the wing and tailplane is much simplified compared to the Stavatti Machete, the entire aircraft is much cleaner too.

Note that spoilers and the air brake are specified, this permits control of dive speed to permit longer target acquisition, and facilitates short field landings at empty weight(s).

INDY

[goprisko]

The Twin Otter, the DHC-3, as offered by Dehavilland, is a fine bush plane.

However, it will lose much of it's payload once armoured, and fitted with a gun and targeting system. Since, it is an aluminum airplane, and twin engine, it's empty weight is much heaver than my concept aircraft, and it's skin friction is far higher, too.

Also, it's stall speed is above 70 knots, and the concept specifies a landing speed, empty of 40 knots. This crucial difference equates into much longer landing and takeoff runs, necessating larger clearings, which may not be practical. It also has a much longer wing than the proposal, and the wing is not laminar, thus higher drag.

INDY

[goprisko]

I don't believe a COIN aircraft should be a multi-purpose vehicle. Specifically, my proposal is a ground attack aircraft, capable of defeating AAMs and SAMs using EW, including decoys and jammers. The proposed EW capability includes 360 degree scanning for incoming threats.

My proposal is a fully automated aircraft, to lessen pilot workload, and improve defensive response.

For troop insertion, my two favored methods are twin engine transports and helos. Both aircraft are available in STOL configurations, would operate under the umbrella of my proposal and current Air Supremacy assets, and
have payloads many times that of my proposal. For instance a twin turboprop transport will operate at gross weights of 10 X hp. Given two 3000 hp engines this transport would operate at MTOW of 60,000 lbs, could carry a company of men, or a platoon complete with vehicles, ammo, and provisions.

INDY

[goprisko]

Originally Posted by luckyroll

I'm guessing you like the Thunderbolt 2. The problem with the T-bolt 2 is that it has no turning radius= very poor manuverability compared to prop craft and can only hold a slow pattern for a few seconds before you have to dip back into the engines and give the stick a little tug. Atleast this is what my sisters boyfriend tells me. He flies Hornets in the Corps, but was a Hog (t-bolt 2) pilot before that.
He also said that at those low speeds it was insanely rough and that hard jolting would sometimes cause the 30mm to jam. He said the feel is similar to flying a commercial jet at very low speeds and altitudes. But, he said it almost impossible to tear it apart with heavy fire, or, anything else for that matter( thanks to carbon fibre covered ceramic spawl plates). He said he's seen many of them get hit with SAM's in the stubs and still land. He said he has even belly landed one and it was back up and flying a few days later... didn't hurt it at all. That says ALOT for any jet powered craft. In that aspect that plane lives up to it's namesake.
I like'em alot! Probably my favorite jet pack, but the not turning thing would make me sick. But, it is a flying tank and is designed to do exactly what it does, included in that is the fact that it has little manuverability. That is so you don't overshoot or, have to dip to keep your point of aim on a target when your coming in on top of it. This is what I'm told about that aircraft and it seems to make sense. He even said that turboprop "bug bashers" are better for serving alot of the roles that the A-10 serves and more. I called and asked him just to see what he said, but, this is only one opinion of one pilot. But, aside from the fact that you can't hardly take an A-10 down, I think a turboprop is just as good in it's own right.
But the idea of recip engine "horse fly" planes was a little silly now that I think about it in terms of the US armed forces. Where in the hell would they get AvGas and why would they want to deal with that?! Although to me it still makes sense for the private sec.

Cliff and others seem married to the above aircraft. I'm not. I think that modern computerized flight characterization programs can assist the design of a STOL, turbo-prop COIN aircraft with flight characteristics superior to the A-10. My submission is one such aircraft.

A modern ground attack aircraft would take advantage of improvements in lightweight armour. Would simplify the gun system as I proposed. Would keep the hp to MTOW ratio at 5 or less to improve climb, shorten takeoff run, improve dash, and keep cruise in the 300-400 knot range.

A modern ground attack aircraft would use slats and compound full span fowler flaps to reduce landing speed (empty) to 40 knots, and takeoff speed to 60 knots at MTOW. Roll control would be via the canard, spoilers, and the elevator. Both a canard and elevator would be present to maximize maneuverability, including a very tight turning radius at combat speeds, which are expected to be 100-200 knots.

A bubble canopy with the pilot seated erect and high, so he can maintain situational awareness, which is armoured, is specified.

The engine and prop are aft to open the nose for refueling probe, LASER target designator, and RADAR target designator.

The gun is relocated from the chin to the wing root where the magazine is better protected from ground fire, and close to the CG so using ordinance does not change trim. Two recoil operated guns are specified to simplify maintenance, improve reliability, and maintain acceptable firing rate. Further the gun is no longer expected to KO tanks, the brimstone and Pars missiles deal with MBTs, while the gun deals with APCs, trucks, troop concentrations, and helos. 75mm Guided Rockets are in the inventory to deal with Light Tanks, pill boxes, and other suitable targets.

The emphasis is on precision targeting using LASER and RADAR for all weather capability.

The key components of the airframe and cockpit are armoured to improve survivability.

MTOW is kept at 15,000 # max at 3000 Hp.

Landing Gear legs are long to provide ground clearance essential for fast re-arming between missions, and at a forward base.

30X113 ammo is specified for the gun because that ammo is used by other batallion level aircraft, (helos), and because recoil is much less.

In short, the A-10 has proved itself a very useful aircraft, as did the AD1 Skyraider, the P-47 thunderbolt, and the F6F Wildcat. But time moves on, advances in technologies have been made, and it is time to field a successor.

INDY