High-Low mix airpower for counter insurgency
- Thread starter peterAustralia
- Start date
I'd have considered them for the role, but for most COIN ops they would be overkill ... not to mention overpriced. The US Army buys AH-64Ds for about $16 million, while the Cobra is only slightly less.
Helicopters also have two major disadvantages in the COIN role - they have a limited warload (compared to fixed wing aircraft) and they have a much shorter range. Additionally, helicopters are much more expensive to operate.
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
Some nice points being posted here, good to see.
1.5 million for a pod, geez a bit expensive. I wonder how hard it would be to conjur up a GPS pod as such. I guess you need a GPS in the plane, say a few thousand for a good model. Then a laser range finder, finally a electronic compass and declination recorder.
The pod needs to be stabilised and be able to record the bearing and depression angle of the laser range finder. I guess you need a small monitor and camera so that you can tell where the laser is pointing. The americans have fitted all this into a pair of binocluars! Then add a small computer and to the maths to get position of target, not hard, just a little trigonometry. Having said all that how expensive would it be to develop?
A turboprop transport could be a nice high end, flying straight and level above MANPAD range.
One thing that has struck me is that many 3rd world air forces make poor use of the planes. They buy second hand jet fighters and use them against infantry. Example Mig 23s, you have to wonder how useful they are, they cost a lot run, burn a lot of fuel. Also how accurate are the bombs they drop, especially if dropped at mach 0.8 or whatever.
Sri Lanka is using Kfirs against the Tamil Tigers, how many bombs are on target? A complicated plane like the Kfir would need a lot of man hours per sortie in maintenance. Would it be more cost effective to use GPS bombs dropped by light turboprops and the position of the target obtained from a light cheap aircraft that needs only make one pass.
An alternative to a 1.5 million pod woudl be a pair on binoculars with a laser range finder built in (these can be bought commerically!!). To this set up add a device that records compass bearing and depression angle. I know some commerical binoculars already give you a magnetic bearing, is that in digital form? or a mechanical device? The targeter/observer sticks his head out door and presses a button when he sees the target? doable?
If the pod costs 1.5 million, then there would be no point in using a cheap plane as the low end, may as well buy a top notch counter insurgency aircraft, like a pucara or whatever.
regrards,
peterAustralia
1.5 million for a pod, geez a bit expensive. I wonder how hard it would be to conjur up a GPS pod as such. I guess you need a GPS in the plane, say a few thousand for a good model. Then a laser range finder, finally a electronic compass and declination recorder.
The pod needs to be stabilised and be able to record the bearing and depression angle of the laser range finder. I guess you need a small monitor and camera so that you can tell where the laser is pointing. The americans have fitted all this into a pair of binocluars! Then add a small computer and to the maths to get position of target, not hard, just a little trigonometry. Having said all that how expensive would it be to develop?
A turboprop transport could be a nice high end, flying straight and level above MANPAD range.
One thing that has struck me is that many 3rd world air forces make poor use of the planes. They buy second hand jet fighters and use them against infantry. Example Mig 23s, you have to wonder how useful they are, they cost a lot run, burn a lot of fuel. Also how accurate are the bombs they drop, especially if dropped at mach 0.8 or whatever.
Sri Lanka is using Kfirs against the Tamil Tigers, how many bombs are on target? A complicated plane like the Kfir would need a lot of man hours per sortie in maintenance. Would it be more cost effective to use GPS bombs dropped by light turboprops and the position of the target obtained from a light cheap aircraft that needs only make one pass.
An alternative to a 1.5 million pod woudl be a pair on binoculars with a laser range finder built in (these can be bought commerically!!). To this set up add a device that records compass bearing and depression angle. I know some commerical binoculars already give you a magnetic bearing, is that in digital form? or a mechanical device? The targeter/observer sticks his head out door and presses a button when he sees the target? doable?
If the pod costs 1.5 million, then there would be no point in using a cheap plane as the low end, may as well buy a top notch counter insurgency aircraft, like a pucara or whatever.
regrards,
peterAustralia
Load wise I agree, but I was thinking that installing a 200kg pod on a wing station would result in unnecessary asymmetric loads. Also on the centreline the masking affects of the fuselage are asymmetrical which makes it easier to evolve tactics when self-designating. Another benefit is that on the centreline station the pod is close to the C of G and is mounted on the stiffest part of the aircraft, this improves accuracy particularly important when handing-off targets to other platforms.
This aircraft is optimised for high altitude flight. From way up there it is difficult to identify targets that are of priority in COIN operations. The high aspect ratio wings and composite construction would make it difficult to incorporate hard points and arm this aircraft. It would be a recognisance/designator only platform. From what I recall only a handful were built. (BTW: I have a half share in a Grob 109b and teach gliding, so I’m not against composite aircraft, quite the opposite). I think that this aircraft has long since gone out of production.
With modern laser guided weapons it is not necessary for the seeker to have locked onto to the target prior to release. With dual mode weapons (laser seeker and GPS) it is even easier. It is common practice for the weapon to be release on about the right ballistic path and in flight a point away from the target is designated. Once the weapon has achieved lock and stabilised the operator of the designator waits and then a few seconds from impact puts to spot on the target, the weapon adjusts and strikes. This tactic is used to prevent the target from responding with countermeasures. In COIN operations, the last second switch is unlikely to be necessary.
So dropping LGBs out of the rear is practical and has been done. It is much easier from altitude as the seeker head field of view and field of regard allows much of the ground below to be observed and hence improve the chances of a post launch lock. With dual mode weapons it is easy. (As I mentioned the Viper-Strike is launched blind and still has a laser seeker mode).
Installing hard points on transport aircraft is not easy. These point loads have to be distributed to the major load bearing components in the wing (principally the main spar). With conventional construction (with ribs and stressed skin) it is quite challenging, with composite construction it is much more difficult.
We have developed modifications to install hard points on aircraft but the more modern the aircraft the more difficult the problem, because with the tools available today the aircraft are optimised to give the best performance for the specified task.
As a quick reality check have a think and come up with any modern aircraft where hard points have been retro fitted.
Chris
I Agree with you on that. I was thinking about a centerline mount myself.
I know the G520 is a recon platform. My rationale was to divide the hi and low components into hunter and killer roles. Spend the money on the hi platform (G520 or equivalent, with state of the art avionics) and use the low component (the transport) as a bomb truck.
BTW I know the g520 is out of production and is optimized for atmospheric research, but I just love it's loiter range and altitude capabilities.
Agree with you on that one.
To name a few
- HAL Ajeet (An additional pair of hardpoints added from the original pair present on the original Folland Gnat).
- L-1011 TriStar operated by Orbital Sciences (A centerline pylon has ben installed to allow the aircraft to carry a space launch vehicle),
- LiM-5 (I don't know if it counts as modern .... an additional pair of hardpoints was added at the wing roots from the original MiG-15/17 design).
- Boeing 707 converted to tankers
- Airbus A330 tanker
- P-2 Neptunes retrofitted with underwing turbojets.
- CASA C-212 Aviocar maritime patrol variant
- EMBRAER EMB-110 Bandierante maritime variant (I believe it is designated P-95 in Brazilian service).
- Gulfstream G-IV EW variant
I agree with you in that retrofitting weapon pylons on aircraft is not an easy task, but it can (and has) been done. Obviously, the ease (and expense) of making such modifications will be a factor while selecting the aircraft.
Its not impossible just difficult, especially with transport aircraft.
Lets have a look at any special features in the manner in which it was achieved in the examples provided.
HAL Ajeet – The wing was essentially redesigned internally and built with new outer wings with additional sub-spars.
L-1011 – Centerline pylons are usually easier than wing pylons.
LiM-5 – Again with fighters its easier, the closer to the centreline the better.
Boeing 707 converted to tankers – well strictly it was the other way around, the KC-135 (and its prototype predecessors came first).
Airbus A330 tanker – Interesting that the same wing was used for the A340 and the refuelling pods are mounted on the hard points for the additional two engines.
P-2 Neptunes – An older aircraft with greater margins than modern aircraft, but again I think that the basic structure was in place and was adapted to mount the additional engines. (The same storey for the B-36 Peacemaker)
CASA C-212 – Most aircraft I have seen with additional hard points have been equipped with small external fuel tanks 250 – 500l I would estimate.
Embraer EMB-110 Bandierante – With a straight wing the some of the military versions have hard point for relatively light loads. I think that the wing was heavily modified to take the tip tanks at the same time (essentially a new wing).
Gulfstream G-IV EW variant – I know a bit more about this one. Again the work was carried out from new and was a little easier because the rear fuselage engine mounting simplified the structure of the wing.
Boeing 747 – Some aircraft have been manufactured with a hard point outboard of the engines in order to carry a spare engine to an airfield where it is required by another aircraft. I think that this technique was also used on other B707 style aircraft. I don’t think this is done so often these days, with the improved reliability of aircraft engines and the availability of large capacity cargo aircraft.
As we can see from the above, there are three approaches to getting hard points on an aircraft.
1 The basic provision for provided in the original aircraft and has been adapted. (i.e. hard points for weapons used for engines).
2 The structure of the aircraft was easily to modify, straight wings, traditional rib, stringer and spar construction. There are two locations where strong points are already included in many aircraft. Jacking points and the strengthened rib where in wing inner panels join to the outer panel. In early designs this was a convenient place to divide the wing making for easier transport and also because the outer panel was often a slightly different aerofoil (preventing tip stall) and carrying less load could be made of lighter materials.
3 It has to be a specific aircraft and so a new wing must be developed.
With smaller transport aircraft adapted to carry external stores it is usually not the total payload that is the limiting factor in determining the maximum mass of weapons that can be carried, but rather the distribution of the point loads and the manner in which these loads are spread within the structure of the wing.
When aircraft are originally designed part of the specification describes the typical loads that the aircraft will experience in different phases of the flight. For transport aircraft this would mainly be, taxing, take-off, climb, cruise descend, land, ground-run and back to taxing. Obviously for military aircraft combat scenarios also have to be included. Each area of the aircraft is assigned an estimate of the vibration (acceleration), shock loads and that are likely to experienced in that area. Similar estimates are provided for temperature, acoustic noise and in the case of external areas aerodynamic loads. In additional all regions have specifications for resistance to corrosion to the environment to which they will be exposed. A combination of the time the aircraft is anticipated to spend in each aspect of the flight and the number of load cycles experienced (usually take of and landing, but can include hi-g manoeuvres for combat air and de-pressurisation for commercial aircraft) is used to determine the planned life of the aircraft.
Adapted aircraft impose additional loads on the aircraft that were not in the original design. With heavy external loads, the mechanical aspects of the specification are important. When designing a hard point we need to consider not only the mass of the weapon but the typical shock loads that can be experienced. An emergency landing just after take-off with a full load fuel and bombs on a rough strip is an extreme example of what the weapons stations must be able to withstand. Trapped carrier landings are another example, but are rarely attempted by anything other that an aircraft designed from the outset for this purpose.
Because adapted aircraft are operated in a different manner than originally intended, such aircraft often have a reduced fatigue life and/or have to undergo additional maintenance and modification.
So in summary, incorporating hard points in the wings of turboprop powered aircraft is possible but often difficult. It requires a great deal of detailed investigation to determine if the propositions are practical or even possible. For some aircraft it will be easy, with others almost impossible. In most cases in is difficult to tell which aircraft will be in which category without a detailed investigation.
With modern PGMs external carriage may not be necessary, particularly with the latest range of small smart weapons.
With a little lateral thinking a multi-tier approach could offer a cost effective approach to COIN operations.
In remote areas it is extremely difficult to eliminate the activities or insurgents completely, instead the main objects are to contain and suppress the level of activity to an acceptable level.
A well thought strategy with the right platforms, weapons and sensors, could result in an effective system that would deter the opposition, whilst rarely having to drop live weapons.
Chris
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yep and just think of the possibilities. We could equip half the A-10 fleet with F-119 engines, thus providing them with a supercruise capability.Why not B-1Bs as the 'hi', and A-10s as the 'lo'?
Oh geez, I crack myself up!
Magoo
We could then fit the APG-77 radar system, and Mil-Standard 1760 data busses and the appropriate software load, so that our A-10's could become AMRAAM equipped "missileers" suitable for taking on Badgers, TU-160's and any cruise missiles of Russian design...
The advantage of this is that with ALL those hardpoints, they could DOUBLE the warload of any similar F-111 based variant...
Then we could fit conformal fuel tanks to give our A-10's a 1000nmi "point" intercept range in the "anti-Badger/TU-160" role plus a 1000nmi strike capability or alternatively the greatest loitering capability in the history of flight, all important now thanks to the importance of time critical targetting.
Then we could slap RAM and radar absorbing paint over the whole thing, employ the "stealth pylons" allegedly being designed for the JSF and we'd have EASILY the best air combat capability in SE Asia.
Of course, Australian Industry would conduct ALL of this work and it'd hardly cost a cent. Development time would be virtually non-existent and we'd be right to about 2040.
A fleet of about 50 A-10S's and 50 B-1B's should do the trick...
Now I'm cracking myself up...
AD
nfloorl:nfloorl:nfloorl:nfloorl: nfloorl:nfloorl:nfloorl:nfloorl:nfloorl:nfloorl:
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, but using airpower to counter insurgents is not really the best way. It would take a lot of manpower and money to keep this working. If you are referring to Iraq...then its been done now and it was done in Vietnam. You can't bomb a determined enemy and break them with airpower alone.
Nor, can you use heavy armour and Arty to do this either. It cause more harm then good.
A good starting point is:
1. You need to know how these bad guys operate.
2. Where are they getting they weaponry and supplies.
3. How are they moving these in your AO.
4. Who is supporting them.
5. What are their targets and why?
Reasons against airpower:
1. Your aircraft can be heard and chances are they know you are coming.
2. Your aircraft make great targets for them and to have one of your aircraft shot down can make morale drop and their morale lift. Also bad for PR.
3. They kill one civilian and they are called animals...you kill one and you are called even worse. Bomb dropped from a plane is going to blow up something, if you make a mistake you are condeemed. How many IED's in Iraq were set off by mistake and ACF's suffered bad loses. They don't care who they kill.
COIN warfare is one of the most morale zapping, human costing and ever lasting in the memory forms of warfare there is. The only way to stop it is by one side either giving up or pulling out. They probably won't just stop...option pull out.
Vietnam 1950's Result = The French pulled out.
Vietnam 65-75 Result = The US, Australia plus others pulled out
Afganistan 1980's Result = The Soviets pulled out.
Afganistan 2001- ???? Result = ??? maybe a win but these guys have a nice way of making a come back in the last halve.
Iraq2003- ???? = Sorry to say, but IMHO a coalition pullout then civl war and then stablisation to the victor.
For a win in Afganistan, I think might happen if the reconstrucion efforts and lose of Afgan life by the coalition forces is kept down to a minimum. They will be chasing the ACF's into the hills for many years and it will cost a lot of time and effort to make them the bad guys really be the bad guys.
Iraq is a right off I'm sorry to say...hand off to them and try to contain out influences during a civil war, which is bound to happen. The only thing stopping it at the moment is coalition troops are getting in the way.
Rant over!
Nor, can you use heavy armour and Arty to do this either. It cause more harm then good.
A good starting point is:
1. You need to know how these bad guys operate.
2. Where are they getting they weaponry and supplies.
3. How are they moving these in your AO.
4. Who is supporting them.
5. What are their targets and why?
Reasons against airpower:
1. Your aircraft can be heard and chances are they know you are coming.
2. Your aircraft make great targets for them and to have one of your aircraft shot down can make morale drop and their morale lift. Also bad for PR.
3. They kill one civilian and they are called animals...you kill one and you are called even worse. Bomb dropped from a plane is going to blow up something, if you make a mistake you are condeemed. How many IED's in Iraq were set off by mistake and ACF's suffered bad loses. They don't care who they kill.
COIN warfare is one of the most morale zapping, human costing and ever lasting in the memory forms of warfare there is. The only way to stop it is by one side either giving up or pulling out. They probably won't just stop...option pull out.
Vietnam 1950's Result = The French pulled out.
Vietnam 65-75 Result = The US, Australia plus others pulled out
Afganistan 1980's Result = The Soviets pulled out.
Afganistan 2001- ???? Result = ??? maybe a win but these guys have a nice way of making a come back in the last halve.
Iraq2003- ???? = Sorry to say, but IMHO a coalition pullout then civl war and then stablisation to the victor.
For a win in Afganistan, I think might happen if the reconstrucion efforts and lose of Afgan life by the coalition forces is kept down to a minimum. They will be chasing the ACF's into the hills for many years and it will cost a lot of time and effort to make them the bad guys really be the bad guys.
Iraq is a right off I'm sorry to say...hand off to them and try to contain out influences during a civil war, which is bound to happen. The only thing stopping it at the moment is coalition troops are getting in the way.
Rant over!
Last edited:
I agree with you on that Mick. Any country that expects that air power alone with a minimal number of ground troops can effectively fight insurgents/terrorists is living in a dream.
Air power in such a situation is merely a tool to support the men on the ground. However, the temptation is to use the air assets to the maximum. While this might be effective in the short term, in the longer run your targets will either dig themselves deeper or merge into the civilian population. Unrestricted air power is also demoralizing on the civilian population.
Air power is really effective when the ground forces have limited mobility ... for example in North East India which is densely forested and mountainous. Such terrain features are tailor made for combined tactics, where small groups of ground troops call down precision air strikes against targets, and helicopters move in larger numbers of troops for mopping up operations.
Additionally, aircraft give you a much better reconnaissance capability than if you depend on foot patrols. This is the kind of situation that a UAV is tailor made - loitering at a medium altitude for hours on end.
Finally, coming to the point of aircraft vulnerability... IMO a man in an aircraft or helicopter flying over hostile territory is many times safer than someone on foot or even in an APC. In most situations, the only thing that terrorists can fire at aircraft are small arms. Very few terrorist organizations have access to modern shoulder-fired SAMs that pose the largest threat to aircraft.
Good remarks the last ones.
Airpower is only good when oeprating with the guys on the ground. And they need to focus as much on stability and heart-and-minds operations as on security and counter-guerrilla ops.
As for platforms, the minds have wandered I saw. Essentially there are so many potential airframes almost all is possible. A small country could use everything from reverted utility light aircraft to airliners and from prop trainers to high-end jet trainers or fighter jets. It is not the platform that matters, but the concept and technique and men behind it!
Airpower is only good when oeprating with the guys on the ground. And they need to focus as much on stability and heart-and-minds operations as on security and counter-guerrilla ops.
As for platforms, the minds have wandered I saw. Essentially there are so many potential airframes almost all is possible. A small country could use everything from reverted utility light aircraft to airliners and from prop trainers to high-end jet trainers or fighter jets. It is not the platform that matters, but the concept and technique and men behind it!
The Philippines is scheduled to retire the OV-10 Broncos with a newer type, and there are still talks whether a jet-powered one will replace the OV-10, like the T-50 or Hawk 200 series, or a turboprop one like the Super Tucano. The Broncos, together with the MD-520MG helicopters, are doing well in the Philippines. This year, 6 AH-1s are expected to enter service to provide a heavier punch.
By the way, the F-5s were previously used by the Philippine Air Force in its counter-insurgency fight in the 70s and 80s, even in the 2000 campaign against the MILF.
By the way, the F-5s were previously used by the Philippine Air Force in its counter-insurgency fight in the 70s and 80s, even in the 2000 campaign against the MILF.
IMHO ideal solution for relatively cheep COIN aircraft would be Super Tucano/ALX version modified to carry SDB...
Even small air forces shouldn't have to much problems with maintenance, usage costs are small compared to jet aircrafts and with SDB they could operate out of MANPAD range.
Even small air forces shouldn't have to much problems with maintenance, usage costs are small compared to jet aircrafts and with SDB they could operate out of MANPAD range.
I remeber in the 60 or 70 couple of Swedish pilots upgraded their cessna class planes and fought in one of the country in Africa with great success. hehe Bronco was a pretty good thing, too bad they aren't flying anymore. Russians have couple of projects for light attack planes with turbo prop but there seems to be no interests in these :-( They look AWESOME!!!!
hehe Bronco was a pretty good thing, too bad they aren't flying anymore. Russians have couple of projects for light attack planes with turbo prop but there seems to be no interests in these :-( They look AWESOME!!!!goldenpanda
New Member
Is there any aircraft that can still dive bomb?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I could be mistaken, but I believe all that is required to dive bomb is an aircraft carrying dumb/iron bombs on external rails (as opposed to in a bay)
For the most part, dive bombing is a technique, rather than a platform capability. Granted, something like a B-52 or Tu-22 wouldn't being doing it...
-Cheers
goldenpanda
New Member
I believe there are some special design factors. The P47 for example was not as effective a dive bomber as the Stuka. The goal is to achieve a steep angle, stable dive control, quick pull out, with good visibility on the target through out the process.
Dive bombing will allow very cheap bombs to be used, with no special targeting equipment. A modern computer--laptop, camera, GPS+gyro, plus software--can help the pilot manage his targeting process. Compared to level bombing it is more accurate and can surprise air defenses.
The computer can help compensating for poor visibility from the cockpit. You designate the target by pointing the plane at it (will need laser range finder too. the camera can have 10x zoom). Then the software guides you through the ideal flight profile. Don't need fancy corrections for wind and atmosphere since the pilot will bring his bomb quite close in a nearly vertical path.
Last edited:
I guess all planes with an external hard point can, its just matter of if its still needed.
With fairly modern computer support ground attack planes are able to bring even dumb ammo good into the target area.
Dive attack results in making the plane more vulnerable to ground fire. The Stukas learned this the hard way once the allies and russians integrated fast "metal in the air" response to dive attacks.
High speed low level penetration of the battlefield like done by Tornados, F-111, etc. and than a computer supported bomb run is much safer for a plane.
Normal human reaction time is much too slow for action against such a mudmover but if he would try a dive attack every grunt on the battlefield has the time to bring his metal in the air.
Dive attack results in making the plane more vulnerable to ground fire. The Stukas learned this the hard way once the allies and russians integrated fast "metal in the air" response to dive attacks.
High speed low level penetration of the battlefield like done by Tornados, F-111, etc. and than a computer supported bomb run is much safer for a plane.
Normal human reaction time is much too slow for action against such a mudmover but if he would try a dive attack every grunt on the battlefield has the time to bring his metal in the air.
goldenpanda
New Member
my understanding is it's quite hard to hit a plane during the dive and the pull out because of the high angular speeds. I guess we're really comparing dive bombing versus a bomb truck guided by a light aircraft--which must loiter the area anyway. If you can afford the bomb truck and the guided munitions, and you can keep the light aircraft above ground fire, it is of course safer. I was really thinking of a cheapest possible precision strike alternative, against an unsophisticated defender.