When the example in Sri Lanka shows a more typical “overkill”.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you on this but could you elaborate? The SLAF sure lost a lot of Mil-24/35s to MANPADS and other LTT air defences before they had the fleet upgraded.

About South America we have to keep in mind, that the criminals are not intrested to challenge the military. It is more cost effective to be informed about the movement of the military and keep the related damage limited. I have no idea, what the “cost” of the live of a man and its AK-47 is or what the cost of the aircraft-ammunation is to do so is. To avoid misunderstandings, that is not my way of cynical calculation, when I describe the situation there.
Here a typical example about the numbers ordered and the roles claimed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

South American countries have been buying two seat trainers or army co-operation aircraft and using them as both trainers and light attack aircraft since the years following the Great War of 1914-18. Take a look at any S-American civil war or insurgency since that time and you will see this pattern repeated in one form or another over much of S-America up to the present day. What I see on that page is as expected, they are buying an aircraft designed with training in mind as much as light attack and COIN operations. It can operate from remote bases and unpaved runways with minimal ground support, it is considerably less costly to acquire than big jets, it isn’t a substitute for big jets but it can be data-linked and it can carry an internal FLIR/Designator turret for limited PGM delivery and night operations.

When in some South American countries that does still make some sense in internal warfare it is no longer so in Afghanistan or Iraq. All is related to the threat enviroment. In Chechenia a survival rate of a COIN-asset can be very limited as it was for the Russians in Afghanistan. Who is hunting whom is the first question to answer and where will such air-assets operate. Over own forces and related ground support or independently outside. For the first case the new Iraqi AF is adding some weaponary to its aircraft and helicopter for a limited use in some kind of a COIN-role, when most time that are limited to the more useful transport- and training-role. Related to conditions we agree in some way. If a Super Tucano is worth its price in that role is another. How many countries do operate that in such role outside the training mission? 😉

The Americans are procuring COIN aircraft for the Iraqis with the Super Tucano being one of the contenders. The Colombians have been using the Super Tucano for air interdiction vs. the cartels and COIN operations vs. the FARC. The Super Tucano is capable of dealing with a limited insurgency. A typical scenario is Colombia where the threat is mostly from drug cartel mercenaries and criminalized insurgents. So long as the insurgents don’t have lavish numbers of up-to-date MANPADs like Stingers or SA-18s, no radar aimed FLAK and no major air assets of their own capable of offensive operations a Super Tucano can still be of use. You might want to supplement the COIN fleet with helicopter gun-ships, command/elint/electronic-surveillance aircraft and light UAVs since a mixed fleet is always better. If, however, the conflict escalates and you really do get dozens of Iglas thrown at your Super Tucanos every time they show up. You will want to rethink your investment strategy. You could relagate the Tucanos to training where they will still be useful (so it’s not like you wasted your money) or use them for less dangerous duties like the RhodAF did with the SF.260W. Then you can go out and invest in Su-25s, Kfirs or FC-1s, or whatever other big jet you have a boner for. I still think it is a mistake to write the Super Tucano off as completely useless for performing Counter insurgency work and that the only thing to do is sign up for the F-35 program and buy hugely expensive top-of-the line gun-ships like the AH-64 by the squadron. The fast jets in particular have their own vulnerabilities and even the AH-64 is like a bumblebee in a room full of people with flyswatters if it operates in an area swarming with insurgents carrying state-of-the art MANPADs. It’s all about choosing the right tools for the job at hand. If you want to drive a nail into a wall choose a hammer, if you want to dispose of the entire wall choose a 12 pound sledgehammer or a big, fat pneumatic jackhammer.

Gees … obviously no one here has had the mis-fortune of working on a radial engine?

I thought this was going to be a serious discussion here?

ANY radial engine is a labour intensive piece of machinery which is prone to destroying cyclinder heads. Its at least 10 times more work during a service then it would be a turbo-prop.

Not to mention that AVGAS is going to disappear soon from the aviation scene and that high octane 130 hasnt been around for 15 to 20 yrs(?)

The mere fact the airframe is a minimun of 40yrs old shouldve ended this debate as soon as it started….

All I did was concede his point that radials are reliable.

If you want to start a serious discussion, let’s just start with the fact that the R-3350 engine is out of production. Then let’s take a look at the fact that the Skyraider’s production tooling has probably been scrapped. I don’t see it as being a commercially viable venture to put this aircraft back into production, you might as well design a new one. A cheaper alternative is what people are already doing which is to find an existing design and adapt it which gets you militarised turboprop trainer aircraft like the Super Tucano, PC-9/21, T-6 Texan II, etc. The problem with that is that such adaptions while useful are never an optimal solution.

From the 80s COIN-aircraft were no longer built. Just a second role option for training aircraft in low threat areas. See the fate of the Pucara in 1982 f.e.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/MANPADS.html

For one thing the IA-58s deployed to the Falklands were operating in an environment a COIN aircraft had no business being in. Secondly one could point out the threat of MANPADs to helicopter gunships. This has been a danger since SA-7 met the Huey in Vietnam and yet, despite MANPADs, the Helicopter gun-ship still lives a good life. The Falklands war was almost 30 years ago and it is going on 40 since the SA-7 made it’s debut against the North American T-6 Texan. MANPADs are still a danger but anti IR missile self-protection systems have also made considerable progress since then. Another thing to consider is that the MANPADs fielded by many of the rag-tag guerilla movements modern COIN aircraft are used against tend not to be cutting edge technology. Finally, modern COIN aircraft like the Super Tucano can carry PGMs. Apparently the FAC Super Tucanos have a built in FLIR/designator turret and can be fitted with a tactical data-link system which would make them capable of operating in tandem with UAVs. There is always going to be a time where a conflict escalates beyond the point where an aircraft like the Super Tucano is going to start having trouble surviving and you will want to bring in the heavy-weights but for low intensity conflicts a COIN aircraft can still be useful.

All of your comments are true but the R3350 is pretty damn robust capable of having two cylinder heads shot off and still getting the A/C home. This happened on multiple occasions so is not a random occurence. The one comment you made about having the space to fit your countermeasures really reinforces the advantage of the SPAD. Space is not an issue!

I take it you are talking about the Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone? I’m not in a position to judge the combat damage resistance of a turoprop but from what I hear the radial would probably be the better choice. I know of cases were FW-190s and various other radial engined WWII fighters returned to base shot to pieces with bullets and shrapnel embedded in the engine, split cylinders, bleeding oil etc. That has to count as five star reliability. The problem with the Wright R-3350 engine is that it is out of production since what the 50s or 60s? Is there even anything similar still in production in the West? I know the Russians still make radials but that’s hardly an acceptable engine source for a western military aircraft for political reasons. So if you use an R-3350 you would be limited to a finite supply of engines. It seems that purely for reasons of cost, if the Skyraider was to be resurrected, it would probably be with a Turboprop wouldn’t it? How easy is it to find R-3350 certified mechanics? Turboprops have pretty much taken over much of the civilian aircraft industry and maintenance specialists are easy to find. Then there is the issue of jigs and production gear needed for Skyraider productions presumably these have long since been scrapped… but then recreating new jigs and tooling for the Skyraider wouldn’t be that more expensive than creating the same for a new design from scratch and the Skyraider is a proven desing. Personally I’ll still pick a twin if I can get one. 😀

There are plenty of solutions for manpads.

If MANPADS do become an issue it is just as easy to fit IR countermeasures to a PC-9, EMB 312 or an IA 58 as it is to fit them to a Mi-35, AH-64, EC-665 gunship as long as you have the space to fit these countermeasures on your aricraft and money to pay for it. Most of what gets thrown at COIN aircraft are small arms in the 5.45-14.5mm range MANPADS are also used but small-arms fire is the most common dange. Personally I’d just feel safer in a IA-58 than a PC-9 or any other single engine COIN aircraft simply because of the twin engines. If one engine gets shot out I can still get far enough away on the second one before bailing out to give the pilot a chance of being picked up by CSAR forces before the opposition gets to him. The same experience was made by the RhodAF using the Cessna 337 as a COIN aircraft. The 337 was totally unsuited to the COIN role without major modifications but the twin engines were an advantage, if you lost an engine you had to jettison everything you didn’t necessarily need to stay airborne but if you did that you stood a chance of clawing your way back to base on the second engine. If I was shopping for a COIN aircraft I’d pick a twin engine design over a single engine one If I could get one. I don’t see why the EMB 312 or PC-9 are any more suited to the COIN role than an IA-58 or a more modern aircraft designed to the same formula as the IA-58.

Pucara was pounded senseless by the Blowpipe. I’m not so sure you have much room for improving that design to where it really makes it a COIN aircraft.

And the Skyraider or for that matter any of the propeller driven aircraft currently marketed for the COIN role is or would be any less vulnerable to MANPADS than the Pucara? Come to think of it the same pretty much applies to the entire crop of modern helicopter gun-ships.

I second the Pucara vote. A very capable aircraft that with the proper upgrades, will provide everything needed for a low cost and easy to maintain COIN/CAS aircraft. I believe that back in the late 60’s or early 70’s, they flew one to the Paris airshow (obviously refueled along the way) but nevertheless, it shows its capabilitites. The aircraft is still flying so I don’t think it would be a big deal for FMA to start production again if the interest for a modernized version was there.

—–JT—–

It did only have three hard-points although they could carry upto 1.500kg. I’m assuming the IA 58 can remain airborne on a single engine after jettisoning all unneeded stores. The whole fascination of twin engines is that it lowers the probability of having to punch out of the thing into the open arms of not so merciful guerillas or bands brigands and drug cartel mercenaries. I don’t even want to think about what happens to the pilots flying aircraft like the the Ayres NEDS crop-dusters in S-America or one of those Colombian Tucanos that fly intercept and CAS missions for police commandos against the drug cartels. When they get shot down or have to bail out for some other reason and are caught by the opposition the fate of those pilots is probably not enviable.