Unless you intend approaching Mach 1 a swept wing is unnecessary and will compromise low speed lift, which is vital for tight turn circles in between mountains and STOL. Armour will compromise STOL and tight turn circles. In all honesty, if you propose using mainly unguided weapons, you have set yourself a very difficult task. When you’re within range of the enemy, your aircraft will be within range of their AA fire (anything .50cal and up). The Textron Scorpion is another good solution in that it at least has two engines for redundancy. Simpler materials could also add weight and compromise STOL etc. In all honesty guided munitions will solve the range vs vulnerability problem better than aircraft modifications and without compromising the performance criteria. Even if it’s just a matter of using them to take out the main surface-to-air threats. Ultimately even armoured aircraft are vulnerable to .50 cal because they all have intakes and even an A-10 isn’t going to attack something like a ZSU-23-4 Shilka with cannon and that’s why it has Mavericks.

I was thinking more like something that is not armoured against a ZSU but rather, armoured enough not to be shot down by .5 calibre at range, and small arms fire. Sometimes a bit of armour goes a long way…

Aluminum airframes are also far easier to repair and replace than various exotic materials…

Right I think I understand your problem better now. My solution was focused on the contested airspace element. Pretty much anything you put up of notable size the enemy is going to want to shoot down, so I was focused on small aerial surveillance mixed with precision portable weapons, precision LR artillery and tactical missiles.

However, with your specified limits on the solution I’ll re-think.

The Harrier without VTOL isn’t a good option for STOL because the wings are too small. Harrier wings are small to help hover and minimise weight for VTOL purposes. For STOL you need a larger wing area. From safe range, a gun is honestly more accurate than rockets and provides better target saturation (unless they’re guided rockets but that brings the issue of cost). Also an internal rocket launcher is kind of complicated as regards the rocket plume happening inside the aircraft, unless you propose to eject them first, losing even more accuracy, or have an exhaust system for the plume, which is again complicated. In all honesty it sounds like you should look at the Rutan ARES Mudfighter at the end of my last post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES

Very good wing area, small target to ground fire, room for internal bays for small bombs and potential for wing pylons and a fuel fraction of over 33%. 25mm GAU-12 fires the same round as the GAU-22 on the F-35A, so it will be well supported for ammunition types and may even have guided versions in a few years. You could hang Hydra pods on the wing pylons with the option of using unguided rockets or guided APKWS II hydras at a later date. Alternatively, if you want more HE and less KE in your cannon rounds, you could swap the GAU-12 for an Aden 30mm (same round as Apache gunship cannon except with brass case). The 30x113mm contains 46g of HE per round as opposed to 30g for the 25x137mm GAU-12 round. For reference purposes, 40mm rifle grenades contain 32-48g HE.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]220584[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]220583[/ATTACH]

IOC – 25mm or 30mm internal cannon, 2×19-shot hydra pod on each wing and 2 Mk81s or 2 FAB-100s or 6-8 FAB-50s internally.

Future upgrades available – APKWS II for hydra pod, GBU-39/53/58 for internal bays and Brimstone for internal bays and wing pylons.

Thanks lukos, it was really interesting for me to read your post, and I really like the ideas you’ve given.

I have always been intrigued by the Rutan ARES design. I’d perhaps prefer a more conventional design though, perhaps like the Harrier (I mean the general layout and you’re spot on that the wing as it is on the Harrier is too small for STOL).

The idea I had, and I guess its unconventional and goes against the current so probably there is something wrong with it somewhere but… was a revolving launcher for the 70mm rockets. The launching round on the revolver is outside the airframe, therefore solving the exhaust issue. If and when precision is needed, you can load the laser guided 70mm rockets (check out the Turkish Cirit). Laser guided 70mm rockets are among the cheapest precision weapons out there.

I’m not looking for the CAS plane to get close in too much, as the opponent of this hypothetical country has a reasonable integrated air defence in their formations. Just stand off, shoot and scoot. If in a mission a cannon is needed, you could add it as a podded option… So I’m conceptually reversing the cannon-guided rocket place in a typical CAS aircraft today.

I forgot to mention why I am a bit averse to the Rutan ARES… those forward canards and the twin tails seem less survivable. I also need a plane that is the easiest and cheapest possible to build, meaning minimal to no composite use. The ARES seems a design that’s more intricate. I wonder if that’s a valid assumption, what are your thoughts on that?

lets revive this topic and revive PLA-MKII who has disappeared after eating his usual dish of curry and big mac.

since we’re talking about Pakistaniland

would a prop based CAS solution be more effective than a helicopter one?

Thanks Y-20, you’re very kind to have revived the topic for me. Busy in my last year on a PhD, so tend to drop off now and then.

I’ve given up on both a prop-based CAS after much reflection instigated by this thread. I’m settling on a simplified low-cost version of the Harrier, without VTOL but optimized for STOL. This is because the threat environment against a large and sophisticated enemy would mean a prop would not be very survivable.

Given that the prop is a dead give away with a big radar return, it becomes counter productive in focusing on staying out of the air battle on top.

Obligatory has already noted how a conventional aircraft can be so much superior in terms of cost and other basic engineering parameters. For me, after much soul searching, I think the correct employment of CAS aircraft are the key to a truly integrated maneuver warfare, and its a shame that politics has taken a front seat and plain operational rationality a back seat in this case. And the Third World has, without second thought adopted what it did not understand…

Hi lukos, its a pleasure to make your aquintance. Welcome to Key Publishing Forums! Those are some interesting systems, I must say.

Let me see if I can explain the dilemma quickly and simply. CAS plays a critical role in the modern battlefield and can be considered one of the key ingredients behind victory or defeat. In the Indian subcontinent they can potentially play an even greater role because of the operational topography.

Along with the typical mission set of recon, fire support, tank busting, etc two additional roles can be highlighted:

1. Anti-artillery. In the subcontinent, artillery is king, as maneuver warfare plays a backseat role. Artillery radars play a role here in spotting enemy fire, which is critical to the artillery duel. However, artillery radars tend to be very vulnerable themselves. Additionally, artillery radars have a range of 50kms around at best, and in operational terms, probably closer to 35. This means that it cannot play the anti-artillery role in its full spectrum.

2. Artillery or tanks, cannot provide any additional dimensions in this kind of frontal battles. They don’t have the fire range to reach the enemy’s rear or soft spots as easily. A CAS aircraft would have the ability to have a far longer reach, and provide precision strike in real time.

In short, there is no replacing the CAS aircraft’s role without fundamentally compromising operational capability.

Neither do the theater opponents have the capability to look at using significant stocks of precision (and high cost) munitions. A simple CAS aircraft, even firing Hydra rockets can do huge damage at minimal cost.

To fulfill this role, I’ve conjured up the image of a simple single engined aircraft, framed approximately on the lines of the Harrier without the VTOL complexities. An aircraft with no internal cannon but an internal 70mm rocket launcher that can shoot either cheap unguided rockets or laser guided rockets. Additional hard points can provide for a wide range of other typical CAS munitions.

Right now, there seems to be an increasing consensus that such an aircraft is needed for Army Aviation of said hypothetical country. They seem to think a K-8 appropriately modified would do the trick. I’m ambivalent about that and think a brand new design, perhaps using an off the shelf parts bin, may just be the better option…