Getting photographic and literal copyright material is a task that is necessary unless you plan to do all your own research. Citing references when stating facts is crucial. Avoid arguments based on fallacy at all opportunity.

Thobbes and MadRat, it’ll largely be a photo-book then if I try to get referenced facts simply because there is very little!

For example, the RD-93 is rated according to klimov at 98K, but is that the engine on the JF-17? we don’t know. The figures shown in Turkey where Mach 1.6 was shown contradicts other official ones with Mach 1.8 (and it turns out according to reports that someone had printed out the figures from Wikipedia…) The official PAC website hasn’t been updated since 2007! …. The PAF only likes to interact with established Western journalists like Alan Warnes, and doesn’t generally give much of an attention to others. So any hopes of getting anything official goes out the window…

I do get the point, I’ll err on the side of conservatism to keep things relatively non-controversial.

I am thinking of a coffee table type hard cover.

CAS is direct support of troops, from coordinates provided by a JTAC embedded with the troops.

Counterbattery destroys enemy artillery whose general location is determined by firefinder radar, but is out of reach of your own artillery.

Intradiction prevents enemy movement and destroys enemy assets in proximity to your troops, but not within sight of the JTAC.

How about a new kind of war, where CAS is thought of in a more pro-active way, where it is not just “from coordinates provided by a JTAC”… well that’s my dream anyways.

Apologies for the late reply, have been busy with fasting in Ramadan and the celebrations of eid aftwards.

You lost me somewhere between ‘A-10 and great airplanes’…

The A-10 came out of the A/X program efforts which were specifically an attempt by the USAF to undermine the AAFSS AH-56 Cheyenne and thus keep ‘deep CAS’ which is to say BAI/OBAS out of the hands of the Army (they’d already destroyed the effort to weaponize the OV-1 Mohawk).

I like the AH-56. It would nearly fit my requirement. Here is the thing – the tussle between the A-10 and Cheyenne, is essentially a tussle between the USAF – US Army. I have noted this as a point of weakness for the development of true combined arms. Despite the Muslim world’s yesmanship, I don’t think objectively my people need to replicate all mistakes of the West blindly.

When we moved to Europe after leaving that wonderful region to it’s denizens, the A-10 was -not- upgraded to include such basics as low altitude radalt and terrain attitude avoidance, INS, autopilot, moving map or even TISL (the first 2 years). It had lousy cockpit integration with no UFC and a HUD was little more than an ironsight. All this in weather conditions which, in winter, make the B Maverick all but useless (the seeker contrast ‘assured target lock’ for the vidicon overlaps the gun _rmin_) and makes acquisition of targets from low level all but impossible without a FAC/TACP spot marking. D Maverick was nice but the LAU-88 was not and we didn’t get it until 1986, after ‘The Window Of Vulnerability’ was two years shut.

Agree, we need to stay real low, something like how Harriers are utilized. But the Harrier was / is too complex for the role I have in mind. Maybe what I am thinking of is a simplified harrier without VTOL and basic STOL. Thank you, your post made me reflect about these things and realize what I originally had in mind is perhaps too slow. Perhaps I am looking at something just below the Harrier, a simplified, ruggidized version without all the VTOL piping (maybe a simple, rugged and elementary TVC)

The jet doesn’t operate well at altitude,

But that’s because the A-10 was used in COIN essentially or CAS without a competent enemy air force. In contested airspace, with jets from both sides’ airforces having a go at each other, you want to stay real low, out of the way and outside of the air battle above.

I therefore do think that designing this dedicated CAS aircraft would need to look at staying low, as low as possible. Even the newest bling radars have a hard time with look down and shoot down capabilities never being as advertised. With a proper operational plan – quick short jab and scoot – you’d have a real advantage in the battle on the ground.

The A-10 was a natural for replacing the OA-37 and OV-10 in the FFAC mission and as a night intruder followon to the B-57 but desperately needed to have the mission suite and backseater that the N/AW brought with it. The USAF didn’t like the competition with the completely worthless LANTIRN system and so axed what was a cheap and functional pairing of the WX-50 (weather radar) and AAR-42 FLIR with Ferranti LRMTS for about 2 million per plane.

Agreed, twin seats, basic radar, FLIR & laser designation are critical and guess the A-10 was short on these accounts. Politics is probably to blame rather than reason.

On it’s own, in daylight, in Europe, the A-10 was utterly worthless, not least because the FOLs were all within about 50 miles of the front and as DS showed (without the wonderful German road net, in the middle of a desert) that’s about 3hrs before the T-72s are running over your Nikes.

This is an interesting point. I think that if we designed a plane that can use makeshift fields / roads to take off, and they use a simplified logistics that is relatively common to the rest of the ground forces (i.e. runs on diesel), then we can forget about FOLs and move with the division, nay, even with the Brigade level. Thus, just as you have artillery organic to your enterprise, you’ll have CAS organic to you!

The problem with turbines is that they don’t scale well and have very narrow operating bands for maximum efficiency (which is high, around 70% burn rates due to the incredible compression as fuel:air mixing). What this means is you have to have basic minimum airflow for a given lbst equivalency and your operating range is from roughly 65-70% to 85-90% or IRT with only incremental differences in fuel burn as fuel requirements.

Interesting. Wouldn’t it make sense, from a theoretical efficiency point of view, to have a better range of performance than that for CAS?

True ‘diesel’ engines are most likely rotaries and are selected purely for their high compression state and low vibration for a given engine installation weight class. This makes them ideal for long loiter, high altitude, drone aircraft (cough, Predator Rotax 912/914) where you don’t need or want a highly torqued P-factor or a lot of mess with pitch change effects on handling so much as good, constant, butter churn, at roughly the same speed the engine is turning over at.

I am talking from a layman viewpoint, so I hope you can bear with me – wouldn’t a diesel’s high torque make it more ideal for low level performance? Also, the fact that diesel engines historically have had problems with freezing makes them less effective up above. I remember reading a paper that diesel engines are less efficient up above…

Which brings us back to jets. The nice thing here is that stochios are now so hot that total thrust is just incredible and you don’t -need- burner to get 1:1+. Take the burner tube off an F-135 and you still have a 34,000lbst engine and more importantly, you’ve chopped a third off the weight (fixed nozzle) and 1/2 off the installational length. So you put a big fat engine slung in the back with an external USB flap and either direct SDLF or electric fan plenums in a blended wing-body design in front of it. You may not get VTOL but you get 80-100 knot STOL and if you include a spilt reverser on your coanda panel, probably ESTOL. Which translates to a 500ft takeoff and landing capabilities. As good as it gets in a Harrier.

Great idea, and I bet that’s ideal for the US or a European power. But I’m designing something hypothetically for a poorer middle ranking power like a Pakistan or an Iran.

Maybe what we need for this case is to design a simplified turbofan / turboprop engine that is optimized for diesel.

The problem I see (note layman thinking) is that the larger the diameter of the fans, the more surface area of the blades, the greater the STOL performance and lower speed cruise performance. On the other hand, the worse the high speed efficiency and problems of locating a prop or the cumbersome issue of where to place the engines, taking up critical space.

Also, another problem I see with a prop is that it tends to return a large radar signature. Unless one built it with some kind of composite (or plain wood or something) but then that may not be very sturdy against even small arms fire.

Basically if the nose was free, one could really get a good view, and have all the right sensors and armaments there… but then a single engine requirement (non-negotiable) turns that on its head.

The more I think about it, the better a simplified and ruggedized non-VTOL Harrier-type sounds.

I also want to float the idea of not having a main gun but instead, having a kind of multiple-launcher for 70mm laser guided rockets built into the aircraft. Any takers for that?

The only question for me is whether you want to chop 5,000lbs off the nose by yanking the cockpit.

Yes and no. I want the CAS aircrafts to act as motherships for UAVs and UCAVs but remain manned by two pilots themselves. Does that make any sense to you? Would love to hear your thoughts on that.

In a CAS environment with a trike I would add that you would be looking at some considerable potential for both ground strike on rough fields and catching FOD thrown up by the nose gear.

The other issue with a trike that I keep thinking about is that it doesn’t give you a good angle. With a low aspect ratio wing, larger wing, you can achieve quite a STOL performance if you can angle the plane up a bit. I was thinking of an “old style” P-51 type landing gear… Thus the landing gear also protects the fuselage area…

Depending on how critical a rough field capability really is ‘to be near the troops’ (airborne loiter in an unmanned platform for 24-32 hours at a time generally beats FOL pad alert, not least because the fuel/weapons/service equipment logistics and airfield defenses are better done by C-130, 100-200nm further back than 5 CH-47 you need as equivalent forward transfer),

You are right for the US. But imagine for a third world medium weight power, their battles are on home soil or adjacent to home soil. Now, fuel is of course the big thing – but then our plane is designed to run on diesel! Thus very little logistic footprint.

What little spare parts and specialized weapons will be carried with the formation. Remember, these affairs are not long insurgencies but full blown battles that are relatively short. Any further supplies can be trucked in or in special circumstances an ancillary aircraft:

Here is the thing – this CAS aircraft is part of a large industrial blue print. Thus the need for a single engine… A small tactical transport will also be built using the core of 2 of the CAS engines. So, 80% truck 20% Tac-Transport. Think of this as a vision which focuses on the industrial mass production synergies. Thus, this small C-27 Spartan type will act as the “primary tac air transport”.

Further, the idea is to keep 50% of the CAS aircraft with the formation. Each division has a CAS component and each brigade even has a small CAS component – at the brigade level a flight of four CAS units and 4 UAVs.

At the theatre level we will hold the rest of the 50% CAS aircraft as reserve and at the disposal of the theater commanders. Think of it like an Artillery Corps – a Combine Arms Air Component Corps (CAAC-C).

I would likely choose a blended wing body design with tip mounted turbofans acting as gas generators for direct gas impingement fans in massive plenums buried inside the wing. Overall design appearance would be somewhere between the A-12 and the XF5U Flying Pancake. The residual, dependent, (think X-32) fuselage being all fuel can, gear bays and weapons mounts.

The fans would be shaped such that they acted more like the paddles on a river steamer with a scimitar geometry that also serve to compress air towards the hub as wing center chord where air would be exhausted through entrainment flap/LID doors using variable vane vectoring. When these were closed for forward flight, equivalent plenum wall ejector slots would open in the trailing edge which, together with the 800-1,500lbst residual thrust from the engines would propel the aircraft forwards. Massive flow mixing would greatly reduce IR signature.

Brilliant idea for IR reduction! specially from the ground aspect, such a solution could be meaningful. Thus the harrier VSTOL plumbing could have had the same strategy had they thought about it then!

However, I must say a blended body wing would have a hard time to fly true nap-of-the-earth… unless my understanding is wrong (which it can’t be dismissed).

While I don’t pretend that such a system would be as efficient as a rotary wing aircraft for total vertical thrust or a pure linear thrust post for forward flight, it would allow the USMC to move away from skids as beachhead CAS and air mobile escorts and towards a 300knot capability to keep up with the V-22. Where you have 8 skids and 8 harriers in detachment, now you could have 16 total providers with considerably greater operational depth as range.

CAS aeroplanes as far as I believe, is a no brainer. If helicopters can do something, aeroplanes can do them better, for longer, less complexity, less cost… Unless of course you’re trying to fly off a frigate…

Even 100ft to 150ft would be excellent. Today, you can just designate a field or a road with that length with ease.

The Harrier pays way to much penalty in terms of direct lift as safety margins.

Maybe if it had a simple TVC it would have been more ideal… well at least as far as my hypothetical requirements are concerned…

The big problem with the Harrier is that everyone thinks all landings should be ‘better to stop then land than land and hope to stop’ controlled VLs. In fact, crash statistics all show that 90%+ of Harrier accidents happen somewhere in the 100-0 knot transitional regime and for this ‘privilege’ of crash and burn predilection, you trade away all the airframe configuration options which might provide a better lift cushion as more stable rolling-VL or ESTOL within a _better_ total runway footprint.

Yes! Exactly what I am thinking!

Weapons loads would still be an issue but with the transition to ATGW for most CAS missions you are looking at stubby, light, multi-rack capable systems which can actually be tandemized across the full chord of a wing or fuselage weapons bay with a 2,500-4,000lb loadout limit still providing a good number of passes. About the biggest problem here being the need to adapt the weapons from forward to drop fire and/or accept the weight of extendible weapon rails (I prefer dropfire with tubed encapsulates as it allows you to stack weapons).

I am thinking – no gun and a primary weapon built-in being a 70mm laser guided rocket system. Loadable to 20-30 rockets. Four hardpoints, potentially carrying a max of 8-16 ATGMs. No need for designator pod – laser designator, radar, IRSt, built into the nose…

In terms of ‘contested’ that’s going to depend a lot on coming changes in the threat technology base. Right now, the step from shoulder fire systems to mounted weapons on ADV is pretty extreme but in theory, _if you can pay for it_, anyone should be able to purchase netfires type systems which effectively put much larger (MRM = 240-400lb MICA or Adder) weapons as dumb launch boxes into the field via Humvee or even Mutt class (as prime mover to a trailer) system that would challenge even fixed wing aircraft. Binocular optical rangefinders, on a GPS enabled stand would let you preprogram associated launchers as seeker IMUs to look for specfic targets with ease.

On the other hand, you have DEWs already developed and fielded that can “dazzle” manpads… using lasers that target a fundamental weakness or IR missiles – the highly sensitive seeker… I just think that no matter what SAM comes up, a CAS aircraft will always be needed, just as no matter what ATGM shows up, tanks don’t become obsolete…

Also, experience suggests manpads in actual use often perform far worse, with very low success rates. A decent Low CAS design, flown low and in a conventional battle (as opposed to COIN), flown competently will be hard to target before it out of your sight… These are carefully planned short jibes, not constant COIN operations from known directions, bases and known destinations and routes…

Now move towards a truly advanced turbine-powered system, ala MALI, and you can shift to 100-200nm _ranged_ fires from considerably fewer launch boxes with a 200-300lb weapon that has the long-burn impulse equivalet to actually _hunt for targets_.
No cuing required, just call in your location and Habib, using a digital coordinate map for “Somewhere near Najaf…” point and clicks with his IPad and the weapon treats an entire cube of airspace as a hunting zone.
Beyond which, the next generation is obviously DEWS as either HPM or Laser. neither of which will miss. At the moment, these are severely range and cost constrained, the typical Rheinmetall unit is good for about 1.25 miles which prevents overhead CAS but doesn’t protect from standoff weapon attack (though it can shoot down missiles inflight). I have a feeling that there will be considerable maintenance of the optics required to keep these weapons functional and they are NOT going to be pickup deployable anytime soon, simply because they need a considerable amount of electrical generation.

But what would be the cost of such a system? And how likely is it to be detected and effective countermeasures taken?

When hunting and DEWS systems become standardized, you will see an almost total abandonment of manned airpower. Missile and drone systems will continue to be employed, simply because there is too much to be gained from even partially successful disruption of rear area logistics and transportation interdiction. But manned airpower will fade.

DEWs will help manned flight, as you can disable or even shoot down missiles. Pluse, EW is the other dark horse. Imagine a DEWs unit mounted on the CAS aircraft disabling or significantly degrading the IR seeker of a SAM…

Now, this is the other thing I am playing with – what about EW? Why not have a built-in EW capability, of course, nothing like say an E/A-18 Growler, but something that can not only help protect the CAS plane but also help the battle down below by disrupting enemy ground communications, IT, C4I, etc.

Also, recall I am talking about very small numbers, dispersed across all divisions and independent brigades… and working in tandem with UAVs / UCAVs…

Down low, going fast can effectively impale you on threats you weren’t aware were present and so when-not-if the high speed assets are driven off or otherwise ‘too busy’ (retained for strategic strikes as tying dow equivalent enemy airpower DCA to the defense of major economic assets.) in the face of heavy attrition as battlefield effectors, what tends to happen is that CAS meets CAS in a manner that is very adhoc and improvised at first and becomes more studied as deliberate ambush later.

And here is where our CAS plane wins! Consider that most armed forces are on a “me-me” journey buying attack helicopters over CAS planes “because the US done it”. Now imagine the survivabilility of an attack helo against a simplified, and downgraded somewhat, Harrier type (non-VTOL)… no contest.

It is this ability to standoff with sensors like the APY-8 Lynx (15km) and the AAS-52 MTS (35km) allowing considered tactical decisions with wide FOR situational awareness that makes UAVs as dominant as they are and such a trend will continue as surface defenses become more powerful. The counter being cyber within the high bandwidth video links.

Yes, a small multi-purpose radar would be great. The downside is the cost, but, what I am looking at is a wider industrial strategy where subsystems are being built and designed for multiple platforms, so I think you can have a small, basic radar, decent RWRs, laser targeting system, A small DEWs like the one employed in Afghanistan by the US forces, a basic EW architecture, and basically:

Something that is a bit like a two-seat conventional harrier type (no VTOL). Ruggedized and can take enough punishment to its vital areas from small arms fire. Essentially a modern day IL-2, or Stuka, or AH-1 Cobra.

Well, that’s the idea in any case. At the wider industrial level, the engine used (as well as multiple parts and subsystems) could also serve on a tactical transport like a small C-27 Spartan type, with twin engines… basically develop a country’s industrial capability from the ground up… (I just tend to find third world countries buying new shiny toys that don’t really mean much to their defence rather tiring… I think any real military defence is based on a meaningful industrial base and a meaningful military-industrial complex…)