PLA-MKIIDefinitely adds to global recon and strike for a lot of air forces. Key qtn is satellite bandwidth. Can be overcome if controller is also airborne.
PLA-MKIIPLA you share an acronym with an armed force that is gearing up and backed by a fairly solid Treasury so I will be circumspect in giving out too many ideas! I also don’t know what CAS is, assuming it is related to Ground Attack.
The key influence are the disruptive technologies that allow you to refine the ideas of the past. Eg welded tubular steel airframes and welding robots, which linked to a geometry that accomplishes structural outcomes and ease of weldability may open up a new lease of life for strong, slow moving, cheap steel platforms.
My contender in terms of regurgitating the past is the Link Trainer. In simple terms the pilot in the hot seat above the battle is obsolete. By that I mean you can supply five expendables operated remotely by one pilot, and as one vehicle is expended, the pilot toggles to another. Human intelligence will always be superior to robot intelligence, particularly for the powerful quality of restraint, when one trigger happy fool or program written by a fool can create cascading negative political consequences. When restraint doesn’t work out then this shouldn’t mean the expensive to train and replace pilot needs to be shot at. An expendable also doesn’t need seat armour or armoured glass or space for a pilot, so is smaller, lighter and can carry more business. So a Link Trainer, using goggles. That’s about it, if you want to find out more drop a few landing craft on the beaches of Australia in 2025.;)
Hi Power and Passion, no need to fear, this industrial spy cometh from Bangladesh =D
And all these things remain my day dreams as I am in no position to create an aerospece industry in my country. We are however making motorbikes now… So maybe we are crawling towards it…
I agree with you about UCAVs and envision my ground attack planes accompanied (even control) them…
I’ve been reading up on materials and it seems modern aluminum alloys win over the steel I was hoping to use.
What’s the best material you would suggest a low tech, nascent third world enterprise?
Here is my present line of thought – use aluminum alloy – easy to work with (remember, third world country can’t afford robots and want to leverage cheap labor costs)
Use jute/kevlar weaving on a steel net and stiffen with raisin for areas needing a bit of armor (aluminum alloys make poor armor(?) )
Its in the Australian national interest that thou adviseth me as this plane, should it ever fly from fantasy to reality, would compete with low cost Chinese alternatives…
Basically I want to build a low cost alternative to the Super Tucano. Capability wise placed between the Tucano and the Air Tractor. 80% of the capability (100% of range though) and significantly lower cost. A single piston engined WWII style plane, easy and cheap to make. Capable of using precision weapons. Easy to maintain. 1000-1500 HP range old school radial engines (cheap, easy to build, easy to maintain…)
PLA-MKIIThis has been my theme the whole of this year.
I’ve been dreaming up upgraded J-8s, J-7s and JH-7As. The last one is already pretty upgraded. DAS, AESA radars and precision strike gizmos would redeem the J7 for instance. The major handicap of the J7 has always been limited space for avionics such as radar. With more compact and effective systems, those handicaps are lifted.
The other idea I am exploring (on the Historic side of the forum) is a simple, single engined piston powered ground attack aircraft.
I personally feel that sysgems like the JH7, F-4, J7, etc are prematurely being abandoned.
It would be the perfect play for a third world country to buy the production rights to the J7, modernize it. Would create a defense airospace industry while creating a viable export.
The dominant themes are stealth and omnirole, which have played out in the last 30 years. The contrarian theme should be low cost, specialized aircraft that rethink the supposed supremacy of the dominant theme. Can a loaded up F16 or even F15 in the strike role really defend itself effectively? Experience from real exercises and combat says otherwise. Is the turbofan so much more better than the turbojet, all things considered (including costs)? The jury to me is still out on that… A Turkish F4 would surely cause the jury to reflect…
Let us imagine a J7 with a small aesa in the nose, good enough to lock on a bvr to about 60 kms. Data linked to an AWACS / C4ISR. Supported by UCAVs. A more radical cousin of the J7 playing with lidar / IRST combo plotting in the periphery. A JH7A providing jamming support. A few JH7As in the strike role.
This above scenario would cost pennies to the dollar compared to the dominant themed alternative and yet provide a capability not to be dismissed.
PLA-MKII1/ chrome moly tube
Brilliant. 2 is a bit like the Air Tractor. 1) sounds fascinating but no idea what it is (reading the other thread sounds like a long defunct form of steel from WW2). The Third world countries I have in mind have steel mills, if I get the specs I am sure they could churn those specs out. Steel is a lot more durable than aluminum and much easier to build with… Although to be realistic the spars would prob. Have to be alum alloy and we could use chrome moly steel for the outer structure.
PLA-MKIIMany small, inexpensive types have been mooted for CAS.
Just the other day I saw a reference that Beech put hardpoints on a Bonanza A36 and I believe Piper did the same on a Cherokee Six.And lets recall the Canadian who designed a combat plane where you could buy a 100 for the cost of a light strike jet. His “fill the skies with guys in cheap aircraft” forgot the basic fact that in western counties, pilots lives do matter and the training of the crews is expensive, so most air forces would like to get them back. 🙂
However, even “third world” nations know unless you’re fighting pretty basic enemies (naked blokes with sharp sticks is what Blackadder called them with typical British humour/disdain for colonials), such types aren’t very useful. Even small countries can come up with the money for a few more useful types.
And in these days of portable SAMs/and Stingers, they’re probably right to get a dedicated type.
Still Broncos and armed PC-9s seen like useful weapons…in some circumstances. But you better have a squadron of F-16s (or similar) to protect the capital from air attack.This topic was addressed here a year or two ago. At that time, our resident experts seemed to think a turboprop Skyraider was the way to go. That’s why I mentioned the Skyshark in my original post.
Besides, a new build Mosquito or Mustang still wouldn’t be cheap…the engine (new build or overhauled WWII metal) cost alone would be considerable and in terms of serviceability and fuel availability, a turbine would probably be better.
Definitely agree on turbine, however, don’t agree that such a plane will be useless. Given recent experience in the ME, such planes are in good demand and proving their value proposition much better than jets. Remember manpads have a particular range limit and are not often handy. Very few jets shot down by manpads in the present conflicts.
A clear niche exists between f16s and pc9s or even attack helos. A niche exploited by aircraft such as the Super Tucano and Air Tractor quite successfully. Yet neither of these are cost effective, rather they end up being priced high. The Tucano because it has a whole list of features and materials and the US planes because of high labor costs and small scale production.
PLA-MKIIRemember, re-engineering…or simply swapping a turboprop for a piston in an aircraft isn’t as easy as it sounds.
Remember, we’re not talking Airfix kits here.Remember the Douglas Skyshark? It began life as a turboprop Skyraider…and in the end, the faster , Skyhawk was a better choice for the Navy.
I know exactly what you mean. I’m actually wanting a clean sheet design. We also don’t need that much armor as we’d be lobbing smart munitions from a distance mostly rather than always going down and dirty.
The navy needs the best planes given its space premium and power projection premium. Same is not true for other users, so solutions SHOULD differ. Yet, the third world is always busy mimicking whatever the US does, whether its optimal for them or not…
PLA-MKIIWhat a brilliant thread! I am not an engineer but tried ploughing through the info and this is how I would interpret it from a layman point of view:
“How you can make cheap aircraft structures with steel that are lightweight enough to be competitive”
powerandpassion, would love your input on this thread
Basically, I would love your input of designing something like a Embraer Super Tucano, except a cheaper version, using simple materials. A focus on being cheap and easy to build / maintain. We can’t use modern advanced composites. Something that can get 80% of the capability at a lot lower cost. What materials would you suggest?
PLA-MKIIInteresting and fascinating suggestion Red and John!
What do any of these history ‘refreshes’ do that a OV-10 Bronco cannot do??
Bronco does the job just fine. Sad its never been replaced in a meaningful way. A few places where the Bronco wouldn’t score is speed and low costs of a single engine, but otherwise its right on the money.
With modern SDBs, laser guided rockets and ATGMs, smaller CAS planes can reinvent themselves in a way they couldn’t even 15 years ago. Kind of like being a manned UAV… Would sell pretty well me thinks specially in this insurgency climate.
PLA-MKIINo, and SORRY if You misunderstood my post. Not the JH-7A is dated but that report. We already know that the EW-version is operational since years … as such only a hype-up of old things by WCT.
Deino
True, their reporting doesn’t seem to get better with time.
PLA-MKIISome pics of brand new t129 pressed into service
[ATTACH=CONFIG]240017[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]240018[/ATTACH]
PLA-MKIIOh NO !! … not WantChinaTimes again with hyping something that is dated, more than dated … 😡
True, yet, I think its a little unfair to see the JH-7A/B as simply dated. To me its a timeless design that can get the job done, and will continue to be useful for a very long time. Just like a B-52 or a Tornado. It can do a strike job not dissimilar to a Flanker or a F-15E. It does have a turbofan engine, has decent avionics and is cost effective. A strike equivalent of the FC-1.
Its clearly nothing flashy and fancy to create a ruckus about though.
PLA-MKIIfascinating, look at all the steel on the IL-2!
Supposing we use aluminum, some steel and kevlar, a turbo prop, I think it could really be a lot cheaper Super Tucano (which goes at about $15 million). U could get 80 percent of the capability at 20% of the cost.
Here is an expression of it, in real terms, the Piper PA48:
PLA-MKIINot at all – welcome to old farts corner. By crossing over you raise an interesting ‘what if’ question – what WWII airframe would one choose to adapt for a CAS / COIN role? By which I mean assume beefed-up armour, modern avionics and hardpoints to carry ‘modern’ ordnance.
Something that had decent short field performance, a large speed range, a heavy carrying capacity, good visibility of the ground and a stable gun platform. Actually, I am struggling to think, apart from the Skyraider which was post-WWII and was actually used in that role.
Thank you, I appreciate being welcomed, although I don’t know much about historic aviation.
Its a question that has nagged me for the last 10 odd years if not more. Modern aircraft just don’t seem to replace the capabilities equivalently.
In addition to the points u noted (STOL, speed range, gun stability…) other failings are time on station, costs, ease of maintenance, ease of manufacture, operational simplicity and training advantages.
If I could I would try to reinvent such a plane, would be very useful in the third world at least.
PLA-MKIIThanks so much for the informative answers. Much appreciated!
Ah yes, I think I had it mixed up from reading about the armour plates and I did mean the P51 based Enforcer. The Enforcer seems to offer better / Equivalent capabilities to the Tucano / Air Tractor etc.
The USAF don’t like real CAS aircraft anyways, if they had their way there would never have been an A10!
The rest of the world doesn’t need to follow this do they?
PS: have I broken some universal unspoken law by posting on Historic Aviation? Seems users tend to stay in their parts of the forum…
PLA-MKIIPakistan now seems to be acquiring 3 different attack helps in small numbers. Mi35, Z10 & AH1z. Fascinating combination. Z10 is designed by Kamov and very close technically to the AH1Z.
Mi35s will be employed for COIN and special operations forces rather than an anti armor role specifically IMHO.
What probably happened was that when the deal was made for the z10, the AH1z was given by the US on favorable terms. Puts Pak on a position to evaluate the supposed gap between US and Chinese attack helos. Although I am sure Kamov made a superb system.
One key diff. is that the pilot is in the front for the Kamov unlike conventional attack helos.
I wld not be surprised if z10s are bought in numbers over the yes while ah1z and Mi35 remain token buys. The former because they are funded by the US, the latter (perhaps around 20 in Toto) because of a niche requirement.
Sign In
