Thanks Sens for your input. I may say I disagree. Countries do not plan wars on a best case scenario but a worse case scenario. Note deployment and tactics during the Cold War for example within MAD.

One pass of an A-5 can take out a handful of tanks over a Cold Start like attack (Cold Start is the Indian doctrine of using combined arms and assuming that an attack will not breach the nuclear thresh hold).

Hi Levsha,

I think I do. Remember, that a low flight profile and armour would make an F-16 or an A-5 equally vulnerable. This won’t be a “CAS” as done by F-16s in the usual scenario of say the US having overwhelming air superiority.

It will be “real CAS” – dangerous and nothing you can do to go up at 10,000 feet to drop JDAMs (at that height you’d become a priority target for the opposing air force, which is having an air battle right over the battlespace).

Instead, what you are trying to do is what a Harrier or a Jaguar or a Su-25 would do – stay as low as possible, pop up, strike, get low and get out!

They would be used to hit armour – large fields of armour – huge formations along plains and deserts, engaging at the borders. A simple TOW like weapon would be suitable for such an endeavor.

If Pakistan could afford used F-16s, it would be better off buying them for the all important air war on top (from the air force perspective). Remember also, that the F-16 is not armored while the A-5 does have some armor.

It may also be of interest to note that this air force perspective is correct – for the air force. It is not correct for the Army for whom an air component can mean a world of a difference. And while the air force holds its men more dear, the army knows what casualties can mean and what facing the fire can be like, and it follows a different valuation of the risk.

The present idea of using F-16s and soon F-35s for CAS is looking increasingly ludicrous. An A-5 can fly a high subsonic low flight profile, hugging the terrain and then take out a few tanks and be on its way as much as any other plane (save the A-10 or the Su-25) can. You don’t need to fly supersonic, nor do you need a sophisticated radar or all the other gold-plated stuff.

There are A-5s right now sitting still that will soon become unusable. There is an F-6 rebuild factory that has the equipment to rebuild them from nuts and bolts. Both these could be put to good use, and at mininum cost, Pakistan Army Aviation could bring back the Stukas of WWII, rough and ready and employed with the army. Let the air force focus on the all important air battle and taking out strategic assets. Let the grunts get a grunt in the sky…

Even the recent NATO mission in Libya has reports hitting that a simple aircraft would have served just as good – http://defensetech.org/2011/11/11/did-libya-show-the-need-for-light-attack-planes/

I think the idea of modifications have merit, however on a cost-benefit basis there are some problems.

Right now the PAF is working to construct, absorb and train up units with the new JF-17. IMHO resources would be better spent on that focus instead of essentially a complete rebuild of the A-5C. The PGM (and stand-off PGM like the LS-6) carrying capability of the JF-17 is a multiplier that cannot be ignored.

That being said, the PLAAF is now fielding an upgraded A-5/Q-5C/D, the Q-5L, which has provisions for PGMs, conformal fuel tanks and an avionics upgrade. Depending upon the number of usable hours left on some of the airframes, if the need is there, that may be the more cost effective move for the A-5Cs that the PAF has in storage.

Thank you Housecarl for the encouragement. The idea is for a CAS anti-armor aircraft for conventional warfare (with anti-tank missiles) and it is not for the PAF but the Pakistan Army Aviation (think of these as hand-me-downs). There is an entire rebuild factory (called F-6 Rebuild Factory) in Pakistan that can rebuild these.

Pakistan does not have the finances to buy a dedicated CAS platform and India is now going to field Apaches.