PLA,

Great stuff and very clear.

One additional facet I think you need to consider..possibly as the most important one..the vulnerability of any battlefield aircraft to man portable SAMs.

The pace of evolution of these, their proliferation and ease of use is, I think, the prime threat to any CAS platform…

Their power WRT to their weight etc etc is their prime advantage over AA and airborne threats…If you are aiming at air arms which are focusing on A2A as opposed to CAS. A gorund force that wishes to ‘distance’ and possible CAS would be advised to invest in SAMs which will enusre the CAS needs a longer reach.. hence greater precise weapons or guidance, greater perfromance etc etc…all making your design more complex, heavier and so forth…

If you imagine other platofrms which aimed (at the time) to provide what you are describing, such as the Bronco or Pucara, their vulnerabiltiy to Stingers etc is known. Whilst there are means to counter the threat they all add weoght and complexity to what ‘should’ be as you clearly state a simple and robust platform.

The basic issue, as I see it, is trying to solve a problem caused by a basic weapon, such as troops in contact, with a high tech solution…an aircraft.

Perhaps trying to provide a ground based support to the troops in contact issue is one which allies high-tech surveillance and guidance with a low tech, highly repsonsive ground based weapons platform…thus the surveillance can be out of range of low tech threats whilst the weapons platform is invulenrable to those.. becuase its on the ground…

Just a thought….

Some wonderful and insightful remarks. I particularly like your analogy of the Bronco, which was a wonderful beast if only attempting to fulfill too many roles and in inadequate numbers. I didn’t get your last paragraph, perhaps it was too technical for me 😮 I

Nice one, PLA. I can see you have thought on this for a while…
One great aspect of your new master tactics/ alternative ground support
would be that the original CAS figthers will be even better suited to their
other CAS tasks like keeping the skies free for enemy airattacks on your
own troops. Wich in my opinion are an equal priority on todays demanding
CAS roles/missions.

Yes, or hitting infrastructure, playing a more strike role, or since most CAS aircraft today are multirole (ala F-16), fighting the vital air2air campaign to gain air superiority. Remember how in the Vietnam war how the airforce complained that they were bogged down by ground missions which distracted them from really rooting out the Vietcong air arm.

You have touched on several important drawbacks to the way CAS is performed today. Yes, there is currently poor connectivity between tactical air and their customers (troops engaged in hot operations). Having a forward air controller, FAC, embedded with the troops is a cumbersome way of doing business too due to the shortage of FACs. The most time efficient solution is to cut out the middlemen and provide the squad or individual soldier with the capability to request CAS. This means the squad or individual soldier has to have the capability to provide targeting information (type/quantity of target(s), and position/direction/speed of target(s)).

It isn’t physically possible for a pilot to identify and target the enemy from 15K feet altitude or even treetop level while flying at 450 knots. He will need the assistance of powerful sensors and computers to display information in a simple, unambiguous manner. If the target positions provided by the ground troops is accurate, then an attack can be conducted with precision weapons such as JDAMs or SDBs. If datalinked positions are not trustworthy, then on-board sensors are needed to provide an accurate targeting solution for PGMs.


Persistence is another problem you identified. Fast jets don’t have an ability to loiter for tens of minutes, much less hours. However, propeller driven airplanes are notoriously slow and suffer long transit times from their base to the operational area. Forward basing (FOL – Forward Operating Location) can cut transit times, but forward basing also places your airplanes and their logistics tail at risk from enemy interdiction. (The easiest/cheapest way to destroy an airplane isn’t to shoot it down, but to kill it on the ground). Once a FOL is established, it doesn’t stay a secret from the enemy for long and he will give it some unwanted attention if it is within reach or his offensive capability. FOLs also have huge logistics drawbacks because fuel, munitions, maintenance personnel and spare parts must be positioned at the FOL. This can be a problem with sustaining high sortie rates if the FOL is established in an unimproved location away from good ground transportation routes.

Thanks so much djcross, I clearly see what you’re saying about the aircaft being vulnerable on the ground. My adhoc plan would be to use the same logistics as the armor – same ammo and anti-tank tow missiles, same diesel fuel and keep them in the air as much as possible, with a loiter time of 5-6 hours, 2 shifts per day would mean they would be relatively safe. Support would be provide by modified APCs, 1 APC per pair. Nevertheless, I do realize that they will be vulnerable when landed. How ironic that the light cavelry of ages past also had a similar problem, they where most vulnerable when they where forming or camped. I’m actually radicalizing beyond FOL by claiming operation organically, even at the brigade level. Which translates to having short stretches of road / paddy fields at the rear of the armor, say just behind artillery positions.

Biggest threat would be enemy artillery, however, I am thinking that with these planes enemy artillery will be taken out a good deal faster.

I like the idea of eliminating the OODA loop, instead a captain should be able to call up his “Air Sergeant” directly, they’re all part of the same communications feed.

Thanks everybody, this is really good constructive criticsm, I am learning a lot, seeing it from the different perspectives there are than mine.

I doubt I’d ever be able to sell this idea anywhere though, maybe someday if I become the defence minister of my country, Bangladesh 😀

there is one. Go message a user named Mark9 and ask her out :dev2:

I know her “virtually”, she’s a really sweet girl and has taken some incredible pics – particularly her Eurofighter collection pics were pretty amazing. 🙂

Im a plane crazy lady but dont know much about fighter planes…..yet! I hang out at Berlin Tempelhof spotting though, mainly private jets, fokkers, embraers etc

Wow, I declare you the new Miss Aviation Pagent Show Finalist.
We want you to know how much you’re loved and admired worldwide by all us desperate aviation junkies. 🙂

😀

Which one?

Did you expect an answer 😀

When you go to airshows you do see Girls that seem to be interested. I used to see plenty of them at Mildenhall and Lakenheath. The British army girls seem less friendly than the American ones. You are dead lucky if you have a wife or girlfriend, who loves aircraft as much as you do. Although some Aircraft enthusiasts tend to be classed as Anoraks, ( sorry guys )
I think it’s quite sad that a lot more females, are not interested in technology.
Our schools have a lot to answer for, by not getting youngsters interested in science and technology.
Fortunately there are exceptions to the rule, thank goodness.
In fact at Mildenhall, you could see the USAF girls sitting on the wings of various aircraft, with the guys.
I reckon there will be more female astronauts in the future, and on moon bases. Womens liberation wins on this one.

😮 Somehow life always gets stuck with the exception to the rule..

Found one!!

Wow dude, lucky you, lets create a mechanism for encouraging this type by creating a Miss Aviation Pagent.Your girl gets to be the first one 😀

Here’s one for ya chief, still single too I believe… ?

😮 😮 😮
Thou art too kind