……..
……
“Vietnam never fielded any F-5’s”
Huh?
Almost 200 F-5A/B/E/F/RF were passed on to South Vietnam during the Vietnam war. During the fall of South Vietnam almost 90 F-5A/B/E/F were taken and these planes were used in the war againist the Khmer Rouge.
So yes Vietnam did field the F-5A/B/E/F/RF.
Well Serbia does not need much more then attack helicopters really seeing as it is 2004. But then again some members here have a chip on their shoulders about Kosovo and want Serbia to be able to fight NATO. If Serbia were to step out of line like it did in the 1990s NATO and the USA would be back so a squadron of Su-35s or MiG-29SMT would get run over with comparative ease. No contest. Serbia should just play nice and ditch the jets to save money. Serbia lacks the money to develop a counter to NATO airpower so basically anything it buys to try and fight its neighbors might catch itself under attack by F-15s and F-16s. Mi-24s and Mi-17s are more then nice enough to defend the nation from internal enemies. All fighter jets do is sap money from the Serbian budget. So really stop living in the past and move forward.
As I type this someone else will suggest the MiG-31M to counter the USAF.
“F-5 and Mig 21”
Vietnam, Sudan, Ethoipia and I think Yemen have all done that one, and Iran did the F-5E/F and J-7M.
I have some black and white pics somewhere, I’ll ty and come back with some int he next couple days.
J-6 on display…..
J-7 in Iran…
PAF J-6……..
Well if I had to use a light helicopter in the COIN role I would take the MD-520/530 or OH-58 which is more modern and can take up a heavier rocket load or even anti tank missiles to give a more stand off ability along with likely being safer. A prop plane might make a harder target compared to a light helicopter due to its speed it will fly at and does take up more of a combat load in most cases. Well you can’t say one is better then the other for COIN as many nations use them as a team to provide support to the ground troops.
Last year the Philippines spear headed thier attacks on the ASG with OV-10Cs and MD-520s even small groups of these (2 and 2) would force the ASG to flee as they could not stop them. Transport helicopters can move in the follow up troops to chase the rebels down while the OV-10s and MD-520s provide cover along with ground based 105mm artillery.
During the early 1960s the RLAF fitted a couple of C-47 transports with 12.7mm Browning heavy machine guns and used them to cover airbases at night time becuase the AT-28s woudl nto fly at night. This was stopped becuase it took the planes away from moving other things (opuim).
They got AC-47s with 7.62mm gattling guns in 1969.
“Could you tell me some examples of real life usage by the operators in the COIN environment? I am especially interested in small airforces like Phillipines. And how were the results?”
Well for example Laos, the RLAF used the AT-28D for CAS/COIN work. The planes were tasked with supporting operations of the RLA and Hmong forces against the North Vietnamese army and Pathet Lao. They got somewhere around 60-70 AT-28Ds. Anyways. The planes conducted up to 3000 sorties a month by about 1966 facing enemy fire from AAA (23mm, 57mm, 100mm) and SAMs (SA-2/7) and were important in allowing the less well equipped Hmong and RLA hold out for around 15 years against the Communist forces. The North Vietnamese for example has much longer ranged artillery then the RLA or Hmong so airpower was the only way for them to attempt to silence the guns.
During the 1964 RLA offensive on the “Ho Chi Minh Trail” the AT-28s were guided by large white arrows carried by the RLA which they would point in the direction of the enemy and the AT-28s would drop their ordnance in that direction. It was a cheap but very effective way to guide in the planes. The AT-28 was vulnerable in the face of SAMs and heavy AAA but continued to launch strikes up to the end of the war with excellent results. The RLAF also used the AC-47 gunship in defense of Hmong mountain top bases and for attacking North Vietnamese supply columns. The UH-1H and S-58 were used to transport units around the battlefield behind the North Vietnamese and Pathet lao front lines on the Plain of Jars while AT-28s and AC-47s would cover the helicopters and attack any enemy infantry or heavy equipment in the area. U-17s and O-1s acting as FACs would often guide the AT-28s and AC-47s on to target. During the war the RLAF went from a small airforce with 6 AT-6s, a couple O-1s and MS-500s and a couple Alouette II to a large one in the end getting over 60-70 AT-28Ds and over 20 AC-47s, dozens of O-1s an U-17s along with a good number of UH-1Hs and S-58s.
The first use of airpower post WWII in the Philippines was in 1954 to combat the Huks. The PhAF used the F-51D, L-5 and C-47 to combat these rebels. The most important plane they had was no surprise the L-5 which they used as a FAC, to drop supplies to special forces and to harass Huks. The plane would drop hand grenades and mortar shells to scare Huks. The L-5 was also used to remove the wounded and of course to call in bigger assets such as the F-51D. The F-51D was used to attack fields were the Huks grew crops by dropping 100lb bombs. 1000lb bombs were dropped on suspected Huk camps. Of course bombs were also dropped on the Huk ground units by the F-51Ds but it did not see near as much action as the L-5 in constantly being in the area to support the ground troops.
The Philippines used the AT-28 for COIN/CAS during the 1960s-1980s. The plane severed in the 15th Strike Wing until replaced by the OV-10C. The AT-28 there had a great record of action in saving Mindanao from the MNLF by providing excellent CAS ever though at first the planes lacked the proper radios to even talk to the guys on the ground. Air power was the only real difference in terms of size and equipment of the Philippine Army/Marines and the MNLF as both sides carried similar weapons and operated in smaller groups. The COIN aircraft, which also included the AC-47 gunship, were used to support the Governments drive to retake lost territory and did so with great effect. Jet fighters such as the F-86D/F and F-5A/B also figured heavily in the counter attacks. The power of the air force was shown during the battle of Sibula Hill on the Island of Sulu in November 1972. A battalion of elite Philippine Marines were trapped by guerillas of the MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front) and were under risk of being wiped out by the well armed MNLF. The PAF moved over 60 fixed and rotary wing planes to the area and launched day and night air strikes and drops of supplies to the besieged Marines. F-5As, F-86Fs, AT-33s, T-34s, AC-47s and UH-1Hs were used in the operation to smash the MNLF and rescue the troops. UH-1Hs were used to pull the troops out.
During the 1989 coup attempt the 15th strike wing and it’s AT-28s were used to bomb government positions during the start. The 5th fighters wings 6th squadron and it’s F-5As attacked them on the ground crippling most for the loss of one F-5A and it’s pilot. After the war the AT-28Ds were rebuilt and served on for a couple more years. In the 15th strike wing the Philippines COIN unit they fly the OV-10C, SF-260W and MD-520 all in the attack role. The OV-10 and MD-520 are often teamed up to maximize the firepower brought to bear on the enemy.
I would say COIN operations with Indonesia have been less successful for a few reasons. For most of its history the TNI-AU has suffered from poor maintenance and even worse it has been hit with spare parts embargoes several times. The F-51D/K and B-25J were the first planes they used to combat internal groups and did a very good job in spite of being under an unofficial American embargo during the late 1950s and early 1960s. The Russian planes saw little service and did not go out in anger but the F-51D/K, B-25J and newly delivered B-26 were tasked with putting down uprising across the nation. After relations with the USA improved they were given T-33 jet trainer and Australian built F-86 Sabres. During the invasion of Timor the TNI-AU had to use C-47 cargo planes fitted with 12.7mm machine guns to support group operations due to a lack of training with the American built jets.
Soon OV-10s joined the force and were heavily used as they brought a good deal of ordinance onto target. The 1990s the infamous Hawk 209 was bought which has been heavily used over East Timor and Aceh in spire of denials. The plane has been used for CAS and to strike villages. The Hawk 200 was used to cover C-130s dropping paratroopers last year in Aceh from enemy fire. Embargoes have hurt the fleet but the Hawk 200s along with the Hawk 50s and Hawk 100s remain active. Over Aceh last year F-16A/B Block 15 OCUs were used to make sonic booms to scare the locals. Helicopters such as the S-58T, Bell 412 and Super Puma are in use to provide transport to troops and BO-105s to attack ground targets.
You should check out my thread in ACIG past wars about Laos 1954-1975, Airpower in the Philippines and dig through Indonesia past wars topic. It would also be good to check the article about Cambodia Tom, Albert and myself worked on. Those will document much on COIN airpower in small conflicts.
If you want more tell me and of course tell me what else you want to hear
“What advantages do they have over choppers like the Lama and Aloette series? Very low cost would definitely be one.”
First off this is not apples and oranges more like apples and wheat thins.
Well first off it would depend on who one was fighting. If I had to hit trucks defended with light anti aircraft units I would likely prefer the attack trainer but if all I had to do was chase farmers who robbed a local police station the Lama might be a little more useful and politically less offensive. Firepower, speed and protection are some advantages a converted prop trainer would have over the Lama. I have no heard of many fixed wing prop trainers getting whacked with RPG-7 fire but more advanced helicopters then the Lama seem to attract RPG-7 fire.
For example an AT-28D-5 would be able to carry a larger combat load to drop on the enemy such as several 500lb bombs (6) or Napalm or a much larger rocket load then the Lama would dream of taking up (6 pods vs. 2 pods). The Lama is not the most impressive helicopter in terms of air to ground ever and likely lacks the protection of the AT-28D-5 for example. While I would not feel al that safe flying against 23mm flak in an AT-28D-5 I would refuse to fly a Lama anywhere near where I think 23mm flak would be or a 12.7mm machine gun for that matter. An AT-28 can take hits and go home I’m not all that sure about a very light Lama. The Lama also would make a better slower target then an AT-28D-5 for a militiaman with an AK-47. I would rather have a UH-1H gunship then a Lama.
But it is really a flawed comparison as the Lama is a more a liaison bird and maybe for scaring people carrying little more the rocks, bows and arrows and handguns while prop attack trainers have been used in heavy threat environments (Laos, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia) and not just dropping bombs on farmers. No I’m not saying prop trainers are always better to employ then an attack helicopter just that a really light bird like the Lama might not be the best bird to hunt down well armed rebel forces. But then teaming prop trainers and helicopters in a COIN setting can be highly effective.
“India is insignificant. (Even is all quality assets are deployed against India)”
China’s best units and equipment faces Taiwan, Japan, the Koreas and the South China Sea. Truthfully said China points better units at the Philippines then India.
“Nope, there’s never be a history of Vietnamese guys mass attacking Chinese threads.”
Don’t you worry there will be soon 😀 , even if I have to make 13 new user IDs (joking).
“You understand the ideas of precedence and probability?”
No doubt but you really don’t help things out with your very nasty attitude. I do suspect that Brute goes to threads involving Chinese topics to state facts to put Chinese domestically made equipment in a poor light. He put up information you should rebuke it not call him a “flamer”. Becuase if his goal is to derail Chinese threads then yes he is great at his “job” so you should just rebuke his points and leave him holding an empty bag.
“Bottom line is you need to not stick your pretty little nose where it doesn’t belong.”
Well my nose is very pretty 😮 …
“Let’s. After all that, the original post was pretty damning of the old plane and of SAC itself.”
Well the topic could go into looking into a military need to continue to built and develop the J-8 family.
“With you and me, it’s simply personal”
Well that would imply a hatred for you which I’m lacking as of this moment 🙂