Tactical Aircraft

Some of our readers have an interest in new developments in military aircraft. This short note explores an interesting concept for counter-insurgency operations.

The folks at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=162115 and from http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/companies-pitch-ideas-for-new-light-attack-aircraft/ tell us that serious consideration is being given to a repeat of the counterinsurgency (COIN) aircraft ideas prevalent during the closing years of the Vietnam era. The specifications reported by militaryphotos.net indicate a two-seat turboprop with a ceiling of 30,000 ft equipped with zero-altitude/zero-airspeed ejection seats, and an armored cockpit. In addition to weapons stations for two 500lb bombs, features for 2.75 inch rockets and rails for guided weapon, the aircraft is to have a full-motion video camera, infrared suppressor, radar warning receiver, and data link. The 27 July ’09 RFP indicates first deliveries in FY 2012 and IOC in FY 2013.

Discussion:

The piston-driven AT-28 used by several air forces during the Vietnam era exceeded these performance specifications with enough margin that the armored cockpit could be readily implemented along with the camera and other equipment. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28_Trojan ) The Thai air force T-28’s occasionally carried air-to-air missiles.

This writer directed a few hundred strikes by the T-28 in another country and learned that this aircraft was capable of very precise bombing. The pilots routinely blew out the smoke markers dropped by the FAC and there are anecdotal reports of 500 lb bombs going through the turret hatches of North Vietnamese tanks. The precision was largely due to the aircraft’s maneuverability, highly experienced pilots, and rules of engagement that allowed for weapon releases much closer to the target than their USAF counterparts. There is no question that an aircraft of the type requested would be effective in a benign environment.

Fast forward to the 21st Century — Manportable antiarcraft weapons have made survivable employment of these aircraft problematic. Witness the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and the current USAF practices in the war on terror. Add to the mix the much more sophisticated air-to-surface and air-to-air weaponry that can be brought onto the scene by the state or states sponsoring the insurgency and the viability of the aircraft as described might be viewed as questionable.

Small wonder that the Iraqis would prefer F-16’s to a ‘light’ fighter. In truth they need a mix. The larger fighter to discourage dabbling by their bellicose neighbors and the light fighter to reduce the enthusiasm of the local insurgency.

Even though there are many other major issues that need to be worked, as well as not just a few subtle “gotchas” waiting in the shadows, this aircraft offers a capability that needs to be seriously examined.

Let’s see where a discussion takes us — Is this class of aircraft a valuable addition to the US and other Air Force inventories? Or is the role better suited to rotary wing aircraft?