What's new

piston engine aircraft for anti terror operations

vizier

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
720
Reaction score
0
Country
Turkey
Location
Turkey
As we have seen throughout Syrian war even if air power is not enough it can turn the tides just like the 5 month Russian air support that gave upper hand to Syrian army.

There are ofcourse drawbacks such as the cost of jet fuel in every operation, supplies and maintenance of sophisticated modern aircraft and each aircraft costs a huge deal.

What about returning to ww2 style piston/turboprop engine classic fighter/bombers of old.

Mostly made of wood,very easy to maintain and consumes cheap fuel also lower speed better for air to ground operations. Since it is low cost hundreds can be produced. Also they can land on semi prepared runways.

Constraints are 7+km operation flight altitude since manpads cant fly effectively above 5km and laser guided bomb kit to effectively strike from that high altitude.

Disadvantages can be low range and payload of aircraft compared to jets. Armed drones can also do a similar job without risking the pilot but even lower payload and higher production cost. Also only works against primitive counter terrorism type of operations but a hundred of these beasts would be a game changer for every country against proxy wars targeting them.Iraq and Syria would be willing customers.

Similarly Usa already plans to use ov 10 bronco aircraft from vietnam war for operations in Syria.
 
Mostly made of wood,
its a delusion that WW2 looks like planes were made of wood.. anyway, wood body aircrafts will be downed by AK- 47, fire, lightning and humidity ;) ...
however, good suggestion
 
its a delusion that WW2 looks like planes were made of wood.. anyway, wood body aircrafts will be downed by AK- 47, fire, lightning and humidity ;) ...
however, good suggestion

So be it whatever it is still cheaper than composites on jets.Similar to Ov10 bronco that Usa plans to use.

It's age of UCAV.

Also if that ucav costs 20 million $ and carries two atgms only to strike rpg stinger equipped militant war would be too costly sustain.
 
still cheaper than composites
its not about cost but functionality... if we are used some target or suicidal drones then, yes wood made drones are good option.. but of composite and fiber glass drones have good operational life.
wood is way heavier than composites and cannot be made in thin sheets or light spars.. plus materilas should be homogeneous for expansion/contraction due to weather change.
there are many constraints using woods...
 
its not about cost but functionality... if we are used some target or suicidal drones then, yes wood made drones are good option.. but of composite and fiber glass drones have good operational life.
wood is way heavier than composites and cannot be made in thin sheets or light spars.. plus materilas should be homogeneous for expansion/contraction due to weather change.
there are many constraints using woods...

Yes then without the wood. Similar to Ov 10 bomber a turboprop aircraft would pack a good punch from sufficiently high without operating the costs of jets or minimal payload of uavs.
 
So be it whatever it is still cheaper than composites on jets.Similar to Ov10 bronco that Usa plans to use.



Also if that ucav costs 20 million $ and carries two atgms only to strike rpg stinger equipped militant war would be too costly sustain.
That's one time production cost but they are far more cheaper and safer to operate.
Asad used initially subsonics in Syria against rebels with devastating results.
 
There is difference between piston engine and a turboprop engine. Turbo prop engined aircrafts such as OV 10, C130, Tu95, Fokker F27 and ATR 72 are all technically jet aircraft. Turbo prop engines became popular after WWII
 
Talking about something like these ?

Super Tucano
maxresdefault.jpg


Hürkuş-C
8b5f072c1138210f56c1ab00224a42d9.jpg


It's age of UCAV.
Hürkuş can carry 4 MK-82 bombs(250 kg each)....that you can't do with an UCAV.
 
I have said this many times before on the forum, and I still strongly believe that the good old propeller aircraft is due for
rejuvenation.

It is just too cheap to operate and too simple to maintain.
 
Aircraft like the Super Tucano certainly are useful in the right situations, but against any force that has modern AAA and/or SAMS, including the shoulder launched variety, slow propeller driven AC are "cannon fodder". And for countries on a budget, they only make sense if you have no real air threat, as is the case with many Latin American operators. If you have a limited budget, you need to maximise more "bang for the buck". Buy tactical aircraft that can be utilized for both tactical strike and air-to-air missions. Even the USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for that reason and hand over those air-to-ground missions to the F-16.
 
Similarly Usa already plans to use ov 10 bronco aircraft from vietnam war for operations in Syria.

They just want to sell those aircraft to Iraq ,,, use drone to detect Terrorist and send Su25 or F16 to hunt them ...
 
Aircraft like the Super Tucano certainly are useful in the right situations, but against any force that has modern AAA and/or SAMS, including the shoulder launched variety, slow propeller driven AC are "cannon fodder". And for countries on a budget, they only make sense if you have no real air threat, as is the case with many Latin American operators. If you have a limited budget, you need to maximise more "bang for the buck". Buy tactical aircraft that can be utilized for both tactical strike and air-to-air missions. Even the USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 for that reason and hand over those air-to-ground missions to the F-16.

Manpads have about 5km altitude. That is why drones generally operate above that and drone losses operating at that altitude are low.large aa guns would be a problem but they are immobile and can be attacked with stand off ammunition.

Syrian army only recently got laser guided bomb upgraded migs and not all of them. Dumb bomb fighters like Syrian mig21 still forces them to dive to attack accurately resulting in getting into manpad altitude reach.

Also detection and attack can be made by same platform if loiter time is sufficient.
 
This Vietnam war era OV10 Bronco back in service.....@ service in Syria by US force.

ov10b_gwoba_fassberg_july00_talemans_06_large.jpg

48585489.cached.jpg


Why Is America Using These Antique Planes to Fight ISIS?
The U.S. military is testing a dependable, rugged little vintage bomber as it battles elusive ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq.
War was just an experiment for two of the U.S. military’s oldest and most unusual warplanes. A pair of OV-10 Broncos—small, Vietnam War-vintage, propeller-driven attack planes—recently spent three months flying top cover for ground troops battling ISIS militants in the Middle East.

The OV-10s’ deployment is one of the latest examples of a remarkable phenomenon. The United States—and, to a lesser extent, Russia—has seized the opportunity afforded it by the aerial free-for-all over Iraq and Syria and other war zones to conduct live combat trials with new and upgraded warplanes, testing the aircraft in potentially deadly conditions before committing to expensive manufacturing programs.

That’s right. America’s aerial bombing campaigns are also laboratories for the military and the arms industry. After all, how better to pinpoint an experimental warplane’s strengths and weaknesses than to send it into an actual war?

The twin-engine Broncos—each flown by a pair of naval aviators—completed 134 sorties, including 120 combat missions, over a span of 82 days beginning in May 2015 or shortly thereafter, according to U.S. Central Command, which oversees America’s wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Central Command would not say exactly where the OV-10s were based or where they attacked, but did specify that the diminutive attack planes with their distinctive twin tail booms flew in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led international campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon has deployed warplanes to Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, among other countries.

There are plenty of clues as to what exactly the Broncos were doing. For one, the Pentagon’s reluctance to provide many details about the OV-10s’ overseas missions implies that the planes were working in close conjunction with Special Operations Forces. In all likelihood, the tiny attackers acted as a kind of quick-reacting 9-1-1 force for special operators, taking off quickly at the commandos’ request and flying low to hit elusive militants with guns and rockets, all before the fleet-flooted jihadis could slip away.
The military’s goal was “to determine if properly employed turbo-prop driven aircraft… would increase synergy and improve the coordination between the aircrew and ground commander,” Air Force Capt. P. Bryant Davis, a Central Command spokesman, told The Daily Beast.

Davis said that the military also wanted to know if Broncos or similiar planes could take over for jet fighters such as F-15s and F/A-18s, which conduct most of America’s airstrikes in the Middle East but are much more expensive to buy and operate than a propeller-driven plane like the OV-10. An F-15 can cost as much as $40,000 per flight-hour just for fuel and maintenance. By contrast, a Bronco can cost as little as $1,000 for an hour of flying.

Indeed, that was the whole point of the OV-10 when North American Aviation, now part of Boeing, developed the Bronco way back in the 1960s. The Pentagon wanted a small, cheap attack plane that could take off from rough airstrips close to the fighting. By sticking close to the front lines, the tiny planes would always be available to support ground troops trying to root out insurgent forces.

The Bronco turned out to be just the thing the military needed. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps deployed hundreds of OV-10s in Vietnam, where the tiny planes proved rugged, reliable, and deadly to the enemy. After Vietnam, the Navy retired its Broncos and the Air Force swapped its own copies for jet-powered A-10s, but the Marines hung onto the dependable little bombers and even flew them from small Navy aircraft carriers before finally retiring them in the mid-1990s.

Foreign air forces and civilian and paramilitary operators quickly snatched up the decommissioned Broncos. They proved popular with firefighting agencies. The Philippines deployed OV-10s to devastating effect in its counterinsurgency campaign against Islamic militants. The U.S. State Department sent Broncos to Colombia to support the War on Drugs. NASA used them for airborne tests.

Thirty years after Vietnam, the Pentagon again found itself fighting elusive insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and other war zones. It again turned to the OV-10 for help. In 2011, Central Command and Special Operations Command borrowed two former Marine Corps Broncos—from NASA or the State Department, apparently—and fitted them with new radios and weapons.

The Defense Department slipped $20 million into its 2012 budget to pay for the two OV-10s to deploy overseas—part of a wider military experiment with smaller, cheaper warplanes.

There was certainly precedent for the experiment going back a decade or more. During the 1991 Gulf War, the Air Force deployed a prototype E-8 radar plane to track Iraqi tanks across the desert. The Air Force’s high-flying Global Hawk spy drone was still just a prototype when the Air Force sent it overseas to spy on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in late 2001. Satisfied with both aircraft’s wartime trials, the military ultimately spent billions of dollars buying more of them.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!
Daily DigestStart and finish your day with the smartest, sharpest takes from The Daily Beast
Cheat SheetA speedy, smart summary of news and must-reads from The Daily Beast and across the Web
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
Not to be outdone, in November 2015 Russia sent Tu-160 heavy bombers to strike targets in Syria—the giant bombers’ very first combat mission, and one that many observers assumed was really meant as a test of the planes’ combat capabilities in advance of a planned upgrade program.

Such combat experiments don’t always please everyone. When the Pentagon proposed to spend $20 million on the OV-10s, Sen. John McCain, the penny-pinching Arizona Republican who now chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, objected. “There is no urgent operational requirement for this type of aircraft,” McCain said in a statement. Lawmakers subsequently canceled most of the Broncos’ funding, but the military eventually succeeded in paying for the trial by diverting money from other programs.

The OV-10s proved incredibly reliable in their 82 days of combat, completing 99 percent of the missions planned for them, according to Davis. Today the two OV-10s are sitting idle at a military airfield in North Carolina while testers crunch the numbers from their trial deployment. The assessment will “determine if this is a valid concept that would be effective in the current battlespace,” Central Command spokesman Davis said.

Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold, the head of Air Force Special Operations Command, has already hinted that the military will stick with its current jet fighters for attack missions. At a February defense-industry conference in Orlando, Heithold said the OV-10s have “some utility,” but added that it’s too expensive to pay for training and supplies for a fleet of just two airplanes. Typically, the Pentagon buys hundreds of planes at a time, partly to achieve economies of scale.

Yes, the OV-10s are cheaper per plane and per flight than, say, an F-15. But for those savings to matter, the military would need to acquire hundreds of Broncos—not two. And that’s not something that planners are willing to do quite yet.

Which is not to say the tiny attackers’ combat trial was a failure. To know for sure whether the Vietnam-veteran OV-10s still had anything to offer, the military had to send them back to war. And lucky for testers, there’s still plenty of war going on.
 
This just make no sense , they want to retire their best plane for such mission which is A-10 and then they experiment with another plane which follow the same concept but fall behind A-10 by any standard you measure it? and they had to spend 20,000,000 just for two old plane
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom