BAe SABA 'mud fighter'

[harrier]

Looking back at the BAe SABA proposal of the late 80s, I was wondering if this is what is really needed in Afghanistan/Iraq, not Typhoon or even Harrier (or even the P.1216!).

Although intended initially to hunt Mil Hind helos, SABA was also designed for close air support low down, with very low IR signature and protection against gunfire. 400 knots on the deck top speed is similar to Harrier at cruise thrust, and turning radius was very small (0.1 mile).

In Tony Buttler's Bombers book a model is shown of the SABA. Any ideas who made it?

Thoughts on this 'mud fighter' welcome. According to Flight 5/12/87, the US Army was seriously interested in up to 1,000 of them.

Pic shows P.1233-1 SABA of 1987.

[Alvis 3.1]

I've always thought it was a gorgeous looking plane. I'm sure the US Army was interested, but would have run splat into the USAF policy when trying to procure any. I think it being prop driven was it's kiss of death...despite any advantages of that, bean counters and politicians aren't too keen on "old" style airplanes.

Alvis 3.1

[lancer]

Thorvic has built the jet version of this bird though. It was on display at Telford.

[harrier]

Back then its contra-prop was known as an un-ducted fan or propfan, i.e. very high bpr turbofan, and was fashionable (see http://members.aol.com/sciszek/propfan.htm). Perhaps that would have helped it along?

Who else might have bought it? Sweden, Switzerland, Finland? All are off base air forces, and SABA was for off base. How about USMC? Apparently they used to fly the STOL Bronco from carriers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV-10_Bronco . Perhaps UK RAF (instead of Army Apache?) and FAA (off HMS Ocean to support Royal Marines?). Or Army and Marines themselves!?! :dum:

Anyway, GA attached this time, from Tony Buttler's book

[TsrJoe]

coming soon as a resin kit (at long long last!)

cheers, joe (theres a ga drg of this one in the 'vault' on my TSR site)

 

[Son of Damian]

Who else might have bought it? Sweden, Switzerland, Finland?

Probably anybody who bought the OV-10, and probably some that didn't

The Philippens
Indoneisa
Venezuela  
South Korea
Thailand
Singapore
Australia
Kenya
Bostwana
South Africa - post apartide
Brazil
Chile
Columbia

Really any country that has a need for a cheap and simple to operate fighter and COIN aircraft, most of Africa and Southern and Centeral America.

[Geoff_B]

I built the 1234/2 which was a jet powered development of the SABA.

Looking forward to the Spot-On 1233 SABA from Joe    

[Sentinel Chicken]

I think the whole SABA concept was very fascinating and the P1233 in its various incarnations attractive looking aircraft.

But I have my doubts as to their viabliity- not necessarily from a survivability aspect, but from a flexibility aspect. They seem to be narrow-use/specialist aircraft and a lot of the countries mentioned that might have been SABA users used light trainers or light attack aircraft in the roles that a SABA might have filled- only a light trainer (S.211, Super Tucano, etc.) or a light attack aircraft (OV-10 Bronco, A-37 Dragonfly) offers more flexibility with different roles.

That of course isn't going to stop me from perhaps doing a P.1233 illustration or two.......

[Triton]

Sentinel Chicken, did you ever do illustrations of the P.1233?

Amazing that the US Army wanted a 1,000 to replace the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. It seems that the US Air Force never liked this airplane and wanted to take them out of service before Gulf War I. It also seems that the US Air Force has a turf battle with the US Army and yet it seems that it does not want to do the Close Air Support (CAS) role.

[Tornado]

Tony Buttler in BSP shows the alternative layout with a pusher engine and twin booms. This seems the better design for conventionality. No snags in testing and nothing to put off the bean counters who hate odd looking things.

Very much a Cold War design but it could have worked and could have sold in reasonable numbers to Middle Eastern and Asian nations but trainer COIN aircraft have advantages of multi-role where as the SABA can only fight tanks and helicopters (a nose mounted FLIR system would allow recon work maybe a USCG version?).

[RP1]

a nose mounted FLIR system would allow recon work maybe a USCG version

Either that or compatibility with modern podded EO surveillance and designation systems. A lot of CAS in Afganistan is now done by orbiting fighters using powerful EO devices to find and ID the enemy. Given how many pylons there are something could be hung under the wing.

RP1

[dy031101]

a nose mounted FLIR system would allow recon work maybe a USCG version

Either that or compatibility with modern podded EO surveillance and designation systems. A lot of CAS in Afganistan is now done by orbiting fighters using powerful EO devices to find and ID the enemy. Given how many pylons there are something could be hung under the wing.

Or, for a none-jettisoning hardpoint, do it like the Sargeant Fletcher LITE, a modified external fuel tank with sensors in the forward half of it.