Civilian Aircraft and Military Training Aircraft Converted to COIN Missions

[Jeffry Fontaine]

...their article was about the USAF looking for a cheaper off the shelf lowtech COIN solution for areas like Iraq & Afghanistan.

In the 1960s that was called the "Cessna A-37B."  In the 1970s it was called the "Fairchild A-10"  Now that the A-10 has gotten high-tech (becuase no general in the USAF worthy of his rank can *STAND* having a low-tech airplane in his service), we have to look for a low-tech replacement.

How about new-build OV-10s?  Probably the best FAC/COIN airplane ever made.  And you can haul two stretcher patients in the back end as well!

J

You got it right!  New build OV-10 Broncos to rule the roost in both locations.  It worked well for the missions it was performing as FAC and light attack and when you are dealing with light infantry type forces the OV-10 is capable of carrying the weapons needed for taking out the trash and it can also haul people in the back in the medical evacuation role or for an airborne insertion of a small reconnaissance team.  Remember too that the Bronco was also designed from the start for rough field use so it can operate from a primitive forward airfield with nothing but dirt for a runway.  

Get it rolling with the PT6 and a nice multiple blade propeller to help reduce the noise (they were very noisy in flight) and you would have a nice stable obversation and gun platform.  Definitely would need something more effective at spraying bullets than the four M60 machine guns that equipped the originals.  Maybe a pair of .50 machine guns or a single mini-gun, or one of each to allow it to service people type targets and vehicle type targets.  Now the big question is whether the production jigs are still available or did they consign them to the scrap pile.  

Still the big reality check is whether there is any adult supervison available for the military as they seem to be re-inventing the wheel once again with the same old song and dance.  At least the Boy Scouts have adult supervision...

[Shasper]

I agree on adding the PT6s or equivilent to the OV-10D. A few changes I would make would be a slight fuselage stretch between the aft cockpit and the wing joint & lengthen the wing a bit for a few extra pylons, maybe tweak the flaps a bit for a modest enhancement in STOL ops? I'm also thinking that the tailboombs could be built up over the wing for extra fuel.


Ok I'm thinking too much now, where's my aerodynamics book?



Shas B)

[Maverick]

I think the OV-10 upgraded could be a solution, but at the end of the day as Jon said, the use of a GPS or Laser guided bomb to take out a couple of guys is in a word ridiculous.  He made the most critical point thus far, a CAS plan is the most important thing, then worry about the actual airframe.  But once again, time will kill this way before anything concrete actually happens plan or airframe-wise.

As I said earlier, as long as the US (AF in particular) chooses to ignore the lessons of history and want high-tech zoomies instead of something more applicable to real world applications, they will continue to go into these 'small wars' and end up with incidents of fratricide and collateral damage.

At the end of the day the Raptor might be some wundermaschin great for knocking down the bad guy's fighters, but what happens when he doesn't have fighters?

Mav

[elmayerle]

Get it rolling with the PT6 and a nice multiple blade propeller to help reduce the noise (they were very noisy in flight) and you would have a nice stable obversation and gun platform.

Another option would simply be to use later-model TPE331/T76 engines instead of the early ones on the OV-10 (I'm not sure that was an upgrade area on the OV-10D).  

There's already been a wing stretch over the prototype to get the wing loading more reasonable (I seem to remember that most kits have the prototype dimensions here).  The rear center fuselage could have modular weapons packages as an alternative to a rather modest troop-carrying ability.

[elmayerle]

Ok, here's an idea... we all know that first (and only?) atempt to fit a turboprop into a Skyraider fuselage ended into a costly and miserable failure (the skyshark).
But this was nearly 60 years ago...
What modern turboprop would fit into a Skyraider ?   

Can someone imagine a Tyne or T-56 Spad ?   

I still have four T-56 (from Heller) left by what become the FSW soviet bomber (I have to end this one one day    )

Now you give me ideas... a T-56 Skyraider...

The failure was primarily due to the engine (XT40) being a right dog, like its single gas-generator sib, the XT38.  Now the XT38 went through considerable refinement to become the T56 and the XT40 was slated for the same treatment as the T54 but was never, to my knowledge, built.  Do an updated Skyshark, add a bubble canopy, and away you go.

[jcf]

Get it rolling with the PT6 and a nice multiple blade propeller to help reduce the noise (they were very noisy in flight) and you would have a nice stable obversation and gun platform.

Another option would simply be to use later-model TPE331/T76 engines instead of the early ones on the OV-10 (I'm not sure that was an upgrade area on the OV-10D).  

There's already been a wing stretch over the prototype to get the wing loading more reasonable (I seem to remember that most kits have the prototype dimensions here).  The rear center fuselage could have modular weapons packages as an alternative to a rather modest troop-carrying ability.

Hi Evan,
the differences from the prototype to the production aircraft were:
1) the booms were moved six inches further outboard, mainly to reduce cockpit noise;
2) the wingspan was increased by 10 feet;
3) down-angled sponsons replaced the horizontal version on the prototype.

The 1/48th Hawk/Testors kit has the extended wingspan, however it also has the boom spacing of the prototype making it a bit of a hybrid... and causing JMN's to spend money for the Paragon 'corrections'.

The 1/72 Academy kits are approximately correct for production aircraft.

I always liked the original short wing layout:


Cheers, Jon

[philp]

Picked up the Airfix Chipmunk kit for a buck at SLC-08 and have been wondering what to do with it when inspiration hit (ouch).

Mark it in some small air forces markings and add some ground attack capability to it (gun pods, rockets, and/or bombs (ok, small ones)).  If I remove the GIB, that would increase load capability.  Armed trainers (both prop and jet) have been used in this role before.  T-6 Texan, PC-7 and 9, etc.
Lets see, looking at the list of users for forces that could have used a COIN version, the most likely countries would be Burma, Ceylon, Kenya, Lebanon, Thailand, Uruguay or Zambia.
Weaponry I have in stock are the machine guns from the Heller Texan kit, a minigun and rocket pods from an O-2, and a couple small bombs that I am not sure what their origin was.

So, any other ideas?  Any other countries, other aircraft in the role, etc?

[AeroplaneDriver]

I just won a 'Munk on ebay for $2 (local seller, no shipping!  ) and I've been thinking along the same lines.  Zac did a COIN version a while back IIRC.  I was thinking about either a Brit-Nam FAC machine with rocket pods, and possibly a small turbine engine like an Allison 250, or maybe as a nice shiny bird from a ficticious RN display team.

[Maverick]

I like the FAC idea when it comes to trainers/civvie types.  Experience in Vietnam showed that 'off the shelf' was rarely a winner for a dedicated COIN machine, but as FACs they weren't too badly suited.  For smaller nations, who are most likely going to war from a purely COIN sense, they do however have some benefits, mainly due to costs associated with purchasing and maintaining purely military a/c.

Regards,

Mav

[Jeffry Fontaine]

de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk information on-line:
Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-1_Chipmunk
Warbird Alley http://www.warbirdalley.com/chipmunk.htm
RCAF.com http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/trainers/chipmunk/index.php?name=Chipmunk
dhchipmunk.com http://www.dhchipmunk.com/
Fiddler's Green de Havilland Chipmunk paper card model http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/DeHavilland-Chipmunk/chipmunk.php

[philp]

The Tucano is another possible for this role as the recent Columbian attacks on FARC have demonstrated.
The Biafran's used Texans and MFI-9B's, and Texans were used by French, Spanish and Portuguese.

[Maverick]

I've got a Tucano in the stash that is heading that way, although mine will most likely be USMC FAC or COIN.  I'm thinking of an EO turret on the centreline and markers or chaff pods for the wings.  All of that along with the requisite low viz camo.

Regards,

Mav

[GTX]

The Tucano is another possible for this role as the recent Columbian attacks on FARC have demonstrated.

The Columbians used EMB-314 Super Tucanos which is indeed a dedicated COIN/CAS aircraft rather than being a trainer.  It's also larger than the standard EMB-312 Tucano.


Regards,

Greg

[Mike Wren]

how about RAF Tucanos being used in a secondary wartime role (like Hawks as point defence fighters) as FACs/light attack?

weathered & chipped desert pink temporary paint with the gloss black trainer colours showing through & a couple of CRV-7 pods underwing over Afghanistan?

[Shasper]

I've actually wanted to do a RAF Tuc in retro N. Africa WW2 camo & shark teeth . . . Pity that kit is at home now.

Shas b)