Credible Chase and PAVE COIN...... and maybe future reincarnations?

[dy031101]

Some time ago I stumbled across the term "Credible Chase".  Modified Pilatus PC-6 with a cabin-mounted 20mm Vulcan cannon for COIN.  Um......

In a outburst of curiosity, I googled the term.  The plane, designated AU-23A Peacemaker, is based on PC-6 liscence-built by Fairchild in the US and can carry bombs and rockets as well.  It was tested in Vietnam by both the USAF and RVNAF under PAVE COIN program and was criticised for its slow speed and lack of armour.  The aircraft is recommended to not be used in combat without a major upgrade program although how the problems would have been addressed isn't described.  Another aircraft tested in parallel was the AU-24, based on the US-made Helio Stallion and similarly equipped.

Later an armed version of Cessna Caravan designated as C-16 was proposed for COIN in Central America.  It too was considered too vulnerable to ground fire.

Now fast forward to the scene following Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Reportedly the ISR King Air meant for new Iraqi air force would be armed with Hellfire missiles as well.  An AFM article on aircraft operating in Bosnia very briefly praised Cessna Grand Caravan as being very quiet and hard to detect, second only to if not on par with UAVs.

Now it got me wondering...... since standoff guided weapons are all the rage nowadays anyway, could some of the weaknesses behind the Credible Chase concept be indirectly overcome?  Those who for any reason decide against aquiring UAV could modify whatever platforms they have on hand with an all-weather sensor suite, self defense systems, and an array of standoff range, precision guided munitions that allow the planes to stay close enough to the troops on the ground yet far away enough from the effective range of most hostile anti-aircraft weapons?

Like any single- and twin-engine utility aircraft...... even kitplanes like Comp Air?  Talk about unlikely platforms for Hellfire missiles......

Other ideas and criticisms would be welcomed as always.

[Ed S]

Here are a couple websites that might have some info you're looking for.  With a number of links to similar pages.

http://www.combatreform2.com/killerbees2.htm

http://www.combatreform2.com/killerbees3.htm

HTH

Ed

[Shasper]

I cant independently confirm this, but some years ago I heard that a unidentified US agency was using armed Caravans in a border patrol / COIN role in Afghanistan.

AFA Credible Chase goes, I think an incarnation of the Do-228 would be doable, both as a iron hauler or sorts and as a gunship (either fwd or side firing). Also the C-27J & CN-295 would work.



Shas b)

[tinlail]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20080219.aspx


"But Iraq is also buying Cessna Grand Caravan 208B  aircraft. This is also a single engine aircraft, but is larger than the four seat 172, and can carry nine passengers, or about a ton of cargo. The 208Bs are being equipped with the same sensors and targeting pods used on the Predator UAV. The 208B can be rigged to carry Hellfire missiles as well, giving the Iraqis an aircraft that can act as an Predator clone, a personnel transport or a cargo hauler."

I wonder what are the tradeoff between a Predator, and a Grand Caravan. Seems to me like a nice flexible system.

[dy031101]

Here are a couple websites that might have some info you're looking for.  With a number of links to similar pages.

Thanks for the link.

Going off-topic for a bit, sites like combatreform.com...... gave me a feeling that they'd commit to bash a platform all the way until its replacement is immediately over the horizon...... and then direct their wrath upon that replacement in defense of the very thing that just outlived their bashing.

Back to the topic, certain items at the end of the killerbees3 page are just what I meant- some of these newer platforms have an Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance capability, and I think survivability is even more important for them, manned or otherwise- and while they may not have the armour, if they can see and shoot far enough, they won't have to stay within the range of hostile AAAs long enough to get hit.

(Reminds me of the upcoming A-67 Dragon...... even that plane, which is a purposed-built COIN aircraft, is being advertised as having an ISR capability......)

Also the C-27J & CN-295 would work.

Even though C-27 and CN-295 are lighter than C-130, I'm actually inclined to think of their gunship versions as the low-end of AC-130-class...... but then it does remind me of this other thread here:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17823.15.html

I wonder what are the tradeoff between a Predator, and a Grand Caravan. Seems to me like a nice flexible system.

I'm interested in the question as well, other than the extra pair(s) of eyes and the risk of personnel safety in case of malfunctions onboard the manned platform.

Edit: Minor clarifications

[Shasper]

Well, if one was to use the old Credible Chase program as a reference, the C-27 or CN-295 wouldnt need to haul a 30mm, 40mm or even the 105mm. Both the Turbo Porter & the Helio Courier carried either the 7.62 minigun or the M197 20mm cannon.

Shas

[dy031101]

Well, if one was to use the old Credible Chase program as a reference, the C-27 or CN-295 wouldnt need to haul a 30mm, 40mm or even the 105mm.

I know, but it sure is tempting to do so. 

Actually, C-27 and CN-295 might be better suited for carrying those cannons- they can be armoured, but same thing couldn't be said for smaller utility aircraft- although I think guns wouldn't be as important as, say, Hellfire missiles.

Would a good sensor suite be able to perhaps extend the reach of the cabin-mounted cannons for a bit (i.e. beyond that of weapons insurgents could easily bring with them)?  Firepower is still firepower in some cases (even for the non-armoured utility plane conversions)......

[tinlail]

I wonder what are the tradeoff between a Predator, and a Grand Caravan. Seems to me like a nice flexible system.

I'm interested in the question as well, other than the extra pair(s) of eyes and the risk of personnel safety onboard the manned platform.

Well one thing to keep in mind is we seem to have two separate ways of operating here.

One is fly at medium to high altitudes and  though the uses of fancy stabilized high power optics, watch and target the enemy. The ordinance dropped is pretty small but precise and guided.
The other old way is to get with in gun range (which goes both ways) and engage with guns and unguided bombs.

A plane capable of doing the second could do the first with the right added equipment, however you would probably not want to take your high priced equipment in to gun range if you were carrying it, so both couldn't be done on the same mission.

So I am not sure that a manned plane acting as a UAV would be in much danger from being shot down, or that a extra person would be very good at looking around, they are too high. I think the questions are.
1) Will motion sickness be a issue if the people are actually on the plane?
2) Will the reduced endurance of the human being (bladder, etc) be operational significant?
3) Are they silly rules that prevent manned operations?
4) Do you need plane that can do more than one task?

[Hman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6dyQtq1heI

Blackwater have thier own gunship...see about 23 seconds in

[tinlail]

From today's Aircraft Resource center website

1/72 Heritage Aviation Pilatus U-28A
(PC-12/45)
" All the above make it quite a unique aircraft, and the US Air Force chose a specialised version to provide intra-theatre support for AFSOC forces.  The aircraft was designated the U-28A and assigned to the 319th Special Operations Squadron (SOS), who now operate 6 airframes.  The 319th, part of the 16th Special Operations Wing (SOW), commenced operations in October 2005 and became combat ready during January 2006.  The U-28A is basically a standard PC-12/45 but with a rather specialised avionics fit (details
classified), notable by the pods on the rear fuselage and the large numbers of aerials."

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal8/7401-7500/gal7462-Pilatus-StClair/00.shtm

[dy031101]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6dyQtq1heI

Blackwater have thier own gunship...see about 23 seconds in

Wikipedia actually points out Blackwater Security as the primary American user of CASA C.212......

Something that's been on and off my mind for some time- would being mounted on a high-flying aircraft give the 50-calibres a somewhat longer reach than staying on the ground (like on tripods or aboard technicals)?

(We know that the planes won't be safe from man-portable missiles...... but then they're deadly to everything that flies......)

[Maverick]

Dy makes quite a telling point here.

Credible Chase & Pave CoIn were only truly effective (if at all) because the insurgents within Cambodia & Laos were at that stage not equipped with MANPADS (eg: SA-7, Stinger, etc).

Within the two current 'insurgency' conflicts (not to be named), both theatres are quite possibly home to MANPADS weapons.  The trade off is the ability of the aircraft, whether manned or uav to be able to effectively locate & identify their targets vs the target's own ability to take out the threat.  Weaponry really isn't the issue here.  The weapon's range will be determined by the aircraft's & its own sensors (or possibly a 3rd party designator), anything that can go beyond the range of these systems, ie: Stand-off munitions becomes useless as the aircraft cannot a) identify or b) acquire the the target.

Attempting counter-insurgency warfare by a purely airborne means is, in my opinion, ridiculous.  Troops on the ground must be deployed otherwise the chances of collateral damage increases and at the end of the day, once the airborne platform goes away, the insurgents carry on with 'business as usual'.

I think that the current insurgencies have people attempting to use technology to avoid military casualties.  Whilst all warm & fuzzy, the reality is insurgency is war and soldiers can die.  Attempting to avoid this through more & more reliance on weapons & systems can only lead to further collateral (ie: civilian) casualties and the inevitable loss of the conflict.

As for Blackwater & the like, can anybody say 'cowboy'?

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

Dy makes quite a telling point here.

If you only know that I'm the one who started this topic (to see people's idea on how Credible Chase can be effective in Iraq).

I want to see how standoff guided weapons, good all-weather sensors, the ever-developing self-defense systems, AND close cooperation with ground troops can help reduce the vulnerability of Credible Chase aircraft.

[Maverick]

Dy,

Light aircraft, converted transports, etc will only be effective in environments without the inclusion of MANPADS.  Once you try to get beyond the range of the SAMs you begin to compromise the capability of the platform to acquire, identify, designate & attack their targets.

They can be an effective support element in certain circumstances, but they cannot effectively operate under all conditions.  Vietnam, Grenada & Desert Storm all showed the advantages & disadvantages of 'gunship' type aircraft.

Adding new sensors, weapons, self-defence suites etc is all well and good, but the trade off will always be target acquisition vs aircraft safety.  Hellfire, etc will allow aircraft to engage ground targets beyond small arms fire, but then do we want to deploy a weapon of that type against insurgents?  In the middle of the desert, sure, why not?  It's a tad expensive but it gets the job done, but in an urban environment and FIBUA seems to be the rage counter-insurgency wise these days, it will be near to useless as will any guided weapon. 

That heads us back to guns, whether they be machine guns, cannon or heavier weapons and that unfortunately brings the aircraft back into the envelope of, at best, heavy machine guns and at worst, small arms fire.  They can be directed in a much more precise way with less of a footprint than air-surface weapons, but how effective will they ultimately be within an urban area?

Put a generic infantry element fighting an insurgent force within an urban environment.  The platoon, section, squad comes up against an emplaced heavy machine gun.  Do we call in the gunships?  Hardly.  A well placed LAW type weapon or even grenades will be more effective.  Same goes for the sniper and pretty much anything else the infantry will face within this environment.

I just cannot see 'gunship' type aircraft being of any military use within an insurgency type war unless the targets are well away from any civilians.  Collateral damage, the platforms vulnerability to MANPADS and other reasons support this.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

I don't think most people who are in the know still believe that airpower alone would carry the day.  If anything, sometimes people even speak of airpower like it is just another weapon at the disposal of ground troops.  Sometimes aircraft even need the ground forces to tell them where to shoot at and/or to guide their weapons onto the target.

But then again, like aircraft can be threatened by MANPADS, infantry troops can be pinned down by ground weapon emplacements.  They may also encounter other obstacles that prevent them (or other ground units) from reaching a good position to neutralize the threat.  Airpower offers possibilities in those scenarioes.

There are efforts to overcome problems with the use of airpower through improved technology and improved practice as well (in the example of collateral casusalties problems, things such as Focused Lethality Munition for GBU-39 and the practice of using concrete-filled training bombs as a kinetic weapon), both being constantly evolving since Vietnam.  Whether it's simply air force officials not wanting to be sidelined    or something else, it seems that the will is there...... and maybe one day, the technology will be, too.