Low-Cost Fighter Aircraft: Old Planes Reborn

FBKampfer

Banned
The only problem with the dirt cheap option is that it creates an aircraft that is useless for everything else.


A low-mid cost option provides probably the best economy of usage for the whole spectrum of conflicts.

Twin turboprop airframe with modular gun packs, but usually armed with 7.92 or .50 mg's, ability to carry PGM's and a LANTIRN or sniper pod, but usually armed with dumb bombs and cluster munitions. The only regular high cost items would be some basic avionics like a RWR, basic radar, etc, and Data Link.

Cheap enough to send out in swarms in the event of a high intensity conflict, capable enough to really do some damage, survivable enough to keep it from being known as a deathtrap in moderate conflicts, and damn cheap in its base version for COIN.

A good price tag to shoot for would be about a million a pop at base price. You get a great big swarm for the price of a couple of fighters, enough to fill out a couple of air wings. You get still excellent ability to replace losses, no new avionics to start production of, no strain on existing fighter component supplies, they're cheap as hell to fly relative to jets, they have vastly improved loiter time, and more responsive throttle at typical combat speeds.
 

hipper

Banned
To be Honest a Turbojet fighter such as the Tucano has the weapons carrying capacity, speed and vulnerability of an attack helicopter. If you replaced apaches with Super Tucano's you would have a similar effect but a much Lower cost.

However I suspect the attack helicopter niche would be better filled by drones rather than piloted aircraft. Expect to see more heavily armed drones rather than prop driven CAS aircraft.
 
There is a reason aircraft like the Hawk and the Super Turcano are popular. Not only are they much cheaper to operate and just as good if you only need a bomb or two in a low risk environment than F-16's but just as importantly they are trainers. They come with hardpoints etc as they are needed for weapons training. Hence to use them as light ground attack is a "free" option. The air force has to have trainers anyway so buying some extras is very cheap and pilots will not have to type train as they graduated on them.
 
With the development of the Brazilian Super Turcano and other low-cost turboprop and jet fighter aircraft a new niche market for military hardware has developed. Do you think any older jet or turboprop fighters could be modernized for the role and, if so, which ones? What might their specs look like with composites and more modern parts/engines?

Northrop's Freedom Fighter and Tiger Eye could be a way forward
 
It also depends on who's buying them - the USAF probably not but for a country like Nigeria or the Uganda it makes more sense.
 
Note the almost immediate escalation here in functionality you all are contemplating.

It's great 'n all but you're doing exactly what the folks at the Pentagon do and then everyone wonders why what started as such a simple, basic, and cheap concept winds up costing billions and taking decades to field.

To go up against a peer opponent, fine, we do need a weapons platform that can be readily plugged in to our military's "network centric" warfighting approach.

For anything less than that?

What about something little more advanced than a Piper Cub armed with machine guns strapped to its wings? That turbo powered crop duster with M-60s would be a level up from that.

Seriously, what do the troops on the ground need? An aerial platform to engage the enemy from directions that they can't. Multi-thousand rounds per minute 30mm cannon fire is awesome - and expensive. Is it really necessary to deal with a couple of Jihadis crouched behind some rocks up on a hill? A few strafing runs by that M-60 armed turbo powered crop duster could easily do that. And if that thing started running low on fuel of ammo it could just land on the nearest dirt road next to the troops and fill up from their gas cans and reload from the same sort of ammo they're already lugging around. No having to fly back to an airbase a hundred miles away. Unit cost would, at most, be in the hundreds of thousands each - and that's really pushing the upper end.

Something made out of fabric covered metal tubing would be even cheaper and better for that limited role.
Problem is that your Crop Duster would be very vulnerable, having to get within range of MANPADs and heavy machine guns without the performance to avoid them, which even your typical insurgent can get in numbers and while it may cost in the hundreds of thousands, basic pilot training costs Western countries $1million, and getting a combat worthy pilot often exceeds $9million, plus 6 million a year training, at least for the US, by retirement that pilot may have more invested in him than an F-22 or F-35. With pilots costing so much, a much more expensive aircraft with better pilot survivabilty is a far better investment, and more useful.
 
Problem is that your Crop Duster would be very vulnerable, having to get within range of MANPADs and heavy machine guns without the performance to avoid them, which even your typical insurgent can get in numbers and while it may cost in the hundreds of thousands, basic pilot training costs Western countries $1million, and getting a combat worthy pilot often exceeds $9million, plus 6 million a year training, at least for the US, by retirement that pilot may have more invested in him than an F-22 or F-35. With pilots costing so much, a much more expensive aircraft with better pilot survivabilty is a far better investment, and more useful.
On top, even if the cropduster manages to avoid enemy fire, it would be firing with "dumb" weapons. It will probably miss.

A more expensive plane, but no necessarily a multi-role fighter, dropping laser guided bombs from 6,000 meters will not miss, will not be fired upon and, once it returns to the airbase, it can fly again to drop more bombs without the need for extensive repairs.

Also, depending on your country's budget, there is also the issue that civil wars attract neighboring countries and, depending on their budgets, your crop duster or converted cargo plane may not deter him.

So, we have:

Crop duster with unguided weapons, which will take casualties and it's effectiveness is limited

Trainer with limited payload, which you probably have anyway if you have an air- force. If you add laser guided ammunition and decent comm gear, it will hit the enemy far more often than not and will not be fired upon. Fitted with IR air to air missiles, it can engage your neighbors trainers and helicopters, should they want to get involved in your civil war. Cons: you probably depend on importing the laser guided bombs, so they cost money and may come attached with political strings. The trainer can use unguided bombs you can probably manufacture locally, but will take fire if you want precision.

Converted cargo plane, possibly from impounded civilian planes whose owners were unlucky enough to leave them at your airports when you decided you needed an air force. Plenty of firepower and loiter time, zero ability to survive enemy fire, will not deter a conventional military. Potentially more expensive to operate. Also requires the facilities and technical know how to do the conversion.

Cheap multirole fighter, like the Grippen. More expensive than the above options. Will deter your neighbors. With precision weapons, you won't take losses. Without precision weapons, you're an idiot to use that for CAS.
 
I might qualify as an a-10 and also a harrier fanboy, if for nothing else that I have called them on targets, and also had had my behind saved by them on multiple occasion. One of the most important aspects of CAS is time on station. An A-10 has a time of station of between one and two hours before they are bingo fuel, an f-16 has about 15 minutes to half an hour. ( sorry in flight refueling is not an option an f-16 will need to refuel 4 times to provide the same coverage as an a-10, with huge effects on crew fatigue. The a-10 with 4 air refuels could be on station about 8 hours). I have also seen a-10 return to base with damage that would had destroyed an f15/16. It is not a tank, but when you are talking about pilots lives and aircraft replacement potentials when executing the cas mission set, the a-10 wins hand down compared to the f15/16. ( oh by the way let's get our terms straight, if you are doing CAS, you are not using stand off weapons. If you use stand off weapons that is a stand off attack) In real CAS targets are more likely moving which requires an aircraft or person with a targeting pod to be on the ground or flying at manpad/ZSU 23 range on the battlefield. There also seems to be a misconception that the airplanes would be going on their own when doing CAS in a high intensity environment with near peers, that is not so. As a fire supporter my job was not only to call cas in, but also to ensure that cas had a chance to be effective and for the aircraft to survive. I would initiate a suppression of enemy air defenses mission with artillery and mortars, to destroy ZSU 23, and follow on after the planes had departed the ip, with artillery and mortar on the infantry to suppress manpads. When executed correctly success rate is over 90%. As for the enemy fighters that is the responsibility of our fighters, let them focus on the air to air fight instead of having to divide their focus into ground and cas missions. Basically, that allows you to gain local air supperiority protecting your air to mud planes. Any analysis on which aircraft is better suited for a mission without considering the tactics, techniques and procedures developed for their employment is flawed. And if you apply the correct TTPs employed by terminal air controller and fire supporters the a-10 is currently the best platform for the CAS mission. This explains why both the us Air Force tactical air controllers and the us army/ USMC field artillerimen took a stand against senior us Air Force and army leadership when they proposed to get rid of the A- 10.
 
Last edited:
I might qualify as an a-10 and also a harrier fanboy, if for nothing else that I have called them on targets, and also had had my behind saved by them on multiple occasion. One of the most important aspects of CAS is time on station. An A-10 has a time of station of between one and two hours before they are bingo fuel, an f-16 has about 15 minutes to 30 an hour. ( sorry in flight refueling is not an option an f-16 will need to refuel 4 times to provide the same coverage as an a-10, with huge effects on crew fatigue. The a-10 with 4 air refuels could be on station about 8 hours). I have also seen a-10 return to base with damage that would had destroyed an f15/16. It is not a tank, but when you are talking about pilots lives and aircraft replacement potentials when executing the cas mission set, the a-10 wins hand down compared to the f15/16. ( oh by the way let's get our terms straight, if you are doing CAS, you are not using stand off weapons. If you use stand off weapons that is a stand off attack) In real CAS targets are more likely moving which requires an aircraft or person with a targeting pod to be on the ground or flying at manpad/ZSU 23 range on the battlefield. There also seems to be a misconception that the airplanes would be going on their own when doing CAS in a high intensity environment with near peers, that is not so. As a fire supporter my job was not only to call cas in, but also to ensure that cas had a chance to be effective and for the aircraft to survive. I would initiate a suppression of enemy air defenses mission with artillery and mortars, to destroy ZSU 23, and follow on after the planes had departed the ip, with artillery and mortar on the infantry to suppress manpads. When executed correctly success rate is over 90%. As for the enemy fighters that is the responsibility of our fighters, let them focus on the air to air fight instead of having to divide their focus into ground and cas missions. Basically, that allows you to gain local air supperiority protecting your air to mud planes. Any analysis on which aircraft is better suited for a mission without considering the tactics, techniques and procedures developed for their employment is flawed. And if you apply the correct TTPs employed by terminal air controller and fire supporters the a-10 is currently the best platform for the CAS mission. This explains why both the us Air Force tactical air controllers and the us army/ USMC field artillerimen took a stand against senior us Air Force and army leadership when they proposed to get rid of the A- 10.
Agreed, but what happens to an air force that doesn't have the USAF budget?
 
Agreed, but what happens to an air force that doesn't have the USAF budget?
Are we talking NATO or others? NATO follows the same doctrine and TTP's . It is important to find out who the enemy is for example Colombia Armed forces could successfully use this doctrine using their current CAs aircraft against lets say Venezuela, and could probably hold for long enough against Ecuador and Venezuela together. However if you throw in Brazil they would be seriously outmatched. So you must tailor your ARmed forces equipment and doctrine against your must likely enemy. In Colombia' specific case the ta- 6 Texan, the super tucano and the scorpion seem tailor made for this. If I was their cinc I would get f-16's as my primary ADF, the scorpion as the multi role fighter and the super tucano as the coin/cas aircraft. Then I will beef up my artillero and mortars. If I needed photo recon/ electronic assets, I would actually use militarized Sailplanes.
 
South Vietnamese Air Force used the T-28 very effectively as COIN aircraft. A friend of mine with 5 tours in RVN with US Airborne, LRRP, LRP and Rangers; and with Vietnamese airborne said that the SVAF T-28s provided the most effective close air support he ever saw.
 
You need to look at your mission requirements. COIN means many things. Do you want to be CAS with the mud movers like F4U's, Skyraiders or A10's? Or do you want to put bombs on targets accurately. If the later, you would back date some of the B52H's to Big Belly D's and wire all the hard points to take modern precision guided munitions.
 

MrP

Banned
We got the Bronco out of it and, while that is an awesome little plane, it also isn't close to being that cheap to buy or operate or afford to lose.
The Super Tucano has been mentioned upthread as a worthy successor to the Bronco, and there was a detailed article I came across some time ago explaining why it would be well-suited to the kind of situations US forces are dealing with in Afghanistan. Can't seem to find it again though.
 
With the development of the Brazilian Super Turcano and other low-cost turboprop and jet fighter aircraft a new niche market for military hardware has developed. Do you think any older jet or turboprop fighters could be modernized for the role and, if so, which ones? What might their specs look like with composites and more modern parts/engines?
How would 1976-spec F-15A do against a brand new, 2017 Chengdu J-10?
 
nobody mentioning a new old entry on the CAS market?
the airtractor cropduster modded into a light CAS plane

http://www.janes.com/article/68365/...ing-at-802l-armed-turboprop-as-oa-8-longsword

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802

1643226_-_main.jpg
 
How would 1976-spec F-15A do against a brand new, 2017 Chengdu J-10?
Horribly, the J-10 has much better missiles available today than the F-15A in 1976, as well as a much better countermeasures suite and radar plus an electro-optical system, be like clubbing a baby seal
 
nobody mentioning a new old entry on the CAS market?
the airtractor cropduster modded into a light CAS plane

http://www.janes.com/article/68365/...ing-at-802l-armed-turboprop-as-oa-8-longsword

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802

1643226_-_main.jpg
Now that's where the old birds should play, the CAS field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-insurgency_aircraft

Can you imagine going back into 1917-18 combat with a Fairchild AU-23 Peacemaker. You'd own the skies with that minigun.
 
Top