Low-Cost Fighter Aircraft: Old Planes Reborn

and there is also a much older option (going back to 1956)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayres_Thrush

the Armed Iomax Archangel version
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-archangel-makes-show-debut-418747/
getasset.aspx
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
FBKampfer,



That's a point lost on too many A-10 fanboys. To them, the Mighty Warthog is a veritable flying M-1 Abrams tank that is well neigh indestructible.

The reality of the conflict that it was designed to operate in is that A-10s would be getting blown out of the skies with an appalling a steady frequency. That the Warthog's success in the modern age is primarily due to our enemies not having much in the way of AAA - if any - and what little they do have is easily enough countered by the flares and chaff and automated systems built-in to the A-10s. Against the likes of the PLA or the RAF the A-10s would be getting nailed at breathtaking rates.

Which takes nothing away from how awesome is the 'Hog nor why we have a profound need for it in our arsenal.

For conflicts that don't require that high a level of capability however, the A-10 is mucho overkill. Hence the concept of turbo-prop trainers being adapted to CAS / COIN. Even there however, those things are still expensive and somewhat overkill. Taking a genuine crop-duster machine and arming it with a couple of M-60 type machine guns on each wing would be a huge force multiplier that could acquired on the cheap and in such volume as to easily absorb the high operational loses while accomplishing their mission.
Actually it is a flying tank, just like the M-24. Shoot at them with a rifle, even with a 7.62mm mg, and you are just going to piss them off. Same as with a tank.

Hit A 'Hog or a Hind with a proper AAA weapon, be it a ZSU-30, Stinger, Strela, or an actual Honest-to-God SAM and it is going to get killed, just like if you hit an MBT with a proper high end AT weapon the tank will get killed.

The problem that far too many fans of whatever platform one chooses to name is that they fall in love with the good and forget the rest.

All of that brings me to my COIN choice from the days of lore: The A-1 Skyraider. Double the war load of any of the modern options, tough as an old piece of rawhide, incredible loiter time.

I once started a thread about bringing back the AD-1 Skyraider. It was brought to my attention that the engines for the Old Skyraider are no longer produced. It would be easier and cheaper to just design and produce a new aircraft. There isn't a squadron of F4U Corsairs in storage somewhere shrink wrapped just waiting to be used!
I remember that thread! :D

There are, however, engines that would fit very nicely. As an example the P&W PR 127 is only 10 inches longer than the original R-3350 that powered the A-1, is well over 1,000 pounds lighter, and is actually considerable narrower. There would need to be a new cowling designed and obviously some re-plumbing for the exhausts, but otherwise the design would be good to go.

Whether it would be less costly than a clean sheet of paper design is an open question.
 
Last edited:
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.

The thing is here that we are looking at the crew actually surviving - you start sending in Sopwith Camal's and suddenly the Crew are far more at risk from ground fire - most 'insurgents' have access to light AAA - 23mm and 14.5mm cannon - hell even PK 7.62 GPMG is going to cause problems.

Also a M60 armed crop duster might not see the target while an aircraft orbiting at 10K with a sniper pod can tell you what brand of Cigs they are smoking

What is needed is a long loiter - relatively fast (to get on station) aircraft that can carry accurate 'Human in the loop' weapons systems from a position of relative safety.

Spraying the area with lead is all very good and fine but start getting Friendly fire or 'collateral' damage (killing civilians and blowing their shit up) from such attacks does not win war - not the long war anyway - it looks bad on TV and for some reasons the locals really dont like it!

What you are actually after is not a Piper cub with a pair of obsolete MGs strapped to it

Nah what you need is a Drone Swarm - a lot of relatively cheap and light drones with a light warhead (say warhead from an 81mm mortar Shell) that can carry out sacrificial suicide attacks with pin point accuracy using COTS components.
 
My idea for an ideal COIN operation in modern war is lots of drones (over 1000 or so) with variable ordinance and STOL controlled by all the branches. The jobs are to directly assist the aerial, naval, and land assault by diving into AA points, ships ,Fortresses, enemy troops, and mother importantly have them show themselves. The next would be manned aircraft coming in through the hole breached with ECM and AWACS support. Their jobs are long loiter times
 
Actually it is a flying tank, just like the M-24. Shoot at them with a rifle, even with a 7.62mm mg, and you are just going to piss them off. Same as with a tank.

Hit A 'Hog or a Hind with a proper AAA weapon, be it a ZSU-30, Stinger, Strela, or an actual Honest-to-God SAM and it is going to get killed, just like if you hit an MBT with a proper high end AT weapon the tank will get killed.

The problem that far too many fans of whatever platform one chooses to name is that they fall in love with the good and forget the rest.

All of that brings me to my COIN choice from the days of lore: The A-1 Skyraider. Double the war load of any of the modern options, tough as an old piece of rawhide, incredible loiter time.

Calbear, I agree with your analysis, and I also love the skyraider. For that matter if you want CAS and if needed COIN, you need aircraft with A before their name not F. Look at examples of aircraft that have successfully kept our groundpounders safe in the last couple of Wars, AD-1, A4, A6, A7, AV8, and A10. The main reason is that they were designed with this role in mind. An F type is optimized for air to air combat, and those with multi role capability, have pilots primarily trained to get kill marks on their aircraft not bomb siluhetes. Here is the sad reality, if a must protect platform such as an awacs or tanker gets in trouble, the multi role type will drop their ordenance, go air to air an forget the ground guys. A dedicated A platform has no choice but to continue air to mud.

The crop duster mod shown looks dangerous, I would like to look at the specs, but self sealing tanks, some armor protection for the pilot and an ejection seat , still look like a must to me
 
My idea for an ideal COIN operation in modern war is lots of drones (over 1000 or so) with variable ordinance and STOL controlled by all the branches. The jobs are to directly assist the aerial, naval, and land assault by diving into AA points, ships ,Fortresses, enemy troops, and mother importantly have them show themselves. The next would be manned aircraft coming in through the hole breached with ECM and AWACS support. Their jobs are long loiter times

If your idea of drones is to have them act as kamikases, we already have them they are called cruise missiles. And your description is exactly how we use them, however that is not useful in acas or coin scenario. However, if your intent is to have an armed UCAV performing CAS and coin, the price of these are actually more than those of a supertucano, and that is not counting the electronics suites needed to control and protect them from spoofing their signals, a problem you don't have with a pilot on the loop
 
Last edited:
All depends on what the environment is , a Skyraider is overkill in many situations , it just carries to much ordnance. If 95% of your missions need less than 1000lbs of ordnance, its not a big benefit to carry much more. Mainly however its down to cost , using trainers that you bought because you needed trainers, to occasionally do light ground attack is far cheaper than having dedicated planes that are not needed for any other purpose.
 
Anything that requires aviation gasoline (i.e. most light civil craft) isn't a good idea since it's something the vast majority of militaries don't stock. If the plane is too small to merit a turboprop, you'll want something fitted with an aviation diesel engine since those can run on jet fuel.
 
Air Force is testing low-cost off-the-shelf options at Holloman Air Force Base near Alamogordo, NM. This is the OA-X initiative. Testing includes TextronScorpion, AT-6 Wolverine, A-29 Super Turcano, Embraer Defense Air Tracor and L3's At-802L Longsword. Just read about this in Albuquerque Journal and the site https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...n-oa-x-experiment-with-the-at-802l-longsword/
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of the total "life cycle" costs of the various low, medium and high cost options.

I suspect some of the costs (ie. Pilot training, munitions etc.) are likely to be fairly static across the board. Air frame cost may not be that big an issue over say a 30 year life span ? Fuel costs could be a significant advantage for a smaller aircraft.

That being said, in my view most first world air forces are going to want at least some fast jets for home air defense, so unless one has a USAF sized budget (or they have so little money that they can't afford any fast jets) I have a suspicion many smaller air forces are not going to be in a hurry to embrace low cost fixed wing ground attack aircraft, if they can already afford fast jets.
 
Air Force is testing low-cost off-the-shelf options at Holloman Air Force Base near Alamogordo, NM. This is the OA-X initiative. Testing includes TextronScorpion, AT-6 Wolverine, A-29 Super Turcano, Embraer Defense Air Tracor and L3's At-802L Longsword. Just read about this in Albuquerque Journal and the site https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...n-oa-x-experiment-with-the-at-802l-longsword/

It is interesting to see the AT-6 designation. I remember reading that a modernized OV-10 Bronco was also proposed for the OA-X or a similar initiative.
 
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison of the total "life cycle" costs of the various low, medium and high cost options.

I suspect some of the costs (ie. Pilot training, munitions etc.) are likely to be fairly static across the board. Air frame cost may not be that big an issue over say a 30 year life span ? Fuel costs could be a significant advantage for a smaller aircraft.

That being said, in my view most first world air forces are going to want at least some fast jets for home air defense, so unless one has a USAF sized budget (or they have so little money that they can't afford any fast jets) I have a suspicion many smaller air forces are not going to be in a hurry to embrace low cost fixed wing ground attack aircraft, if they can already afford fast jets.
But the other issue is flight cost. A mid-power might be willing to buy fast jets. But if its facing a civil war and needs to fly a lot of time, it may still be cost effective to keep the fast jets pretty much grounded (while foreign countries don't know how much serviceable they are), while employing aircraft with lower maintenance costs for CAS.

For instance, suppose Venezuela falls into civil war. It has Su-30s and F-16s, as well as K-8 jet trainers. Assuming the air force doesn't split, if the air force can use the K-8 for CAS (could it, though?), would they use their more advanced Flankers, or would it be cheaper to operate K-8 carry most of the missions?

That, however, assumes such cheaper aircraft can bomb the enemy effectively and survive. If the cheaper aircraft keeps getting shot down or arrives to the airfield with so many holes it takes a lot of time, spares and manpower to put it back into action, then those fast jets dropping guided bombs might be more cost effective at the end.

The other issue with smaller aircraft is loiter time. A larger aircraft with more efficient engines can spend more time flying around the area it may be needed and arrive to the target much faster than a smaller aircraft which is waiting on a runway
 
Last edited:
But the other issue is flight cost. A mid-power might be willing to buy fast jets. But if its facing a civil war and needs to fly a lot of time, it may still be cost effective to keep the fast jets while foreign countries don't know how much serviceable they are, while employing aircraft with lower maintenance costs for CAS.

For instance, suppose Venezuela falls into civil war. It has Su-30s and F-16s, as well as K-8 jet trainers. Assuming the air force doesn't split, if the air force can use the K-8 for CAS (could it, though?), would they use their more advanced Flankers, or would the cheaper to operate K-8 carry most of the missions?

That, however, assumes such cheaper aircraft can bomb the enemy effectively and survive. If the cheaper aircraft keeps getting shot down or arrives to the airfield with so many holes it takes a lot of time, spares and manpower to put it back into action, then those fast jets dropping guided bombs might be more cost effective at the end.

The other issue with smaller aircraft is loiter time. A larger aircraft with more efficient engines can spend more time flying around the area it may be needed and arrive to the target much faster than a smaller aircraft which is waiting on a runway
Yes good points...

A few other things that occur to me:

-Labour costs for ground crews could be a major variable. Counties with conscription will likely have a different outlook on this than countries that have to pay competitive salaries to attract and retain skilled talent.

-Countries that already operate armed helicopters (especially if they have dedicated "gun ships") may not see much value in adding light weight armed fixed winged aircraft to their force structure.


-The ability of fast jets to more or less "self deploy" overseas (likely with the assistance of third party air bases and possibly their own or allied tanker support) could be a big deal for some airforces. Yes I realize the ground crews, spares, munitions etc. need to be flown in transport aircraft or sent by sea, but nations such as Canada seem to be able to routinely fly fast jets overseas to carry out combat missions from overseas bases. I suppose small fixed wing turbo prop air craft could be put on ships or perhaps some how transported in large cargo aircraft ? But it would be another issue for some airforces.
 
Last edited:
Me, I'm thinking of the stuff like the OV Bronco or maybe a revival of the P-51 Mustang; I'm surprised no one ever thought of doing the latter, unless I'm missing something.
 
Me, I'm thinking of the stuff like the OV Bronco or maybe a revival of the P-51 Mustang; I'm surprised no one ever thought of doing the latter, unless I'm missing something.
The P-51 isn't particularly robust--it's optimized for range, agility, and speed, and while the first is pretty useful for CAS, the latter two aren't, since CAS requires low speed and chances are you aren't going to dogfight other CAS aircraft.
 
The P-51 isn't particularly robust--it's optimized for range, agility, and speed, and while the first is pretty useful for CAS, the latter two aren't, since CAS requires low speed and chances are you aren't going to dogfight other CAS aircraft.
Well I just put it out there since somebody put out the idea of reviving the Skyraider and I thought to myself why not something older than that?
 
What if you use prop driven aircraft as an airborne Quick Reaction Force (QRF)?

The USAF could attach a section of ressurected AD-1 Skyraiders to the Air Commandos just like in Vietnam. You deploy the Skyraiders to support Special Forces operators in places where you are trying to keep an American presence quiet, low key and on a budget. For example let's say you have Navy Seals working in South America. Parking a carrier off the coast draws too much attention and deploying a squadron of Jets is going to be expensive and also attention getting. You have some prop planes in country that can fly out of a dirt airfield. If you get a remote outpost that runs into trouble that is out of the range of helicopters you send in the Skyraiders.
Another solution is build smaller low tech gunships. Build something the size of B-25/26. Put a gunner in the rear with some side firing mini guns or a single cannon. Now you have a plane that could make a forward firing gun run or remain on station circling. Could a AC-47/B-25H hybrid be possible?
 
Well I just put it out there since somebody put out the idea of reviving the Skyraider and I thought to myself why not something older than that?
If you're going old school go with the P-47. The Thunderbolt with 8 fifty caliber machine guns turned into a good attack plane. The AD-1 however is the end of evolution line for single engine prop driven attack planes in my opinion.
 
Top