Low-Cost Fighter Aircraft: Old Planes Reborn

SsgtC

Banned
Stop thinking of fighting 20th century wars of massive ground armies on wheels spearheaded by heavy mechanized units and around the massive logistical trains of huge fast merchant ships stretched 1/2 way around the world and instead start to envisage entire armies utilizing.....what?

It has to be light enough to be easily deployable and powerful enough to require as few troops as possible and therefor as small possible.

Not always. If we're talking a CAS aircraft for the United States, Russia, Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, they're going to have logistics tail stretched halfway around the world regardless of how small you make it. Not to mention, beyond a certain point, make it too small, and the aircraft now has to be shipped to where it's needed instead of flying itself there. An extremely small, light CAS bird only works if you're fighting almost literally in your back yard
 
Stop thinking of fighting 20th century wars of massive ground armies on wheels spearheaded by heavy mechanized units and around the massive logistical trains of huge fast merchant ships stretched 1/2 way around the world and instead start to envisage entire armies utilizing.....what?

It has to be light enough to be easily deployable and powerful enough to require as few troops as possible and therefor as small possible.
So a box of IAI JUmper missiles at each fire base then. Each fire base being within the range of three or four others, so they are mutually supporting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_JUMPER

Throw in a few UAVs armed with a couple of APKWS each for more mobile/target-of-opportunity use and you're sorted, keeping your air force back in reserve.
 
An advantage of going with the "low tech" solution - i.e. equipping your CAS bird with the same weaponry the infantry it supports is using is that the aircraft's cycle time can be vastly reduced. When that bare bones ex-crop duster hits either bingo fuel or is winchester on its ammo, the plane can simply land immediately behind the front lines are refuel from the same sources of the infantry's own vehicles and also rearm from the same stocks the infantry already is already using and already has right up there at the front. Thus instead of hours consumed flying back to a rear area based and regenerating there, the bare bones CAS aircraft could be back in the air in just a relative handful of minutes.

Another advantage of keeping is bare bones is the lower pilot training requirements. Most of the training that modern pilots go through is to get them able to multi-task sufficiently while also flying the aircraft sufficiently. Considering the complexity of modern combat aircraft with their multitude of communications systems, their multitude of sensor systems, and their multitude of weapons systems - achieving the ability to operate all of that at the same time AND keep their heads out of the cockpit sufficiently to fight their opponents is no small feat.

A bare bones machine would simply dispense with that complexity and thus the associated pilot training costs to handle it.
Basic flight training costs $1 million for a western airforce, add another million for combat training (costs $9million plus right now) and a million a year for training (currently 6 million), so your pilot is at least a 3 million dollar investment, probably averaging 5 million plus, at that price point barebones is too costly for pilots

You can't exactly do away with advanced sensors and comm gear, your crop duster is going to need to talk to the forces on the ground, and it is going to need to see at least as well as them and operate in all weather, or as close to it as practical, that's going to cost more than you would think

Refueling assets are held at the Battalion level or higher if I remember my reading of some TOE's, beyond maybe some jerry cans, at that level you'd be able to get TOW missiles, Javelin missiles, .50HMG rounds, 40mm AGL rounds, or in Marine or Mech (or some Stryker units) 25 or 30mm cannon rounds. Plus even if you accept just refueling from Jerry can's, almost any unit with vehicles is going to have .50 cal HMG's and Javelin missiles
 
OP's question sounded more like raiding Davis-Montham Air Force Base ..... Replacing engines with turboprops, updating instrument panels and bomb racks.
Since modern computer tablets contain more calculating power than decades old military instrument panels, updating instrument panels would take all of 5 seconds.

Why am I picturing an action film with the hero sneaking into Davis-Montham - or a museum - swapping engines overnight, slapping a tablet on the old instrument panel and flying off with faded paint?
A quick stop to top off fuel and bombs and they are off to kill bad guys??????
 
OP's question sounded more like raiding Davis-Montham Air Force Base ..... Replacing engines with turboprops, updating instrument panels and bomb racks.
Since modern computer tablets contain more calculating power than decades old military instrument panels, updating instrument panels would take all of 5 seconds.

Why am I picturing an action film with the hero sneaking into Davis-Montham - or a museum - swapping engines overnight, slapping a tablet on the old instrument panel and flying off with faded paint?
A quick stop to top off fuel and bombs and they are off to kill bad guys??????
Updating and replacing instruments isn't that simple, the only warplanes which you could theoretically do it on would be the F-35 and the Rafale. Up until these planes military aircraft used a hardware centric approach with code designed to run just on the hardware installed, you'd need a multimillion dollar programming project to get your tablet to talk to the avionics, F-35 and Rafale use a software defined approach and a virtual machine so you can swap out computing hardware like that. So unless you had the original code, spent millions of dollars to develop an interface and had the right ports on your tablet, it won't be able talk to the avionics
 
......

At some point in the 1980's, I think there was a New Zealand company proposing a updated version of another WW-2 fighter. The Hurricane, F6F, some other plane? All I really remember is a mention in a Jane's All the World's Aircraft, and maybe another mention in Air Force magazine? Sorry, I don't remember more to go on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You are probably remembering the Fletcher Air Parts F-25 Defender. Defender was designed by a California company. It was a single-seater, low-winged tail-dragger. With only 225 horsepower, it could only carry 500 pounds on its bomb racks. Fletcher only built 3 and only one Defender survives in private hands. Another 10-ish Defenders were built (under license) in Japan and sold to Viet Nam or Cambodia or .........

The New Zealand connection comes with the Fletcher Air Parts F-24 agricultural airplane that is built (by the dozens) under licence in New Zealand by a succession of companies: Cresco, Pacific Aircraft Company, etc. F-24 looks like a much-larger version of Defender: low-wing, etc. The biggest difference is the nose-wheel.
The current production version is the PAC 750 that competes directly with Cessna's 208 Caravan. PAC 750 has a larger diameter fuselage that can carry 17 skydivers, take-off from short fields, land on rough fields, etc.

Notice that several third-world air forces fly Caravans on transport and gunship roles. They often have fancy surveillance pods hanging from them: infrared, low light, designating lasers, etc. The mini-gun in the cargo door looks like an easy way to arm a Caravan, but hanging Hellfire missles looks silly .... considering that Hellfires cost almost as much as Caravans.
Caravans can only survive when attacking light infantry. But Caravans are enough to out-shoot light infantry/terrorists/drug-smugglers/freedom-fighters, etc. Poor countries struggle to pay for even Caravans.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking more in terms of wireless Bluetooth links to bomb racks.
Okay, so know you have to put on your own release system or rewire the existing system to accept input from a bluetooth device

Now you could probably use a tablet as a display accepting inputs from bluetooth instruments you taped to the airframe and flying using those, but they won't be big instruments and you will not be doing anything to the aircraft from the tablet
 
I was thinking more in terms of wireless Bluetooth links to bomb racks.
Why? If you're already modifying a civilian plane to attach bomb racks, you may as well wire the connection so the bombs don't fail to release because the racks ran out of battery power. What I mean is that you're adding an element of unreliability to a critical system.
 

Archibald

Banned
_KJ-1-AWACS-Tu-4-Bull-Turboprop-PLAAF-APA-1.jpg


It is a B-29... no it is a Tu-4... a Soviet copy... sold to China... who uprated it with Soviet 6000 hp TV-2 turboprops... and turned it into an AWACS... the last Chinese Tu-4 flew in 1988...
Seriously, that aircraft is,by itself, mind-blowing.
 

Archibald

Banned
It is an idea I've been nurturing since 2006 at least... that is, there is a boatload of superb WWII aircrafts, marvels like the Douglas XB-42 or Boeing F-8B... they just scream "give me a modern turboprop, such as the PT-6, or a C-130 T-56". That's really two excellent, proven and reliable turboprop engines, which horsepower match WWII piston engines.

Imagine a PT-6 Mosquito or Whirlwind or Hornet... or a T-56 powered F-8B or Skyraider.

Imagine a B-36 with six T-56 turboprops ("hello, Mr Tu-95") They would be far more reliable than these cranky R-4330s.
Same thing for the C-97 (albeit the Hercules is probably better)
And of course the Constellation would happily trade its fire-prone R3350s for reliable turboprops.
A B-29 or B-50 with T-56 would be awesome.

A streamlined B-17 with four PT-6 turboprops would be a nice aircraft. So would a Lancaster.

Imagine a Spruce Goose with T-56 turboprops.

The nice thing with the PT-6 is that horsepower range from 600 hp to 1800 hp, so it really covers most WWII fighters and bombers, all the way from 1934 to 1944.

There was an aerodynamic wonder by Republic, the XF-12 Rainbow. Give it turboprops and it will rule the skies.
xf12_13.jpg


A decade ago at Whatif modelers I build a T-56 powered Skyraider with tricycle landing gear and a big Hercule propeller and a crapload of bombs, rockets and missiles underwings. I wish I could post a picture but Phucking Photobucket... well, you know. 400 $, you can kiss my a$$ goodbye.

Gosh, so much potential. Maybe I should start a thread.
 
Last edited:
So a box of IAI JUmper missiles at each fire base then. Each fire base being within the range of three or four others, so they are mutually supporting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_JUMPER

Throw in a few UAVs armed with a couple of APKWS each for more mobile/target-of-opportunity use and you're sorted, keeping your air force back in reserve.


You get a plus for understanding that fire support can be provided by other assets. However you get two minuses for not understanding correctly, what cas mission set is and by choosing incorrect assets. Although the second is probably due to a misunderstanding of the first. You use close air support to support land operations, (soldiers and marines) either offensively or defensively against an enemy that is able to maneuver. Although when performing this operations the land commander tries to plan for preplanned cas ( i.e. Cas against enemy positions, normally against templates targets) the reallity is that the enemy has a say in the matter and preplanned cas is normally a waste of assets. In a nutshell cas if part of the maneuver commander ( ground pounder) fire support strategy. and is normally called in to engage those targets that your other fire support assets can't touch, mostly because they are moving. That said fire supporters utilize mortar, artillery, rocket and cas to destroy, suppress, or neutralize target and thus give the opportunity to the ground forces to maneuver and engage the enemy. So let's say you are defending against a maneuvering enemy you use your mortars to engage forward enemy and slow them down, use the artillery to chanalize the enemy into kill zones kill zones, destroy forward infantry, and provide counter battery, and then cas to engage armor, apc's and trucks.

That said you stated that you will use the no line of sight box launcher in this case the Israeli made system in a mutually supporting fire bases. Kudos for correctly picking a fire support system, however you get a minus for selecting the wrong one for the mission set. This system is designed to hit stationary targets not moving targets ( remember you intend to use it to replace the cas part of the fire support mission) their gps setting are done at launch and they are not dinamically updated. additionally they only contain 8 missiles at about 150,000 a pop so an 8 missile launcher cost you about 1 mil and then after 8 launches you are sol, they need to be repackaged at the factory. To successfully perform a mission against a maneuvering battalion you would need to fire over 500 missiles. If you do the math that is over 40 million dollars. You can do the same mission by buying a two battalions worth of m777 that is about 36 million and give them about [1 million worth of ammo ( DPICM is about 300.00 a pop). They do not need to be repackaged at the factory, just buy more ammo. And they can also be used for other aspect of the fire support mission. However in reality what you need for the cas set of the mission are attack airplanes that can attack, the target, rearm, refuel and reengage remember what I said about the launchers needed to be reloaded at the factory,( basically you are buying it again). So if you have a brigade coming at you 3 bn's you would need to spend about 120 million in launchers, about 6 UAE for designating at about 10 m a pop ( that includes operator vans) plus the cost of ammo about 180 million dollars of which 120 you can only use once. For that amount you can buy a squadron of super tucanos ( about 120 million) plus the required ammo to engage the targets less than 10 million ( bullets, dumb bombs and 2.5 in free flying rocketsare dirt cheap) ( total cost about 130 m) and you can reuse them as needed or half a squadron of a10 for the same price.

Now if you are focusing on coin you and you are trying to kill 12 men with ak , about 600 dollars wort of mortars will do.

Now you might ask the why we build those highly accurate deployable missile in a box systems. Because we need to engage critical infrastructure and high value targets that are moslty stationary. Not for CAS or fire support
 
Last edited:
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?
I think the Yugoslavian Soko G-4 Super Galeb and similar light CAS jets like the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet could serve pretty well in COIN operations. If you want a really low cost option though I'll note that the Rhodesians were prolific (and successful) users of Cessnas for ground attack.
 
Last edited:
Going back to the question in the op. The answer is that depends.

First you must answer- what is the required capability that my Force needs to have ( that is not a platform question, but rather a question based on you country strategic and operational planning) example I require the capability to conduct forced entry operations

Secondly, is there a change in personnel, organization, doctrine, training, leadership, and equipment needed to perform the mission. ( yes or no question) simple scenario you need the capability to perform forced entry operations. You have an fully manned, organized, equipped , trained, well led paratrooper unit, and the doctrine for conducting forced entry operations, however you have no transport aircraft. The answer is yes, I require a transport aircraft, plus pilot, maintainers, a squadron org, leadership, etc.

Then you ask what is needed first? In this case you need aircraft, because all other needs of the transport unit are based on the platform selected.

Then you examine all other capabilities that the said platform is needed to conduct, such as medevac , vip,transport, bulk cargo, etc. This will help you set the requirements for the platform as well as well as help justify cost to the bean counters. I need an AC capable of carrying 28 troops and about 10,000 lbs of cargo. But that could be easily converted to regular passenger, vip, and medevac role.

Then you examine available aircraft that meets the role and eliminate those that don't meet the requirement. You get turbo prop powered C47's, c160, c130. Etc.

Then you look at your budget and need to remember that it must also cover for spares, training,personnel, etc. So let's say your budget dictates that you can get either c130s or turbo prop c47's. However you realize that you have a bunch of near flyable c47 on mothballs or from civilians assets, and that you can refurbish the, with turbo props for about 4m ( this is actual fly away cost for a refurbished one look it up) and that there are sufficient civilian pilots and maintainers that you can use them to train your pilots and maintainers ( and as replacements on an emergency) thus making them cheaper , more accessible and able to use the remaining, money on training, spare parts, etc.

Thus this is a case in which an old plane meets the requirement.

However, if you look at the p51 mustang, you will need to ask, are there enough p51 near flyable p51 mustang airframes out there, do we still have the industrial capacity/capability to produce spares and what is required to get them flying. If we do not what would be the cost of acquiring it. Then you add training, personnel, and other cost and ask yourself is this cheaper than buying a modern fighter, the answer will give you the solution.

a side comment on industrial capacity and capability. And going to another subject for an example

Do the us have the industrial capacity and capability to rebuild the Saturn v rocket. The answer Capacity yes, capability not. We have lost the machine tools and trained personnel with the skills to bring back the Saturn v . Can we recover the capability yes, but it will cost about the same if not more than a clean sheet design ( never mind Congress). That is the reason why nations continue to build submarines, aircraft carrier, tanks, planes, and nuclear weapons. Not because we really need them, but rather because restablishing the industrial capability will be too expensive or time consuming when we do need them.
 
Last edited:
If we're talking versatile turboprop aircraft have we covered the Tu-95 for larger aircraft or perhaps a refined XF84H?
 
If we're talking about genuine lo-cost, what about upgrades to existing types? Can (frex) F-4s be re-engined with low=bypass TFs, & fitted with new electronics & radars? They might not be suitable for European powers, but they might do for, IDK, Namibia.
 

SsgtC

Banned
If we're talking about genuine lo-cost, what about upgrades to existing types? Can (frex) F-4s be re-engined with low=bypass TFs, & fitted with new electronics & radars? They might not be suitable for European powers, but they might do for, IDK, Namibia.

I think you'd run into serious issues trying to shoe horn new engines into the existing bays on the F-4. The avionics you could replace. It would cost you, but if you already own the planes, you could replace the avionics, radios and radar with new systems, give it a glass cockpit, AESA radar, digitized comms, add HOTAS, swap out the AIM-7s for AIM-120s and include the ability to drop precision weapons. You'd have a pretty capable fighter/bomber. The only issue is, most F-4s we're at their structural limits when they were retired, so you'd need to rebuild the airframe, probably rewing them too. At the end of the day, it would probably be cheaper to buy new F-16s or Grippens
 
Last edited:
Top