Low-Cost Fighter Aircraft: Old Planes Reborn

Jumper isn't intended for mass conventional warfare. In a low-intensity warfare COIN scenario that you would otherwise be using these old planes in, it would be used to attack fixed point targets and isn't manpower intensive, like tube artillery is. The UAVs with the APKWS would attack the moving targets/targets of opportunity.

It all depends on the level of threat. If you're looking to attack, say, less than half a dozen targets a day, designated by forces on the ground or recce UAVs, Jumper is a system that lets you cover a lot of ground quickly and at comparatively low cost/low manpower. It's not the solution to all scenarios, just like the old planes aren't.
 
Jumper isn't intended for mass conventional warfare. In a low-intensity warfare COIN scenario that you would otherwise be using these old planes in, it would be used to attack fixed point targets and isn't manpower intensive, like tube artillery is. The UAVs with the APKWS would attack the moving targets/targets of opportunity.

It all depends on the level of threat. If you're looking to attack, say, less than half a dozen targets a day, designated by forces on the ground or recce UAVs, Jumper is a system that lets you cover a lot of ground quickly and at comparatively low cost/low manpower. It's not the solution to all scenarios, just like the old planes aren't.
The problem is that Apkws target coordinates cannot be dynamically updated ( i.e. While the missile is in flight ) they are loaded into the missile at the box launcher. If the target is moving by the time the missile gets there the target will be gone. Also you are expending a 120,000.00 dollar missile into a where the a cheaper platform will get the job done. That said, if you tell me that you send spec ops or have a UAV flying and you find an HVT that is going to be stationary for the entire time of flight of the missile. Then this is a great system to use.
 
The problem is that Apkws target coordinates cannot be dynamically updated ( i.e. While the missile is in flight ) they are loaded into the missile at the box launcher. If the target is moving by the time the missile gets there the target will be gone. Also you are expending a 120,000.00 dollar missile into a where the a cheaper platform will get the job done. That said, if you tell me that you send spec ops or have a UAV flying and you find an HVT that is going to be stationary for the entire time of flight of the missile. Then this is a great system to use.
Errm, APKWS is laser guided. Not GPS, which I think is what you are describing. So APKWS will nicely handle a moving target. Unit cost - according to Wikipedia - is $30k, not $120k.

Then there's the 81mm air-dropped guided mortar. GPS guided from a UAV. Presumably the co-ordinates are entered seconds before release, so can deal with most non-vehicle targets. No idea what they cost but it can't be very much. Both systems nicely avoid the costs associated with training a pilot and keeping him current and effective. Not forgetting the not insubstantial cost of a combat rescue helicopter service to pick up the pilot when he gets shot down. I'm assuming here that the ground crew costs for servicing a UAV and a propeller driven plane are pretty much the same.

Or the uVision Hero-30, which gives units as small as a squad organic recce and attack air support. Thus potentially putting dozens/scores of camera equipped armed airframes over a contested area, which could even be used to call in Jumpers as needed.

Armed tactical UAVs, backed by quick response missiles such as Jumper, are one possible future for Western nations who are looking for CAS. I'd imagine armies would also be prepared to launch UAVs in weather that would ground manned aircraft on safety grounds.
 
APKWS is laser guided. Not GPS,

True ..
and for variety there is yet another 70mm compatible variant "Guided Advanced Tactical Rocket – Laser" for use vs light armour or bunkers.
AIUI uses same semi active laser homing.

Even more useful may be the Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket ... an infrared homer system for the same Hydra 2.75" rocket aka 70mm FFAR
Although developed for the USN & South Korean Navy for use vs. swarms of "boghammers"
I rather suspect it could be adapted to land use v.s. moving targets being true fire and forget.
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
Both systems nicely avoid the costs associated with training a pilot and keeping him current and effective

A UAV most certainly doesn't. Just because the pilot isn't sitting in the plane doesn't mean there isn't one. The UAV has a pilot every bit as qualified as the one riding an A-10. Just because they're in a trailer several thousand miles away, doesn't mean they don't need the same training as a conventional fighter jock
 
Well, the Super Tucano packs more firepower. Current drones only carry one or two missiles

MQ-9 Reaper - currently carries 4 Hellfire (been approved for Brimstone for RAF Drones so probably 6 of these) and 2 x 500 pound LGBs and the equipment to use them!
 
The problem is that Apkws target coordinates cannot be dynamically updated ( i.e. While the missile is in flight ) they are loaded into the missile at the box launcher. If the target is moving by the time the missile gets there the target will be gone. Also you are expending a 120,000.00 dollar missile into a where the a cheaper platform will get the job done. That said, if you tell me that you send spec ops or have a UAV flying and you find an HVT that is going to be stationary for the entire time of flight of the missile. Then this is a great system to use.
Andy, you are correct about the apkws, I was thinking about the Israeli box system. Can you let me know if the 30,000 is for just the fuse for the 2.5 mm rocket, or is it the entire thing? And is it a per rocket cost or for the entire 2.5 mmm assembly
 
A UAV most certainly doesn't. Just because the pilot isn't sitting in the plane doesn't mean there isn't one. The UAV has a pilot every bit as qualified as the one riding an A-10. Just because they're in a trailer several thousand miles away, doesn't mean they don't need the same training as a conventional fighter jock
Concur
 
ust because they're in a trailer several thousand miles away, doesn't mean they don't need the same training as a conventional fighter jock

Perhaps that is what the USAF uses in both men and machines

but in reality low cost drones for use in COIN only need a pilot trained to "Piper Cub" level
... and he/she can be pretty much 4F as compared to a fast jet pilot.
The infrastructure is also much less.... a pair of trucks and a bit of flat ground

and that is only the beginning

Very lost cost drones like the Israeli Hero 30 or the equivalent US designed LMMAS (aka Switchblade) are available NOW.
The system is effectively man portable in a canister much like a LAWS.
It is self launching, prefuelled and controlled from a hand held device no larger than a smartphone.
They are operated by a trained grunt (perhaps even by no more than an Xbox fan).

Currently these are built by Western Military makers ... so very low cost is a relative term.

Look out for the next generation of ultra low cost drones ... probably similar capability to Hero .. but built in huge numbers by genuine mass producers.
and therefore even lower cost and hence completely "use and forget" even for low budget militaries.

They may not carry weapons but will be able to locate and even designate for PGW at the low cost end e.g. Mortars , Jumper etc.
They will be the bottom level of a pyramid with their larger brothers used for more intense conflicts & direct attack.
 
Last edited:
HOW much does it cost to train a AH-64 helicopter pilot?
How much does it cost to train a scout helo pilot?
How much does it cost to train a F-22 fighter pilot?

How much does it cost to train a piper cub pilot?

Now the same question but the cost of the ground crew for each aircraft?
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
How much does it cost to train a piper cub pilot?

Now the same question

Considering that sending a Piper Cub out to conduct CAS would be a one way mission with the plane shot down and the pilot dead or captured, even if flown against just a couple guys with AKs: ground crews, nothing, because they won't be needed after the first mission and can be reassigned. The pilot, prob between 50 and 100k, plus whatever his life insurance is going to pay to his family.
 
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.

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

Rewiring airplanes requires WEEKS of work by above-average (above third-world) technicians.
Hollywood will never wait WEEKS for our heroes to rewire airplanes that they just "borrowed" from Davis-Montham.
Hah!
Hah!
A more flashy film would involve "borrowing" a few Reno air racers, slapping on bomb-racks and bombing the bad guys back into the Stone Age. Reno air racers have much flashier paint schemes and would help move the plot along with rivalries between our various heroes.

Far simpler to glue, screw or bolt on blue-tooth compatible bomb-racks and remember to send fresh batteries forward with fresh bombs.
Oh! And stick with batteries that are already in the infantry supply chain.

As for levels of sophistication .... you only need to out-gun the local bad guys. Since typical "freedom fighters" are rarely armed better than light-infantry .... you only need to out-gun light infantry.
 
A UAV most certainly doesn't. Just because the pilot isn't sitting in the plane doesn't mean there isn't one. The UAV has a pilot every bit as qualified as the one riding an A-10. Just because they're in a trailer several thousand miles away, doesn't mean they don't need the same training as a conventional fighter jock
Just because that's how the USAF does it, doesn't mean it must be done that way. Many nations use NCOs as their UAV operators. No need to ever put them in a plane and spend hundreds of thousands of the local currency to train them to fly a plane, as this is something they'll never do as part of their job when fully trained.
 
Andy, you are correct about the apkws, I was thinking about the Israeli box system. Can you let me know if the 30,000 is for just the fuse for the 2.5 mm rocket, or is it the entire thing? And is it a per rocket cost or for the entire 2.5 mmm assembly
No idea, although I suspect much is for the guidance section. The Hydra rocket itself is as cheap as chips.
 
No idea, although I suspect much is for the guidance section. The Hydra rocket itself is as cheap as chips.

Only prices I can find at the moment are quite expensive fries

70mm Hydra-70: Weight: (7-Round Pod) 16 kg, (19-Round Pod) 37.2 kg, (Per Rocket) 31 kg;
Price: (7-Round Pod) $750 (C/S), (19-Round Pod) $1500 (C/S), (Per Rocket) $900 (C/R)

I suspect the CRV-7 system with the same "caliber" used by many other nation may be slightly cheaper.
 
Alan, that's cheap in comparison to a Hellfire ;)

A seven round APKWS/Hydra pod is a lot more bang for your (insert local currency of choice here) and it gets you 7 targets instead of 1.
 
Alan, that's cheap in comparison to a Hellfire ;)

A seven round APKWS/Hydra pod is a lot more bang for your (insert local currency of choice here) and it gets you 7 targets instead of 1.

I'm pretty sure that $900 is for one of the unguided ammunition types - and probably a simpler one at that.

AIUI a single HellFire is in the 100,000$ range (similar to the longer ranger Brimstone)
and an APKWSII guided Hydra around 30,000$ (body, seeker and explosive)
Barely a three to one advantage, though BAe who make the APKWSII claim faster reload & other cost savings.

Compare that to a 120mm guided mortar shell at 10,000$.
This is for what is essentially an adaption kit to most existing bombs (similar to early paveway models)
Presumably the 81mm equivalent is even cheaper - known as the Roll Corrected Guided Mortar in UK service.

though in true military purchasing style the equivalent US 81 mm Mortar system goes for added capability not lower cost.
Created for the US Marines in aproject called ACERM it still costs ~ 10,000$ per shot despite the smaller warhead.

However the initiative does include :-
a new light weight tube
nearly doubled range vs the standard 81mm bomb
both GPS and laser homing
and will be used with a low cost drone as designater.

The basic controller is hand held giving organic PGW fire power to smaller groups of soldiers
and the Marines are also planning a "battery in one tube" approach ... MRSI (Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact)
though this may need an even more complex and expensive ACERM X round :-(
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
Just because that's how the USAF does it, doesn't mean it must be done that way. Many nations use NCOs as their UAV operators. No need to ever put them in a plane and spend hundreds of thousands of the local currency to train them to fly a plane, as this is something they'll never do as part of their job when fully trained.

Their training costs are still remarkably similar. Like I said, just because the pilot is in a trailer, doesn't mean he's any less trained. That goes for every nation. UAVs are not a cheap investment. You're fooling yourself if you think a country is going to entrust a multi-million dollar UAV with several hundred thousand dollars of ordinance hung on it to someone who's total experience level is flying an RC plane they picked up from the local hobby shop. A UAV pilot still has to train every bit as much as an A-10 driver
 
Top