Low-Cost Fighter Aircraft: Old Planes Reborn

SsgtC

Banned
Yes, but I'm not talking about the A-10. I'm talking about single-prop buzzers proposed by various companies for low-intensity work. They're more expensive than drones for very little extra.

Besides, an A-10 can be only in one place at a time, whereas 4 Reapers can be in, yup, four places. And in many cases it's more important to have 2000 lb of ordnance in 3-4 separate spots than 10000 in a single place. Not to mention that the Reapers have a longer range and can stay aloft (loiter) far longer than the A-10.

I gotcha now. That's true. The only issue with relying on MQ9s for CAS is they have a relatively long response time as they're not very fast. So you'd need to have them on station well before you're attack. Which causes a whole other set of issues
 
"Not very fast" is a bit of an understatement. It's very slow.

Which is why many comanies around the world are currently developing high-subsonic jet-powered drones (Phantom Ray, X-47B, Barracuda, FCAS) for faster response times.
 
Trouble is up the performance of a drone and the cost/size starts going up. Reason for the props is mainly the endurance they give, without them they end up big and expensive or short range/short endurance. Not to mention they need more maintenance and higher skilled ground crew. There is a reason only people with lots of money tend to use drones a lot.
 
I think, imho, that what really makes the light fighter/trainer worth it, today, for COIN and such, is the advent of modern electronics and guided weapons.

Up to the mid 90s, guided weapons were a rarity: to hit a single target you needed multiple bombs. Only specialized attack aircraft carried them, and the bombs/missiles were all heavy. So something like an F-5 or a Tucano would have to pass over their targets and would carry only conventional loads; and only enough for 1-2 targets. The F-5 was fast enough to get away, the Tucano (and the poor Pucara in the Falklands in 82) would be an easy target.

Today, there are light guided weapons for all sizes and weights, that can be guided by GPS, from almost any aircraft that can fly in most weather and at night. So, assume a Tucano carrying 4 LBG/GPS guided light (250 pound) bombs, flying at night with a FLIR (or similar). That's a very high probability of hiting 4 targets, instead of 1, and the plane stays away from the imediate drop area. And then he can stick around, guiding other planes or bombs to the area. And for a fraction of the cost of an F-16/35/Rafale...
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

That was it! Thanks.
 
So, assume a Tucano carrying 4 LBG/GPS guided light (250 pound) bombs, flying at night with a FLIR (or similar). That's a very high probability of hiting 4 targets, instead of 1, and the plane stays away from the imediate drop area. And then he can stick around, guiding other planes or bombs to the area. And for a fraction of the cost of an F-16/35/Rafale...

The problem with all the low cost options (the Super Tucano being the most commonly used when the 'you could buy 20x of these compared to 1x of these' debates start) is that they can't carry four bombs and drop them accurately.

A Super Tucano has five hardpoints. If you want to use guided weapons at least one of them is going to be used for a designator pod while if you want it to survive you probably need ECM on another. It doesn't have particularly good endurance so you might need to stick fuel on one too. That leaves you two bombs hanging under an aircraft flying slower than most marks of Spitfire could manage. Meanwhile your Typhoon/F-whatever/Rafale can carry so much that a pair of Typhoon can lift more ordnance than an entire squadron of Tucano, can fly out of range of ground based threats (in most COIN environments), have much better electronics, can be used for show of force if you want to avoid weapon release, can carry various kinds of surveillance equipment as well as weapons, can spend much longer over the battlefield (especially with AAR) and can get to troops in contact on the ground much, much faster.

Plus the Typhoon/F-whatever/Rafale can also be used in proper wars whereas the Tucano is going to die very, very quickly.
 
Plus the Typhoon/F-whatever/Rafale can also be used in proper wars whereas the Tucano is going to die very, very quickly.

No one denies the superior capabilities of "proper" fighters, and no one wants to use Tucanos & co in "proper wars". But everyone's budget has limits, and using fast jets for these missions is like using a gold hammer to kill an ant. And don't forget that the USAF grabed some OV-10 Broncos out of storage to test them in these missions.

The idea is to use them in low intensity fights, where air comabt is not an issue. And having 4-5 Tucanos, that can operate pretty much from anywhere at low cost, compared to a fast jet that needs a full airfield, I'd say is a good trade off. As for the Tucano's cargo, if all it takes is 3 SDBs, that's 3 targets it hits. For such a small plane, that's a pretty good trade off. And the current model is allready well set up in electronics.
 
No one denies the superior capabilities of "proper" fighters, and no one wants to use Tucanos & co in "proper wars". But everyone's budget has limits, and using fast jets for these missions is like using a gold hammer to kill an ant. And don't forget that the USAF grabed some OV-10 Broncos out of storage to test them in these missions.

The idea is to use them in low intensity fights, where air comabt is not an issue. And having 4-5 Tucanos, that can operate pretty much from anywhere at low cost, compared to a fast jet that needs a full airfield, I'd say is a good trade off. As for the Tucano's cargo, if all it takes is 3 SDBs, that's 3 targets it hits. For such a small plane, that's a pretty good trade off. And the current model is allready well set up in electronics.

The majority of air forces can't afford to add more types to their existing fast jets. When even nations the size of the UK are cutting entire fast jet fleets to save money, where is the cash going to come from to add more aircraft, more pilots, more ground crew, more airfields and a whole new logistic chain to already overstretched and underfunded air forces?

The electronics on a Super Tucano (according to your link) are barely enough to keep it alive - there's no radar/missile warning and no ECM for example. The weapons carried by insurgents are only ever going to improve. Would you really want to go up against something like SA-18 or SA-25 in a low, slow trainer? There's also very little targeting hardware included so you're looking at carting at least one or two pods round at all times on an aircraft with very little carrying capacity to begin with.

The only people who ever realistically going to think about these types are small nations that can't afford fast jets or very large nations like the US who have the budget to cope with adding types to their existing fleets.
 
The majority of air forces can't afford to add more types to their existing fast jets. When even nations the size of the UK are cutting entire fast jet fleets to save money, where is the cash going to come from to add more aircraft, more pilots, more ground crew, more airfields and a whole new logistic chain to already overstretched and underfunded air forces?

This is obvious; only the US can aford to dedicate, say, 3-4 squadrons of such planes. But there are quite a few smaller ones, involved in low-level ops, who have bought enough for at least one squadron, precisely because they have low budgets and can't really aford to keep their fast jets flying around day in day out. And note that one of the buyers is the UAE; not exatly someone short in either cash or experience in fighting insurgents.

As for the electronics, those are of the current model, it's just a starting point. I'd be willing to bet the USAF would modify/improve them, at least to carry chaff/flares and a warning system.
 
The only people who ever realistically going to think about these types are small nations that can't afford fast jets or very large nations like the US who have the budget to cope with adding types to their existing fleets.

Virtually all people that use Super Tucano's or even Hawks are also using them as trainers. This means they don't actually add much to the budget ( and its not an extra type ) as they use them in a training role if not needed light attack/COIN.
 
Yes, but I'm not talking about the A-10. I'm talking about single-prop buzzers proposed by various companies for low-intensity work. They're more expensive than drones for very little extra.

Besides, an A-10 can be only in one place at a time, whereas 4 Reapers can be in, yup, four places. And in many cases it's more important to have 2000 lb of ordnance in 3-4 separate spots than 10000 in a single place. Not to mention that the Reapers have a longer range and can stay aloft (loiter) far longer than the A-10.

Most of the time the cost of a system is-----PILOT-MAINTENANCE -ORDNANCE-FUEL. This is going to be same for such drones. With drones maintenance may be less than A-10 and fuel a fraction of the A-10 , but pilot/operator costs will be the same and ordnance the same overall. In short operating 4 drones should cost more than one A-10 to operate.
 
Aren't drone pilots paid considerably less than jet jockeys?
It's not pay, it's training costs. It costs about a tenth as much to train a drone operator as basic pilot training, and 1% of fighter pilot training, for the US at least. Annual training costs, can't find if that figure holds or not, it is still far cheaper to train a drone pilot than a combat pilot
 
but pilot/operator costs will be the same

"fighter jock" training quite simply not needed ...

not even the larger drones that are simply unmanned aircraft that predominate in current USAF usage
They are largely automated for all of their patrols.

let alone the important drones like the Switchblade "loitering weapon"
(already in US Army Service ... 4000 deployed in Afghanistan)
This is a one use one shot system the size of a LAW either for peeking over the hill for 10 minutes
or delivering a 0.5Kg explosive ~ a 40mm grenade.

The international equivalent is the Hero-30 ... with longer duration and contrlled from a handheld tablet
It's bigger cousins like the Hero-400 can also attack themselves being GPS targeted or IR seeking when committed
but are recoverable or relandable so make good scouts.
These can be "commanded" from a laptop computer interface from the back of "double cab".

There are several rototrcraft versions... some the size of a rucksack ... again with hand held control
These can attack or laser designate according to payload.

None need any form of "pilot" training or pilot levels of fitness.
 
Last edited:
"fighter jock" training quite simply not needed ...

not even the larger drones that are simply unmanned aircraft that predominate in current USAF usage
They are largely automated for all of their patrols.

let alone the important drones like the Switchblade "loitering weapon"
(already in US Army Service ... 4000 deployed in Afghanistan)
This is a one use one shot system the size of a LAW either for peeking over the hill for 10 minutes
or delivering a 0.5Kg explosive ~ a 40mm grenade.

The international equivalent is the Hero-30 ... with longer duration and contrlled from a handheld tablet
It's bigger cousins like the Hero-400 can also attack themselves being GPS targeted or IR seeking when committed
but are recoverable or relandable so make good scouts.
These can be "commanded" from a laptop computer interface from the back of "double cab".

There are several rototrcraft versions... some the size of a rucksack ... again with hand held control
These can attack or laser designate according to payload.

None need any form of "pilot" training or pilot levels of fitness.


do you have any sources on these "claims".
 
do you have any sources on these "claims".

Apologies ... I thought this info was so well known it needed only to be pointed out :-(

Rather than relying on my links too much,why don't you do a bit of research yourself?

googling "switchblade drone" will get you
  • the manufacturers site .. AeroVironment
    (who also make the Wasp, Puma and other small recon drones used by US forces
    ... no "pilots" there either just a low cost control station and an "operator")
  • general sources like wikipedia (with all their subsequent references)
  • reputable newspaper commentators
  • several professional defense publications
you might even try the DoD site... I think some of the relevant contract awards are still documented there.
In fact there is a whole raft of Manufacturers trying to get in the market for "loitering munitions" as the US prefer to call kamikaze drones
There is/have been a whole set of programme for this
Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System (LMAMS)
Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (Locaas)
etc etc

For visuals you might try youtube (though these will mostly be manufacturers "puff")

Same goes for the Hero-30 and the rest of it's larger brothers from uvision air.
This is an Israeli company supplying the IDF .. so there is a lot of newies interest about their use vs the Palestinians.

Hence Israel Industry is also a world leader
e.g. the Rotem rotor craft I mentioned is from IAI but new and AFAIK not in active use
See also the Harop from the same company.
However this larger drone is a low cost "loitering" ARM equivalent to the old UK ALARM
and thus probably not as much use in COIN as in lowish tech conventional war.)

Soon the IDF may have the larger/longer ranged/more expensive Skystriker announced only a few months ago
http://elbitsystems.com/pr-new/elbit-systems-introduces-skystriker/

Aside: as one of the few mid sized defense forces actively involved in genuine COIN,
the IDF happens to be world leaders in the tactical use of relatively low cost relatively small drones.

but Israel is also an example that a blade cuts both ways... Hamas is employing "improvised" recon drones against the IDF

with how much success it is difficult to know since the Israeli only ever publicize their shoot downs
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-israel-shoots-down-hamas-drone-from-gaza-strip-military-2017-2?IR=T)

and of course Hamas is not saying how much intel it was able to get in the face of the F-15/AWACS combo.
 
Last edited:
Part of the problems with drones is that their field of view is substantially less than that of the human eye. This can be very important in CAS where you are laying down ordnance very close to your own troops (danger close). As noted speed of response is also an issue - both actual airspeed of the aircraft/drone and also the size of the loop to get a drone on target compared to a FAC communicating with an aircraft directly. While "hacking" a drone signal is quite difficult, simply jamming it is easier. The various "el cheapo" piloted aircraft being touted for the CAS mission may be a good fit for relatively poor countries who need air support against local insurgents (the Afghan AF is being equipped like that, and perhaps the Philippine AF could use them), and having some for the US for certain limited missions could be useful. The reality is they don't pack the punch of the A-10, and are much less survivable against a well armed opponent.

Many of the limitations of drones will gradually be reduced as the technology improves. The biggest advantage to using drones FOR THE APPROPRIATE MISSIONS is the fact that you don't risk an expensive human pilot. In many ways, especially against non-state actors but also other potential adversaries, a captured pilot is much more problematic than a dead one. The last time the USA faced an opponent where POWs had a decent chance of proper treatment was against Germany and Italy in WWII - not that the Germans did not have many instances of mistreatment - all opponents from Japan in WWII to ISIS and the Taliban with the North Koreans and Vietnamese in between, have used captured US personnel as hostages or worse. Nobody gets upset about the fate of a collection of parts.
 
As noted speed of response is also an issue

One significant reason why the army and marines at the front like small drones as "loitering munitions" and "over the next hill recon"
is that they have FASTER response than CAS from any larger flying machine.
(even if only because the men at the sharp end deploy such resources not a different command or a different service).

This applies whether a full size UAS, an attack helo, a low cost COIN aircraft, a dedicated ground attack jet, a gunship or smart bombs from a high flyer is the proposed alternative.

For medium distant targets all the infantry need is to link these systems as designators
for relatively low cost ground weapons like ACERM or JUMPER and the Time on Target is still improved

Yes for deeper targets still, an airborne weapons platform is best.
However a loitering drone is cheaper to buy and operate and has a longer wait time in the "cab rank" than any manned aircraft.
It can also be deployed and recovered and readied again from much closer to the front line obviating the need for jet speed.


True, individually even a large drone may carry less weapons than a light attack aircraft or helo.
In fact a virtually none compared to a an A-10, F-16 or A-130
but with smart weapons especially the newer smaller variety they can carry enough to be effective (against COIN type targets at least)

and as you say if the environment is "full on" to the point that you expect a 10% loss rate
(whether in direct attack or even designation mission)
why risk a trained man in a 10M$ aircraft? simply use 10x1M$ "heavy" drones.
(multiply those $s by any factor you like)

You even gain wider coverage and more resilience when you do take the inevitable losses.
 
Last edited:
Virtually all people that use Super Tucano's or even Hawks are also using them as trainers. This means they don't actually add much to the budget ( and its not an extra type ) as they use them in a training role if not needed light attack/COIN.

also if you start considerign stuff like the Mixed Fighter force doctrine the RAF had in the late cold war the Hawks are manouverable hardpoints and gun packs for the Phantom / tornado conordinaoting them or are used GCI ( or directed from AWACS) as per the second world war fighters
 
Top