[Knoss]

The PA 48 is counter insergency aircraft built in the 1970's by Piper aircraft who purchased the desing from Cavalier aircraft. It is based off the F-51 Mustang III turboprop, but has little in common with the F-51 airframe.

[web]http://avia.russian.ee/air/usa/piper_pa-48.php[/web]

[ridenrain]

Cool aircraft but artillery shells don't care about bad weather.

[sasquatch2]

Nostalgia aside these critters are not as potent or survivable as the WARTHOG.

BTW the SKYRAIDERS generally CARRIED that gross weight in net weapons load.

[kal]

Yea, the A-10 Thunderbolt II is a much better option for close air support.

[Heavy_Metal]

that plane would be much more succeptable to ground fire in the form of small arms and heavy machine guns much more than an A-10 for example.

[Knoss]

$1:

rate post
Yea, the A-10 Thunderbolt II is a much better option for close air support.

What about cost? Especially if the enemy dosen't have tanks.

$1:

BTW the SKYRAIDERS generally CARRIED that gross weight in net weapons load.

Good point.

[sandorski]

Against the Taliban? Sure, but they'd be a lot more vulnerable as previously mentioned. Not sure why the A10 entered the discussion, its' primary role is against Armour whereas what's needed is Anti-personnel support. With that said, a good heavily armoured helicopter would be most useful.

[kal]

sandorski sandorski:

Against the Taliban? Sure, but they'd be a lot more vulnerable as previously mentioned. Not sure why the A10 entered the discussion, its' primary role is against Armour whereas what's needed is Anti-personnel support. With that said, a good heavily armoured helicopter would be most useful.

The A-10 is quite capable of taking out, well, pretty much any ground target. Look at the sheer diversity in the types of ordinance it can carry -Mavericks, paveways, rockeyes, durandals, hydras.. to name a few. The A-10 was designed for CAS with emphasis on anti-armour and other hardened targets -it is by no means limited to them.

[Knoss]

Perhaps volume would be of value. If an aircraft is cheap and simple enough to be operated by a reservist with just turboprop training to supplement helicopters in high risk areas and A 10's against armour or strtigic cave attacks.

[sasquatch2]

sandorski wrote:

$1:

Against the Taliban? Sure, but they'd be a lot more vulnerable as previously mentioned. Not sure why the A10 entered the discussion, its' primary role is against Armour whereas what's needed is Anti-personnel support. With that said, a good heavily armoured helicopter would be most useful.

A heavily armoured helo lacks the ability to carry much ordinance and regarless it's rotar disk is a huge vulnerable target. The soviet Hinds in afghanistan carried more and more armour and less and less ordinance and still were sitting ducks to Strellas and Stingers.

The pilot in an A-10 resides in a titanium bath about 3/4 " thick. It is a real bitch to get a thermalock on with its high, rear mounted jets. Fast enought to be a difficult target but slow enough to visually differentiate targets.

[sandorski]

kal kal:

sandorski sandorski:

Against the Taliban? Sure, but they'd be a lot more vulnerable as previously mentioned. Not sure why the A10 entered the discussion, its' primary role is against Armour whereas what's needed is Anti-personnel support. With that said, a good heavily armoured helicopter would be most useful.

The A-10 is quite capable of taking out, well, pretty much any ground target. Look at the sheer diversity in the types of ordinance it can carry -Mavericks, paveways, rockeyes, durandals, hydras.. to name a few. The A-10 was designed for CAS with emphasis on anti-armour and other hardened targets -it is by no means limited to them.

That may be true, but we are talking about small bands and not large Armies here. An A10 is way overkill.

[ridenrain]

We already have turbo-prop trainers that can be fitted with guns or a small bomb load. What we don't have is the experience to do close air support.
Considering the nature of the targets for the interdiction roal, I'd rather use a high linger time UAV to watch and identify then artillery to kill. We can do this right now. Learning to do close air support is going to cost and take time.
Cheap, fast, safe and proven.

[Streaker]

If it's sufficiently simple and cheap it could be suitable equipment for the Afghan Air Force.

[PluggyRug]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

sandorski wrote:

$1:

Against the Taliban? Sure, but they'd be a lot more vulnerable as previously mentioned. Not sure why the A10 entered the discussion, its' primary role is against Armour whereas what's needed is Anti-personnel support. With that said, a good heavily armoured helicopter would be most useful.

A heavily armoured helo lacks the ability to carry much ordinance and regarless it's rotar disk is a huge vulnerable target. The soviet Hinds in afghanistan carried more and more armour and less and less ordinance and still were sitting ducks to Strellas and Stingers.

The pilot in an A-10 resides in a titanium bath about 3/4 " thick. It is a real bitch to get a thermalock on with its high, rear mounted jets. Fast enought to be a difficult target but slow enough to visually differentiate targets.

$1:

Another argument against developing an employing fixed-wing aircraft in support of insurgency/COIN conflicts is that helicopters are better suited for such operations. Helicopters do indeed have a proven role in LIC, but their effectiveness is constrained by higher long-term costs and greater attrition rates. In general, operating and maintaining helicopters can be quite expensive because they require more specialized maintenance than light fixed wing aircraft. Thus, most third-world countries cannot afford them.19 The experience of three Central and South American countries--El Salvador, Guatemala, and Peru--illustrates this point. On average, these countries can maintain and operate only 30 percent of their total helicopter inventory at any given time. Helicopters are also considerably more susceptible to small-arms fire than are light fixed-wing assets, as was demonstrated in Panama. In situations where both helicopters and small, fixed-wing attack aircraft were involved in close-air-support missions, only the helicopters received battle damage. Indeed, because helicopters sustained heavy losses flying strike missions in support of COIN operations in El Salvador, the ESAF reassigned them to armed reconnaissance and medical/counterguerrilla evacuation.

$1:

1. The Piper PA-48 Enforcer, a light-weight turboprop aircraft based on the P-51 Mustang. This aircraft completed several phases of aircraft weapons-development testing at Eglin AFB, Florida, and Edwards AFB, California, in 1984 and was placed in storage at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, later that year. It is equipped with an ejection seat, is capable of carrying 5,500 lb of ordnance at 220 knots, and can take off in less than 1,800 feet. Armament capabilities include Mk 20 Rockeye bombs, Mk 82 Snakeye general-purpose bombs, and six launchers of 2.75-inch rocket pods.14

Old, but still a good read.

[kal]

sandorski sandorski:

kal kal:

sandorski sandorski:

Against the Taliban? Sure, but they'd be a lot more vulnerable as previously mentioned. Not sure why the A10 entered the discussion, its' primary role is against Armour whereas what's needed is Anti-personnel support. With that said, a good heavily armoured helicopter would be most useful.

The A-10 is quite capable of taking out, well, pretty much any ground target. Look at the sheer diversity in the types of ordinance it can carry -Mavericks, paveways, rockeyes, durandals, hydras.. to name a few. The A-10 was designed for CAS with emphasis on anti-armour and other hardened targets -it is by no means limited to them.

That may be true, but we are talking about small bands and not large Armies here. An A10 is way overkill.

And a Skyraider isn't? Currently F-15s and F-16s are being used for CAS. They carry similar weapons, just not as many of them and they're not as effective at deploying them. I don't see how the A10 wouldn't be a good choice for CAS.

Of course, this is all acedemic anyway since the US would never export any