Concept Design of a CAS Aircraft For The Needs Of Pakistan Military

[Manticore]

@ANTIBODY

How about Hurkus's CAS version being developed by TAI.

Close-Air Support (CAS) Aircraft

how much damage can the turkish fighter take?

 

[Alpha1]

How apt will be aircraft such as this for Pakistan's counter insurgency operations!

Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*They are very Cheap to operate in contrast of Jets which have very high operational costs.
*The firepower is sufficient to counter what the terrorists can muster in KPK , FATA and Balochistan.
My question is should pakistan consider importing or developing something like this?
@Dazzler @Aeronaut @Muradk

 

[Pakistanisage]

Some of TTP guys have Ack Ack Guns which could bring these down easily.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Some of TTP guys have Ack Ack Guns which could bring these down easily.

Ack Acks will take down just about any low flying aircraft during CAS operations, no matter which one. A hail of lead is a hail of lead.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Ack Acks will take down just about any low flying aircraft during CAS operations, no matter which one. A hail of lead is a hail of lead.

You don't have to fly low if you are using smart bombs and laser designators.

A slow speed aircraft at low altitudes making diving runs to drop gravity bombs is much more susceptible to Ack Ack fire.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

You don't have to fly low if you are using smart bombs and laser designators.

A slow speed aircraft at low altitudes making diving runs to drop gravity bombs is much more susceptible.

Yes, but that is not CLOSE air support. The kind that low slow CAS planes or gunships provide to our troops right in the battlefield, real time. Like what we need in our operations against Taliban in FATA.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Yes, but that is not CLOSE air support. The kind that low slow CAS planes or gunships provide to our troops right in the battlefield, real time. Like what we need in our operations against Taliban in FATA.

I don't think you have a clue about what you are talking.

In second Iraq war, the USAF destroyed Iraqi ground forces from 30,000 feet.

These days USAF just sends Drones to drop missiles from 20,000.

There is no requirement from Quran or Hadith that says you have to fly low to destroy your enemy. Is there any special advantage in killing an enemy from CAS as opposed to killing them from 30,000. A dead TTP is a Dead TTP, whether killed from 50 feet or 30,000 feet. The advantage at high altitude is that enemy fire cannot reach our Pilot.

Heck In 2007 we even used our P3 Orions to pound Taliban from high altitude.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

But there is no one sitting in the back seat................

 

[Argus Panoptes]

I don't think you have a clue about what you re talking.

In second Iraq war, the USAF destroyed Iraqi ground forces from 30,000 feet.

These days USAF just sends Drones to drop missiles from 20,000.

There is no requirement from Quran or Hadith that says you have to fly low to destroy your enemy.

Heck In 2007 we even used our P3 Orions to pound Taliban from high altitude.

I have some idea, but I was requesting the benefit of your wisdom to learn.

Why not just bomb the whole village from 30,000 feet. Wait. That was Vietnam.

 

[SQ8]

Yes, but that is not CLOSE air support. The kind that low slow CAS planes or gunships provide to our troops right in the battlefield, real time. Like what we need in our operations against Taliban in FATA.

Incorrect, close air support does not have to be restricted to low slow planes or gunships and neither is that a requirement specific to us in FATA. During the initial days of operation enduring freedom the Americans provided ANA and SOCOM air support via B-52's flying at 30000 feet. Using on the spot co-ordinates.. the B-52's dropped JDAMS for precise hits on the Talibs which had a much worse effect on them than any gunship.
Currently the Marines and USAF are looking into this capability which would provide them with excellent CAS from their C-130 aircraft using hundreds of weapons. Even without such a capability.. the PAF provided better support with GBU-10's and 12's during the SWAT and FATA operations than the gunships.

You will duck when you see a low level aircraft coming at you..find cover.. etc. You wont hear a 2000 pound GBU-10 coming at you till its half a second away.

I have some idea, but I was requesting the benefit of your wisdom to learn.

Why not just bomb the whole village from 30,000 feet. Wait. That was Vietnam.

Please try to remember or learn about guided and unguided munitions before making ill informed comments

 

[Argus Panoptes]

Incorrect, close air support does not have to be restricted to low slow planes or gunships and neither is that a requirement specific to us in FATA. During the initial days of operation enduring freedom the Americans provided ANA and SOCOM air support via B-52's flying at 30000 feet. Using on the spot co-ordinates.. the B-52's dropped JDAMS for precise hits on the Talibs which had a much worse effect on them than any gunship.
Currently the Marines and USAF are looking into this capability which would provide them with excellent CAS from their C-130 aircraft using hundreds of weapons. Even without such a capability.. the PAF provided better support with GBU-10's and 12's during the SWAT and FATA operations than the gunships.

You will duck when you see a low level aircraft coming at you..find cover.. etc. You wont hear a 2000 pound GBU-10 coming at you till its half a second away.

What you describe is only recent improvement in tactics brought on by technological advancement, the kind that USA has.

We , with our resources, need to employ the older and cheaper techniques, such as the one I mention. That is the whole point.

.........
Please try to remember or learn about guided and unguided munitions before making ill informed comments

Ill informed? Hardly Sir. How much more do guided munitions cost compared to unguided ones? Which ones suit our budget?

 

[Pakistanisage]

I have some idea, but I was requesting the benefit of your wisdom to learn.

Why not just bomb the whole village from 30,000 feet. Wait. That was Vietnam.

And here in lies the problem with Internet warriors who pretend to write in these forums as technical experts.

First of all , Vietnam was 50 years ago so you need to update yourself because a lot has transpired since then.

Now we have GPS, Laser Designators and Advanced optical technology that enables us to read the license plate of a car from 30,000 feet in the air.

Now we have the ability to put a Smart bomb or a missile through a 4*4 window into a Ground Structure.

We don't even have to expose our Ground Forces. We have the technology to destroy them from up in the sky way out of their reach. That is what USAF does.

What we really need is the Political will to do it.

 

[Argus Panoptes]

And here in lies the problem with Internet warriors who pretend to write in these forums as technical experts.

First of all , Vietnam was 50 years ago so you need to update yourself because a lot has transpired since then.

Now we have GPS, Laser Designators and Advanced optical technology that enables us to read the license plate of a car from 30,000 feet in the air.

Now we have the ability to put a Smart bomb or a missile through a 4*4 window into a Ground Structure.

We don't even have to expose our Ground Forces. We have the technology to destroy them from up in the sky way out of their reach. That is what USAF does.

What we really need is the Political will to do it.

Excuse me Sir. The Americans can do all that. We can do may be a fraction of that. Can we afford to do this for clearing out FATA? What happened to our SSGs in Tirah Valley? Were we hoping for USAF to cover them or were we supposed to do that with our resources?

That is the problem with our plan, speaking as a non-technical lay person. We want to do what the Americans can, but we have no money like they do.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Excuse me Sir. The Americans can do all that. We can do may be a fraction of that. Can we afford to do this for clearing out FATA?

That is the problem with our plan, speaking as a non-technical lay person. We want to do what the Americans can, but we have no money like they do.

Pakistan Air Force is well equipped to handle the task at hand.

We just need the POLITICAL WILL and KAHONES.

How much are we losing Financially because of this low intensity insurgency.

We need to put it to rest ASAP.

 

[SQ8]

What you describe is only recent improvement in tactics brought on by technological advancement, the kind that USA has.

We , with our resources, need to employ the older and cheaper techniques, such as the one I mention. That is the whole point.


Ill informed? Hardly Sir. How much more do guided munitions cost compared to unguided ones? Which ones suit our budget?

What are you shooting tangents for? Your last statement was in lieu of how the US provided support to which you referred to Vietnam as an example;about which you were informed that it is clearly not so.
Currently our support sorties are based on a mix of guided and unguided munitions. for eg. when it comes to hitting a Bunker or cave there is usage of GBU-10 systems(which cost $35000 a pop).. or when there is a need to high a ridgeline they use unguided munitions. Even with our limited resources we know what targets need what.

FYI, the now phased out A-5s were achieving a CEP of 10m during night attacks in 2007-8.