NationStates

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:you're exaggerating as far as COIN is concerned.

>take agricultural plane
>slap on basic surveillance and targeting electronics
>slap on existing weapons
>coin aircraft

OR:

>Take plane you already have, because it's your trainer
>Equip it with avionics it is already designed for, because it's your trainer
>Attach weapons pods which it is already designed to carry, because it's your trainer
>Use pilots already used to flying it, because it's your trainer
>Use a supply chain that already exists for it, because it's your trainer
>?????
>PROFIT

Stahn wrote:
Neither do I.

Was that sarcasm or do you really agree? Lol

Radicchio wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:3x Brimstone per pylon x9 hardpoints (so 27 missiles) x 50kg per Brimstone will set you back 12150kg ; I don't think total pylon weight will be over 2T so you're in the green

the gun? for general anti-armor use? yeah. anti-tank? useless today.

The gun is a must for me because i am doing an RP against a guy who likes to use a lot of irregular civilian vehicles as anti-armor vehicles. He is hitting me with carl gustavs, hydra rocket pods and ingwe missile launchers from thebacks of toyotas and volvos.
This is currently keeping me hunting antiarmor on the ground rather than hunting armor.
I see no sense dropping the dime on an anti-tank missile when an autocannon can cheese an isuzu without costing me a buck five a shot.

Meanwhile i want to be actively hunting his MK-III tanks from the sky so i dont have to keep repositioning my armor to stay in controll of key roads and bridges.

Hence, i need a tank hunter, with a gun so i can supress his armor while making his irregulars an unviable option.
It may only work for a few rounds until he moved AA into the field but that may be all i need.

You might also want to consider the OV-10 Bronco by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Amer ... tional_use

Or perhaps the Tengu. A Stahnese design.



Maximum speed: 500 km/h
Range: 900 km
Service ceiling: 7,000 m

Guns: 1x 20 mm cannon
Hardpoints: 3 fuselage and 2 underwing
Or something. Haven't really fleshed out the stats yet. But the model I made, I think is pretty neat.

Or you can go for the Zorganese variant which seems to be way superior. http://www.nationstates.net/nation=zorg ... /id=294682

Radicchio wrote:

Stahn wrote:
Neither do I.

Was that sarcasm or do you really agree? Lol

I agree.

small utility aircraft like the AN-2 seem pretty suitable for usage in coin operations...

Right now the only fixed wings i am operating are:

Antonov an 26 cargo craft, Beechcraft Model 18 general aviation and British Aerospace Sea Harrier.
The rest of my combat aviation consists of helicopters and tilt rotors.

There are a variety of reasons for this, not the least of which is that my entire security enviroment is short range island to island or carrier to island sorties.

Radicchio wrote:Right now the only fixed wings i am operating are:

Antonov an 26 cargo craft, Beechcraft Model 18 general aviation and British Aerospace Sea Harrier.
The rest of my combat aviation consists of helicopters and tilt rotors.

There are a variety of reasons for this, not the least of which is that my entire security enviroment is short range island to island or carrier to island sorties.

Harriers aren't really advisable in an Air Defense Role.

The Imperial Air Force of Montabaur (IAFM) currently operates the following:

Fighter aircraft) 123 F-16 Fighting Falcons

Cargo planes) 42 C-17 Globemaster III's

Attack helicopters) 30 Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters

Helicopters) 17 Chinook helicopters
-13 Blackhawk helicopters

Attack planes) 20 A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft

Strategic bombers) 8 Tupolev Tu-160

Spirit of Hope wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
you're exaggerating as far as COIN is concerned.

>take agricultural plane
>slap on basic surveillance and targeting electronics
>slap on existing weapons
>coin aircraft

That still means training new engineers, pilots, and maintenance crews for that aircraft. Then their is actually building/buying the new plane, the weapons, and adding the weapons to the plane.

All while you should have trainers of various sorts

Why would they need extra training if they've already trained on small turboprops (which every pilot trains on) and are trained to operate a common targeting pod?

Also, Super Tucano ftw

EDIT: Also, see the AT-802U. It's about as OTS as it gets ; so there's almost no development except for adding armor and weapons, and being a highly popular commercial plane, there should be plenty of engineers, pilots, maintenance crews, spare parts, etc. around) ; applies for other highly popular civilian craft too. IMO COIN is a field where purpose-designing an aircraft for it offers negligible or no benefits over OTS in terms of performance and effectiveness, and clear disadvantages because of development and production costs, logistics, etc.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:you're exaggerating as far as COIN is concerned.

>take agricultural plane
>slap on basic surveillance and targeting electronics
>slap on existing weapons
>coin aircraft

OR:

>Take plane you already have, because it's your trainer
>Equip it with avionics it is already designed for, because it's your trainer
>Attach weapons pods which it is already designed to carry, because it's your trainer
>Use pilots already used to flying it, because it's your trainer
>Use a supply chain that already exists for it, because it's your trainer
>?????
>PROFIT

>Take highly versatile plane which can have myriad other uses incl. of government interest (e.g. firefighting) and that is already a highly successful civilian aircraft
>Equip it with already existing targeting and navigation pods
>Equip it with already existing weapons pods
>Use pilots already used to flying small turboprop aircraft, because everyone has in training
>Use a supply chain that already exists and is highly developed for the civilian and government markets
>Rugged, reliable, low-maintenance, simple - proven commercially successful agricultural workhorse
>????
>PROFIT

Can TV significantly improve carrier worthiness? Do TV benefits hold true for larger aircraft?

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:That still means training new engineers, pilots, and maintenance crews for that aircraft. Then their is actually building/buying the new plane, the weapons, and adding the weapons to the plane.

All while you should have trainers of various sorts

Why would they need extra training if they've already trained on small turboprops (which every pilot trains on) and are trained to operate a common targeting pod?

Also, Super Tucano ftw

EDIT: Also, see the AT-802U. It's about as OTS as it gets ; so there's almost no development except for adding armor and weapons, and being a highly popular commercial plane, there should be plenty of engineers, pilots, maintenance crews, spare parts, etc. around) ; applies for other highly popular civilian craft too. IMO COIN is a field where purpose-designing an aircraft for it offers negligible or no benefits over OTS in terms of performance and effectiveness, and clear disadvantages because of development and production costs, logistics, etc.

Have you ever driven a car you are unfamiliar with? Notice how it handles differently, different acceleration, response to the wheel, etc? Surprisingly planes are the same. While you could probably put a good pilot in most common aircraft and they will be able to fly them, they won't be able to get the full potential from that aircraft until they have had some time training with it. The same goes with weapons systems. So any pilots for this would have to get some new training, at the very least practicing some maneuvers and ground attack runs.

Now are those engineers, pilots ad mechanics in your military? Some maybe, but probably not enough to maintain a fleet of aircraft, so you either have to entice them into joining your military (increased personnel) or train your troops in the new aircraft's maintenance (increased training). Either way you are paying more.

I'm not saying develop a new plane for COIN, I'm saying use the aircraft you already have. Precision munitions can be dropped by multi-roles, UAV's or attack helicopters. Gun coverage could be provided by attack helicopters, transport helicopters, or modified transport aircraft. This is all ignoring the fact that you probably already have a prop trainer that should be able to carry weapons pods that you could also use. All of these are existing aircraft in your inventory, while they may cost more to operate per mission they don't have the increased cost of more/new training, more/new parts acquisitions, more/new air frame acquisitions, etc.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Why would they need extra training if they've already trained on small turboprops (which every pilot trains on) and are trained to operate a common targeting pod?

Also, Super Tucano ftw

EDIT: Also, see the AT-802U. It's about as OTS as it gets ; so there's almost no development except for adding armor and weapons, and being a highly popular commercial plane, there should be plenty of engineers, pilots, maintenance crews, spare parts, etc. around) ; applies for other highly popular civilian craft too. IMO COIN is a field where purpose-designing an aircraft for it offers negligible or no benefits over OTS in terms of performance and effectiveness, and clear disadvantages because of development and production costs, logistics, etc.

It doesn't matter how many of those aircraft are being used in the civilian sector. How many of those repair crews are actually in the military? How many parts has the government already stockpiled?

If the answer to either of those questions is "none" or "not too many" then you're still in the same boat. It just isn't worth buying all of these planes, going through all of the trouble of testing and qualifying them, certifying pilots and crews, certifying weapons and avionics, all for a niche war like the one Radicchio's fighting.

While yes, the US Army bought MRAPs for Iraq, the USAF didn't buy new specialized COIN aircraft, they just used what they already had and what they were already going to buy, since introducing a new aircraft for a single war has questionable economic benefit. The money for it has to come out of other programs, meaning cutting back on the actual warfighting capability.

The Army's MRAP situation is a pretty good example: now they have to figure out what to do with a host of vehicles that aren't good for just about anything else, which is why they're dumping them on police departments (and not getting anything close to a reimbursement for them, so it's still a big loss for the budget).

Purpose-designing an aircraft for COIN usually isn't necessary, but neither is buying an entirely new airframe when you already have low-cost trainers in large numbers available that are already fitted for the weapons and avionics, and already have pilots and equipment available. The BAe Hawk alone has sold much better than the AT-802 to governments. Once you're done with the war you just transfer the trainers back to the training reserves, whereas if you bought a bunch of agricultural planes, they wouldn't be useful for much at all and would get stuck in the boneyard. The trainer requires even fewer modifications for use than a civilian plane.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:>Take highly versatile plane which can have myriad other uses incl. of government interest (e.g. firefighting) and that is already a highly successful civilian aircraft
>Equip it with already existing targeting and navigation pods
>Equip it with already existing weapons pods
>Use pilots already used to flying small turboprop aircraft, because everyone has in training
>Use a supply chain that already exists and is highly developed for the civilian and government markets
>Rugged, reliable, low-maintenance, simple - proven commercially successful agricultural workhorse
>????
>PROFIT

As odd as this may seem, most civilian aircraft aren't designed to equip FLIR, laser rangefinders, laser designators, datalinks, or to support smart ordnance. And civilian pilots experienced flying these aircraft are, well, civilians, and having them fly military sorties is a violation of all sorts of conventions. Unless you draft them, but now you've started pushing up your personnel costs again. Where again to you plan to mount the interfaces given that your entire cockpit is already taken up with dials and gauges?



The modifications AT made to the AT-802U breaks component compatibility in a number of cases, since it uses strengthened parts to support the greater weight. And notice how most of the aircraft entered into the LAAT competition were themselves either modified trainers with proven military service records (Texan, Super Tucano, Master) or actual military aircraft that had served in combat (OV-10).

The Akasha Colony wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Why would they need extra training if they've already trained on small turboprops (which every pilot trains on) and are trained to operate a common targeting pod?

Also, Super Tucano ftw

EDIT: Also, see the AT-802U. It's about as OTS as it gets ; so there's almost no development except for adding armor and weapons, and being a highly popular commercial plane, there should be plenty of engineers, pilots, maintenance crews, spare parts, etc. around) ; applies for other highly popular civilian craft too. IMO COIN is a field where purpose-designing an aircraft for it offers negligible or no benefits over OTS in terms of performance and effectiveness, and clear disadvantages because of development and production costs, logistics, etc.

It doesn't matter how many of those aircraft are being used in the civilian sector. How many of those repair crews are actually in the military? How many parts has the government already stockpiled?

If the answer to either of those questions is "none" or "not too many" then you're still in the same boat. It just isn't worth buying all of these planes, going through all of the trouble of testing and qualifying them, certifying pilots and crews, certifying weapons and avionics, all for a niche war like the one Radicchio's fighting.

While yes, the US Army bought MRAPs for Iraq, the USAF didn't buy new specialized COIN aircraft, they just used what they already had and what they were already going to buy, since introducing a new aircraft for a single war has questionable economic benefit. The money for it has to come out of other programs, meaning cutting back on the actual warfighting capability.

The Army's MRAP situation is a pretty good example: now they have to figure out what to do with a host of vehicles that aren't good for just about anything else, which is why they're dumping them on police departments (and not getting anything close to a reimbursement for them, so it's still a big loss for the budget).

Purpose-designing an aircraft for COIN usually isn't necessary, but neither is buying an entirely new airframe when you already have low-cost trainers in large numbers available that are already fitted for the weapons and avionics, and already have pilots and equipment available. The BAe Hawk alone has sold much better than the AT-802 to governments. Once you're done with the war you just transfer the trainers back to the training reserves, whereas if you bought a bunch of agricultural planes, they wouldn't be useful for much at all and would get stuck in the boneyard. The trainer requires even fewer modifications for use than a civilian plane.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:>Take highly versatile plane which can have myriad other uses incl. of government interest (e.g. firefighting) and that is already a highly successful civilian aircraft
>Equip it with already existing targeting and navigation pods
>Equip it with already existing weapons pods
>Use pilots already used to flying small turboprop aircraft, because everyone has in training
>Use a supply chain that already exists and is highly developed for the civilian and government markets
>Rugged, reliable, low-maintenance, simple - proven commercially successful agricultural workhorse
>????
>PROFIT

As odd as this may seem, most civilian aircraft aren't designed to equip FLIR, laser rangefinders, laser designators, datalinks, or to support smart ordnance. And civilian pilots experienced flying these aircraft are, well, civilians, and having them fly military sorties is a violation of all sorts of conventions. Unless you draft them, but now you've started pushing up your personnel costs again. Where again to you plan to mount the interfaces given that your entire cockpit is already taken up with dials and gauges?



The modifications AT made to the AT-802U breaks component compatibility in a number of cases, since it uses strengthened parts to support the greater weight. And notice how most of the aircraft entered into the LAAT competition were themselves either modified trainers with proven military service records (Texan, Super Tucano, Master) or actual military aircraft that had served in combat (OV-10).

Fair enough.

In a modern military, is an OV-10 Bronco / Cessna Skymaster needed?

EDIT: BTW, I plan on using the Tucano/Super Tucano so there's that

Radicchio wrote:

Stahn wrote:Using material in a RP that you have purposely designed to counter an enemy with irregular equipment might be considered godmodding. Unless for example there is a plausible explanation why your armed forces are so well adapted to fight this enemy.

I am going to identify the "right" equipment, go to the traders, find someone selling them used, buy them, ship them and recieve them then take a couple of full rounds Years to train and deploy in limited numbers before utilizing them fully.
I do not believe that will be "godmod."

Seriously udner even the most desperate UOR conditions you are talking a year mimimum to get a brand new aircraft type delivered in in sufficient numbers and enough air and ground crew trained in them to even think about conductioning an operational test deployment.

These days you fight with what you have unless you are in a long term low intensity conflcit like Iraq/Afghanistan and even then simple modifications to existing paltforms are much more likely.


To be honest not many people on GE&T sell CAS aircraft that aren't just name changed A-10s/SU-25s. There used to be a couple (inlcuding one of mine, heck i had 2 options: a cheapo SABA inspired one and a lulzy twin engine harrier cross over beast) but the designers have either stopped bothering with thier storefronts or have gone away.

Crookfur wrote:

Radicchio wrote:
I am going to identify the "right" equipment, go to the traders, find someone selling them used, buy them, ship them and recieve them then take a couple of full rounds Years to train and deploy in limited numbers before utilizing them fully.
I do not believe that will be "godmod."

Seriously udner even the most desperate UOR conditions you are talking a year mimimum to get a brand new aircraft type delivered in in sufficient numbers and enough air and ground crew trained in them to even think about conductioning an operational test deployment.

These days you fight with what you have unless you are in a long term low intensity conflcit like Iraq/Afghanistan and even then simple modifications to existing paltforms are much more likely.


To be honest not many people on GE&T sell CAS aircraft that aren't just name changed A-10s/SU-25s. There used to be a couple (inlcuding one of mine, heck i had 2 options: a cheapo SABA inspired one and a lulzy twin engine harrier cross over beast) but the designers have either stopped bothering with thier storefronts or have gone away.

: PMCs :

Radicchio wrote:
British Aerospace Sea Harrier.

All the fixed wing strike you could possibly need.

Double plus good for FA.2 model which used to win all of the bombing contests

Sea Harrier with twin 30mm guns and rocket pods= killing all of the things


But seriously unless you have hawks(or at least jet provests, well if by some miracle someone was still producing and supporting them) to actually train pilots on (and fireflys/tutors and PC7s/tucanos to train for the hawks on) you won't actually be operating any harriers at all.

And if you cheap out on old jet provests then suddenly strikemasters look uber sexy.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Crookfur wrote:
Seriously udner even the most desperate UOR conditions you are talking a year mimimum to get a brand new aircraft type delivered in in sufficient numbers and enough air and ground crew trained in them to even think about conductioning an operational test deployment.

These days you fight with what you have unless you are in a long term low intensity conflcit like Iraq/Afghanistan and even then simple modifications to existing paltforms are much more likely.


To be honest not many people on GE&T sell CAS aircraft that aren't just name changed A-10s/SU-25s. There used to be a couple (inlcuding one of mine, heck i had 2 options: a cheapo SABA inspired one and a lulzy twin engine harrier cross over beast) but the designers have either stopped bothering with thier storefronts or have gone away.

: PMCs :

Oh yes of course.

its not as if the contract negotiations and legistlation changes required for an angreement with a military contractor able to offer capable fixed wing combat avaiation wont take a similar length of time.

Crookfur wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
: PMCs :

Oh yes of course.

its not as if the contract negotiations and legistlation changes required for an angreement with a military contractor able to offer capable fixed wing combat avaiation wont take a similar length of time.

>implying legislation changes
>implying not private army free for all

what's wrong with you?

Really though, it's probably the best solution. If your country has Executive Outcomes-esque PMCs.

No legislation changes.. and a PMC won't be crazy enough to drag along negotiations so long that their help isn't need anymore/the conflict ends.. they're a business, out to make money.. they'd probably high five themselves for such a big job and want to get at it as soon as possibloe

Crookfur wrote:

Radicchio wrote:
British Aerospace Sea Harrier.

All the fixed wing strike you could possibly need.

Double plus good for FA.2 model which used to win all of the bombing contests

Sea Harrier with twin 30mm guns and rocket pods= killing all of the things


But seriously unless you have hawks(or at least jet provests, well if by some miracle someone was still producing and supporting them) to actually train pilots on (and fireflys/tutors and PC7s/tucanos to train for the hawks on) you won't actually be operating any harriers at all.

And if you cheap out on old jet provests then suddenly strikemasters look uber sexy.

I RP an island nation that was under British administration unil 1983, it is reasonble that we would have purchased our harrier fleet (110 aircraft, training facilities, parts nd equipment) to supliment other british equipment left behind when the island began self governance and that they would still be in sevice.
I even have a few posts out there about hiring an indian aerospace firm to come and give the whole fleet the Hindustan refit in 2005-2009.

Add to that a healthy industrial manufacturing sector to build OEM replacment parts and i think i can realistically say that i operate the Sea Harrier.

Radicchio wrote:I RP an island nation that was under British administration unil 1983, it is reasonble that we would have purchased our harrier fleet (110 aircraft, training facilities, parts nd equipment) to supliment other british equipment left behind when the island began self governance and that they would still be in sevice.
I even have a few posts out there about hiring an indian aerospace firm to come and give the whole fleet the Hindustan refit in 2005-2009.

Add to that a healthy industrial manufacturing sector to build OEM replacment parts and i think i can realistically say that i operate the Sea Harrier.

Is there any excuse for you not to have a few buccaneers?

Purpelia wrote:Is there any excuse for you not to have a few buccaneers?

I suppose not!
Until this very moment i had not even heard of the Blackburn Buckaneer...

What would be a good armor hunting loadout for them?

Radicchio wrote:

Purpelia wrote:Is there any excuse for you not to have a few buccaneers?

I suppose not!
Until this very moment i had not even heard of the Blackburn Buckaneer...

What would be a good armor hunting loadout for them?

No idea to be honest. All I know about them is how cool they are.

Crookfur wrote:

Radicchio wrote:
British Aerospace Sea Harrier.

All the fixed wing strike you could possibly need.

Double plus good for FA.2 model which used to win all of the bombing contests

Sea Harrier with twin 30mm guns and rocket pods= killing all of the things


But seriously unless you have hawks(or at least jet provests, well if by some miracle someone was still producing and supporting them) to actually train pilots on (and fireflys/tutors and PC7s/tucanos to train for the hawks on) you won't actually be operating any harriers at all.

And if you cheap out on old jet provests then suddenly strikemasters look uber sexy.

From my understanding, turbojet trainers disappeared as a consequence of the advent of high-performance turboprop craft.

Unless he has a serious need for naval use, Su-25 could probably do the job just as well at a fraction of the price/complexity/yadayada

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Unless he has a serious need for naval use, Su-25 could probably do the job just as well at a fraction of the price/complexity/yadayada

Naval use... I am a series of islands...
LoL

---

Anyone here know much about the buckaneer?