From: swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))
Subject: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:39:54 GMT


From swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))

I have always been intrigued by the following question:

In low intensity conflicts, have light aircraft been used in a close
air support role? I believe there was some use during the Rhodesian
bush war, but these were conventional general aviation aircraft (mostly
twins?). What about the conversion of common STOL aircraft like
cropdusters (Pawnees, Fletchers etc) to a light strike role?

The reason I ask this question is because the Australian armed forces
believe that in the next 20 years or so they will face small numbers
of insurgents in the far north of the country (Northern TErritory).
It is believed they will operate in units of platoon/squad size, armed
with small arms, explosives and maybe the occasional shoulder fired
SAM. Their role would be to blow up the occasional microwave tower,
phone line etc and generally cause the Australian military to consume
a huge amount of resources in surveillance and elimination (the amount
of land there is huge).

It always seemed to me that in such an environment where air enemy defence
is low and air superiority  achieved, then it makes little sense to
call up an F/A-18 (Australia has around 70 of them) to kill them. One
lucky shot could cause the loss of a $30 million aircraft and it seems
like overkill for a squad of men. Why not use converted STOL aircraft to
provide almost continuous aircover. There seem to be a number advantages
and disadvantages.

Problems:
1. Low ordnance capacity (maybe a couple of wing-mounted LMGs and a
couple of rocket pods). [still, some old attack helicopters carried less]

2. They fly low and slow and would get hit.

3. They cannot substitute for helicopters in inserting and extracting
troops and maybe resupply.

Advantages:
1. Cheap, easy to maintain (no turbines). [well, cheaper and easier to
maintain than rotary wing aircraft]

2. Long MTBF. May even move with small units and be
serviced/fueled/armed in the field. A pair could maintain constant
air support and additional surveillance.

3. They will get hit. All CAS aircraft do. Self sealing tanks, cockpit
armour and redundant cabling could help. 

4. Flying low and slow means they can see the target and hit it. They
can also take advantage of terrain and fly between trees in evasive
maneuvering. They may be even less vulnerable than helicopters [that
spinning blade is a problem] and probably have a lower IR signature
than a turbine (in case a pesky heat seeker appears).

5. When they fly low---they fly low, like a bout 2 feet off the ground.
It must be hard to hit something coming between the trees at 80 mph at
that altitude.

6. Maybe some minimal supply drop and casualty evac capability could\
be provided.

In general, these things aren't as capable as helicopters. But then,
they don't have the same price tag and maintenance requirements. Their
loitering capabilities and surveillance role also seems to outweigh
their low hitting capacity.

Any comments on this?

perry morrison


Xref: sparky sci.military:8587 soc.history:7503