USA to use new A-67 in Iraq?

[DJRC]

A report on the Flight International website suggests the new A-67 two seat turbo prop aircraft being developed for the USA will (once in service) be deployed in Iraq. It also refers to the design requirements - 'The brief was to produce a simple, cheap to build and easy to operate aircraft for light attack...'.

With the way things are going in Iraq, would they also be looking for cheap expendable pilots to fly these planes as well? I'm not sure I'd want to be buzzing round Bagdad in a 'simple, cheap' two seater turbo prop.

This seems on the face of it like a dangerous prospect for pilots who will be flying these planes (although I'm sure it will keep the bean counters happy). Any thoughts?

[Tourist]

A-67 is a cr@p name.

Needs a snappier name, like Pucara or something.............

[Squirrel 41]

Google is your friend:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/10/18/210033/picture-exclusive-a-67-dragon-counter-insurgency-aircraft-quietly-makes-first.html

But whilst it may called DRAGON it looks like a T-6 that's eaten too many Pringles... Anyone know what the Americans are planning to drop from it?

S41

[timex]

Good use for the Tucanos then.....:eek:

[mbga9pgf]

Google is your friend:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/10/18/210033/picture-exclusive-a-67-dragon-counter-insurgency-aircraft-quietly-makes-first.html
But whilst it may called DRAGON it looks like a T-6 that's eaten too many Pringles... Anyone know what the Americans are planning to drop from it?
S41

Hopefully to be flown by the locals.

Hopefully dropping pork sausages,flip-flops and porno mags.

[Faithless]

A-67 is a cr@p name.

Needs a snappier name, like Pucara or something.............

After looking at the pic I think something like Teggit would be suffice:cool:

[Dr Jekyll]

Perhaps they should have bought the TurboMustang 20 years ago.;)

[Evalu8ter]

Aaaaah, the Piper Enforcer. Cavalier Mustang airframe with a RR Dart up the front. Quite lovely piece of kit, even if it probably didn't sound quite right!! No, the PA-48 was never going to be loved by a military so fixated on Mach 2 (theoretical) fighters that it almost resented having the A10 forced on it. The USAF only, really, bought the A10 to stop the US Army engaging in a turf war with projects like the Cheyenne. Almost ever since it entered service the USAF have tried to kill it off in favour of more F16s, and only now is it getting the updates it's been crying out for.

Good luck to the A-67, but what we really need is to re-open the A10 line, or buy some SU-25s or, best of all, stick a dirty big turboprop onto a Skyraider airframe. I'd fly it!! (Come to think of it, I'd fly it "as is"!)

How about A-67 for MFTS, swing role anyone!?

[Aeronut]

How does this counter insurgents, exactly?

[mbga9pgf]

How does this counter insurgents, exactly?
By dropping hot, sticky napalm on them? Doubt it has 1553. Looks more like the future of the Iraqi Air force if you ask me. Not too sure the US administration would recommend supplying the current govt of iraq with F-16's.
Unfortunately, things have moved on since the days of the Super bulldog in tribal suppression fit.
http://www.warbirdalley.com/bulldog.htm

Specifications:
Engine: One 200-hp Lycoming IO-360 flat-four piston engine.
Weight: Empty 1,428 lbs., Max Takeoff 2,345 lbs.
Wing Span: 33ft. 2in.
Length: 23ft. 3in.
Height: 8ft. 11.5in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 150 mph
Ceiling: 16,000 ft.
Range: 620 miles
Armament: Usually none, but can be fitted with four underwing 7.62 machine-gun pods, fourteen 75mm rockets, or eight Bofors wire-guided missiles

Unfortunately, the locals have moved on from throwing spears...

[Lyneham Lad]

Quote from the Flight article - "aiming the machine at the counter-insurgency market in the USA"

Blimey, I hadn't realised that the fight for law'n'order in the US had reached such a pitch.......................:E

[Melchett01]

With tech specs as listed, I think a more suitable name would be the A-67 Target. Or may be even A-67 Coffin.

Send them to Baghdad - I'd love to see just how many senior officers go to Iraq to fly these. To quote Victor Meldrew........" I DON'T BELIEEEEEEEEEEEVE IT". It would be easier and cheaper to line the crews up in front of the hangars back home and shoot them there.

Now if you're after a simple and exceptionally rugged COIN platform, I think I have just the ticket:

Engine: 1× Napier Sabre IIB liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine, 2,400 hp (1,625 kW)
Weight: 9,250 lb (4,195 kg); Max Takeoff 13,640 lb (6,190 kg)
Wing Span: 41 ft 0 in (12.49 m)
Length: 33 ft 8 in (10.26 m).
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m) .
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 435 mph at 17,000 ft (700 km/h at 5,180 m)
Ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)
Range: 1,530 mi (2,465 km) with drop tanks
Armament: 4× 20 mm Mark II Hispano cannons, 150 rounds per gun, 2× 500 lb or 1,000 lb (227 kg or 454 kg) bombs, 8× 3 in (75 mm) RP-3 rockets

Sounds just about ideal to me for a COIN platform operating over Baghdad (or even NY or Texas should George W decide it is necessary). And in case you are wondering, it is the Hawker Tempest V. No gun position too tough, no insurgent hideout too far, cheap, rugged and reliable. And I'd rather fly one of these mid-1940s ac over Baghdad than the A-67 Target any day of the week. How much to fit modern avionics???

What on earth are they thinking:uhoh:

[SASless]

I vote for the A1 Skyraider with the huge turbine engine as Evalu8atr suggests....now that is an airplane. I know where you can fly one if you are interested? Plan to be in the USA in June and it can be done.

[Melchett01]

I vote for the A1 Skyraider with the huge turbine engine as Evalu8atr suggests

Whether you go for the Tempest or the Skyraider, I think these suggestions show that there is very little new going on in Iraq / Afghanistan that hasn't already gone before.

How much of the current hassles could we have cirumvented if we had looked back at how we dealt (or didn't) with these problems when they first cropped up? But then I guess history isn't particularly popular - especially amongst Tony and his mates.

[ProfessionalStudent]

Quote from the Flight article - "aiming the machine at the counter-insurgency market in the USA"


Blimey! I didn't realise that Kamakaze tactics were back in fashion!:E

What do they sell at a counter-insurgency market? Bhurkas that don't make your bomb look big?:ok:

[ShyTorque]

The only counter insurgency that looks fit for sorting out is the counter at "Walmart" (or maybe "Target"). :hmm:

Btw, if the Bulldog is a warbird, my name is Biggles 'cos I'm a fighter pilot.

I recall about twenty years ago there was a serious proposal to start building turbine engined Mustangs..... and I DON'T mean the new Cessna bizjet one... naughty but nice.

[US Herk]

I know where you can fly one if you are interested?
I'm interested.

I think the Skyraider would be a perfect platform - as-is even! Just wouldn't sound quite right with a turboprop, now would it?:(

There's been some talk of arming the T-6 & using it as a COIN platform...

[Wiley]

or, best of all, stick a dirty big turboprop onto a Skyraider airframe.Amen to that!

As someone said above, this new toy (the most appropriate word, IMHO) looks to me to be destined for the Iraqi Air Force, not for graduates of any academy in Colorado - and I'd be guessing all such graduates are hoping and praying I'm right!!

[Ghostie31]

Can a heat seeking missile lock on to a turbo-prop aswell as it can a turbojet?

[Doors Off]

The OV-10 Bronco, now there is a fixed wing worth hopping in! Great vis, fast, twin, big guns, rockets, missiles, and even the occasional explosive sticky target marker (napalm).
THere are plenty sitting in storage and a great corporate knowledge around to ramp up the capability fast. Where do I sign up.:}

[Wiley]

A Bronco in MANPADS environment? Hmmmm... don't think so.

If you're looking for "cheap and cheerful", How about a laying a PT6 into the armoured "bathtub" of an old Stormovik airframe? I understand the Stormovik kept flying until brought down by the sheer weight of the hits it had taken.

[sprucemoose]

Here's a link to video of the A-67's first flight, if anyone fancies a look:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/01/29/211812/video-first-flight-of-us-aircrafts-privately-developed-low-cost-counter-insurgency-aircraft-a-67.html

Just use an A-10 though, you know it makes sense!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

"The 6 October 2006 maiden flight from Monett municipal airport in Missouri lasted 45min and – not shown on the company’s video - ended with the landing gear collapsing on landing. Flight testing is expected to resume in the second quarter with a redesigned and strengthened landing gear"

From the flight article above...

Doh! Well suppose it won't have to land anyhow, as someone with a peashooter could clearly bring that down!

[LowObservable]

Skyraider with a turboprop....

http://aerofiles.com/skyshark-nose.jpg

... it's been done. And then there is this...

http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/Images/Gwyvern-2.jpg

Now, the only trick is to fit it with an engine that does not perform an uncommanded transition into a divebrake.

[ORAC]

GlobalSecurity.org: Ares Mudfighter [Agile Responsive Effective Support]

The Ares (Agile-Response Effective Support) from Scaled Composites was a close-air-support/anti-helicopter fighter. The ARES, Scaled Model 151, was designed initially in response to a US Army request for a Low Cost Battlefield Attack Aircraft (LCBAA). A design study was performed by Rutan Aircraft Factory in 1981 for such an aircraft. The original LCBAA design was for a pusher turboprop aircraft, of generally the same aerodynamic configuration. It also was designed around a 30mm chain gun. Its mission goals were low-altitude, close air support, with long endurance, and with adequate field performance to operate from roads. Its structure and systems were simple enough to be maintained and repaired in the field.

The turbofan and the inlet are 8° offset to the left. And the fuselage is offset to the right of the wing centerline. The reason is not stability. The gasses, produced by the firing General Electric GAU-12/U 25 mm cannon (sounds like a big gun to me), may not get into the engine. That is why the inlet is offset. During flight there is some trim needed when applying more thrust.

Scaled followed up with the concept, and ultimately decided to build a demonstrator aircraft with internal funds. By the time construction started in 1986, the design had evolved to the current configuration: a single Pratt and Whitney Canada JT15D-5 turbofan engine (same as in the Beechjet / T-1A Jayhawk), and a GAU-12/U 25mm gatling gun.

The ARES first flew on February 19, 1990, with Scaled test pilot Doug Shane at the controls. Since that first flight, the ARES has flown more than 250 hours, and demonstrated all of its design performance and handling qualities goals, including departure-free handling at full aft stick. During November of 1991, under a contract from the U.S. Air Force, initial ground and flight (air-air and air-ground) tests of the GAU-12/U gun system installed in ARES were performed, with outstanding results.

Since its initial development, ARES has been utilized for development of some unique, proprietary systems, and is currently available for use as a research testbed........

http://www.air-and-space.com/19901012%20Pt%20Mugu/901702%20Ares%20N151SC%20left%

http://www.air-and-space.com/19901013%20Pt%20Mugu/901745%20Ares%20N151SC%20left%

http://www.air-and-space.com/19901013%20Pt%20Mugu/901747%20Ares%20N151SC%20right%

[Evalu8ter]

SASLess,
You're such a tease. I might be in the USA in June with work, more than happy to stick a couple of days leave on the end....!
OV-10 v MANPADs? Fit the right MWS / Flares & IRS on the engines and you're no more vulnerable than the majority of Helos. Good call! But what about a similarly modified Pucara?
T-6 as a COIN ac? Already done(ish). T-6Gs were used in the "Mosquito" role in Korea as FACs, though often they did a little "COIN" as well. Though having sampled the T-6 I think they were brave guys!
Westland Wyvern? Probably the last good design out of Yeovil...
Il-2/10? I like your thinking! Fit a big turboprop, lots of armour. I bet the North Koreans have a whole load of them stuck in an underground hangar!
What about the most succesful ground attack ac, the P-47? It'd be a brave DSHka gunner that took on 8 .50 Cals coming the other way!
I see in Janes that the USAF is looking for someone to re-wing the A-10, why don't you go the whole "hog" and make some extra fuselages as well!

I bet this much lateral thinking never occurs in the Pentagon or Mod MB!

[Doors Off]

OV10 or Pucara? - I have only seen one pucara (in the AAC museum in Middle Wallop UK). Don't know too much about it. Though the OV10 is around in lots of numbers, plenty in storage in the US, plenty in use in Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia and civil contracts in US. USMC employed them in GW1. USMC was investigating recently the option of taking them out of storage and deploying them to Iraq for convoy escort, COIN etc. Not sure what is happening there though.
P51D, Skyraider and OV10 are the only fixed wing I would want to fly, they are almost good enough to be helicopters.
Though I do like your option of building more fuselages to go with the additional wings for the A-10's.
:}

[US Herk]

T-6 as a COIN ac? Already done(ish). T-6Gs were used in the "Mosquito" role in Korea as FACs, though often they did a little "COIN" as well. Though having sampled the T-6 I think they were brave guys!

No, no - not the classic T-6 Harvard/Texan, but the new version used to train new pilots & replacing the T-37. Basically a Pilatus PC-9. Here's the "official" word:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=124

[ORAC]

Killer bees: (http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2135490)

...........Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan indicate that counterinsurgency (COIN) is likely to occupy the U.S. military for the foreseeable future. As ground forces tend to dominate this type of warfare, the air-power focus is expected to be on ISR, transportation, light strike, psychological operations and drug eradication, as well as the support and training of host nation air forces.

Though no surprise to military analysts, the return of counterinsurgency-based “special air warfare” has yet to have an impact at the policy level. The Pentagon remains focused on large-scale conventional wars and the procurement of big-budget platforms with which to fight them. Of the four U.S. service branches, the Air Force is probably the least enthusiastic when it comes to counterinsurgency, purging virtually all mention of it from its doctrine after the Vietnam War defeat and doing little to acknowledge it since.....

COIN BECOMES FID

If the counterinsurgency concept survives at all in Air Force thinking, it is under the general heading of foreign internal defense (FID), a mission the service appears to have embraced reluctantly. The 6th Special Operations Squadron (SOS) — activated in 1994 in response to the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act, which, among other actions, brought America’s special operations forces back into vogue — is the only Air Force organization dedicated to assisting foreign forces involved in low-intensity conflict.

Staffed with around 100 personnel and equipped with a handful of aging U.S.-and Soviet-built transports and helicopters, the 6th SOS bears a solitary and growing burden. Since 2001, the Hurlburt Field, Fla.-based unit has sent advisers on 49 missions to 26 nations, with a typical mission requiring 10 people for 25 days, according to a September Rand study of the Air Force role in fighting insurgencies. This is a marked increase from the previous five years, which saw 37 missions to 19 countries, with an average of seven advisers deployed for 19 days.

According to a former 6th SOS commander, manpower shortages obligated the squadron to decline more than half of all tasking requests received during his tenure. Demand for 6th SOS-type services may be as much as 400 percent of capacity, the Rand study concluded, based on its estimate that 82 of the 191 United Nations member states face active or latent insurgencies and nearly 80 percent of them have security assistance relationships with the U.S.

Despite this apparent need, the larger Air Force special operations community has kept its distance from the counterinsurgency/foreign internal defense world. Since its inception, this three-star command has focused on the more glamorous, direct action aspects of special operations, missions Armed Forces Journal once categorized as “raids, rescues and Rambo.” Its high-end fleet is a reflection of this, comprising no fewer than six varieties of the four-engine C-130 Hercules transport; MH-53 and MH-60 helicopters; and up to 50 CV-22 Osprey tilt rotors on long-term order.

For intratheater support of special operations forces, Air Force Special Operations Command in August 2005 very quietly deployed a fleet of six Pilatus PC-12s, pressurized single-engine turboprops able to operate from unpaved strips. Designated U-28As, these 10-seat aircraft offer near-jet performance as well as a low profile, while reinforcing the idea that modern civil aircraft are often well-suited to niche military roles.........

COMBAT CROP-DUSTERS

A low-key appearance does provide certain advantages. The U.S. State Department operates a fleet of Ayres Vigilantes, armed and armored derivatives of the T-65 Turbo Thrush crop-duster modified for the drug eradication mission at the national level, where it overlaps with counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense. Painted black and flown by two-man crews seated in tandem, these aircraft are able to operate with relative impunity in areas where an overt military presence is considered obtrusive and might even compromise political objectives.

Since 1988, a nondescript hangar at Patrick Air Force Base in Melbourne, Fla., has served as the U.S. headquarters for these International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) aircraft and their crews — civilian contractors recruited for their crop-dusting experience and Spanish language fluency. Deployments are typically to the cocaine-, marijuana- and opium poppy-producing states of Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, Thailand, Burma and now, Afghanistan.

In Colombia, for example, Vigilantes typically work in pairs, staging from unpaved agricultural airstrips close to the high mountain valleys where coca plants are grown. A Cessna Caravan furnished with a multispectral digital imaging system identifies and maps the drug-producing fields, passing target coordinates on to the Vigilantes, which navigate with commercial Global Positioning System receivers.

Upon reaching the target zone — which could be as small as a tennis court — one aircraft sprays while the other provides surveillance and cover. Should drug cartel or insurgent forces (who often receive financial support from the drug trade) shoot at them, the Vigilantes are equipped for immediate fire suppression with guns, rockets and other ordinance carried on various under-wing hard-points.

It can be risky work. Last year, INL aircraft in Colombia sustained 332 hits from ground fire and several were shot down, according to State Department documents. Others faced significant downtime for repairs.......

[BEagle]

Are the OV10s still at Patrick?

[EU Referendum]

There is a great deal of sense in this proposal. Part of the dynamics of a counter-insurgency is a low-tech enemy versus the technologically sophisticated. This can lead to a situation where the costs of dealing with the insurgents become prohibitive and the taxpayer (aka voter) pulls the plug.
In certain respects, this mirrors the Reagan Cold War scenario, where, as legend would have it, the US was able to up the spending ante on the arms race, forcing the USSR to compete and driving it into bankruptcy.
In this situation, you have insurgents with the archetypal $10 Kalashikov being tackled by weapons systems which cost millions (if not billions). The insurgents, therefore, can drive their opponents, if not into bankruptcy, into a position where it become too expensive to prosecute the war.
An example of this comes from recent Parliamentary questions by Ann Winterton, which elicted that the cost per hour of operating a Harrier were £37,000 (excluding the costs of ordnance), while the (funded) cost of running a Tucano were around £5,000. Similarly, running a Lynx costs £23,000 per hour while operating a Huey (Bell 212) cost £2,000.
What we need to consider very urgently, therefore, is the issue of cost effectiveness, which is an important part of counter-insurgency warfare in a democracy. Short of total war, defence spending will always have to compete with other spending, so we need to find ways of increasing capabilities at reduced cost.
See here (http://www.eureferendum.com) - search for "economics of war".

[Evalu8ter]

EU,
Don't forget that the "economics of war" are driven by the MPs who have BAES and AW plants in their locales. A cheap non-hi tech war is not what these companies want to fight!
We would have to candidly admit that we're at war and pay the money to put these companies on a "war footing" to out-produce the enemy with rugged, cheap , effective weaponry (such as A-10/A-67/OV-10) and guarantee handsome profits in order for sanity to prevail. Big business is about money, not about warfighting.

[Green Flash]

That Turbo Raider looks damn mean! I'd be off on my toes at the sight of all those whirling blades bearing down on me.

[EU Referendum]

Don't forget that the "economics of war" are driven by the MPs who have BAES and AW plants in their locales. A cheap non-hi tech war is not what these companies want to fight!
We would have to candidly admit that we're at war and pay the money to put these companies on a "war footing" to out-produce the enemy with rugged, cheap , effective weaponry (such as A-10/A-67/OV-10) and guarantee handsome profits in order for sanity to prevail. Big business is about money, not about warfighting.

To an extent, though, forums such as these, blogs and a small number of MPs, provide something of an antidote. It saddens me to see the "Janet & John" level of debate in the media and the opposition front benches, where everything is reduced to the simple formula of "underspending", when so little attention is given to value for money.

I live in hope (perhaps forlorn) that there are enough people out there who are able to re-frame the debate and point ministers in the right direction.

[Fox3snapshot]

The Piper Enforcer..... :}

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e123/Fox3snapshot/PA48.jpg

[West Coast]

I see a bit of F4U Corsair in it.

[mlc]

If you squint a bit more you'll see LOTS of Mustang!

[Evalu8ter]

A whole load of Mustang (about 20% of the parts are common)! Much modified Cavalier mustang, though strangely Piper were very reluctant to market it as a "modern mustang". With a 2450hp lycoming turbo-prop up front it went like the clappers! but I bet it just didn't sound right....Still, I've looked at the one at Wright Patt and it is kinda handsome..
It's immediate forebear was the Cavalier Turbo Mustang which had the ubiquitois Dart before the switch to the T-55 Lycoming (itself a core engine found on the Ch-47 and BAe 146) and could haul 4500lb for a loiter of 90mins at 150nm. Clean she would hit 540mph(!) (all figures from Paul Coggan's excellent book "Mustang Survivors").
Now if we could get Wastelands or BWoS to start churning out microwaved mustangs or turbo-spads things might start getting interesting!
By the way, well said EU!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

P51D, Skyraider and OV10 are the only fixed wing I would want to fly


It occurred to me that AOC 1 Gp might want to equip his sqns with these:

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/Nippon/photos/Ki-115_.gif



The Nakajima Ki-115 'Tsurugi' (Sword) was designed from the outset as a disposable (suicide) aircraft. The major impetus in building this aircraft was the perceived lack of available obsolete aircraft to use in kamikaze attacks should the Allies invade the home islands. This aircraft had to carry a decent bomb load, and use non-strategic materials (mostly wood and steel). While the initial batch were made from aluminum, the follow on aircraft were to primarily be made of wood and steel.
Additionally, the aircraft was to be able to accept a number of different powerplants. The initial production aircraft (Ki-115a) were powered by 1,150 hp Nakajima Ha-35 radial engines. The offensive load of one 250, 500, or 800 Kg bomb, was carried in a recess under the forward fuselage. Flight testing began less than three months after the initial proposal in March 1945. The aircraft was to use a droppable main landing gear to save weight, so a simple welded steel tube landing gear was attached to the aircraft (see the photo above). This rigid gear combined with poor cockpit visibility presented major ground handling difficulties for the poorly trained pilots who would be flying the aircraft. By the end of testing in June 1945, improved landing gear and auxiliary flaps, attached to the trailing edge of the wing, were added. Provisions were also made in all 104 production aircraft, for the attachment of two rocket assist take-off units. While none were operational, two were sent to the Showa Aircraft Company to use as pattern aircraft for a proposed naval version of the Tsurugi. An improved version, the Ki-115b, was to have longer span wooden wings and tail surfaces. A three-view of the aircraft is shown below. (from www.geocities.com (http://www.geocities.com))


Did you notice this bit?


Flight testing began less than three months after the initial proposal in March 1945


Wastelands/BWOS please take note...


The aircraft was to use a droppable main landing gear to save weight


Must have made test flights end with a bang! Although, unlike the A-67, at least the Ki 115's undercarriage wasn't meant to cope with landings!

[ORAC]

Iraq Issues RFP for COIN Aircraft (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/iraq-issues-rfp-for-coin-aircraft/index.php)

Flight International reports that the USAF's Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) has issued a solicitation on behalf of the Iraqi Air Force [IqAF] to buy at least 8 counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft that can serve a dual role as a intermediate to advanced single-engine turboprop trainers. The aircraft should be delivered from November 2008 - April 2009, with options to buy additional aircraft in annual lots of 6.

The solicitation requires a single-engine turboprop powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 family engine, in "wide use," with an advanced suite of sensors and weapons including electro-optical sensors and guided weapons capability. Indeed, it went one step farther and narrowed the field to 4 candidates that can be difficult for a novice to tell apart:

Korea Aerospace's KO-1 Woong Bee, the armed forward air control & light attack version of its KT-1 training aircraft. The KT-1 project began in 1988, and the first aircraft was delivered to South Korea's air force in 2000.

Pilatus PC-9M. The Swiss firm has created a widely-popular trainer turboprop. The design has been licensed by other firms (see below), and Pilatus has sold this aircraft to 14 countries beyond Switzerland - including 20 aircraft sold to Iraq from 1987.

Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano/ ALX. The Super Tucano is used in an armed role by Brazil as a patrol and border overwatch aircraft in the Amazon region, and by Colombia and the Dominican Republic; the older EMB-312 Tucano trainer aircraft has been bought by 17 countries. Brazil also has some familiarity with Iraq, as a mid-level military equipment supplier in previous years.

The Super Tucano has a reputation for being a bit 'heavy' as a training platform, as a tradeoff for being built from the ground up as an effective short-field light attack/ patrol/ counter-insurgency aircraft that can operate with little ground support. In 2006, the USA successfully discouraged a $500 million sale of Super Tucanos to Venezuela, a decision that Embraer accepted in good grace. The firm had moved to sweeten the pot for that sale by promising to set up a Florida manufacturing facility; a reprise of that approach might help take some of the "Buy American" label off of...

Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6B Texan II; the firm also unveiled an AT-6B light attack/COIN version at Farnborough 2006, back when they were still Raytheon Aircraft. The T-6 is a licensed Pilatus PC-9 design with some modifications, and serves as the USAF's and US Navy's JPATS intermediate to advanced training aircraft. It is also used by Canada and Greece. Greece specified that its T-6Bs had to be capable of being armed, but the aircraft was not initially designed for an armed role.

Flight International magazine has an April 2007 blog entry by a staffer who flew in a T-6B; the AT-6B variant will simply be a T-6B trainer with additional equipment as requested by the customer. It certainly sounds as if the company is expecting the Iraqi Air Force Order...

[eagle 86]

Westland Wyvern - among a long line of very attractive Brit Naval A/C. Know a Wyvern test pilot - despite its problems he is very fond of it.
GAGS
E86

[Kitbag]

Re the solicitation for a COIN a/c. From the spec 'advised' is there anybody out there who doesn't doubt that the Hawker Beechcraft AT6B will be chosen:cool: ?

Cynical? Moi?

[larssnowpharter]

Good luck to the A-67, but what we really need is to re-open the A10 line, or buy some SU-25s or, best of all, stick a dirty big turboprop onto a Skyraider airframe. I'd fly it!! (Come to think of it, I'd fly it "as is"!)

Me too!
The OV 10 is still giving stirling service down my way and regularly graces the skies.
One notes that it was popular in ‘Nam especially as its ability to operate nearer the action meant that it got there quick.
There has always been a cross over between the COIN and CAS concept. The COIN concept has gone through so many iterations. The DH9A fulfilled the role in Iraq in the post WW1 years. Cheap and cheerful? Sure, but a limited useful load.
Let’s face it, life expectancy of anyone flying any of the proposed ‘COIN’ aircraft in the current Iraq environment is not likely to be extended. Someone suggested reopening the A10 line. Now there’s an idea.
But one Air Force has had a huge amount of experience in this field and has developed the aircraft for the job: huge payload, all weather, titanium bathtub, 2 seater ‘cos it gets busy up there, can run on diesel, is based on a combat proven design and you can order it here:
http://www.airshow.ru/expo/412/prod_211.htm
The SU 39

[aseanaero]

My suggestion is a twin T6 Texan II - 2 turboprop Texan airframes joined together like the P-82 twin Mustang

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/060728-F-1234S-017.jpg

[Double Zero]

The OV-10 sounds tempting, at least to supply the Iraqi AF, with as much of a defensive suite as is possible, all things considered.

However it's possibly a bit beyond them, being a powerful twin, and I never fancied the 'stroll out straight into the prop blades'.

We all know the modernised A-10 is the aircraft for the moment - and to an extent the Harrier, both U.S. & U.K, and I personally from my comfy chair reckon both these aircraft deserve / require re-opened production lines.

However time is a factor, and it's a lesson from history that governments especially tend to ' prepare for the last war '...

That being said, I can't see a near - mid future where either aircraft is not extremely useful.

[Lima Juliet]

http://defense-update.com/images_new1/reaper_afgan.jpg

Surely, this is the CAS/COIN aircraft of the moment. 14hrs overhead without tanking, precision overwatch and plenty of weapons effect...without risking pink bodies. Re-open the Harrier production line? I don't think so! :=

[GPMG]

I'm not sure that being in a slow moving vulnerable aeroplane is the suicide mission that it is cracked up to be. Didn't the Cessna 0-2 perform very well as an observation / FAC platform for most of the Vietnam war? It didn't have much offensive armament, most carried target marking white phos. But their pilots racked up a staggering tally of successful missions.
I'm sure that most would have preferred an OV-10 though.

Surely the Dragonfly would be a good steed to patrol and support the ground, I doubt that there would be much need for re-training as it's basicly a beefed up Tweet.

Skyraider would pluck at most peoples heart strings though, or a modified Hurricane 2B for that real desert retro feel.....no, getting silly now.

[West Coast]

Didn't the Cessna 0-2 perform very well as an observation / FAC platform

My understanding being that many VC and NVA didn't want to fire on it as it's job was recon by fire. No one shot at the O-2, no bad guys, someone fired at the O-2, all hell broke loose.

[Ian Corrigible]

Yet another candidate in the back-to-the-seventies COIN line-up: the Air Tractor AT-802U (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photos-new-gunship-flies-to-pa.html). The really neat thing about this idea, as anyone who operates out of Abeline or any part of the panhandle on a regular basis can confirm, is that there's already a large pool of suicidal pilots ready to fly the mission (with the added benefit that they can add another 5 lb to the AT-802U's 4 ton payload by junking the radio...). :E

I/C

[GreenKnight121]

Run... its the "Combat Crop-duster"!!!


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2009/06/AT-802U_3-thumb-560x381-37414.jpg

[Gainesy]

Why does it remind me of a Stuka?

[SNS3Guppy]

The AT-802 is actually quite a capable airplane.

A low-key appearance does provide certain advantages. The U.S. State Department operates a fleet of Ayres Vigilantes, armed and armored derivatives of the T-65 Turbo Thrush crop-duster modified for the drug eradication mission at the national level, where it overlaps with counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense. Painted black and flown by two-man crews seated in tandem, these aircraft are able to operate with relative impunity in areas where an overt military presence is considered obtrusive and might even compromise political objectives.

You need to google more recent information. The T-65 was running in short supply eight years ago. It's been replaced by AT-802's: T-67's...which also replaced the less capable OV-10's.