NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link

GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store
Special Operations Article Index : Current 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Skyraider Lite For SOCOM

March 16, 2009: The U.S. Navy (the Irregular Warfare Office) at the behest of SOCOM, has spent the last testing the feasibility of using the Brazilian Super Tucano warplane to support U.S. special warfare operations. The Super Tucano is a five ton, single engine, single seat aircraft. It is basically a prop driven trainer that can be equipped for combat missions. The aircraft can carry up to 1.5 tons of weapons, including 12.7mm machine-guns, bombs and missiles. The aircraft cruises at about 500 kilometers an hour and can stay in the air for about 6.5 hours per sortie.

Colombia is already using Super Tucanos for counter-insurgency work, which is where American SOCOM operators saw it up close. They liked what they saw, and persuaded SOCOM to lease one and try it out. For some older SOCOM operators, the Brazilian aircraft is yet another attempt to revive the legendary Vietnam era A-1 Skyraider. This was the most popular ground support aircraft during the 1960s. Developed at the end of World War II, the A-1 was an 11 ton, single seat, propeller driven aircraft that carried 3.5 tons of bombs and four 20mm autocannon. Cruising speed was 475 kilometers an hour, and the average sortie was about four hours. Ever since World War II, ground troops have been agitating for another A-1. The A-10 came close, but did not have the persistence (long time over the combat area) of the A-1.

The Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano costs $9 million each, and come in one or two seat versions. SOCOM wants the two seater, with guy in the back running sensors. The bubble canopy provides excellent visibility. This, coupled with its slow speed (versus jets), makes it an excellent ground attack aircraft. The SOCOM aircraft could be equipped to fire Hellfire missiles and drop smart bombs. SOCOM wants to lease four Super Tucanos as soon as possible.

Several countries use Super Tucanos for internal security and border patrol (mainly looking for drug smugglers). So far, 144 Super Turcanos have been ordered (including 25 by Colombia and 63 by the Brazilian Air Force) since it entered service six years ago. The aircraft is an upgraded version of the older Tucano, which entered service 26 years ago. There are about 650 of these in service in 15 air forces.
submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article WARPLANES: Videogames In The F-22 Cockpit


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
jak267       3/16/2009 11:50:40 AM
Maybe an unmanned version would be better.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    The Reason the   3/16/2009 12:38:21 PM
Sky Raider went away was the SA-7, in part.  As now there is up to the SA-16/18 how long are these "Sky Raiders" going to stay aloft against a competent enemy, NVA/VC-type, with DshK and ManPADS?
 
Quote    Reply

Bob Cortez       3/16/2009 2:07:26 PM
In the 60s one professor said that cars were the textile of the future, and, as we can see he was right.  Certain types of aircraft and perhaps subs will be the same.  I think buying off the self is the best way to go, when you can.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/16/2009 5:26:47 PM
How about using it as command aircraft, which controls a swam of drones? Equip it with guided 70mm rockets and only conduct attack from afar.
 
Rocky may like this idea: why not reproduce P-40 airframe and mate it with a 2000shp turboprop?
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       3/17/2009 7:21:58 PM

How about using it as command aircraft, which controls a swam of drones? Equip it with guided 70mm rockets and only conduct attack from afar.

 

Rocky may like this idea: why not reproduce P-40 airframe and mate it with a 2000shp turboprop?
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    On ManPADS and risk environments   3/17/2009 11:46:35 PM

Sky Raider went away was the SA-7, in part.  As now there is up to the SA-16/18 how long are these "Sky Raiders" going to stay aloft against a competent enemy, NVA/VC-type, with DshK and ManPADS?
By that token, any aircraft - helicopters, prop-driven fixed-wing assets, whatever - that are not "fast movers" are impractical because of vulnerability in the face of "a competent enemy, NVA/VC-type, with DshK and ManPADS."
Is there technology, deployed or expected, that will improve the risk picture for an aircraft such as the Super Tuncano functioning in the Skyraider role herein envisaged?
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237    Just a question   3/18/2009 4:04:56 AM
What can the Tucano do that the Osprey can't?  Sure, the Tucano is cheaper than the Osprey by a far margin, but production of the Tucano won't create American jobs or help stimulate a sagging US economy.  Personally I have no problem with us buying the Tucano or the PC-9 for COIN work, but that's going to be a hard sell for the Congress and the Air Force brass because both suffer from the "not made here" syndrome that has infected the US military since WWII.  I can guarantee that it would be a lot easier to convince members of congress to support developing a gunship version of the Osprey than it would be to support the adoption of a foreign made aircraft. 
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc       3/18/2009 1:32:04 PM

What can the Tucano do that the Osprey can't? 
Glide?
I'm not familiar with the Osprey's ability to autorotate in a power-down condition, but there are also matters of fuel consumption, crew size, agility, maintenance man-hours per operational flight-hour, and relative simplicity of training for both flight and support crew.  Besides which there's the fact that the Osprey's advantages in terms of operational and tactical flexibility make it too damned valuable to use in an attack role. 
 
Consider the aircraft that the Osprey is really supposed to supplement and/or supplant - the CH-46 Sea Knight and the CH-47 Chinook - both of which have been tried as platforms for "super-gunship" attack assets.  They worked as such, but the decision was made (quite logically) that arming and deploying such aircraft in that role was too much risk for too little benefit.

All are familiar with the cupidity of congrescritters, which accounts not only for "Buy it in America" but also "Build it in my District!"  An aircraft such as the Tucano can be built under license in these United States; it's not as if we lack the unused factory floor space or unemployed aviation industry skilled workers.  Especially right now.
 
All of these considerations aside, however, what prevents the outright resurrection of the A-1 Skyraider right from the git-go?
 
Others have scoffed, but the design of the "Crazy Water Buffalo" was amazingly robust as well as proving flexible and operationally effective.  It was even carrier-capable, and could conceivably be operated from the straight decks of the Navy's 12 "Gator Freighter" sea control ships. 
 
Marine Corps Aviation has locked into the F-35B as its STOVL replacement for the AV-8B Harrier II, and the intensification of their emphasis on the use of the Navy's  chief amphibious warfare as basing platforms for such strike aircraft (as well as the Osprey) can be seen in the increased allocation of space to such purposes in the new LHA-6 class (USS America) and the elimination of a water level well deck for landing craft. 
 
It's gotten to the point that the Amphibious Task Group assets are being structured to permit its operation as a small version of a carrier strike group.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to give that Group the ability to deploy and operate a few real, bombed-up-to-the-gills, long-loiter-time SPAD aircraft to handle tasks that neither the Osprey nor the jump-jets are designed to do.
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Sjdoc   3/18/2009 1:50:24 PM
that's the point...the Sky raider went out of business as did the A-37 because light AA/Flak drove them out of the business...and I just don't see why the Super-Tucano is any different.  It may be that COIN a/c, in the face of a well-equipped insurgent, is a losing proposition.  If you can show what makes the Tucano immune tot his problem, I'm willing to listen.
 
Bottom-line: I'm pointing out that the last COIN A/c were put at risk by simple technologies, that have advanced in comparison, has the SUper-Tucano done the same, as compared to the A-1 or the A-37.
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc       3/18/2009 10:52:29 PM
 I'm pointing out that the last COIN A/c were put at risk by simple technologies, that have advanced in comparison....


I do not at all disagree.  This begs the question as to whether any COIN aircraft - fixed-wing or rotary-wing - are viable in likely future warfare environments.  It's beginning to seem like the discussion we were having in the mid-70s about the main battle tank in an environment where low-cost man-portable and helicopter-borne antitank guided missiles (ATGMs) could reliably knock out these hulking monsters and litter battlefields with their burnt-out corpses.
 
The "tanks are dead" advocates were proven wrong not long thereafter, and it may be possible that those who consider over and done the day of the "low-and-slow" air attack platform (such as the Super Tucano and the A-1 Skyraider - and, let's face it, the Marines' AH-1 and the Army's AH-64 attack helicopters) are about to be undone by a suite of "techno-fix" solutions the equivalent of the Chobham armor that made the present generation of Western MBTs viable.
 
Moreover, there's the undeniable fact that relatively low-tech attack platforms like the Super Tucano provide cost-efficient tactical options under a broad range of circumstances.  Even though they can't presently operate in extremely high-threat environments (where the third- and fourth-generation MANPADS are thick on the ground), there are still plenty of places where they can deliver combat support with acceptable risk to aircrew and aircraft.
 
Bear in mind that the "SOCOM operators" who bet their own personal lives (and operational success) upon the weapons they bring into the field are the ones who have looked at the Super Tucano and like what it offers.  They're far more likely to be authoritatively cognizant of the risk/benefit picture in their most likely operating environments than any of us commenting on this thread.
 
I'm of the opinion that if the surgeon at the operating table says he needs a particular instrument, those of us standing at the threshhold looking in should not hastily question the necessity.  Get him the goddam gadget if at all practicable, and let him get on with the work.
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

ker       3/20/2009 5:46:00 PM
The Super Tucano type of plane might be to ManPADs what the MRAP is to IEDs.  The force is not going to give up Med Evac helos.  If the enemy has ManPADs the force will hunt them.  Super Tucano could be a critical part of the cost effective hunting party.  If some thing is getting targeted by missles it's far better a Super Tucano than a V-22.  My opinion is that ongoing combat against an enemy who knew how to employ ManPADs well could cause a rush prodution program for this kind of plane the way MRAPs were rushed in Iraq. 
 
The Russians in Afganistan captured or distroyed more Stingers than most people remember.  It just cost a lot of resources to get it done.  It prevented the Soviets from fighting the kind of war they wanted.  It forced them to control a lot more area than they wanted to fight for.
 
Retreating away from a ManPAD threat is not much of an option.  Your forced to attack into it.  That means more need for armed reccon not less.  Take evey oportunity to get the missles under conditions not to their crews advantage.  Prevent the enemy from moving them as much as posible.
 
Quote    Reply

Bigjay    The Raider Did not Die from MANP   3/27/2009 12:32:07 AM
The Idea of a Sky Raider type aircraft is needed now more than ever.  As a Canadian I'm truly concerned that we don't have any organic air to do CAS for us in Afghanistan.
Is a helicopter our best option?
I don't thing so.
The guys who sold us the Texan 2 have given it a CAS option.  It is much cheaper than any jet fighter or helo but will not get support cause it is old news.
Really, it's not the best plain for the job but a big turbo prop could sub for an A-10 given the right design.
Oh, for that guy who said the Raider was dead from MAN Pad SAMs... that a big BS... the A-1 was out of hours.  Only to were lost to SAMs, and I'd be they were not SA-7.  Your argument falls off cause the A-10 and Su-25 when given air superiority have done their jobs nicely.
A turbo prop would be so much cheaper than helos... now I'm not saying US Amry get ride of your Apaches but I'm saying CF get a Texan 2 equivalent or better.  We need organic air in Afghanistan.
 
Quote    Reply

LivingLegend       4/5/2009 3:16:43 AM
The US already has an aircraft like the Super Tucano, the AT-6B Light Attack Aircraft/Trainer. How SOCOM missed that is beyond me. link
 
Quote    Reply

Lurch       5/1/2009 11:42:42 AM
There are no AT-6Bs in production, or at least not in the regular USAF.  I haven't heard of any in AFSOC's private air force, either, and I've been look hard.  However, Raytheon/Beech/Hawker is aggressively marketing it to anyone who might buy it.
 
It has it's good and bad points vs the Super Tucano, not the least of which is the fact that it would have to go through all of the pain of an untested platform. The Super T has had 6 years to work out a lot of bugs in software and hardware.  The thing I like the most about the Super T is that it carries it's guns internally.  I'd like a gun bigger than a .50, but that still beats the 7.62mm of the OV-10 and OA-37.  That was the Columbian's biggest gripe about the OA-37.  The AT-6B has one more pylon than the Super T, 6 vs 5, but it has to carry any gun externally.  I've also heard that the over-the-rail visability of the AT-6B isn't as good because the wing is in the way.  I flew T-37s, so I don't know first hand.
 
While manpad technology has advanced since Vietnam, so have the countermeasures.  SA/AW is just something you have to deal with, but there are tactics to manage that threat, too.  And a lot more work will be done with stand-off sensors prior to exposing the aircraft to the threat during an attack. 
 
The big issue for me are:  1)  We are building new fighters, not attack aircraft.  2) The next gen fighters are too expensive and too hi-vis to send into many of the places that we need the support.  3) You can only drop a "smart bomb" so close to the good guys, so you need a low-yield weapon (rockets and guns) to do no-shit "close" air support, and that's what the SOCOM guys probably need most.
 
I'd like to see a modernized, turbine version of the P-38 for this.  I just like having a second engine when there is a very real chance that I might get shot. and it would allow for a greater fuel load and weapons capacity.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy