Comment – The Other side of the Coin

The Air Force wants an air superiority fighter. The Army wants air cover, when and where required without delay. The Navy wants a Harrier Carrier. All three requirements are cer­ tainly valid, the only problems are: (i) money; and (ii) that the air superiority fighter may not have sufficient in-built ground support capability while the ground support aircraft naturally won’t have a lot left over covering its tail from hostile MiGs.

Therefore, why not examine an alternative? The future (1980-1999) ground support requirement in Australia will be for an aircraft that can operate from forward, semi-prepared bases in all climates ranging from the North West coast through to the steaming jungles of New Guinea. As the longer range maritime strike capability can be ade­ quately handled by RAAF F111C aircraft (updated in the com­ ing decade) and, of course, the “high” TFF winner coupled with the RAN vessels which would no doubt include one or two Harrier Carriers, etc; then why don’t we simplify our needs to an aircraft that can provide speedy ground cover to troops, that is built here and that does not cost four to six million dollars a copy.

Argentina is currently meeting with curious international interest to the design success of its little FMA Pucara COIN (Counter Insurgency) aircraft. Indeed, during the early days of US involvement in Vietnam, the Pentagon evolved a similar requirement for such a simple ground attack aircraft. This contest saw the OV10A Bronco win and this type currently serves with the air arms of West Germany, the United States and, more locally, Indonesia.

My projected aircraft would be powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canadian PT6A “Century Series” turboprops of 1120shp and would displace from 800016 to 16,00016 fully laden. The PT6 powerplants are well known to Australia (and the region) and can adequately be supported by local aerospace plants. Suggested weapon load would be a max­ imum of 500016 of stores assembled on four underwing hard­ points and two fuselage pylons. Armament could stretch to PGM weapons with the addition of a small avionics fit com­ patible to COIN operations.

The aircraft would also carry an integral 20mm M61 58

Vulcan cannon firing from below the nose. The aircraft would be a single seater and would provide reasonable armour plating beneath cockpit and systems areas. Self sealing tanks and built-in redundancy would enable the aircraft to absorb light arms fire while still having the ability to return to a forward base.

Such an aircraft would probably be of twin tail boom configuration aiding low speed STOL handling and allowing added manoeuvrability at normal attack speeds. This design inherently leaves more internal space in the fuselage pod and central tail booms for fuel and equipment without affecting centre of gravity and aircraft performance.

Fully laden with 500016 of stores, the aircraft should have a combat radius in the region of 500km. With 300016 of stores and two underwing tanks, combat radius on a similar mission profile would stretch to 800km. This latter profile would be of interest to EEZ operations in conjunction with recon aircraft. Ferry range would be in the region of 3000km which would allow the aircraft to deploy anywhere in our region with only one setdown. Though no in-flight refuelling capability would be supplied this could easily be added via a simple boom a’ la Skyhawk.

So there it is. A simple, effective and economical ground support aircraft that would operate under the umbrella of air superiority provided by the RAAF high flyers, providing the Army with the forward air support they require, add a new dimension of protection to shipping in our EEZ region and, most importantly, allow Australia to design, develop, market and produce an aircraft that would also have a viable export future.

One would imagine that on a production run of 200 un­ its, 120 for the RAAF, the remaining 80 for export, a unit cost of $A1. 2m to $A1. 5m all up WOlfld. not be unreasonable. Cer­ tainly, there wo. uld be a strong opportunity to market such an aircraft to nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, let alone the potential market that exists in Africa for such a rugged and economical aircraft. With attrac­ tive government financing and some hard-nosed marketing, Australia could eventually develop an export market that would see upwards of 400 aircraft produced.

And if you think that’s folly, then think twice. Next time you see a Fokker Friendship fly over – remember the day back in the mid-fifties when Australia said “no” to becomi. 1g involved in F27 production as we were afraid to get our toes wet in the pool of international aircraft production. That in­ ane decision cost us thousands of skilled job opportunities which would have existed through the assembly of more than 100 Friendships over a period of 20 years.

Certainly this “paper” aeroplane is no Tornado, Jaguar, Corsair II or A10, but it could perform a very effective mission at up to a quarter of the cost of the current contenders. It !s well worth thinking about and certainly, if nothing else, Is guaranteed to produce a first rate argument in the right circles.