I just finished reading a rather cringeworthy article in an Irish Defence Forces magazine which sang the praises of the PC-9M as a close air support platform (to be fair it is a military in house publication available to the general public so the outlook is always several degrees west of sunny) because of the F-16 type HUD and sighting systems fitted in the Irish fleet.
So without stretching reality too much, what would the minimum requirements be to make a Turboprop trainer effective and suitable for Close Air Support work in an OOTW/COIN environment?
In terms of:
Avionics:
Glass Cockpit Of Course, along with a decent bus so that smart weapons carriage could be a given.
Ideally, I would like an HMDS with gimbaled FLIR since I would not want to take a <300 knot, <6G, airframe under 15,000ft in daylight and because a helmet makes fast target designation to the INS a lot simpler.
I would want a suite of SDRs that provided full HOTAS connectivity to any asset I was likely to be operating with, including all ground assets but also fast jet air since 'CAS' seems to be an excuse to bent-pipe act as airborne coordinator these days.
Obviously, connectivity starts at home with a ROVER or like ability with the ground forces to create an FSCL and mark targets based on images YOU send THEM. Again, it is SO much simpler to hit what you _do not_ have to MOB acquire and HUD designate on the way down the chute.
I would /like/ to have a 'second chair' so that we could keep the boat rowing and the duck shooting separate. Especially if I am a night hunter, eyes-out separation of responsibilities is critical. GIB reads the (digital) map and I fly based on what he says. BUT I FLY. I don't 'manage the systems'. Becoming one with the granite cumulus is not Zen.
Failing that, one MUST incorporate a sophisticated autopilot, including the ability to crank in headings and attitudes separate from the typical azimuth+orbit options. Against light flak, it's the ol' 'fly one way while being banked the other' game of Laos all over again except that you have to be able to stir the stick about without decoupling the autopilot. If a decent gun is available (i.e. one accurate and long ranged enough to beat most threat weapons for slant) then a further IFFC couple is always nice, provided, again, you can predesignate targets.
Range:
250nm + 2hrs. Or 150nm + 4hrs. More than that is ridiculous with the likely payload margins of a non-dedicated (SABA etc.) turbo-trainer system. If you want more, pull the pilots altogether and go A-UAV.
Survivability:
Snort. 3,500lbs of ordnance (5K would be better, especially without widespread small PGM yet in service). 15,000ft of altitude. With a /minimum/ 350 knots and 5.5G capability _sustained_ on the airframe, minimum 9-11,000fpm climb rate.
I also disagree with costs numbers given for a competent MAWS/EXCM suite. A single or paired Israelii 'Guitar' installation on a converted FFAR tube ala Comet Pod can be bought in small numbers and 'swung round the squadron' for ops in high threat areas. Given only you have 1760 or like wired pylons in sufficient numbers to support them and accept that your coverage will be principally lower-hemisphere tailored to the dive-in/pull-out portions of the flight envelope when you are either busy running the LCOSS or unable to see back well enough to be sure. _Some is better than none_. Not least because the reaction times are so low in typical turbo country (under 5K feet) that you just don't have time use a supporting wingman in a higher orbit or yank-to-bank 'on sight' response. The MAWS, driven by a decent (Terma) EWMS gives you at least 'best shot' on expendables pop timing an probably an angle-off break direction.
DIRCM would be nice but will probably have to wait until they can integrate it with DAS or Targeting apertures directly.
Obviously bang seats that _work_, low altitude and probably adverse attitude (even a MANPADS can flip a trainer every which way) is also going to be important.
Payload:
Sensors First. Probably as pylon systems since that lets you play the musical-airframes game. I would like an Israeli SAR-in-fuel-tank and LITENING pod. Obviously if you can integrate an AAQ-21/26 type thimble directly with the airframe (i.e. the Brazillian Tucano clone) you save a hardpoint but this must never come at cost of overall performance or fleet standard/squadron numbers.
I'm a REAL BELIEVER in the notion that what you see is at least as valuable as what you bomb and where possible, it is better to let grunts do their job /better/ because you target them on with precision. Airpower that remains an unknown element is the phantom of an insurgent's nightmare. Airpower that comes down in their faces and with hostile intent is the obvious threat that they WILL LEARN to react to.
Past that... LCPK 70mm FFAR based on the CRV-7 with laser or IMU heads to compensate for long slant ranges. GBU-12 or Lizzard/Wizard equivalent if SDB is not available. Even a 'weaponized' LGTM might be workable. 'Contrary to popular opinion' the ability to carry large amounts of ordnance ala SPAD does NOT equate to instantaneous fires superiority. Guerilla/Unconventional forces now operate far more like professionals both in terms of equipment standards and basic tactics. They KNOW that they cannot afford to be in the area for more than X minutes (20-25 on average in AfG) so they tend to leverage that against the sophistication and weight of one-shot target kills before fading. Be it IED or combined arms small ambush type engagement, if you don't get them quick, they are gone.
>>
(for the record the Irish PC-9s only carry two weapons pylons on each wing and are equipped only for 12.7mm HMGs and 70mm FFARs, the remaining two pylon slots are used for fuel tanks. This is opposed to the Slovenian model which can carry gravity bombs in addition to rocket and gun systems on its four weapons pylons)
>>
If the threat doesn't shoot back, that's fine. If it does, you're 'tossing a COIN' every time. Thats the thing with buying into CAS on the cheap: You tend to look at low total investment costs 'for the fleet' without realizing that _the fleet_ is what you are putting at risk because no single element of the inventory has the performance or weapons system margin to alter tactics if not outright avoid the threat envelope. And so once the enemy has your numbers, attrition tends to pile on fast.
From this standpoint, the 'best CAS turboprop' may well be an MQ-9 Reaper pair, one at 12-20K (depending on weapon TOF and seeker graze/envelope effects) and the other at 30-40K. Because you can get a 17hr loiter at reasonable radii and your sensor coverage is fantastic while the threat simply cannot broach your altitude floor with reasonable 'insurgent' weapons systems (you even have a margin for hot and high).
KPl.
