Light attack aircraft for counter-insurgency mission

[Supernova-III]

10 minutes ago, Stratos said:

You seem to favor the fastest planes...

well, it's not that simple. Actually, I like planes that do their mission. But flying a slow fixed-wing aircraft particularly in DCS is a bit breaking of immersion for me. I'm suffering from lack of sensation of speed in DCS, mostly because of its graphics. So flying something slow like A-10 makes me feeling that I fly helicopter. Flying a helicopter makes me feeling that I fly a hot air balloon. And so on. Same speed values feel different, say, in MSFS.

Edited Tuesday at 04:55 PM by Supernova-III

[Rifter]

Surprised, it wasn't mentioned yet: The A-4 counts to the light attack aircrafts as well.

Edit: Ok - perhaps not a typical COIN aircraft...

Edited Tuesday at 05:07 PM by Rifter

[Supernova-III]

5 minutes ago, Rifter said:

Surprised, it wasn't mentioned yet: The A-4 counts to the light attack aircrafts as well.

oh, really. I just didn't know. Will add it later!

[Daemoc]

C-101
+It is super stable, even at very slow speeds. Best out of the three for strafing runs.
+Fuel for days.
-Very under powered, especially if you load it down with fuel.
---It has the absolute worst sound in game. It is borderline unplayable IMO unless you mod the engine growl sound file.

 

L-39

+Does not make your ears bleed.
-Has a long standing cockpit model graphics bug.

 

MB-339

+Does not make your ears bleed.
-Way too unstable. The smallest stick inputs and the nose bounces all over the place. It's like driving a car with bad struts. Not great for gunnery.

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, Daemoc said:

L-39

+Does not make your ears bleed.
-Has a long standing cockpit model graphics bug.

Strange artifacts while flying? tought it was just me.

[Rifter]

Ok - supplement to the A-4:

Yes, the A-4 Skyhawk is often considered a counter-insurgency (COIN) aircraft due to its suitability for close air support and ground attack missions. While originally designed as a light attack bomber for the US Navy and Marine Corps, its relatively small size, maneuverability, and ability to carry a variety of bombs, rockets, and other munitions made it well-suited for COIN operations. It served in various conflicts where COIN tactics were employed, further solidifying its role in this capacity.

Source: The almighty google gemini ai

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

40 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Strange artifacts while flying? tought it was just me.

I've yet to see it and now I will notice it and it will drive me up the walls, thanks!

[Supernova-III]

1 hour ago, Stratos said:

Strange artifacts while flying? tought it was just me.

hm, narrowing field of view helps

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

So, I spent about an hour flying the 3 official COIN/Trainer aircraft in a simple mission.

I was using WWII Marianas, flying out of Agana, and 5 Urals as targets. I like this map for this purpose due to the nature of its runways: Short. I decided to rate them based on aspects I deem important to COIN ops in DCS. Those aspects are take off distance, speed, weapon options, and payload size.

All 3 enjoy adequate to superb handling characteristics.

The MB-339A, in my opinion, is the best in class barring one limitation I'll get to in the conclusion.
On take off, it uses up plenty of the runway, but it takes off within Agana's distance pretty comfortable at full fuel and loaded for combat. Lift the nose at 110KIAS and it'll lift soon after depending on payload. It's pretty quick to accelerate and I can yank pretty hard on the stick while it stays stable. The pair of DEFAs will make very short work of most anything an insurgency would be able to field. It also has the option to take machine guns to keep your load light and I really love that option for when I'm taking up Mk.82s. It also has cluster bombs like the Belouga and the BL-755. Ontop of that, it has denial weapons in the form of concrete penetrating bombs and Durandals.

It does have its quirks, most notable its performance in the rain. It does not like taxing and taking off in the rain, so you need to keep the engine relight button depressed until rotation is achieved.

The silver medal goes to the L-39ZA. 
On take off, it's the strongest performer. Even at full fuel and combat load, take off is a non-concern. Lift the nose off the ground at 90kts, then the good stuff happens at 110-120kts depending on weight. The real weakness is its limited payload aloft. It doesn't have that much variety and only two hardpoints on each wing, four total. That said, the PK-3 feels near bottomless with the ammo, so it's a stand out tool in your set. Its integrated Gsh-23L is really nice for dealing with even light armor. In addition to weapons like rockets and bombs, it can carry flares for lighting areas at night as well as the defensive punch of the R-3S and R-60. Handling wise, it does tend like to drop a wing outside of uncoordinated turns, but it's pretty tame. It's not as stable as the 339, but it's forgiving and quick to correct.

It does feel underpowered aloft, especially with a combat load. Be sure to watch those EGTs, the Ivchenko does have limits. You can't just leave it on max thrust. Max continuous is 103%.

Bronze goes to the C-101CC. 
If the L-39 felt underpowered, then the C-101CC must feel like it's pedal powered. Taking off out of Agana with the C-101CC loaded up just isn't possible. You're looking at a take off roll of nearly 3,000 feet/900+ meters. You're going to have to play with fuel and payload to have any hope. 85% of MTOW will get you shaving the tree tops, but you'll be off. That's 2 pairs of LAU-68s and a centerline gunpod @ 60% total fuel. Anymore? Well, I managed to rip a flap off on the treetops. So, the C-101 will operate more comfortably from a longer strip.

Once you get the C-101CC up to altitude, it retains speed pretty well and its handling is solid. The real thing the C-101 has going for it is its selection of arms. Two centerline gunpods with your choice of cannon or machinegun, cluster munitions, nape, rockets, and the added bonuses of the Magic II and AIM-9. It even has the Sea Eagle, that's insane. If you can work around the take off performance, the C-101 could be a great ride.

Now, even though I think the MB-339A is the best performer, I have to admit it currently has a limitation. It has the best performance in the air and widest variety of arms, but it totally lacks any air to air missiles (FOR NOW, it'll be getting the AIM-9 in a future update.) Now, you're not looking to take these into the dogfight arena, but the fastest growing concern for militaries around the world are drones. What makes them such a concern is their disposability and their accessibility. This is a role that could easily fall into the wheelhouse of a light attack aircraft. Depending on how well funded or how badly an insurgency has a case of sticky fingers, you may see them using drones for various reasons. This is a task made more difficult for the MB-339A since it lacks any kind of missilery. It's going to hurt your options in the L-39ZA, but it'll barely be felt in the C-101CC.

So, things to consider for those looking to buy one of these. Don't take this as some strict 'meta' since limitations make a scenario so much more compelling. The C-101CC may be limited to where it can operate from and be effective, but that's also a lot of fun. You now have to think about what you should do: A longer ingress with better weapons or a shorter ingress with a limited payload? 

As for the OV-10 and A-4E-C? They're free, try them.

Addendum from @Daemoc:

The C-101 can carry a ludicrous amount of fuel internally. One of it's major design considerations was range. I think this is the most overlooked aspect of this aircraft.

For a quick strike mission, 50% fuel is still way too much. IIRC, one of the first missions I did in the C-101 was over two hours and was done on 50% fuel. This was all low level.

This cannot be stressed enough. Fuel has to be a major consideration on that aircraft every mission. Don't look at the percentages, calculate the fuel weight.

In this case, I'll then move the C-101 into second place behind the MB-339. Basically, when you hear people absolutely howl about how the Culopollo is under appreciated, they aren't lying at all. I'm going to be spending a lot more time with it. I think I still prefer the 339's handling, but there's no denying that endurance performance from the C-101. Actually, were I the decision maker for an actual air force and I had to choose between the 339 and the C-101 in this light attack role? I think the C-101 would win me over because loiter time is an important metric for a COIN aircraft. 

Edited 18 hours ago by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Supernova-III]

@MiG21bisFishbedL thank you for your comprehensive review! 

[Supernova-III]

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

So, I spent about an hour flying the 3 official COIN/Trainer aircraft in a simple mission.

I was using WWII Marianas, flying out of Agana, and 5 Urals as targets. I like this map for this purpose due to the nature of its runways: Short. I decided to rate them based on aspects I deem important to COIN ops in DCS. Those aspects are take off distance, speed, weapon options, and payload size.

All 3 enjoy adequate to superb handling characteristics.

The MB-339A, in my opinion, is the best in class barring one limitation I'll get to in the conclusion.
On take off, it uses up plenty of the runway, but it takes off within Agana's distance pretty comfortable at full fuel and loaded for combat. Lift the nose at 110KIAS and it'll lift soon after depending on payload. It's pretty quick to accelerate and I can yank pretty hard on the stick while it stays stable. The pair of DEFAs will make very short work of most anything an insurgency would be able to field. It also has the option to take machine guns to keep your load light and I really love that option for when I'm taking up Mk.82s. It also has cluster bombs like the Belouga and the BL-755. Ontop of that, it has denial weapons in the form of concrete penetrating bombs and Durandals.

It does have its quirks, most notable its performance in the rain. It does not like taxing and taking off in the rain, so you need to keep the engine relight button depressed until rotation is achieved.

The silver medal goes to the L-39ZA. 
On take off, it's the strongest performer. Even at full fuel and combat load, take off is a non-concern. Lift the nose off the ground at 90kts, then the good stuff happens at 110-120kts depending on weight. The real weakness is its limited payload aloft. It doesn't have that much variety and only two hardpoints on each wing, four total. That said, the PK-3 feels near bottomless with the ammo, so it's a stand out tool in your set. Its integrated Gsh-23L is really nice for dealing with even light armor. In addition to weapons like rockets and bombs, it can carry flares for lighting areas at night as well as the defensive punch of the R-3S and R-60. Handling wise, it does tend like to drop a wing outside of uncoordinated turns, but it's pretty tame. It's not as stable as the 339, but it's forgiving and quick to correct.

It does feel underpowered aloft, especially with a combat load. Be sure to watch those EGTs, the Ivchenko does have limits. You can't just leave it on max thrust. Max continuous is 103%.

Bronze goes to the C-101CC. 
If the L-39 felt underpowered, then the C-101CC must feel like it's pedal powered. Taking off out of Agana with the C-101CC loaded up just isn't possible. You're looking at a take off roll of nearly 3,000 feet/900+ meters. You're going to have to play with fuel and payload to have any hope. 85% of MTOW will get you shaving the tree tops, but you'll be off. That's 2 pairs of LAU-68s and a centerline gunpod @ 60% total fuel. Anymore? Well, I managed to rip a flap off on the treetops. So, the C-101 will operate more comfortably from a longer strip.

Once you get the C-101CC up to altitude, it retains speed pretty well and its handling is solid. The real thing the C-101 has going for it is its selection of arms. Two centerline gunpods with your choice of cannon or machinegun, cluster munitions, nape, rockets, and the added bonuses of the Magic II and AIM-9. It even has the Sea Eagle, that's insane. If you can work around the take off performance, the C-101 could be a great ride.

Now, even though I think the MB-339A is the best performer. It has the best performance in the air and widest variety of arms. However, it totally lacks any air to air missiles. Now, you're not looking to take these into the dogfight arena, but the fastest growing concern for militaries around the world are drones. What makes them such a concern is their disposability and their accessibility. This is a role that could easily fall into the wheelhouse of a light attack aircraft. Depending on how well funded or how badly an insurgency has a case of sticky fingers, you may see them using drones for various reasons. This is a task made more difficult for the MB-339A since it lacks any kind of missilery. It's going to hurt your options in the L-39ZA, but it'll barely be felt in the C-101CC.

So, things to consider for those looking to buy one of these. Don't take this as some strict 'meta' since limitations make a scenario so much more compelling. The C-101CC may be limited to where it can operate from and be effective, but that's also a lot of fun. You now have to think about what you should do: A longer ingress with better weapons or a shorter ingress with a limited payload? 

As for the OV-10 and A-4E-C? They're free, try them.

pinned this to the topic, to not loose 

[MAXsenna]

@MiG21bisFishbedL Excellent write up! Word of note, Sidewinders are coming to the MB-339.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Daemoc]

The C-101 can carry a ludicrous amount of fuel internally. One of it's major design considerations was range. I think this is the most overlooked aspect of this aircraft.

For a quick strike mission, 50% fuel is still way too much. IIRC, one of the first missions I did in the C-101 was over two hours and was done on 50% fuel. This was all low level.

This cannot be stressed enough. Fuel has to be a major consideration on that aircraft every mission. Don't look at the percentages, calculate the fuel weight.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

51 minutes ago, Daemoc said:

The C-101 can carry a ludicrous amount of fuel internally. One of it's major design considerations was range. I think this is the most overlooked aspect of this aircraft.

For a quick strike mission, 50% fuel is still way too much. IIRC, one of the first missions I did in the C-101 was over two hours and was done on 50% fuel. This was all low level.

This cannot be stressed enough. Fuel has to be a major consideration on that aircraft every mission. Don't look at the percentages, calculate the fuel weight.

Good to know, that's a damn ocean of fuel and an excellent point, going to add that as an addendum.