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 August 5 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 August 5 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 August 6 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.

[Art-J]

On 8/5/2025 at 9:56 PM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

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

If it's the one I think it is, you'll only stumble upon it when pilot's body is on and flight stick is hidden. Otherwise you'll never see it.

I also believe it got fixed after few years in -C and "only" affects -ZA now (?)

[Daemoc]

This topic sparked a desire to really sit down and do a proper comparison of the three trainer/light attack aircraft in DCS. There is a lot here though.

I used a custom mission I made a while ago, which is a low level deep strike mission to take out a convoy of SCUDS far behind enemy lines.

I played through this mission twice from start to finish with each aircraft which takes between 80 and 95 minutes a run and recorded the results below. I also ranked each aircraft on certain categories based on my time with each of them. Keep in mind, these rankings are just my personal opinion and subjective in a lot of ways.

C-101 Run One:
66% Fuel
4x 7ct Hydra HE Rocket Pods
1x DEFA 30mm Cannon
TOW: 12117 lbs. Fuel = 2612 lbs.

C-101 Run Two:
75% Fuel
2x 19ct Hydra HE Rocket Pods
1x DEFA 30mm Cannon
TOW: 12475 lbs. Fuel = 2970 lbs.

L-39 Run One and Two:
100% Fuel
2x Drop Tanks
2x 25ct Rocket Pods
Internal Cannon
TOW: 11387 lbs. Fuel = 2673 lbs.

MB-339 Run One:
100% Fuel
2x 320lit Wing Tanks
4x 18ct Matra Rocket Pods
2x DEFA 30mm Cannon
TOW: 12355 lbs. Fuel = 2523 lbs.

MB-339 Run Two:
100% Fuel
2x 500lit Wing Tanks
2x 25ct HEI Rocket Pods
2x DEFA 30mm Cannon
TOW: 11980 lbs. Fuel = 3148 lbs.

For poops and giggles I decided to throw the A-4E and F-5E into the mix, but only ran each once.

A-4E Run One:
100% Fuel
1x 150gl Drop Tank
4x 19ct Hydra HEAT Rocket Pods
Internal Gun
TOW: 20122 lbs. Fuel = 6441 lbs.

F-5E Run One:
100% Fuel
2x 150gl Drop Tank
2x 19ct Hydra HEAT Rocket Pods
Internal Gun
TOW: 19581 lbs. Fuel = 6460 lbs.

Ranking and Review:

Ground Handling:
1: MB-339 - Great ground handling. Nose wheel steering which is both precise and smooth.
2: C-101 - Good ground handling. Differential braking can take some getting used to, but is precise and smooth.
3: F-5E - Good ground handling. Nose wheel steering which is overly sensitive.
4: A-4E - Ok ground handling. Differential braking which can be temperamental. It also randomly spawns with the castor wheel pegged to the left or right occasionally.
5: L-39 - Blasphemy. A differential braking abomination. You can get used to it, but it still sucks. Has good rudder authority at slower speeds to compensate though.

Take Off:
1: F-5E - Monster power. 25 seconds from idle to v1 @ 180kn
2: A-4E - A lot of power. 25 seconds from idle to v1 @ 150kn
3: MB-339 - Good power. 35 seconds from idle to v1 @ 145kn
4: L-39 - Good power to weight. 35 seconds from idle to v1 @ 120kn
5: C-101 - Long take off roll. Run One: 55 seconds from idle to v1 @130kn - Run Two: 59 seconds from idle to v1 @140kn

Climb:
1: F-5E Max+AB 22000pph!
2: A-4E Max 8000pph
3: MB-339 Max 4000pph
4: L-39 ?
5: C-101 Max+MPR 2200pph

Ingress:
1: F-5E - 98%rpm 5200pph @360kn
2: A-4E - 90%rpm 4000pph @320kn
3: MB-339 - 88%rpm 1984pph @255kn
4: C-101 94%rpm 1350pph @225kn
5: L-39 97%rpm ? @225kn

Weapons Systems:
1: MB-339 Dead simple. Master Arm, Select Pylons and you are ready to go. Can fire Rockets and Cannon at the same time.

2: F-5E Easy. Master Arm, Sight Mode, Weapon Mode to Rockets, Select Pylons and that's it. Can fire Rockets and Cannon at the same time.

3: C-101 Easy. Master Arm, Select A2G Mode, Weapon Mode to Rockets, Select Pylons, Toggle Trigger and Pickle Safety. Can fire Rockets and Cannon at the same time.

4: A-4E Moderate. Master Arm, Weapon Mode to Rockets, Select Pylons for Rockets and Select Salvo. Has separate Gun Arm switch and can't fire rockets and guns at the same time. Pylons have to be un-selected to fire guns. Weapons controls partially hidden behind control stick makes them tricky to use without hotkeys.

5: L-39 Difficult. Cannon Arm, Master Arm, Rocket Arm, Select Salvo, Select Pylon, Toggle Trigger Safety, Gun Power and AoA Limiter. Not only can you NOT fire Rockets and Guns at the same time, but you have to un-select the pylons and hit the EXPL.CHARGE GS button before you can fire the gun. There is a lot to remember in the heat of battle and switches are partially obstructed and all over the cockpit.

Weapons Employment:
1: C-101 Super stable even at slow speeds. Gives you plenty of time to line up your shots. The DEFA canon is very accurate with a very flat trajectory. Great for ranged snap shots. Hydra rockets are the least accurate of all rocket options.

2: MB-339 Slow and stable, especially with the Wingtip Tanks. Both Matra and HEI heavy rocket pods are very accurate with a flatter trajectory than the Hydras. The DEFA cannons create a pitch down moment when firing which makes it difficult to aim and unpredictable.

3: F-5E Very Stable, but it's speed gives little time to line up shots. The nose mounted twin 20mm cannon is very accurate and predictable.

4: A-4E Very Stable, but has the weakest gun out of them all. I don't know if it is the slow fire rate or what, but visual shots on target never seem to cause damage. Switching between rockets and guns between attack runs can lead to errors/accidents if not careful and or practiced.

5: L-39 Slow, but very unstable and lacks power to pull out of a dive. Has a tendency to tip stall after a strafe run and takes a long time to climb/turn around. The rocket pods are fantastic though. Very flat and straight trajectory. The gun is like a garden hose. I think every round is a tracer. It shoots with a slower/higher trajectory with more bullet drop and also has a AoA limiter. It takes some getting used to. Switching between rockets and guns between attack runs can lead to errors/accidents if not careful and or practiced.

Egress: no stores
1: F-5E - 98%rpm 6200pph @550kn
2: A-4E - 90%rpm 4000pph @400kn
3: L-39 97%rpm ? @300kn
4: C-101 94%rpm 1300pph @275kn
5: MB-339 - 88%rpm 1984pph @270kn

Total Time/Fuel Used:
1: F-5E 55mins / 5000lbs ~ 5400pph average
2: A-4E 65mins / 4500lbs ~ 4150pph average
3: MB-339 Run One DNF: 70mins 2523lbs ~ 2200pph average - Run Two: 80mins / 2950lbs ~ 2200pph average
4: L-39 90mins / 2370lbs ~ 1500pph average
5: C-101 Run One: 95mins / 2550lbs ~ 1600pph average - Run Two: 90mins / 2250used ~ 1500pph average

Things of note:
The MB-339 lower RPM and speed for Ingress and Egress.
The MB-339 does not carry a lot of fuel and has a thirsty turbofan. I ran out of fuel the first run and barley made it home on the second run. The 88%rpm 1984pph seemed to be the best for fuel economy with this load out, but I have not tried every option. I also had 4 Matra pods in the first run which was a lot more drag compared to the 2 HEI Heavy's but I still don't think it would have made it home with the smaller tip or drop tanks.

The MB-339 is an absolute dog with full tip tanks. Especially in roll. It does help with stability though.

The first run with the L-39 I could not get the gun to fire and after a few passes just went home with two SCUD launchers intact. About halfway home, I realized I had the outer pylons still selected and that's why I could not fire.

The first run of the C-101 I completely whiffed using the rocket pods. Two SCUD launchers were smoking, but not on fire. I finished them all off with the excellent DEFA cannon, but it took a few more passes. I made it back to base but ran out of fuel just as I parked. That's why I gave it a bit more fuel for the second run. Also, even though the weights are about the same, the 2x 19 pods must have had less drag than the 4x 7 pods. I was a little faster and had better fuel economy the second time around.

The A-4E has very long legs and probably could have done this without the drop tank.

The F-5E burns a ton of fuel, but it makes up for it with speed. Especially with the clean egress. I may be able to get away with a single centerline tank rather than the two wing tanks.

I tried this mission with the A-10CII as well. It had plenty of fuel even without drop tanks and carrying ALL of the weapons, but was slower than molasses. I also took a burst from a 12.7mm on the way home and it took out the left engine. I did manage to limp it home, but I barely had enough power to climb out of the canyon. I also had no nosewheel steering after landing. Maybe a flat tire. Anyway, with a one engine egress the data was no good and it was so slow I did not want to try again. So I just left it off of this comparison. It was funny though, a plane known for it's legendary toughness was taken out by a single burst from a 12.7mm.

I have all this recorded and planned to make a video version of this, but the raw video files are too big to fit on my macbook for video editing and my iMac is packed away at the moment. I may still make this at some point though when I get my iMac back up and running.

Edited 16 hours ago by Daemoc

[Stratos]

@Daemoc Thanks for such a detailed analysis! It was a great read, and made me appreciate the C-101 even more.

Will love to see that video once you post it!

Edited 6 hours ago by Stratos