US Air Force going back to small liaison planes?

Cap'n Jack

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
8,783
Location
Nebraska
Display Name
Display name:
Cap'n Jack
In a nod to the UK Lysander plane, the USAF has a project using an Cub crafter's XCub

It’s part of a larger effort called Project Lysander to create a system for recovering people from isolated locations, sometimes in the heat of battle. Lysanders were high-wing piston aircraft used in the Second World War to insert and extract British spies behind enemy lines using fields and country roads for runways.
Click to expand...

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news...AMOC,+Air+Force+Cub-MONDAY,+February+15,+2021
 
I wonder if they'll have a version that burns JP8
 
asicer said:
I wonder if they'll have a version that burns JP8
Click to expand...
It'd be a logistical hassle if it burns something other than jet fuel or diesel, but that's not insurmountable. The plane clearly won't be flying to the theater of operations under its own power, and the C-17 that carries it could just as well carry a small trailer with Avgas.

Ron Wanttaja
 
It would have a very limited role in personnel recovery. You’d have to be going after 1 person, that’s ambulatory, in a low threat environment, that isn’t in a densely wooded area or on the side of a mountain. Yes, I’ve seen Air America. I’m talking a real mountain.

Not sure Dr Hoppers experience but “large aircraft” have been quite effective at PR the last 20 years. There’s never been the need to have a light GA aircraft that has low survivability and carries one person.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
It would have a very limited role in personal recovery. You’d have to be going after 1 person, that’s ambulatory, in a low threat environment, that isn’t in a densely wooded area or on the side of a mountain. Yes, I’ve seen Air America. I’m talking a real mountain.

Not sure Dr Hoppers experience but “large aircraft” have been quite effective at PR the last 20 years. There’s never been the need to have a light GA aircraft that has low survivability and carries one person.
Click to expand...
How many Cubcrafters could 1 Blackhawk purchase, especially if less legal liability, threat of lawsuits, and say a purchase of 50-200?
 
If the Lysander is a Light Aircraft ; others like Spitfires and P-51s could be

considered the same as well.

I believe they could be armed with weapons firing from the wheel fairings.
 
From what I read the mission could easily be done by the U-28 (Military version of the PC-12)
 
Velocity173 said:
It would have a very limited role in personal recovery. You’d have to be going after 1 person, that’s ambulatory, in a low threat environment, that isn’t in a densely wooded area or on the side of a mountain . . . There’s never been the need to have a light GA aircraft that has low survivability and carries one person.
Click to expand...

Concur. A STOL plane can do amazing things, but I’m scratching my head on what a Super Cub would bring to a battlefield that a helicopter wouldn’t do better.

On a tangent: The Lysander was an 850hp plane that, I’m guessing, approached 200mph in cruise while still landing in the 50mph range. A Super Cub would itself be a step backwards from that.
 
RyanShort1 said:
How many Cubcrafters could 1 Blackhawk purchase, especially if less legal liability, threat of lawsuits, and say a purchase of 50-200?
Click to expand...

Cost savings doesn’t matter when we’re talking DOD budgets and operational advantage. That would be like telling a multimillionaire who can afford a Gulfstream that they would be better off with several SR22s.

As far as liability and lawsuits, I’m not sure how that would apply to Air Force personnel flying Air Force aircraft, conducting PR???
 
Grandmother Sumac said:
Concur. A STOL plane can do amazing things, but I’m scratching my head on what a Super Cub would bring to a battlefield that a helicopter wouldn’t do better.

On a tangent: The Lysander was an 850hp plane that, I’m guessing, approached 200mph in cruise while still landing in the 50mph range. A Super Cub would itself be a step backwards from that.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why aircraft like the Lysander disappeared in the PR role. The advent of the helicopter and now the tilt rotor, changed everything.
 
brcase said:
Sounds to me like they are just using the XCub as a low cost test platform for the Low Altitude Sensing Helmet System (LASH).
Click to expand...

There’s where it starts making more sense, and the air force’s .mil site explains that the development being tested here is a man-portable version of the full LASH kit.

“After careful study of mission requirements and aircraft capabilities, AFRL researchers designed the LASH kit using a number of mostly commercial-off-the-shelf components . . . packaged into a compact, easy-to-transport, one-person carrying system that could be easily fitted temporarily to virtually any small aircraft without additional modification.”
 
Velocity173 said:
Cost savings doesn’t matter when we’re talking DOD budgets and operational advantage. That would be like telling a multimillionaire who can afford a Gulfstream that they would be better off with several SR22s.

As far as liability and lawsuits, I’m not sure how that would apply to Air Force personnel flying Air Force aircraft, conducting PR???
Click to expand...
I'm saying it should be cheaper for Cub Crafters to build them and maybe it would drive a lot of their other costs down. That could be great for people interested in buying one.
 
Sort of reading-between-the-lines, but I’m imagining rescue personnel requisitioning available aircraft to super-GTFO of a hostile country in the dead of night. Kinda weird and better suited for a spy novel, but maybe?
 
I’m sure there will be more “correction” to the article since the 711th is at Wright Patterson AFB outside Dayton OH, not MD:rolleyes:. No clue how MD entered the picture since the testing would likely be at Elgin or Edwards.

I agree with brcase that the carbon cub was just a convenient airframe to use to test out the man portable system.

Cheers
 
I suppose that almost every populated area has GA airports, or something like them. The individual PR or small team could unpack the LASH kit, post to PoA to ask which of the nearby craft best suited their mission, and be on their way back to freedom.
 
I cannot imagine a thing operational other than a test bed...if my CSAR package was briefed as a Super Cub for a cross FLOT mission I would make sure my organic extraction harness was fitting and tight.
 
Well this article clarifies it a bit more. Basically not looking at purchasing Xcubs or even purchasing small GA STOL aircraft specifically for CSAR. Sounds like it’s about a special ops pilot, going behind enemy lines to commandeer a light GA aircraft, to conduct a PR. I think the odds of having that exact scenario is extremely slim. And despite what the Dr said, that capability hasn’t been needed in PR in the last 20 years. Like to know how the NVGs aren’t affected by interior lighting as well.

https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Art...-aircraft-to-aid-personnel-recovery-research/
 
Last edited:
Here is a cool video on flying the Lysander.

 
Kind of reminds me of when the U.S. Navy tested the Osprey homebuilt for possible use as a river patrol aircraft in Vietnam....
upload_2021-2-15_13-18-18.png
And yes, the star-and-bar is on the wrong wing.

IIRC, the US Air Force borrowed some BD-5s at one point to act as simulated cruise missiles. I know Richard Bach declined to lend his back in the '80s, there have been uses since as well.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...james-bond-jet-takes-on-u-s-air-force-mission

Ron Wanttaja
 
The Army evaluated the Long-EZ back in 1984 for a low cost ISR platform. 5EBAE188-9F31-4E0A-B4F4-011386D4306B.jpeg
 
wanttaja said:
IIRC, the US Air Force borrowed some BD-5s at one point to act as simulated cruise missiles. I know Richard Bach declined to lend his back in the '80s, there have been uses since as well.
Click to expand...

Turned out to be a wise decision on Bach's part, the AF pilots wrecked several of them. A BD-5 may be considerably slower than a front line fighter, the pilots probably figured "I can fly this toy no problem," but when your butt is 10" off the pavement it seems a lot faster.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well this article clarifies it a bit more. Basically not looking at purchasing Xcubs or even purchasing small GA STOL aircraft specifically for CSAR. Sounds like it’s about a special ops pilot, going behind enemy lines to commandeer a light GA aircraft, to conduct a PR. I think the odds of having that exact scenario is extremely slim. And despite what the Dr said, that capability hasn’t been needed in PR in the last 20 years. Like to know how the NVGs aren’t affected by interior lighting as well.

https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Art...-aircraft-to-aid-personnel-recovery-research/
Click to expand...

The photo is at my Home Drome. I missed it:mad: Must have been Christmas shopping.

Cheers
 
Dana said:
Turned out to be a wise decision on Bach's part, the AF pilots wrecked several of them. A BD-5 may be considerably slower than a front line fighter, the pilots probably figured "I can fly this toy no problem," but when your butt is 10" off the pavement it seems a lot faster.
Click to expand...

IIRC, USAF contracted a company (and operators) to provide the cruise missile and LO surrogates. At least in the mid- to late-90s when I was involved with the JADO/JADEZ and ASCIET programs where BD-5s were players.
 
Last edited:
FLS Micro Jets still participate in radar target missions (SMART) for the DoD.
 
TCABM said:
IIRC, USAF contracted a company (and operators) to provide the cruise missile and LO surrogates. At least in the mid- to late-90s when I was involved with the JADO/JADEZ and ASCIET programs where BD-5s were players.
Click to expand...

Bach had his earlier than that, in the mid 1970s.
 
X3 Skier said:
In the article you posted, the photo was from a stop at I19, Lewis A Jackson Airport, if I read it right.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Right down the road from WPAFB.

Great, so now this means all the retired AF guys who fly Cirruses and Warriors in formation thinking they're Top Gun now have active duty guys in Cubs doing likewise at I19?

I hate that airspace so much.
 
Todd82 said:
Right down the road from WPAFB.

Great, so now this means all the retired AF guys who fly Cirruses and Warriors in formation thinking they're Top Gun now have active duty guys in Cubs doing likewise at I19?

I hate that airspace so much.
Click to expand...

The plane was on the way to MD. Apparently the 711th has a test location there.

Cheers
 
upload_2021-2-16_8-25-53.png
Bring back the mighty PC-6 Pilatus Porter and stick a couple PJs in it for recovery.
 
The USAF used the U-17A,B,& C in SEA, mostly Laos back in the 60's, 70's. It was a pretty much a stock Cessna 185. There was a unit with these based about two blocks from my unit in Nha Trang, RVN. As for the fuel type issue: Soloy www.soloy.com already makes a turbine conversion for the CE 206. The smaller 185 would not be a stretch. They have conversions for lighter A/C like the Bell 47 also using the RR/ Allison 250. You should see the converted CE 206 on amphib floats perform. Its on their web site. The pilatus PC-6 was also used a lot and has impressive performance. I recall sipping my coffee waiting for the daily 0700 arrival at Nha Trang of the Air America PC-6. He would use the BETA mode (in flight prop reverse) and always make the first turn off. That first turn off was at the approach end of the RW.
 
Maybe the cub is so small, flies so low and slow it would be hard to pick up on radar / be detected?
 
usntps_nu-1b_otter.jpg

150191_1174_Mark%20Windridge_24052003_565.jpg


Nauga,
somewhere on the wall
 
WDD said:
Maybe the cub is so small, flies so low and slow it would be hard to pick up on radar / be detected?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Way, way back when, The ADIZ covered the northern half of the state of Maine. Cub, Aeronca, T'carts, etc pilots now and then would head north into the ADIZ above 3'000. NORAD rarely failed to pick them up on radar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top