Gentlemen, I give you the world's most heavily armed crop duster.

The Air Tractor AT-802U.







It was the thread on Mustangs that prompted this. The P-51 may have been outclassed as an air-to-air fighter over 60 years ago, but it was still a handy air-to-ground gun platform. It's kind of amazing to know that North American Mustangs were still serving in combat in the Soccer War years after Ford started building Mustangs. They were so useful that there were several efforts to revive it into an attack plane into the '70s, if memory serves.

What do you think? Is this a worthy replacement? It looks like maybe it'll beat out the Super Tucano.

I do think that the US Military does need a Propeller COIN aircraft.

Long loiter time and much cheaper to operate than a Jet.

Also the ability to "go slow" makes it more accurate on fire missions, and thus safer for out troops being suported by air.

Once the US started using "Spookys" in Viet Nam, Republic of, we never had a Fire Base over run with one of them overhead.

A "Prop Job" would be a big help in the Sand Box. IMHO of course.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I do think that the US Military does need a Propeller COIN aircraft.

Yeah, we do. We've needed one for a long time. It's not the highest use of an F-16 to dirty it up so the pilot can fly slow enough to read the tail numbers off a Cessna with night vision goggles.

That's just wrong.

Low and slow over a battlefield is not a healthy operation. We lost a bunch of OV-10s and O-1s in Vietnam from small arms. Plus tons of choppers. There's a good reason for close support aircraft with speed and weapons carrying abilities. The Puffs and the C-130 Gunships never get down in the weeds to do their thing; small arms separation means above 3500'; below that they would be sitting ducks with multiple casualties likely on each aircraft. Their standoff capabilities are well above 3500'. A new prop a/c for the current situation is ridiculous. What good is an airplane against small bands of terrorists that infuse themselves into the indigenous population?

quote:

Originally posted by A7drvr:
Low and slow over a battlefield is not a healthy operation. We lost a bunch of OV-10s and O-1s in Vietnam from small arms. Plus tons of choppers. There's a good reason for close support aircraft with speed and weapons carrying abilities. The Puffs and the C-130 Gunships never get down in the weeds to do their thing; small arms separation means above 3500'; below that they would be sitting ducks with multiple casualties likely on each aircraft. Their standoff capabilities are well above 3500'. A new prop a/c for the current situation is ridiculous. What good is an airplane against small bands of terrorists that infuse themselves into the indigenous population?

You drove Harley's?

Anyway, I'd never suggest an airplane go against a small band of terrorists.

I'd suggest a whole hell of a lot of airplanes go against a small band of terrorists.

Because if they don't, a lot of sailors are going to die.

The Straight of Hormuz is going to be a bloodbath.

Last time I looked at a map of the Middle east, the S. of Hormuz are quite some distance from Afghanistan where we are involved against the small bands of terrorists. So, will you have droptanks installed on this cropduster so they can, maybe, get to the vicinity of the Battle of Hormuz? BTW, yes I did own a couple of Harleys.

I'd sure like to see one flying along our southern border. Arm it with tear gas grenades and a loudspeaker that announces "you have ten minutes to turn around and head back....."

quote:

Originally posted by A7drvr:
Last time I looked at a map of the Middle east, the S. of Hormuz are quite some distance from Afghanistan where we are involved against the small bands of terrorists. So, will you have droptanks installed on this cropduster so they can, maybe, get to the vicinity of the Battle of Hormuz? BTW, yes I did own a couple of Harleys.

When I was in the A-7 pilots called themselves Harley drivers.

Also, I responded to your earlier post as I did because I'd been doing some reading on Pasdaran small boat tactics. They are after all a designated terrorist organization. And they will be using maritime terrorist tactics, similar to the LTTE Sea Tigers and al Qaeda's attempted ship attacks. It was what came to mind. In the foreseeable future aircraft are going to play a key role in countering that threat if they initiate hostilities against US ships transiting the strait.

And no, I wasn't thinking of the above aircraft for that mission. That wouldn't be a low intensity conflict.

But I do see many uses for the an aircraft like the AT-802U in more permissive environments. Mostly when we work with our "regional partners."

For instance, counter narcotics. Maybe that shouldn't be a military mission, but it's a role assigned. As I mentioned earlier, you really don't need an F-16 for that, and in addition to being expensive it brings disadvantages when the mission requires going low and slow.

Keep in mind that oftentimes there isn't a difference between an insurgent and a drug smuggler. They have to do something to fund their activities.

Insurgents aren't always integrated in with the local population. The FARC in Colombia and groups like Abu Sayyaf and the Moro National Liberation Front come to mind. They'll operate from camps in the jungle for lengthy periods of time.

Picked mine up last week! They screwed the paint job up though!!

Read any book on the rhodesian war...the cessna 337 (Lynx ) armed with 2 mini golf bombs, two packs of sneb 37mm rockets and 2 .303 machine guns and no armour plate were highly effective against small bands of insurgents- Rhodesia never lost one. We lost helicopters but not Lynx's...before we had the lynx we used the old Provost trainer and AL 60's but the lack of machinegun armerment severely limited the usefulness of the AL60's and the old provost could only carry bombs or rockets and not both.

Good video footage of the lynx in action including seeing off a cuban flown mig over mozambique

If the guns on that Air Tractor are what I think they are, 3500 feet Small Arms Exclusion is NO PROBLEM. They LOOK like 20mm Chain Guns, at a glance. Also, they'd HAVE to be Cheaper to buy and run than ALL jets, much easier to fly than a Straight Military fighter type. If it came to a dogfight between the Air Tractor and a Wart Hog, I wouldn't know who to bet on.

quote:

If it came to a dogfight between the Air Tractor and a Wart Hog, I wouldn't know who to bet on.

Really?

Do you want to play a game of cards someday?

Not trying to piss anyone off but I would say that we have a propeller driven COIN aircraft. The USMC Osprey, currently serving in Afghanistan. When did you see a photo of one in action or sitting idle on the ground. A turf battle would result over a new CAS aircraft, will the Army or Air Force be the asset manager?What would the rotor-wing community have to say on the matter? Would the Army go back 25 years and have dual qualified rotor wing/fixed wing aviators? With the current ROEs you would need long loiter time and external fuel tanks waiting for clearance to engage.

The lame idea of a COIN aircraft comes up every ten years or so. Some slick salesman goes to Washington, convinces a bunch of congressmen that they have just what is needed, and then Congress forces it onto the services. The reality of the modern battlefield is that this mission can be accomplished with assets that are a whole lot more effective than a slow, propeller driven aircraft. During the first Gulf War, Gen Horner was about to pull all A-10 aircraft due to heavy losses in the first few days of the war. There is nothing the A-10 was doing that an F-16 couldn't do a lot faster with a whole lot less risk to the pilot.

John Farner, Major, USAF (ret)

So who's recommending a Counter Insurgency aircraft for the modern battlefield?

I thought that is what the HAWK and PREDATOR drones were for. I saw a plane on a video years ago that was made for a South American company. It was a P80 Shooting Star that had the engine removed and replaced by two Gulfstream turbofans in a pod ala the A10. The tail was modified to a T configuration and the engine bay was filled with fuel tanks. It was used to combat insurgents and druggies.

I would give the "Prop Jobs" to the Army and the Marines, so they would have control over their own "Air Cover".

They should at least have a bunch of "Spookys, Puff the Dragon", what ever you want to call them.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I would give the "Prop Jobs" to the Army and the Marines, so they would have control over their own "Air Cover".

They should at least have a bunch of "Spookys, Puff the Dragon", what ever you want to call them.

The Marines already do have control over their own air cover. They've got their own Hornets and Harriers. The Navy and Marines are fairly well integrated. Not only do Marines command ground forces, they get command-at-sea. Marines have been given command of Expeditionary Strike Groups, basically acting in the same role as the commodore. This is quite a change from when I first started in the business. Then only a Navy flag officer could command the ships, as Commander Amphibious Task Force (CATF). The Marine could only act as Commander Landing Force (CLF). They were co-equal, but CATF was OTC until CLF established command ashore, then it shifted. Now the Marine can be both.

But on the flip side Navy F/A-18 squadrons integrate with Marine airwings and operate ashore. Which, when you get down to it, isn't really new. If you look at the old Cactus Air Force operating from Guadalcanal it was the same way.

Basically, the Marines do have their own organic air cover, and the working relationship between the Navy/Marines is (IMHO) a lot closer than the USA/USAF.

quote:

So who's recommending a Counter Insurgency aircraft for the modern battlefield?

All today's battlefields are modern. If you doubt it, ask the Russians who fought in Asscrackistan.

quote:

Originally posted by Toomany Tools:

quote:

So who's recommending a Counter Insurgency aircraft for the modern battlefield?

All today's battlefields are modern. If you doubt it, ask the Russians who fought in Asscrackistan.

The Super Tucano sells well across South America because it's very capable under the conditions it's used there. It performed superbly in night time raids on the FARC, for instance.

Not every battlefield in the world involves the superpowers and our weaponry.

Nice, Kelly!

Be Hell on gophers, in Saskatchewan.

Grizz

quote:

They LOOK like 20mm Chain Guns

They are .50 Cal, not 20mm.
This little bird doesn't have the payload to haul to 20mm gatlings.

The USAF is about two steps ahead of us, they have started a competition for a coin aircraft. The winner looks to be an attack version of the current turboprop T-6b trainer. Armed with two .50" guns, and a combination of Hellfire missiles, standard or small diameter bombs or most 2.75-5" rockets currently in inventory and with a FLIR/TADS. It can loiter for 3-6 hours at up to 31,000' and designate targets for the fast movers or any other precision weapons.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw...5143080c277645&rf=bm

quote:

Originally posted by KY Jim:
If the guns on that Air Tractor are what I think they are, 3500 feet Small Arms Exclusion is NO PROBLEM. They LOOK like 20mm Chain Guns, at a glance. Also, they'd HAVE to be Cheaper to buy and run than ALL jets, much easier to fly than a Straight Military fighter type. If it came to a dogfight between the Air Tractor and a Wart Hog, I wouldn't know who to bet on.

I forget the correct designation, but they look like a .50" version of the M197 20mm cannon that we had on the AH1S Cobra's. I see no ammo feed or storage capability in the photos. The .50" like these are usually in a faired housing, with about 1500 rounds of ammo. Enough for about 45 seconds of firing.

This is old news. Read this thread.https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/558107455/m/2881067111?r=2881067111#2881067111
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by f224:
The USAF is about two steps ahead of us...

The Air Force?

I take it you haven't heard of the USN's Imminent Fury initiative, which has put these aircraft into actual combat?

quote:

Originally posted by China Fleet Sailor:

quote:

Originally posted by f224:
The USAF is about two steps ahead of us...

The Air Force?

I take it you haven't heard of the USN's Imminent Fury initiative, which has put these aircraft into actual combat?

I had, the limited exposure they have received, along with limited funding by the US Navy has not been addressed yet, certainly they are a very cost efficient (think dollars spent per pound of bombs on target), not to mention the cost savings not wearing out the F16/F15/F/A18 airframes on COIN Missions.

The USAF is asking for funding for up to 250 of the T-6B's initially and will likely get it. With foreign sales, it might be a 1,000 total airframe run, just for the attack version.

quote:

Originally posted by KY Jim:
If it came to a dogfight between the Air Tractor and a Wart Hog, I wouldn't know who to bet on.

Huh? The word "Tractor" might offer some clues. A10 will take a hit from 57mm AA and keep on pummeling your tractor. A10 has twice the velocity, can be refueled A2A, could carry your tractor as payload while killing a few other tractors on the way to killing your hardened hanger back at the ranch ... yada yada yada ...

ANY front line WWII era fighter would clobber A FEW Air Tractors in a guns engagement at ANY altitude.

Dustin' crops and killin' narcos ... ideal platform.

quote:

Originally posted by f224:

quote:

Originally posted by China Fleet Sailor:

quote:

Originally posted by f224:
The USAF is about two steps ahead of us...

The Air Force?

I take it you haven't heard of the USN's Imminent Fury initiative, which has put these aircraft into actual combat?

I had, the limited exposure they have received, along with limited funding by the US Navy has not been addressed yet, certainly they are a very cost efficient (think dollars spent per pound of bombs on target), not to mention the cost savings not wearing out the F16/F15/F/A18 airframes on COIN Missions.

The USAF is asking for funding for up to 250 of the T-6B's initially and will likely get it. With foreign sales, it might be a 1,000 total airframe run, just for the attack version.

Perhaps its a question of semantics.

I thought the criteria for "steps ahead" was actually using the things.

I realize of course that the same words mean different things to the different services.

For instance, what happens when you tell the armed forces to "secure the building."

The Army will post sentries.

The Marines will reduce it with artillery.

The Navy will make sure everybody leaves, turn out the lights, and lock the doors.

The Air Force will take out a lease with an option to buy.

Ref: "Step ahead"- in this case, the USAF (perhaps with USN encouragement) was moving forward on a turboprop COIN airplane before it was common knowledge outside of the program participants, not that they had a better airplane.

Traditionally, COIN aircraft have operated with line of sight weapons, guns, rockets, dumb bombs. These days, low cost enhanced optics allow higher altitudes and precision strike weapons.

I know a SPAD, A-1D driver from Vietnam, he would have loved to have had a brace of Hellfire missiles and been able to stand off about six miles from the target and not miss. Would've have kept him from getting hit several times by small arms fire and 37mm cannons.

He and I both agree you can always use a gun for strafing, sometimes it is your best option.

Was an Air Commando in 'Nam, supported by the Spads. Aircraft mechanics would often talk about when a spad came back, the engine cowling being filled with bamboo from the aircraft flying so low. We knew we had great support with them flying around.