Meet America’s New Attack Aircraft; The Sky Warden

[@kdrapertrucker]

Interesting attack technique, it dives down to 5 feet above the terrain, screams along at that altitude then pulls up sharply, pivot turns, and dives for the deck again. Weapons include fungicide, herbicide, and insecticide.

[@ahalfsesameseedbun7472]

CS gas, White phosphorus, Nova 6

[@1888bry]

Mustard gas

[@max420thc]

Also bioweapon ,

[@CypressCrossout]

@@ahalfsesameseedbun7472 Zyclon B

[@myrealname2022]

From the Company that brought you Agent 🍊, Monsanto approved!

[@idriscorvus2237]

Dusty Crophopper when he joined the Air Force instead becoming a Racer

[@sargesacker2599]

Ha ha ha that was my first thought.

[@reddogsaws]

You bet me to it

[@Parocha]

Came here for this comment.

[@bronsonperich9430]

🤣🤣🤣🤣 Planes Part 2: Insurgency Edition

[@packersmresandvintage]

You beat me to that one lol

[@xXrandomryzeXx]

It looks so practical, it's so cool. And the fact that it's a crop duster base does not mean that it's bad, it's basically perfect for low level flying.

[@matthewutech5970]

The issue isn't that its not practical for its role, its why would a military suddenly need to order a cheap, mass produced, low flying strike aircraft based off of something that's supposed to dump insecticide...

[@SelectKiko]

​@@matthewutech5970 its for aerial melee combat

[@CoffeeAndPaul]

​@@matthewutech5970, drones are a thing on battlefields now. This is the perfect manned platform for sneaking up behind larger suicide drones & zapping their electronics with whatever directed -energy weapon you have on one of those hard points.

[@darinladd5312]

@@matthewutech5970ever been to Colombia cacao fields? ever spotted an OV-10 with sprayers taking off from Patrick or Curacao? ever heard a briefing from JIATF-South or SOUTHCOM? your answers lay there....

[@tony9146]

@@matthewutech5970why not? Utility is king in the military.

[@HamiltonStandard]

1:21 A maximum combat payload of 6,000lbs! A B-17 ordinarily carried 4,000lbs over long sorties. Incredible efficiency. I wonder what breed of aviator awaits this specialty

[@corsai7506]

Cow, its a farmers plane :)

[@startingbark0356]

It could carry 8000lbs for shorter ranges tho maybe even more for even shorter ranges

[@startingbark0356]

Tho i doubt that a crop duster with just a bit of Armor added to it can lift 6000lbs

[@johnpublic6582]

It also carried about 4000 pounds of .50 machine guns and ammo not counting the mechanical turret gear and 10 people with their assorted oxygen and heater equipment. Kind of an apples to shoes comparison.

[@JD-tn5lz]

What kind of aviator? Those with two huge brass balls and of whom people say "fear, no, fear doesn't enter into it"

[@robertalbrecq6903]

I’ve been flying The 802 Airtractor for 20 years on fires, they’re gonna be amazed at what it can do as a ground support platform.

[@NotAgentAJ]

what can it do? im curious, the army doesn't usually make bad decisions, so i feel like im missing something

[@sechesin7111]

Draw AAA fire, I guess.

[@gremlin_uwu]

@@sechesin7111 they are meant to operate in insurgency-like environment were the enemy doesn't have AA capabilities or against a conventional force that doesn't have AA support, during the falklands war the Argentinians had the Pucará, their own counter-insurgency aircraft, it would fly from makeshift runways near Goose Green, would bomb 2 Para and land again behind the cover of their AAA guns before the Harriers could do anything

[@NotAgentAJ]

@@gremlin_uwu doesn't sound to bad for a use like that i guess

[@momsspaghetti9970]

@@sechesin7111 A plane specifically designed for low intensity conflicts, perfect in some African Jungle or in the Middle East blowing up irregulars with precision bombs and rockets. It can probably do casevac too if it requires it.

[@Hodor_de_Clare]

It really does look like a crop duster and an Il-2 Sturmovik had a baby. Should be a fantastic aircraft.

[@tomg6284]

It is a crop duster.

[@Hodor_de_Clare]

@@tomg6284 I know, one that's been modified....

[@tieroneactual2228]

It also looks like it could be from a Sturmovik & a Stuka Dive Bomber.

[@InspectahPatio]

@@tomg6284 Very astute of you!

[@user-uc4vg4rg9e]

@Ruska it is

[@Forklift_Fella]

As someone who lives in the Midwest I see crop-dusting frequently and I have to say these are nimble little planes. I'm sure this will be a great aircraft.

[@veelut]

me too, man. i forsee how frightening this actually is

[@pacificostudios]

Best of all: From now on, every military golf course will look fantastic.

[@franklerouge]

trump must be behind that he wanted them for himself

[@dw5523]

I don't know why, but this excites me more than any of the next generation fighter stuff. Turning an Air Tractor into an economical, effective, and prolific air support platform is genius, and I hope it paves the way for more like solutions in the DoD.

[@HelminthCombos]

we need more cheap and effective military stuff so we can spend more on shit at home.

[@handlemonium]

"A-10 Lite"

[@wisenber]

"an economical, effective, and prolific air support platform" Economical and prolific it is. How effective an aircraft with 8 hardpoints will be is debatable.

[@AdamBechtol]

:)

[@occiderisaethiopissa3702]

@@wisenber Run them in pairs or a team of 4 there, problem solved.

[@NixonsAppendix]

"Putting crews in harm's way in a converted crop duster may seem somewhat reckless." The "Little Bird" helicopter is essentially a sight-seeing helicopter with guns duct taped to it and the crews love it. This assault crop duster will attract the strange and get some love of its own.

[@camelthegamer7165]

She will be loved, that I believe, loved and hated by friends and foes.

[@ghilliem.g.5824]

Its basically just a different looking copy of the brazilian Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, wich is famous world wide for being a great at counter insurgency, so this is probably gonna suit the US forces well

[@stephenbowden1142]

@@ghilliem.g.5824 I find it odd the airforce just said they are getting rid of the At6 an the super tucono that they have been testing for light attack role an turning that role completely over to socom. While they purchase a completely different aircraft.. I thought the at6 an the tucono were great aircraft.

[@ekcman]

First there is the tactical sight-seeing helicopter, now it is the assault crop duster. Noice

[@jackdenihan5333]

Dude prop planes are so fun to fly I’m sure they will get more than a little people wanting to fly these

[@tylerrose4416]

The 802 looks like the IL-2 of farming aircraft

[@ZudinGodofWar]

?

[@backrowbrighton]

Yes, I got a distinct IL-2 vibe too?

[@phallicusoblongus]

Its definitely the blocky canopy

[@dustyroads834]

I agree. My first thought looking at the canopy was of a Stuka dive bomber.

[@pacovalderrama4109]

it¨s an air tractor.

[@Collaborator7]

Its cockpit canopy evokes "Stukas Over Disneyland" by The Dickies. Growing up in Wichita, a friend's father who was an aviation engineer , knew of some single engine turbo props that people had proposed for light ground attack aircraft. There has always been some advantages over attack helos. Its good to see one service has recognized that finally

[@tylerwilliams33]

"a seven nation army couldn't hold me back"

[@fishpotpete]

Those crop dusters are scary maneuverable. You'll be driving along and then one will just pop up behind a stand of trees, dive back down, and make super tight turns. They're like a little sports car. I can see how they could easily fly under radar and visual observation. We'll have to see how they do in combat situations.

[@maximaldinotrap]

Yeah, propeller aircraft can out turn even a F-22.

[@TheNicestPig]

Shredded by the slightest hint of SHORADS. Especially ones with IRST and cannons i.e Tunguska/Pantsir. These should only be used in low intensity conflict, not one like in Ukraine right now.

[@jean-lucpicard3012]

One scared the heck out of me in Colorado once, I'm pulling a heavy trailer down the highway and suddenly one buzzed right over my truck and started spraying the field next to me

[@benfennell6842]

@@maximaldinotrap I can out turn an F-22 on foot doesn't really make it relevant lmao

[@bignibba380]

“Flying under the radar” doesn’t work anymore. This will be used in areas where they have total air superiority

[@alanmccright2282]

"...a maximum combat payload of 6,000 pounds." By comparison, each B-17 bomber on the Schweinfurt raids only carried about 4,600 pounds of bombs, while the A-10 can carry 16,000 pounds of ordinance. Cheap to operate and with a loitering capability 5.4 times that of the A-10, this seems like a very well thought out program.

[@troyb.4101]

Better do the math. you can buy 500 A-10's at 3 billion. not 74 of these.

[@VidGamer123]

@@troyb.4101 Probably, but jet fuel and maintenance for jet aircraft ain't cheap either.

[@MeerkatADV]

Its combat payload is 8,000 lbs. The author misspoke.

[@peceed]

@@troyb.4101 Do the math. Military AT-802 costs 4 million USD. A-10 is at least 10 times more expensive.

[@pectenmaximus231]

@@troyb.4101they weren’t even 6 million when they first came out, and they’re more like 20 mil a pop at best now. But also congress has spent god knows how much keeping them going over the last decades. Up to a billion in contracts for new wings alone, for example. Bearing in mind the A10 is my favourite but damn, for someone telling people to ‘do the math’….

[@nickm5647]

One benefit that wasn’t covered is that this plane seems far more likely to be able to take advantage of rudimentary and improvised runways that more high tech modern fighters wouldn’t be able to hope to land on safely.

[@Swordcrusher]

A10 can land on pretty bad runways but this will need basically nothing

[@Theo-vn9hm]

@@Swordcrusher The A-10A had a lot of issues that were fixed with the A-10C, but then the A-10C lost a lot of the advantages the A-10A had. The A-10C just cannot compete with proper multirole aircraft, doesn't have the advantages of the A, and the A is just not good enough

[@wisenber]

@@Theo-vn9hm " proper multirole aircraft" The A10 was never meant to be that. It was meant for close in air support which most multirole aircraft cannot accomplish.

[@Theo-vn9hm]

@@wisenber False The "Close" in CAS refers only to the fact that the plane is supporting troops directly on the contact line. For the longest time that did indeed mean that the aircraft had to physically get close to the ground to get a good view of the battlefield and deliver payloads onto the enemy while not endangering your own troops, because there were no guided munitions and pilots relied on the Mk 1 eyeball. Thanks to targeting pods and precision munitions, not only can the pilot get a clearer view of the battlefield from kilometers above the ground, but also deliver payloads with pinpoint accuracy that not even the best dive bombing pilot can achieve. The A-10 is absolutely perfect for the pre-precision munition era, but that era is long gone. Even during the invasion of Iraq, an A-10 ended up strafing and killing British Scimtars because the pilot simply did not have good enough visual contact with them, and misidentified them. A-10 pilots used to carry binoculars with them. And that is not even mentioning the survivability. Modern AA systems are simply too precise and lethal for "taking flak" or "tanking hits" to be viable at all in any peer conflict. A multirole aircraft with speed to get in and out quickly has a much higher chance of survival. The A-10 offers a huge morale boost to the troops, but that's about it, all its ruggedness and time on station could either be met by a dedicated COIN (Counter Insurgency) aircraft or a drone. The A-10 achieved the vast majority of its kills using missiles or guided bombs, not its gun. This is not a criticism to the engineers of the A-10, they masterfully delivered what was asked of them, it's just that what was asked of them did not stay relevant.

[@wisenber]

@@Theo-vn9hm "False" You assessment of CAS is false. There's that. Ask a grunt if he appreciates the difference between an A10 that can loiter at low altitude with a 30 mm cannon with 1200 rounds versus an F16 that can fly over for less than 8 minutes with a couple of precision munitions. If that weren't the case, this video would not exist and there would be no need for the crop duster.

[@hectorcorona9536]

One big advantage about this plane that wasn't mentioned is that the sky warden is designed to be maintained by a sible person with regular tools that fit on a toolbox, so there is no need to get the same level of logistics that a jet airplane would need.

[@stephengregory1655]

Hoooooold up... The sky warden is a turbo prop, Not just a piston engine. There is STILL a complicated jet engine in there. Just an easier and cheaper to maintain one. Farmers don't open up their air tractors in the barn and fix them like they do actual tractors. They still take them to service shops

[@alexandermiller6317]

@@stephengregory1655 Exactly. Agricultural aviation has evolved quite a bit. It's professional pilots flying turboprops these days. Not farmers flying Stermans.

​@stephengregory1655 The engine is very reliable and was built to be serviced by minimal crew. Turboprops are even less complicated than piston engines if you have the knowledge.

[@yes_head]

Soon to be seen in a guerilla war near you. But yeah -- when I see a cropduster converted to military use I get the feeling the DoD is tired of getting their wallets raped by companies like Boeing. And as long as this thing is halfway survivable in a firefight it could end up being a brilliant piece of kit.

[@stankygeorge]

When you get the Politicians out of the mix, soldiers will decide what they need and develop solid equipment that will get the job done, efficiently and cheaply!

[@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent]

The Air Tractor are tough reliable aircraft. Durable and used heavily. To decide on using a durable crop duster frame into a military use attacker actually makes sense. Its basically performing the same role it does as a air tractor dropping its payload on a target :P. I bet someone took a good look and thought. Holy crap what are we doing with creating a top new aircraft when we literally have one that's been in use by civilians for the last couple of decades?

[@thomasohanlon1060]

@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent So when was the last time a crop duster was shot at by a DShK? Why not find or build a proven combat aircraft like the Douglas A1 Skyraider it was in use from 1946 to the early 1980s.

[@ShrekMeBe]

Put some decent avionics on it and some good air to air missiles and this becomes almost a parity threat to incoming jets..

[@Shrouded_reaper]

Don't worry mate, this advanced crop duster will still be running the DoD for 100m each plus all the Raytheon weapon systems tacked onto it.

[@anonymousbosch9265]

I was an aviation electrician and I’d love to work on something this simple and straightforward in field conditions

[@allangibson8494]

The electronics on this thing are anything but simple and straightforward - this is a full ground attack fighter electronics fit in a cropduster.

[@anonymousbosch9265]

@@allangibson8494 as opposed to the fiber optics in an f18 or the solenoid spaghetti in a swept wing f14?

[@pieppy6058]

i love the phrase "solenoid spaghetti"

[@fastfreddy80]

Wow, I never would have thought of that. I recognized it as an air tractor immediately and I can see how it could be a good CAS aircraft. It was designed in the 1960's and first flew in 1973 so it is already an old design. It is closely related to the Grumman Ag-Cat designed in the 1950's and was designed to be very rugged, maneuverable and easy to maintain due to its designed purpose of spraying crops.

[@longrider42]

I thought it looked like that one. So many other good designs, and now this. Okay, hope it does the job well.

[@fastfreddy80]

@Joshua Jones True, the Ag-Cat is a biplane but it set the pattern for modern crop dusters and the Air Tractor borrowed a lot from it.

[@fastfreddy80]

@Joshua Jones Michigan Tech University

[@j.griffin]

It only took them 60 years to see its potential…

[@j.griffin]

@Joshua Jones At least his comments are relevant. You,on the other hand, are a good argument against free speech. No further comment.

[@Dram1984]

The ability to take off and land on a little strip of road basically anywhere also makes it very useful.

[@HANKTHEDANKEST]

I've seen these little planes close-up in fire service, and let me tell you, their goofy looks and small size do NOT convey the power these things are carrying. I was on a beach across the lake from an active fire, and they were filling up right in front of me. I could feel it in my stomach when they hit the water, and when fully-loaded and taking off again, they didn't seem to struggle at all. This is a fairly small plane, dropping down and hitting the water HARD and taking off again with thousands of pounds of sloshing liquid aboard. This little plane can SCOOT, and I have no doubt that in military service it will attract some very talented aviators. IT'S A STUNT PLANE WITH GUNS, COME ON!

[@ClackClackKLR]

I know several pilots in South Dakota who would be aces with this

[@lindaj5492]

Perhaps Red Bull competitions will include them

[@obediahpolkinghorniii564]

Stunt Plane with Guns is also a great name for a Tinder profile.

[@edkrassenstein5534]

​@matiasd.c9949 not quite. I definitely wouldn't say that this plane is low quality at all. This plane beat out 5 others for the military contract that it won. This video misses a couple of the key reasons it was chosen. It can take off and land on much smaller runways than current military aircraft, it can be disassembled/built by a couple guys with a standard toolbox, and they can fit it inside cargo planes. It's basically a new strategy with this plane. It's going to be deployed with small units in remote areas.

[@flashwashington2735]

@@edkrassenstein5534 Yes! Logistics! This thing will be easy to maintain, even if stained within and near target adverse forces.

[@keionbradley4254]

I served in the USMC and talking from a more conventional perspective as an infantry men, this allows our forward troops/Spec-ops units to have a more readily available and MUCH CHEAPER means to get the support they need. That means more munitions on target, more surveillance when things are uncertain, and most importantly more peace of mind when your stuck down in the heart of Africa doing god knows what To the untrained eye this might seem like a down grade but its used for a different mission, simply put you wouldn't use a nuke to get rid of a fly you use a fly swatter, also helps with logistics having something that is easily taken care of and not complex to repair/maintain

[@dbarbour]

Ever consider having 21 hours of overhead ISR and strike capability from an MQ-9 with SIGINT and FMV going back to decision-makers in real-time? No? Boy... you infantrymen are really missing out. Maybe that is why the USMC is buying MQ-9s and not this aircraft.

[@keionbradley4254]

@@dbarbour Never said it was for me OR infantrymen. Of course drones are better for versatility. But how much does it cost to fly one? How much does it cost to maintain one? Where can you send a military grade drone without looking inconspicuous If you can tell me of a drone OR aircraft that cost less than 20,000$ to takeoff and give the same capabilities you mentioned that wasn't SPECICALLY made low intensity/armed recon. Ill gladly say you are right

[@keionbradley4254]

@@dbarbour the goal here isn't to have the best in slot support craft, its to have a cost effective one that can be taken anywhere anytime with out breaking the bank especially when dealing with standard insurgencies, asymmetric warfare in a minimal combat environment. Or say I don't know.....training *blank* in a *blank blank* conflict zone *blank blank* REDACTED

[@darinladd5312]

@@keionbradley4254omg you're as accurate as you are hilarious. it wouldn't surprise me to see marines purchase this system over more fa-18s. reminds me of a Pattin quote: "amateurs talk strategy; professionals speak logistics."

[@keionbradley4254]

why would Marines purchase this? when did i say that we should? Please read mycomment again, FORWARD TROOPS (Recon, Calvary Scouts, any primary ISTAR or armed recon unit) /and Special missions units. You speak logistics with your snide comment when THIS is the exact reason are getting it for the mentioned groups. Cost Effectiveness @@darinladd5312

[@DrumToTheBassWoop]

It's crazy how the humble propeller plane still sees action today.

[@dulguunjargal1199]

propeller aircraft are very maneuverable So you can avoid bullets

[@frostyflame4008]

@@dulguunjargal1199 and their heat quite possibly not hot enough for thermal missiles

[@softdrink-0]

The good ole piston engine

[@IVORY123100]

Because America is spending all its money on Ukraine , Hormone Blockers and Drag Queen Storybook Hour .

[@nooneimportant460]

@@IVORY123100 🙄🤦‍♂️

[@joshuaalistair3193]

I used to fly AH-64 coverage for some of these guys. It was not unusual for them to push the UAVs to monitor the perimeter and use the Apache for direct surveillance. Part of this is the fact that pilots above you have more situational awareness than drone operators sitting back in the States somewhere. Part of this is because the pilot above you can make quick decisions how to engage the enemy without having to get endless approvals from folks sitting in the safety of their stateside duty. Part of this is the simple fact that a pilot above you can simply strap on a pair of NVG's and find a laser lasso or can create their own laser lasso. And I suspect part of this is because the pilot above you doesn't have to transmit their video feed keeping missions a bit more private.

[@GregStachowski]

Why am I not surprised that SOCOM preferred loiter/weapons load while the Air Force LAAR program would have gone for flight performance (fast, fully aerobatic Tucano/Texans) had LAAR come to fruition. (BTW a video with your views on the Textron Scorpion would be nice, I think that's a nice concept which had a lot of potential.)

[@ricardokowalski1579]

What strikes me odd is that it has no Sidewinder, and not even a 20mm gun Noticeable. Cheers!!!!

[@ronin47-ThorstenFrank]

@@ricardokowalski1579 I´m not sure if there´s no AA capability at all - given all the avionics seen in the video AND the fact that MANPADS like the Stinger could be easily integrated on many platforms.

[@thethirdman225]

If this came from the program I think it did, the Scorpion was the first to be eliminated. I believe the cost was something like $20 million per copy.

[@thethirdman225]

@@ricardokowalski1579 That’s because true CAS is carried out only in conditions of air superiority. This aircraft is not intended to be able to fight pitched battles against other aircraft.

[@Dori-Ma]

@@ricardokowalski1579 Ignoring that fitting a light-weight, anti-air missile to current hardpoints is easy peasy, the current generation of Hellfire II can fulfill that anti-air role if necessary. As to the lack of a dedicated 20mm gun, gun pods my brother, gun pods. And I second a video on the Scorpion.

[@donnyarmstrong9559]

AT-802's are a common site out here in the west for wild land fire fighting. Super maneuverable, durable, but wont win any races! Looks like a natural selection, even if its a bit odd!

[@archimedesfromteamfortress2]

Won't win any races? Damn there goes my hope that I'm winning a race with a crop duster

[@stevenhoman2253]

This traditional agricultural aircraft could also be used, in its downtime, as a crop-duster. The armed forces would amortise the cost over a far shorter period that way.😁😁

[@Cheeseatingjunglista]

Must make sure the pilots are certain of which role their fulfilling, removing bugs or simply removing the entire Farm🤔

[@ProfessorTravis]

Could the military get an agricultural tax write off!?

[@stevenhoman2253]

@@ProfessorTravis If they could, they would. And they are heavily armed.

[@Makrelacz]

I bet that half of the equipment on board cost more than the aircraft itself. Tacticool crop duster, love it!

[@andrewince8824]

This feels like development the way it was. BF108 Taifun rich boys toy became the legendary BF109. Supermarine took racers and tweaked until we had the Spitfire. The DC-2 became the B-18 Bolo Bomber (although basically died out during Pearl Harbour), the DC3 not only invented modern air liners, it became the GOAT transport during WW2. It's nice to see an otherwise dull or overlooked airframe get its moment of glory and some much deserved recognition.

[@Cheeseatingjunglista]

Not just Transport, but load on the GE miniguns, you have slow and low loitering wall of lead/death ground attack monster that was the first successsful gunship platform, the AC- 47 Spooky - aka Puff the Magic Dragon - also beloved by the covert guys, just like this new kid, not on the block, mainly I suspect on out of the way widernesses that are soon to become, even more wilderness/shot to shit nowheresvilles

[@Yora21]

The things that designers can do when they can choose the design specs and don't have arbitrary numbers mandated by non-engineers...

[@StudleyDuderight]

Pearl Harbor* It's an American port and you will spell it in freedom unit language. You can argue with me when your nation has a flag on the moon.

[@Matthew-li7we]

@@StudleyDuderight You killed me with that last line!

[@cannedpiss5178]

@@StudleyDuderight This makes me seethe so much, but that last line is too funny for me to stay mad!

[@Matthew-li7we]

I feel like 90% of the comments miss the fact that this is intended to use against insurgencies that have, essentially, no air/surface to air capabilities, as long as it can take a little bit of small arms fire and keep flying then this seems to be an acceptable cheap way to provide close air support. Besides... I kind of want one of these!

[@vipvip-tf9rw]

but toyota with some 20 mils or dshk would take down this thing from couple bursts

[@natebox4550]

@@vipvip-tf9rw exactly, and those are very common.

[@marcospayero2959]

Insurgencies actually have air/surface missiles, in the soviet-afghan war the CIA gave a lot of MANPADS and AA missiles, when the war ended the taliban keeped the weapons that the CIA gave them and as you know the taliban ended up revealing, also the taliban have bought AA missiles and weapons through the black market and using it against american soldiers, and also you think the small arms are nothing against planes but there was a female A-10 pilot flying over a firefight and she got hit several at the point that she lost half of a wing, a engine and broke the A-10s hydraulic which forced her to handle the stabilizer and the flight controls of the plane with manual reversion mode and she still managed to fly for 1 hour and land in a airbase without difficulties, and the A-10 is literally made to be punished which is the most survivable and versitable aircraft, so even with small arms this thing would get shot down.

[@burtlakebuddy]

do you think this would be good for border patrol and watching drug smugglers too? It seems as though it would be a very good plane for that type of function... IMO

[@f-5e126]

@@marcospayero2959 a few things there one the taliban are no longer an insurgency there an army with the capability to buy modern equipment and two the fact you think the a10 is still viable at coin/cas is laughable it was never good to begin with for reasons I can't be bothered to explain right now because I've done it a 100 time already. 3 an aircraft doesn't have to be strong to be affective that A 10 story is over hyped only a bit of the wing was ripped of and most aircraft can still fly like that. Any way I'm getting side tracked my point is that the a 10 didn't get hit directly it was proximity if any aircraft gets hit with a rocket its gonna crash that's why black hawk and apache helicopter pilots are trained to perform special manovers if they spot an RPG rocket heading there direction and this plane will be no different as its extremely agile.

[@johnscarborough4746]

Long loiter time, modern communication and observation suite with austere field capabilities and minimal logistical support needed (comparatively) . Pretty much ideal for the COIN/FID missions that we almost never hear about

[@davidhollenshead4892]

The only big issue is the crew having to pee in a bottle...

[@ivancho5854]

@@davidhollenshead4892 We've all done it! 🤣

[@Br1cht]

They are probably for the un-yabbed so Americans will get toknow them real good.

[@Chronicallyonline97511]

Wouldn’t a drone just do that job?

[@MichelleW870]

@@Chronicallyonline97511 drones would be more expensive than one of these

[@tanksouth]

I recognize this craft. In Texas they are everywhere. Dusting crops and such. Incredibly acrobatic. Fun to watch. Thank you

[@Ulfcytel]

Crewed aircraft do not need the communications and uplink systems required to run a UAV, which may simplify operations, especially of a covert nature. Nor is there any signal-to-command-centre-and-back time delay between seeing and doing.

[@SheepInACart]

I'm going to wager their is more wight of communications on this air tractor conversion than simlar role drones, and time delay is half the speed of light (almost 1.5million kilometers per second), your command area can be a thousand plus kilometers away and its still a small fraction of the latency of the fastest consumer computer monitors. The controls on the aircraft (including guns) simply cannot respond fast enough as to have meaningful impact because of delay. Similar erroneous claims of manned aircraft include control feedback, but most modern fighters controls are already fully electronic, so you'd feel the exact same thing safely outside the warzone. Lets not talk around the elephant in the room, they are ONLY doing this because its cheaper.

[@davidcox4436]

There's the legal aspect too. Many ROI's require man-in-the-loop to operate. This is easier when that person is in the cockpit and not at base. In cockpit decisions are known and backed up by superiors. When the operator is in a portacabin on home soil, it would be easier to defer to higher in the chain of command, and ultimately political leadership. Which complicates decisions much more than mere comms latency.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@SheepInACart There's supposedly a two second delay when flying Predators. Latency isn't defined by speed of light, the speed of the transmit signal is negligible compared to the latency in the system itself. Every time a signal has to be received, processed, and sent back again adds a few hundred milliseconds of delay.

[@SheepInACart]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD No, not 2 seconds, and no, not hundreds of milliseconds, both of those are orders of magnitude wrong. A router handling a packet typically adds a handful of microseconds, not hundreds of milliseconds, and for the predator between node transmission added 20milliseconds total 200milliseconds observed, which itself constituted less than 10% of the allowable shot box. This also isn't some kind of super high performance code or system, its poorly optimized and runs basic over the counter china lake processors, with data logging itself accounting for an average of 38milliseconds (19%) of the delay added. A further 66milliseconds (33%) was target data being entered into the computer... both these tasks are also present for computers on manned aircraft shooting the sidewinder missile, although many have far better completion times than the predator itself does. Ergo making the predators (admittedly lackluster, 200ms is 82ft of travel) response times faster isn't about reducing network delay between pilot and aircraft, its about reducing the complexities of the route information is transferred WITHIN the predators own internal systems. Putting a pilot in a seat with poor forwards visibility of the ground bar via the glass cockpit doesn't intrinsically reduce firing delay, it does drastically increase the risk the pilot dies, which is going to happen more often on routine landings than enemy fire. Nobody weeps for the drone thats written off on the side of a friendly airfield, least of all when you can still reuse most parts to maintain other functionally identical drones... while pilots families strongly feel differently when their fathers, husbands and sons burn, this crop duster is a strong nod that the armed service commanders do not observe this as different, its still only one operational unit to them.

[@PatrioticGinger1776]

@@SheepInACart one thing you forgot to add to your calculus, warfighters typically wanna be in the action. If you talk to most service members in combat focused jobs, they typically want to be present for the fight and not state side. The added danger makes things more fun.

[@68Boca]

I have to say , that cockpit layout looks "cosy". Don't think many would enjoy 8 hours inside there.

[@andrewculley8524]

At least it flies slow enough you can open a window to let farts out

[@Trexbed]

@@andrewculley8524 lmfa

[@JuanVazquez-fz7ny]

just let them open the window for a while

[@sirpuffball6366]

I mean, considering CAS is 90% about sitting kilometers away from the battlefield and launching volleys of precision guided missiles on designated targets, this kind of makes sense

[@JostVanWair]

Thank you. The A-10 is a bit of an obsolete design. Big, heavy, slow and a colossal target. No point in having a massive ass gun when you can do the same damage with a missile or two.

[@sirpuffball6366]

@@JostVanWair really, you can do *significantly more* damage and with much less splash that can hit friendlies

[@JostVanWair]

@@sirpuffball6366 Yep. The A-10 shills always say "but muh GAU-8!" A hellfire or maverick does the exact same thing but you only need one of them and you don't need to put your aircrew in nearly as much danger to deploy them.

[@Inertia888]

Makes me wonder if they're going for a cheap frame, in order to test all the very expensive tech, before putting it on the more advanced NGAD project? 🤔

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

​@@Inertia888 probably not, US drones are much more modern and expensive than those little fellas.

[@skyraider1776]

Might just be the next generation Douglas A-1E ! Thank you for an excellent article. Much appreciated.

[@poncho6784]

Just today I watched an Air Tractor make several passes at an altitude that could be measured in inches, and turn tighter than some road going vehicles. So yea, I get it.

[@Inkling777]

Agreed! Another factor that makes this an excellent choice is that it is built to operate very close to the ground just like combat support. Here's a tour of the factory where these planes are built. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIexg2akf5qtqqM

[@shanerooney7288]

Close to the ground... where all the enemy with their guns are.

[@johngalt2506]

@@shanerooney7288 Just yesterday I was watching a sky tractor dust the fields around my house and I remember thinking damn, if I had a 240 I could light that thing up.

[@rodrigoaguilera4454]

@@shanerooney7288 close to the ground is safer against missiles and MANPADS.Maybe they added titanium or kevlar armor for bullets.

[@shanerooney7288]

USA's *Stinger FIM-92B* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 30m. Russia's *Strela-1 9M31* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 30m. Russia's *Strela-1 9M31M* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 10m. Chinese *FN-6* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 15m. Chinese *FN-16* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 10m. Very close to the ground isn't safe. VERY VERY close to the ground is only comparativly safe. Sure, a plane can in theory fly just 0.5m above the ground, but so can the missiles in theory. Then you come across a tree more than 15m tall. Or a building. Or a power line. Crop dusters rutinely fly super close to the crops they dust. Sure. But that is a flat, open, level field with all the crops of the same height. Not a combat zone. As for defending against bullets.... You need THICK armor to stop a bullet. And that armor needs to be even thicker the closer you get (and you're planning to fly pretty cose). And thicker still if the enemy has anything bigger than a 7.62. You then ALSO need the Kevlar to stop spalling. It isn't armor _or_ kevlar. It is armor _and_ kevlar. Then there's the problem that not everything can be armored. The wings, the tail, the propeller, cockpit canopy, the weapon points (and the bombs attached to them). Then add to that how this plane doesn't have the same level or redundancy (2nd engine and extra large wings) that the A10 has.

[@jaysonpida5379]

Appears to be an excellent choice. Combat damage should be VERY easy to repair in the field... Bet there will be aerodynamic pods for the underwing hardpoints to carry individual SOF soldiers or for personnel evac.

[@ivancho5854]

Jesus! Worse than Ryanair. 🤣

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

@@ivancho5854 not as bad as the TB-3 bucket gunners tho lol

[@Miles26545]

Literally duct tape for 99% of damage

[@cosmosyn2514]

@@5peciesunkn0wn You get fresh air?

[@AHSValor]

@@Miles26545 If the spars aren't busted, all other airframe damage is largely superficial

[@alexanderkaminsky6811]

Never ceases to amaze me how the military continues to never learn lessons. This seems like a really good aircraft and there should have always been something similar in service. This is exactly the reason the USAF had to use the venerable Skyraider, which was also a great aircraft for the basically the same role and for escorting rescue helicopters.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The USAF still lost about 200 of them in SAR missions, though.

[@thh4584]

The USAF already has the T-6 texan 2 inventory they should went with that, this thing is the typical case of cram everything and anything into it hope it actually works.

[@PocketBrain]

I was gonna say, reminds me of the A-1 Skyraider. "Do it for me, Sandy, I'd do it for you."

[@trioptimum9027]

It's politics, both military and civilian. First, the Air Force doesn't really want the CAS mission in the first place, they'd rather be thinking about fighters or bombers. So they ain't exactly been fighting for it. Second, since the A-10 reached retirement age, they've run several sets of trials for a new CAS bird. Here's what happens: they try out the Super Tucano and then Beechcraft halfasses a conversion of something or other. The Super Tucano wins by a mile. But it's Brazilian, and Beechcraft is from Kansas and has the ear of the Kansas Congressional delegation. So there's a bunch of pressure to pick the home team. Now, the Air Force doesn't want to be saddled with some garbage just so Kansas can have a little pork (and IIRC some of the Beechcraft entries have been *really* halfassed). But they also don't care enough to fight hard for the Tucano... So they end up just declaring that they didn't find anything that was perfect so they aren't gonna buy anything this time.

[@joekellyou]

I believe the advantage over the Mojave in this role is about maintenance. First, this can be maintained by one guy with minimal training and a toolkit from anyone’s garage. Secondly, it’s also going to be cheaper per flight hour. Mainly because of the ease of maintenance, but also in cost of parts.

[@Rigidflex17]

I recommended this aircraft to SOCOM in 1986. Air Force was extremely hostile to the idea. They wanted to find the closest thing to the P-51 they could find.

[@lylestavast7652]

I was just thinking the other day - wonder if they've taken the effort to breakdown some of these older, really prime machine and re-design them in CAD, do FEA/CFD work to optimize the designs on everything including engines etc... so they can turn some around for future missions where they'd both be adequate and effective... so much to be gained by having a working device that you can optimize with today's tools and mfg techniques... P51 was the one I had in mind.... plus it would give Maverick a lead into a new movie someday...

[@tave7779]

Don't worry you won in the end

[@elmoreglidingclub3030]

My fried and I recommended Piper Pawnees for glider towing and J3 Cubs for SAR to the Air Force’s official auxiliary (the CAP) but were ignored. They gotta spend gazillion$ more on Cessna 182s with glass panels and leather seats so all the fake colonels can feel important-and “fly” them. Skills and mission long ago gave way to spend and prestige.

[@allangibson8494]

In 1984 Piper was trying to sell the Airforce new build turboprop P-51 Mustangs (as the Piper PA-48 Enforcer).

[@allangibson8494]

@@lylestavast7652 Look up the Piper PA-48 Enforcer.

[@peterstorch1252]

Turbine crop dusters have been used in bush wars in Africa since 1980’s. Armed with napalm, machine guns or light canons, and or rockets, these Ag. trace have the hitting power of a W.W. 2. Destroyer Fantastic little poor man’s Air Force. In Vietnam war, Cessna tweeties were the ‘ ducks guts’ also to the diggers in the “ J” .

[@Sixtyhat25]

Thank you for the quick video, i had no clue this was even accepted

[@Patrick-k9q]

Kind of/sort of reminds me of the use of OV-10 Broncos in Vietnam. Not a perfect comparison, but a similar one considering the needs, mission profile(s) and likely primary threats in a COIN or 'low intensity' environment.

[@richardsawyer5428]

It makes sense to use an agricultural aeroplane as the basis for this aircraft. The maintenance kit will consist of bailing twine and a can of WD40. Job's a good 'un.

[@thomaskendall452]

Don't forget a roll of duct tape!

[@josephpadula2283]

Duct tape? That’s depot level maintenance !

[@jgdooley2003]

This has echoes in the initial deveopment of tanks from agricultural tracked vehicles in the 1910's. I think Holt was the manufacturer of the original tracked vehicle. Later developed into the first tanks.

[@AlyxiSistahTweaky25]

Sweet, an engine all the old UH-1N / AH-1J/T engine mechs can work on. This uses a single power section of the the T400 twin-pac. A workhorse that has been flying for 60+ years.

[@abandonedaccount123]

so cool to see prop aircraft still in service!

[@NothernNate]

It's always good to have options. especially cost-effective ones! 👊🏼

[@fixedG]

This has been cooking for a long time. I remember talking with a buddy maybe 6 or 7 years ago about how what they really needed was the Embraer Super Tucano and it's an interesting comparison. The Super Tucano has over double the service ceiling and three times the climb rate, more power, the same stall speed, same range, 50% faster cruise speed, but it's also heavier and with a much lower max take-off weight. I imagine the Super Tucano would be able to loiter longer at higher altitude, dive and engage, and climb out of trouble faster, but not carry as much payload. That kind of specialization might have been firmly overtaken by drones nowadays. If payload is king, the Sky Warden's nearly 60' wingspan and immense max take-off weight is going to be tough to match.

[@dogboy0912]

I mean, every Navy, USMC, and Air Force pilot spends time flying the T-6 Super Texan in flight school. The AT-6 is floating around out there somewhere, but both the T-6 and Super Tucano are, as you state, several times the plane as far as flight capability. They were adopted because they retained "jet-like" qualities for training purposes while being cheaper to run. It's still a lot of plane. Hell, the T-6 has ejection seats. This thing on the other hand, is probably an order of magnitude cheaper to run. I mean it is a no shit crop duster with maybe a few small tweaks and a big avionics suite upgrade.

[@reckyourself6948]

Tbh in modern times they're way safer the closer they are to the ground. Any random bumfuck forces might be employing ADA these days.

[@RedXlV]

From what I understand, SOCOM already had a handful of Super Tucanos.

[@BernasLL]

Speaking of Embraer, this looks like Ipanema got stretched and fitted with military equipment lol, bizarre.

[@texasranger24]

I like the idea of buying somewhat off the shelf to save money instead of increasing Lockheeds payout per share. However, the Textron Scorpion seemed extremely promising to me. A business jet rather than a crop duster. Longer range and higher speed. Yet still very affordable and modular, a military aircraft from the ground up.

[@Feyser1970]

a close air support plane doesn t need long range and speed , it isn t its roll to dogfight

[@apachegaming9392]

@@Feyser1970 oh but they do. CAS in the modern world does not require the aircraft to be within visual of friendlies or enemies.

[@allangibson8494]

Business Jets burn fuel like crazy at low level. This is intended to keep your opponent hiding for hours on end by just being in the general area.

[@evangalinsky2499]

​@@apachegaming9392if you'd like I can explain why your entire comment is wrong on multiple levels.

[@WickedTownIvan]

At-6 Wolverine

[@salimj1485]

I heard about this first in the documentary Planes by Pixar--a very inspiring development of an under dog competitor.

[@ridhosamudro2199]

Alright Disney, Planes 3: Close Support when?

[@m60hog1]

Dusty goes to war.

[@sincereeastman6972]

Planes wasn’t made by Pixar it was just Disney

[@stevenhall9762]

It seems to me that UAV depend a lot upon satellite connection. If that is accurate and SATS are put out of commission due to enemy jamming, this aircraft can still fill the role of of close-in combat ground support as did the Raven aircraft during the Vietnam conflict.

[@98erics]

Those air tractor pilots fly those things like crazy! I saw a guy fly upside down no more than 15 feet off the ground one time.

[@colt45strickland]

I used to work for air tractor's competitor. We had been working with a PMC to make basically the same thing for years. (Iomax Archangel) My company went bankrupt a few years ago unfortunately.

[@colt45strickland]

We also had planes that were sent to South America in the war on drugs to cropdust drug crops. Had an old guy that was sent down there as a pilot and has a few scars from AK rounds.

[@olgagaming5544]

@@colt45strickland haha nice

[@joestephan1111]

I live near a California fire plane base where their aircraft fly right over us on their way in & out. The fire fighting version of this plane is being heavily used to get into tight places where the big planes can't go.

[@timgreer1487]

I have experience around these as air tankers. There pretty quiet. Whisper right up on you if your not paying attention.

[@ligma9853]

Even though it might seem weird it would be actually very cost effective and since ground attack and support aircraft are mostly used when an army has the air superiority on their side it wouldn’t have to worry about enemy fighters shooting them down

[@azureprophet]

@Based Boi ask a Russian helicopter in Ukraine what happens.

[@old_guard2431]

My first thought on the appearance - a cross between a crop duster and an IL-2 Sturmovik

[@johnchallis8619]

More like a child's drawing of a Stuka...

[@richardthompson5810]

Are they fitted with Stuka dive-bomber sirens?

[@Sol_Invictus777]

my only real concern is that the low flying speed and low altitude, couldn't it be shot out of the sky with small arms fire?

[@goatfather2966]

I grew up on the wing of my grandfather's Stearman. My family owned a crop dusting company out of Ft pierce and Belle Glade Florida. I always loved the turbo prop planes. Crazy cool.

[@cwr8618]

Jealous!

[@mkozachek]

The most interesting aspect of this aircraft, to me, is that it looks like it’s set up for hunter killer missions with one TGP set aside for the pilot and another for the copilot / gunner. Which also makes me wonder if it has capabilities to do two simultaneous GBU attacks against different targets at the same time. Like being able to strike a convoy’s head and tail simultaneously from one aircraft attack. If so that’s actually a huge deal for what the aircraft’s mission profile is.

[@SlvrWlf88]

The maneuvering those things can do at damn near no speed or altitude are underrated

[@AZREDFERN]

I’ve seen these in person. They’re much larger than you expect, dwarfing the A-10 or F-15. I’ve always wanted to see a single engine aircraft that uses a single C-130 engine. Something that just a super efficient weapons/electronics platform. This is about as close as you can get.

[@samleeroy5638]

I think the availability of spare parts and fuel might be a secret helper here making the thing realy fast to repair instead of waiting on bottleneckecked parts availability.

[@JeffBilkins]

With two guys and all the electronics it can make a great local aware team-up with drones, especially coordinating with weapons carriers and suicide loiterers.

[@shooter2055]

Holy Bf-109! --a strut-braced horizontal stabilizer!! Back to the future!!!

[@svennoren9047]

... or forward to the past.

[@eastoforion]

loved the airtractor already, this is so cool!

[@repalmore]

This is a perfect forward air control aircraft. Used to be the 2.75 missiles were used to mark the target or as an offset aim point. Maybe this will be done in the future as well.

[@0thPAg]

How is this not going to die to the first enemy unit equipped with something as puny as a stinger missile ?

[@repalmore]

@@0thPAg Anything other than a fighter is a sitting duck to other fighters. You are right about that. An air born forward air controller isn't for directing air to air combat but rather air to ground. The only way this is effective is after air dominance is established. No use even trying ground attacks till you kill off all the air threats. Even if the exact same aircraft is used the load out is completely different and if you put air to air ordinance on an aircraft that has a ground attack sortie you are either displacing ground attack ordinance or just making it ineffective in its ground support role.

[@camelthegamer7165]

Interesting, maybe she'll bring back noseart on planes. Either way, her spiritual grandmother; the Sky Raider, is paid homage in her name and function (Sky Raider was a prop aircraft birthed at the dawning of the Jet Propelled Age). Can't wait for combat reports and pilot opinions in the field.

[@Salamandra40k]

Sort of like the idea of "any tank vs a force without tanks is a huge advantage," any plane vs a force without planes is a huge advantage too. Especially since this plane can have a huge loiter time and provide smart munitions while being cheap and easy to maintain. Theres a reason the air force was using the OV-10 Bronco at the same time as the F4 Phantom 2, and its not because the VC was a menace with their Mig-21s...

[@darinladd5312]

finally, someone mentions the ov-10. you nailed it. btw: ever see blue, unmarked ov-10s with sprayers flying out of Patrick or Curaçao? seems like some of these 75 aircraft might sneak their way into that rotation....

[@MichaelMartin-rg3if]

What kind of a river runner and beach comber a militarized airfish 8 could be. Wow. Nice video glad you made it

[@grahamepigney8565]

This isn't really a specialised ground attack aircraft, it is an Intelligence, Survelliance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) with STOL capability to be used in an anti-terrorist and irregular (asymmetric) warfare situations. Rather different to a specialised A10 Warthog ground attack aircraft.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

It's a modern super tweet

[@kp-legacy-5477]

its better than the a10

[@marcospayero2959]

@@kp-legacy-5477 You wish dude, this thing was not design to be punished like the A-10 and the A-10 can carry way more pounds than this, a toyota with a 20mil can shot this thing down, also visibility is very low and speed too, and prodiving info for 8 hours doesnt make sense because you will ran out of fuel before those 8 hours, also insurgency at these days have MANPADS and more modern system today, not like in WW2 when they had to use AAA to shot down aircraft, this also will be intercepted very easily, so this is definitely not better than the A-10. and im reminding you that modern warfare exists.

[@kp-legacy-5477]

@@marcospayero2959 and this is where I point out you clearly know nothing about the A10 It's outdated and sluggish as hell It's a gun with wings They are so easily shot down that you can only use them in insurgent conflicts otherwise it's just a suicide Misson for the pilot. A10 is a piece of crap mate

[@maximaldinotrap]

@@marcospayero2959 Yeah but the A-10s gun is practically useless against tanks, missiles are different.

[@mohammadcheema7375]

Seems like a good choice for SOCOM. Although I wonder if this purchase suggests that certain opposing forces have been able to neutralise drones more than we might have expected.

[@terranempire725]

You're missing the best aircraft for these types of missions - Rockwell International OV-10A Bronco. Far more adaptable and versatile with high reliability. One of the few aircraft that have been brought back into service after it was decommissioned.

[@bighands69]

It did not matter what aircraft was used they wanted to develop the platform from the ground up.

[@terranempire725]

@@bighands69 I recommend you check on the Bronco and its service history. You'll be amazed at this extremely useful aircraft.

[@bighands69]

@@terranempire725 It would not matter what aircraft they selected as a base platform it was going to be designed and fitted for special operations from the ground up. They went with a blank slate and built their own platform. The Skywarden is a completely new aircraft and its capabilities will not be public.

[@BasicBobby]

It has an armored cockpit as well. Something already integrated in the air frame for insurgency conflicts in Colombia.

[@onogrirwin]

Looks awesome for it's role. Probably remarkably resilient to manpads attack, mostly due to tracking difficulties. Any dedicated AAA would be a real problem tho.

[@kp-legacy-5477]

it would only be scouting and small conflicts so it shouldnt have anything to worry about

[@EstorilEm]

Very cool aircraft, and I appreciate how SOCOM is intent on procuring mission-oriented weapons (from rifles to aircraft) without most of the political BS. This could prove to be a priceless CAS / spotting aircraft in pretty much all of the current conflicts the US is involved in - would be great in the Middle East. Launch a couple of these with an A-10 and I can already hear the collective sigh of relief from ground troops!

[@BrokenLifeCycle]

Uhh... We're no longer in the Middle East. Mostly. Biden ordered everyone out... leaving billions worth of military equipment behind as well. It was a shitshow.

[@FSTgod60]

The great thing is that, you don’t even need the A10. This plane can do almost everything except the least important thing the Thunderbolt can do (BRRRT), and due to flight performance maybe even better for certain ground attack missions.

[@stoutyyyy]

Lose the A-10 and you’ll hear an even bigger sigh of relief from ground troops. The “splash zone” on the gun makes it extremely impractical for CAS.

[@ImperiumLibertas]

@@stoutyyyy what a margin of error 2 busses each side of the A10 cannon isn't reassuring????? The A10 has more blue-on-blue than any other aircraft in the US arsenal.

[@guillaumelalonde7945]

@@FSTgod60 A10 carries more than twice the payload, is designed to operate in active combat zones. The Sky Warden is an armed overwatch aircraft, not a CAS plane.

[@DanielMedina-vj1zi]

A67 Dragon was proposed as an American option instead Super Tucano. Few videos on KZbin spoke about the A67 aircraft, it was never completed. Chip aircraft or drones to be deployed as COIN aircraft and basic training must be a chance to make big sales. To be transformed into a COIN aircraft, a chip aircraft must not provide better performance than one designed specifically for light ground attack. Super Tucano has had a long time like the best in its role, to become number one required a new design.

[@autopathos]

Chip aircraft?

[@kingarthur5110]

Can operate from small dirt strips too, something an A-10 cannot

[@mochaholic3039]

Eh, I prefer the Super Tucano, aesthetically beautiful plane and does the same job and... and... *gasp* designed and built from the ground up for it's intended role unlike the Sky Warden which originally is a farm spray-plane heavily modified and shoved into this role. The US bought a few Super Tucanos some years ago and the fliers sang it's praises and overwhelmingly preferred it over the Sky Warden but noooo... let's go with Sky Warden cause, you know, American-designed and built plane and marked up multiples of percentages above it's actual price instead of the well-designed and reasonably priced Embraer Super Tucano which is Brazilian.

[@troutwarrior6735]

Agreed, I much rather would have had the toucano

[@aft3r-lif382]

I don't know what the hell they're thinking

[@brianniegemann4788]

You can't sue a foreign sovereign country for providing defective airplanes, or reneging on a contract. American companies are at least accountable for what they build.

[@user-cy9vd7rl4h]

I'm sure fierce nationalism was the only criteria used to choose the airframe. /sarcasm

[@CharliMorganMusic]

Yeah, that's just how we do things. 🙄 We could be buying the Lynx and Panther, but you know we'll have to make a new M1 IFV and a new M1 MBT because we have to or whatever.

[@DeeEight]

USSOCOM being a joint command structure drawing from all the armed services also sidesteps the whole in-fighting between the US Navy, US Army and US Air Force over who gets to operate what to support the actual soldiers on the ground (or at sea) that affects procurement and development programs (and led to problems with the development and eventual cancellation of the AH-56 Cheyenne) as well as the political medling in that procurement (which is how the A-X competition went in the YA-10s favor over the superior YA-9 for example). They can run their own development programs for use exclusively by the special operations command (which famously ten years ago showed itself in the stealthy blackhawk variants used in the raid to kill OBL, and more recently the development of the kinetic warhead Hellfire missile variant, aka the flying ginsu) which is how this aircraft got chosen over the other options, and without the usual protests that the other manufacturers and the senators and congrerssmen they've bought and paid for, in a competition might usually make when they lose out on the contract.

[@ST-zm3lm]

I gotta say, I love the look. Probably won’t be much use against China or Russia, but it’ll be nice to keep on hand for the next punitive expedition.

[@domoyakyak]

I think we may all be surprised at what it could do in a peer level engagement, as long as local air superiority is achieved.

[@user-dq1je7zy3p]

@@domoyakyak it won't be

[@vizerandevir6422]

You know insurgents get their hands on some pretty fancy gear too...

[@josephpadula2283]

If they had used this version of a crop duster in North by Northwest Carry Grant would have been toast !

[@oldmandan5634]

Considering the affect of cheap MANPADs in the Ukrainian conflict, acquiring a plane like this actually makes a lot of sense to me. I love the A-10 as much as the next guy, but if you're fighting a war where ever 3rd soldier has a SA missile on their shoulder, with expensive, 50 year old A-10s, I think even the stubbornly tough warthog would struggle to perform it's job effectively.

[@poki580]

if everyone has a manpad on him, you just dont fly at all, as seen in ukraine

[@found6393]

This very video says these things cost $40 million each! At the full production run! And you're risking twice as many trained personnel. How is that cheaper than an A-10, FFS? Plus, they're effing slow, they'll be an even easier target for missiles and other AA. The only advantage this thing seems to actually have is that it can probably take off from and land on a postcard (almost literally with the right headwind). Which would be useful for the only mission profile this video mentions for it, SOCOM support.

[@stevenobrien557]

​@@found6393that 40 million per unit includes pretty much everything in the contract including spares and training. It also does much more than the A10 filling in for the Draco while saving much, much more with the reduced maintenance requirements in the field along with the logistical tail for those personnel. It just doesn't make the BRRRRT noise that infantry find comforting.

[@independentomega2701]

It's like the O-2 or the OV-10. They were used for the same type of missions during the Secret War in Laos and Cambodia. Good to see them coming back to a Covey / FAC rider that is armed to provide CAS in a pinch. I remember stories of the O-2 before they got their WP rocket pods, of the Covey rider firing his CAR-15 out the window to provide CAS while they waited for the real fast movers to get there.

[@jeffhood-s2q]

da nang diary great book about both 0-2 ...ov-10 bronco.... must read

[@MrNegativecreep07]

It looks like someone accidentally combined 3 random Airfix kits.

[@atomicshadowman9143]

Kitbashing is fun

[@markevanson9163]

Alan East, a late Air Tractor test pilot and son-in-law of Leland Snow (the architect of the AT-802), was the originator of the 802U. I met him about a month before he lost his life in an 802 ag accident in Nebraska in 2010. He had some great stories to tell about getting clearances to outfit the airplane with military armament. That was prior to the development of the Sky Warden. Cheers to the 802.

[@JWQweqOPDH]

I think people need to realize that a plane doesn't have to compete with a jet fighter or strike aircraft. This thing could be far cheaper than an Apache or A-10 and launch missiles or artillery rockets at front-line (or otherwise relatively close) targets. In Ukraine, attack helicopters are easy targets like this thing would be, but they can stay in the rear and act as extremely mobile rocket artillery by aiming their rockets upwards on a long arc.

[@thesocialistsarecoming8565]

If i recall, the main issue with heli's in ukraine is doctrinal as opposed to them being inherently easy targets. Old soviet doctrines used by the russian army dont quite work without a tidal wave of armor to go with it at ground level.

[@joshuadenny1215]

The issue here is that this aircraft cannot deal with any kind of anti air threat. This would get shredded by anything 12.7mm(.50 cal) or larger, and would be screwed against MANPADS, SAMS, or even a lucky RPG hit . It suffers the same issues that a WW2 era aircraft would have in a modern airspace. The only time this is useful is if you can guarantee that the enemy has only small arms and no heavy machine guns. It seems like a weird choice and poor use of funds considering the US military has been shifting towards a peer conflict in the Pacific with China. You can forget using these things against any peer threat or anything close to it. 30 years ago this aircraft would've been perfect for our needs, now not so much.

[@JWQweqOPDH]

@@joshuadenny1215 Everything you said can be applied to attack helicopters as well. For a detailed explanation, watch kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHeakHipn8eYnLs As I said before, if used as a very fast artillery truck, it will stay safe over the horizon and out of sight of the enemy. This platform would be closer in price and purpose to a wheeled howitzer than an F-35. Even the A-10 can't safely fly over the front-line until all SAMs are suppressed or destroyed. The F-111 destroyed more ground targets than the A-10

[@thesocialistsarecoming8565]

@@joshuadenny1215 big sky little bullet

[@Secretlyanothername]

It's half the price of a F-18

[@jeffstrom164]

Props just make the most sense for close air support. More fuel efficiency leads to longer loiter times over targets. More durable and easier to maintain, too. Close air support don't have to be fast, just accurate and on demand. Props do that well. Love the Warthog but it's time to put the grand old lady to pasture. Advances in tech, both cyber and material, have left her behind.

[@thethirdman225]

Props are more survivable too.

[@bronsonperich9430]

No need for a tank-killer when there’s no tanks.

[@jeffstrom164]

@@bronsonperich9430 plenty of tanks in the middle east. Old Russian tanks and even a few of ours. Still, I think the time of the tank is fading. To easy to take them out. Can do it with with just a couple infantrymen. Our defensive abilities have not kept pace with our offensive. There is still a place for Armour, its far better than running naked through a mine field, but I think it's reign as the offensive king of the battlefield is ending.

[@SheepInACart]

@@jeffstrom164 People have made the same claim about tanks for the exact same reasons since BEFORE the second world war.. but tank numbers as ratio of armed forces continue to increase. Yes, a lot of the left over cold war armor's time in the sun is over, and when you throw them with poor training and limited support into insurgency situations (attacker OR defender), they die in mass, but thats true of basically anything more complex than a infantry rifle. New designs of tanks aren't outmoded by increasing firepower or sensors, because those things benefit them equally to their attackers, and armor as a concept was NEVER the primary defense, but it is another layer. If you use less armored vehicles then the same weapons system is lethal over a much greater area (think HE rather than AP rounds/missiles, or using a 30mm autocannon instead of 120mm smoothbore), with a much less precise hit (an HE missile will take out a truck if it glances the wind deflector on top, meanwhile a shaped charge that hits a tank adjacent to a non-critical system like crew stowage will do little more than scare the crew), and potentially even if your behind cover that would have previously rendered it non-critical. In addition modern hulls carry ever more weight with the same specific ground pressure, more speed, and faster response, so its increasingly less likely that very lightweight vehicles will somehow "replace" tanks just because they can now carry the firepower levels that older tanks used to. Finally is endurance, tanks carry an order of magnitude more cannon rounds than missile systems, so if your fighting conflict in real life where it lasts days, rather than the minutes of video games, your able to do a lot more shooting, and in this context not only do you miss every shot you didn't take, but you also aren't suppressing or pinning down people who can't see you shooting at them. Tanks NEVER relied on the fact that infantry couldn't hurt them, they always existed instead within an umbrella of combined arms, and in that role are a force multiplier whereby less soldiers could have greater effect than lighter vehicles or on foot. This hasn't changed, and even the possibility of drones as primary weapons in far future wars won't change it, instead it will just mean future tanks will have the crews located remotely as current drones attempt... but this is likely a long long way from viable in open conflict.

[@thethirdman225]

@@bronsonperich9430 This is no more limited than the A-10 in the anti-tank role.

[@galaxyblaster1095]

Two weeks ago my brother and I were discussing how crop dusters were essentially civilian ground attack aircraft, and could easily be converted into a military role. Lo and behold...

[@Lachausis]

It's military version has been around for a while now...

[@rickforespring4834]

hook up a sprayer system under that and you have whats called an ag-truk or ag-cat crop duster

[@troutwarrior6735]

Sometimes I wonder if we should think about modernizing are building old ww2 warbirds. Imagine a p47 thunderbolt with a new engine, advanced avionics, and precision guided weaponry. That would be a sight to see! Dumb idea, but one I’ve thought about a little.

[@KnightDaylight]

The put a Turbo-prop on a Mustang frame back in the 60’s and it performed well. They also put turbo-props on a B-17 back in the 50’s but I’ll I remember was only a picture survived, not much about the experiment. *Correction: The Turbo-propped B-17 was used as a Fire Bomber for fighting forest fires; however to give another example of a Turboprop conversion, is the DC-3T a turboprop DC-3.

[@TheFlutecart]

F4U Corsair with a turbo prop and modern upgrades, but keep the 6 guns. It is fun to think about. It's even carrier capable.

[@willsilk1492]

This aircraft makes sense for the COIN/ Light Attack mission in my view and should be quite economical to operate. While I'm a bit shocked seeing an ag aircraft given a massive dose of steroids and turned into a full on attack platform, if this is what the Special Forces are looking for to support boots on the ground, it looks to be money well spent. Only time will tell though.

[@ShrekMeBe]

Cheap rugged platform, easily replaceable... What could go wrong? Hey, test it in Ukraine on that infestation. After work is done, convert them to crop dusters

[@samuelpope7798]

As long as our enemies don't employ biplane fighters from the 1920s and 30s against it this should prove adequate. Many of those old crates could fly circles around this thing.

[@JD-tn5lz]

Gotta get your head out of DCS.

[@target844]

If the enemy has aircraft you use modern fighter jets to take them out. Nothing says you just need to use this aircraft.

[@samuelpope7798]

​Other than "Most likely to be the first fixed wing aircraft to be shot down by an RPG" I don't see anything exceptional about this very minimal plane. But if this is the best we can do these days I guess it will have to do. Sky Warden sounds too British though. Biden Bomber would be more in the spirit of this age.

[@WychardNL]

Is this plane also known as the "IOMAX Archangel"?

[@HobbitHomes263]

I worry for these pilots. I was in the USAF in Vietnam. We lost a lot of guys in the A1 Skyraider squadrons

[@patrickbethel855]

From all the lessons learned from the A-1 Skyraider in a more (slightly) modern form.

[@robertgriffin662]

The A-1 skyraider would be better. Better looking as well!

[@TheArchaos]

@@robertgriffin662 Skyraider isnt in production and SOCOM wanted a unit in production with parts and everything.

[@robertgriffin662]

@@TheArchaos I know just saying

[@DonaldDu6k]

Prop planes are perfect for low intensity environments far from homeland. Highly manoeuvrable and much higher air time than jet planes, more rugged engines and easier to maintain (no high tech facilities needed to check the engines, basically a guy with a tool case can perform basic maintenance). There's no difference between vulnerability to small arms fire. It makes no difference to a guy with an assault rifle or an RPG whether the plane is flying 100 m above at 300 km/h or 300 m above at 900 km/h. The hit probability rate is basically the same.

[@raymondyee2008]

So they chose a crop duster eh? Well they could also spray gasoline and then use incendiary grenades too as a crude form of napalm strike (remember "Airwolf").