Its going to be a lot more survivable a landing too. One of the A-10 pilot losses in 1991 was when he attempted to land gear up in manual reversion mode in bad weather at night after taking a missile hit that destroyed one engine, the plane touched down and flipped over and crushed the pilot in his seat. The Skywarden cockpit is a full roll cage with air bags, 5-point harnesses and energy absorbing armored crash seats similar to what AH-64 pilots ride in. The roll cage is strong enough to support the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft should it flip over on the ground.
@@DeeEightI was about to say.....these are taking a role closer to what the ah-64 does, with a shit ton more station time. It's not another air force fighter pressed into a ground attack role
I flew the Air Tractor for 5 years spraying. Was watching a couple of video's of what appeared to be Military Pilot training in the Warden and they ground looped and balled up a couple of them while landing. A fighter pilot would have a tough time learning what his feet are for, you fighter guy's seldom have to touch your rudder pedals, with these, you NEVER take you feet off the rudder pedals! It's real seat of the pants flying! Had a friend of mine had an ultralight. His son in law was an Air Force F-16 pilot and dang near killed himself in it! He said he would never get in it again! Ha! How ironic!
I've been at it for over a dozen seasons at this point. The 802 flies a lot better hands off than the 602 and smaller, you can actually trim it all out and she'll let you grab something from your cooler without any funny business. I met the guy who ground looped that 802U, he wasn't even a military pilot, just a civilian that Air Tractor hired to demonstrate it to the brass. He set up a max effort short field landing and brought the tail down too far on flareout, it hit and caused it to start bucking around while in beta which made him lose it. Took me a lot of landings to figure out how to hit beta while flaring out so I could get her stopped on a dime without bouncing everywhere, it's easy for things to get away from you if you're not completely on your game. He said that 802U felt like landing with 200gal onboard with all that extra stuff added, so I'm sure that probably added to the difficulty of it. I doubt any fighter pilot is going to transition over without a lot of stick time first, but I think any competent pilot could eventually get the hang of it.
I can imagine. I got a few hours in an Aeronca 7AC Champ, and I was DANCING all over those rudder pedals on touchdown! With a taildragger, you have to fly it all the way to the tiedown or hangar.
@@markymarknj Even with a 1000 hours in one, never let your guard down! Ha! Will humble you real quick! Completely different world. Really glad to see so many get into the STOL/Bush flying, lot's of fun and teaches you excellent stick and rudder skills. Even with 6000 hrs or better in tail draggers, it will bite me as fast as it would a newby! Just when you think you can't screw up, you screw up! Ha! But once you become competent and get up to speed on them, it's a very rewarding experience and truly hones your flying skills! Keep getting some Champ time! Everyone Raves about the J3 Cub, but I will take a Champ over a Cub any day, my first plane was a 1967 Citabria 115 HP, it was actually "doggy" but taught you how to really fly. Learned aerobatics in it too! what fun!
@@Amalgam67 Considering Boeing is more concerned with DEI hires to build their aircraft, rather than the best they can hire. Speaking of the airline industry, the United CEO likes to dress up as a drag queen and dance. He doesn’t want to hire experienced ( like ex military) pilots, especially White men. Your next “pilot” could have been a baggage handler 8 months ago.
The reason they want 75 is because they're taking over both from the surveillance aircraft/drones doing long - loiter observation missions, plus the armed drone support mission (like the Reaper/Predators), and providing a level of CAS the A-10s do badly. The stall speed is significantly lower, the aircraft is armored enough to be tolerant of your typical hillbilly small arms (7.62x39, 12.7 Dshk, 7.62x54R), and there's enough external stores options to deal with most COIN missions. The max payload is 8,000 pounds of fuel, weapons and sensors which is about half of its max gross weight. There's ballistic glass windows, cockpit and engine armor (the bathtub approach), self-sealing fuel lines and tanks, and a fuel dump feature. There are no ejection seats, instead the cockpit is a energy-absorbing roll cage that can support the full aircraft weight in case of a roll over on landing, and the 5-point restraints have auto-inflating air bags and sit on energy absorbing crash seats. There are mountings for Chaff/flare dispensers and missile warning sensors. 11 external hardpoints (the A-29s have 5, OV-10 was 7 and A-10s are also 11). The standard payload is proposed as a pair of ATK 7 tube pods and a MX-15/MX-20 sensor pod. 802u.com/
Thanks for the info. I had wondered why the Pentagon didn't just buy more A-29's but with its lower number of hard points it makes sense they went with the Skywardens.
It has two ISR MX-15 or MX-20 camera balls on it. Which rear operator runs one and the pilot runs the other when in the orbit. They are integrated in to the auto pilot as well. I flew B300’s ISR out of BAF. And these air tractor are WAY cheaper then King air/MC-12’s as we had more crew and un armed. There are cheaper then the Draco’s too best part is they are WAY stronger the king air or U-28’s. As they were built for tight turns with heavy loads. When I was in BAF Some of the Liberty birds had bent wings from pilots fighter break turns in the overhead landing. They were light on fuel load but max mission load still. Our B350’s at BAF were way over loaded. But still bagged out full fuel and mission gear. And they still handled decent even with the sensor tub on them. Fun times in ISR.
yeah they were flying a bunch of these over my house for days dropping anti-erosion goop after a major wildfire on the mountainside. They hold a lot of goop for a little plane.
Now designated the OA-1K for AFSOC. 25 birds is essentially 3 squadrons of 25; with some of those being an RTU. When you look at the specs for its competitor darlings, such as the A-29 or AT-6 or even an OV-10, the Air Tractor was the best choice with respect to total load and loiter time, plus the wings come off for transport in a C-5. Although a hot seat didn't make the cut due to time & budget constraints in the competition process, I wouldn't be surprised if one isn't fielded down the road and I hope that TCTO is made a priority before there are fatalities. It fills a niche and isn't all bad. Overall cost is an issue, as is the TBD training pipeline for tailwheel transition. If the AF chooses its path wisely, there is a lot of potential here.
Not sure if they'll ever get around to that or even if it's a good idea, the cockpit was designed for maximum crash survivability and you're completely surrounded by 4130 tubing. As it is, you have a high likelihood of surviving a crash even at normal cruise speed, I see it often enough in the ag world when pilots smack into the ground or trees or poles and walk away, so it's a lot different than a jet where punching out is the only way you survive. Get rid of that tubing around you and you damn well better have an ejection seat because you're not going to survive a crash otherwise.
@@RedTeufel All the logistics you mention can be taken care of with a minimal crew. Two people could probably maintain three of them indefinitely, and the cost is a magnitude of order less. In the civilian world, oftentimes the owner is also the pilot and the mechanic, he is all of the logistics by himself. That's why SOCOM wants these so bad, because they can be stationed with a SOCOM team in austere locations and be autonomous, instead of operating from an airbase and relying on that infrastructure for each flight. SOCOM will have their own asset in the air without having to coordinate logistics with another branch potentially right on the edge of their combat radius. When you're that far away from a friendly airbase, sometimes you don't get the A-10 you want, sometimes you get a stupid F-16 that can barely strafe a town, much less lay down some cover. Everyone that doesn't understand why they "can't just use A-10's" doesn't understand the kind of role they need to fill. Think of it more like a role where an attack heli would be useful, except that you can bring more warheads and loiter for longer with a bigger combat radius, and none of the complicated logistics involved. Besides that, the A-10 doesn't actually bring all that much more to the table...it's an old airframe that needs a lot of maintenance, it needs a manicured runway and a lot of logistics to keep it in the air, it can't carry a spotter along in the back seat, it doesn't like flying slow, it can't loiter, doesn't have much range, the max loadout for its hardpoints is only twice as much as the War Tractor, it's very limited in avionics, and there's not a lot of them left to go around these days. The War Tractor is going to be better suited and more effective for the role it intends to fill, and the A-10 would bring zero advantages to the table in comparison. Now, if you were talking about a newly manufactured and modernized OV-10 Bronco instead of an A-10, there wouldn't be nearly as much disparity, and might even make more sense, but that'll never happen.
@@DonaldWWitt crop dusters don't have 10 hard points that can carry nearly every bomb, rocket pod, gun pod, electronic warfare and surveillance system pod available. 😂
It's all the ITAR controlled avionics crammed in there. Same goes for the fighter jets, if it weren't for the avionics onboard they'd be 1/10th the cost.
It's a bit more than that, it's state of the art targeting and tracking, upgraded armor plating, sealing gas tanks and bulletproof glass etc so it can withstand AK small arms fire etc
It's super-cheap, can be dismantled and shoved in a cargo plane and can land in places where you wouldn't keep a goat. It carries nasty weapons and surveillance gear that would make Captain Kirk weep with envy.
The best part about this was that during the testing they deployed it and had an extremely low maintenance issue report. Don't think they had ANY no fly issues or if they did they were sensor issues not airframe issues. Hey after all the civilian variants of the airframe are operated often in very austere environments where they need the simplicity of maintenance like an old tractor (Pre-Modern Electonics) For what they want to do - Should be a very good fit. I would love to see how Seal team or Delta force would use these if they got the hands on them.
The aircraft is not designed to fit ejection seats. The fuel lines and fuel tank are self-sealing and features emergency fuel jettison. Restraints include a 5-point harness equipped with airbags. Essential flight controls are present in both the front and rear seats.
If a helicopter's missing its rotors it won't fly either, but ejection seats aren't an issue. The Sky Warden is actually designed to be a stand-off support platform out of the range of most MANPADS, which is why it carries laser-guided rockets and missiles, but has no gun.
Seriously, when you look at that thing, it looks a lot like a late model Stuka, with that pointy drooped nose. Almost like a modern incarnation of the Ju-87G.
I used to work with the "Air Tractor" when I was trying to become a crop duster. Both the Grumman AGCAT and Ait Tractor dominate the crop dusting arena. T-bear reminds me of my boss, my mentor, and my friend his call sign was Boomer. I love guys (shit, can I say that, or is there another pronoun I'm supposed to use😅😅) channel.
@@jasondelaney6849 yes and the wheeled version is in Alberta, Yukon and New Brunswick. As well as many operations in Australia Europe and South America. Very few in Africa
@@jasondelaney6849 The float version is the Fireboss , there is more "non float" firefighting ATs , they just fill in the runway .. those things are amazing , not fast but very fun to fly and in firefighting role they can take 3 tons of water wich is about half of a CL-215T/415.. so you can pretty much do the "same job" as a Scooper with 2 of theese.. but they cost much less , are cheaper to operate and require 1 pilot only.. Dont get me wrong im a hardcore fan of the Scooper but theese have been fighting fires a long time now and everyone that flies them adores them
When I looked at this a while ago, pretty sure I counted 3 pods / track balls for 2 crew. Can't confirm, as I didn't go down tge rabbit hole that far, but I think I read the 3rd pod / FLIR was available for off board assets (SOF on ground with a ROVER type setup).
1960s : The North Vietnamese and Vietcong have heavy firepower, we need faster CAS jets with lots of armour and firepower. 2010s : The insurgents lack heavy firepower, A-10 is too overkill, we need a cheap cropduster plane with light armament.
Navy could use these... I mean, you can land them in less than the width of a ship with no arresting gear! Makes everything a potential carrier! I also see these capable of landing on a flatbed truck moving at 45 mph by matching the speed!
Surprisingly enough, carrier landings have been verified with an AT-502B landing and taking off on the USS Lexington for a convention that was being held there. There's a picture of it floating around on the net somewhere, just search "air tractor USS Lexington" to find it. It can be done lightly loaded or empty but not with any kind of combat loadout, at least not from a smaller stationary ship like the Lexington.
I will look for that. Actually a lot of those bush planes that slow to a human running speed before touching down (serious flair and ground effects) could easily trail a 20 knot ship from astern and set gently onto a platform. In fact Red Bull did it on top of a building (maybe Burg Kalifa?) and it was like 30 feet wide! Made my heart skip a beat. Also... your name has me laughing my ass off!@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper
@@chrismaggio7879 The 802 is a huge, heavy aircraft compared to a bush plane...in fact, Air Tractor had to get a special exemption from the FAA to allow single pilot operations in it because it exceeded the 12,500lb weight limit. It's a long way off from a cub. I've made a few normal landings with a 20kt headwind, and they're certainly shorter than a carrier. Never measured distance but it was likely less than 400ft. The trick to get a minimum distance landing is to bring the prop into reverse pitch while you're still flaring and then hammer on it and the brakes as soon as you hit the ground without nosing over. The second you hit reverse pitch, the plane falls out of the sky and your elevator and rudder become all but useless, so you better have everything lined up because your inertia is going to be the only thing you rely on. If the technique isn't implemented perfectly, you'll ground loop or bury the $1M engine into the dirt, but it's very impressive and loud if done correctly.
I do love the idea of low cost alternatives and more rugged, local and affordable air support. However, 40 million per plane is not quite the low cost i was hoping for in a 2.5 million base plane.
I read about using Air Tractors as CAS years ago. It looks like a great low cost/low threat concept. ... I wonder, how vulnerable are Apaches in a near peer environment? The Warthog is starting to remind of the Ju 87 Stuka. A great CAS platform, as long as you're in a low threat environment. The Stuka got wrecked going up against the RAF.
I think Vietnam and the original Persian Gulf War are two versions of the same question. Vietnam saw a lot of downed US aircraft of all types. Major changes in tactics and philosophies resulted in a major shift in the gulf.
Well yes an a10 isnt a wild weasel flying in initial strike against sam sites etc. But after the aur dominance is obtained it maintains it. It is invaluble in any conflict as it will always devolve into war or attrition
This cropduster is barely faster than faster choppers (the Apache is rather slow) If you worry about the A-10 , only 5 or 6 were shot down despite operating down in the weeds. This unproven cropduster should worry you a lot more
But when the air tractor is sent in everything that should be able to shoot it down is dead or in the process of dieing. You don't take a county with a air tractor you hold and rebuild it with a air tractor.
The only disadvantage I see is that it does not have ejection seats. For the rest, it is larger, more robust and with greater cargo capacity than the other aircraft that were presented in the contest. . I think it has more autonomy. Being slower also makes it harder for a jet plane to shoot down.
Mover, I remember when the F-16 cost $4 Million back when an 80286 processor was the latest and greatest and IIRC was not rated for night ops. As pilots you know you can *never* have too many aircraft especially the fun to fly ones. Gonky, 80+ years ago there were tens of thousands of pilots who didn't have bang seats to get them out and 25 years even earlier the pilots didn't even have a _laundry let-down_ when the 💩hit the fan.
For a couple of years, the US was looking at the Super Tocano (A29?) that was a special built aircraft with retracting landing gear, 1600 hp engine and other goodies and weapons capabilities, etc. I believe that we left several in Afghanistan. The latest word in the interwebs was that the US was cancelling the project, and now this?
The Super Tucanos are very good for CAS in counterinsurgencies. But the Sky Warden has a longer wingspan and a greater number of hard points. Also, and I could be wrong, the A-29's weren't build for the sort of dirt runways the Sky Warden can operate from.
@@duncanidaho2097 Don't think so. Programs like the Sky Warden aren't sexy enough to get the attention of the Pentagon brass. If they're going to meddle, it's going to be in the XM7 rifle program or the Gen 5 fighter program.
Yes a little late for this. 1st they needed that 10 years ago, and they should be purchased for the army who know what they are doing. Giving this to the air farce is a waste because they are not true military warfighters. Just another social program.
These things are made to deploy WITH special operations teams to austere environments, where they will be based with or very close to the teams they will support. The idea is that they can provide convoy escort and just generally be very close to the team on the ground so reaction times are quick. Also since the air crew will be based with the ground teams they will have a better overall understanding of the mission and a better working relationship with SF. Think about the insurgent ambush in Niger that killed multiple Green Berets. That is the perfect situation where something like this would be used. A clandestine mission where US forces are based on the ground, but have no air cover close by. Currently SOCOM has fixed wing assets that act in support roles for this mission, ISR, supply, Command and Control, etc. The AT-802U is meant to add something that can launch rockets and drop bombs to that mix. Totally different mission from traditional CAS or any other role the USAF or USN fixed wing assets provide. I am not sure why they need 75 of them either, but I do know we have SOCOM teams literally all over the world in a bunch of places no one would care about even if they knew the name. Maybe SOCOM is worried about performing their tasks while the USA is simultaneously fighting a near peer threat and all available big boy aircraft are being used for that fight.
They even type classified it as OA-1K Sky Warden ... the same A designation used for the A-1 Skyraider and even the letter follows the last Skyraider, the A-1J Skyraider.
SOCOM really should think about putting the RED´s V12 diesel in a few of these - more than doubled range and loitering time, laods of torque, can be made whisper-quite...
AT-802 is Air Tractor's designation numbers not military. AT=Air Tractor, 802 is airframe/engine size. AT-802F is the air firefighting unit. AT-802 Fire Boss is the firefighting unit on floats that can skim lakes for water refill.
Looks like a small arms magnet to me. Roll in on a target at 150 knots, 100 feet and everybody with a slingshot an AK and an RPG is going to be popping off. To small and light to have any real pilot saving armor like the A-10"s Titanium bathtub. So it's going to be a hairy ride for sure.
LOL...the "titanium bathtub" protection is over-rated myth if you read the actual specs. Its TOLERANT to 23mm fragments, not direct hits, and not to anything larger. A direct hit with a 30 to 40mm would go right thru and bag the pilot. A 57mm direct hit would obliterate the aircraft. The problem is the A-10 was designed around false thinking. The designers assumption was the heaviest thing accompanying a soviet motorized regiment for organic AA would be things like a ZSU-23-4, and they didn't consider how much the Soviets developed vehicle mounted SAM systems (which in 1991 proved very capable at killing A-10s) or the twin 30mm Tunguska replacement for the Shilka.
It's not going to be THAT close, it doesn't even have guns. It'd just take it easy at 2,000 ft, then use its $10 million electronics to guide in 500 lb bombs. This little guy can carry 8,000 lbs too...b17 bombers in ww2 carried 4,000 lbs for long range missions in comparison.
Forgive my ignorance, but would resurrecting the OV-10 be a plausible option? You would at least have the capability to have a couple brave souls jump out the back of the thing 😅
Slide out the back. I heard the stories from the old timers. They would stack up like it's a sled. Have the Bronco pitch up and they'd slide out. Sounded like it was a blast.
Think about the uses for that. Not many terrorists or third world countries have an Airforce. Most jets fly too fast against drones and risk overshoot. Plus, take a normal operator and give him the ability to fly or land and reek havoc. I love it.
I swear armed overwatch isn’t what this should be used for, though I’m sure it can do that job well enough. I’m thinking ultra low altitude penetration of enemy airspace. Flying 20 feet off the ground for 4 hours with 5,500 pounds of ordnance and smashing a target without them ever seeing you coming.
Remember in WW1 if you got shot down... a crash landing was in order... the enemy picked you up... cordially provided drinks, dinner and then a ride to the FLOT the next morning!
How many Squadrons does Socom need? They have what overall? 2 Brigades worth of units and some of them are waterbased? Is every Soldier supposed to get their own emotional support cropduster?
2 seater is for training. Should be army aircraft. Pilots need minimum of 20 hours taildragger time. Landing conventional gear plane your feet dance on the rudder petals.
This goes back to the old O-2 which had 2 seats. The back seat was the covey rider and wasn't an aviator, but an operator. There is a value of having human ISR from a certain source. The back seater in this case will need some flight training as there is dual flight controls (front/rear). The 0-2 got shot up a lot, so they must have the redundant controls with that in mind.
This platform is about 20 years late. This is what should have been flying over Afghanistan and Iraq dropping JDAMs and providing CAS instead of us flying the wings off of our A-10/F-15/16/18 fleets. Why would you fly those airplanes in an environment where they're using maybe 15% of their capability? Our fighters were largely designed to penetrate enemy air defense networks and strike pre-planned targets, not loiter at 30,000' dropping JDAMs or trying to use their targeting pods to track people. Now though, where would the Sky Warden find its niche? There really isn't a conflict at present or looming on the horizon (maybe east Africa?) where these things would be useful (which isn't to say we shouldn't pursue on a small scale its development, never know when the next low-intensity conflict could present itself). At least they're cheaper than AC-130's (also, anymore, a rather outdated platform).
I'm a wargamer and was looking at strategy for Ukraine and speculating on how it would be possible to effectively attack the Russian forces. The Sky Warden was the answer I hit upon. The plane has a roll cage and airbags, the fuel tanks can be ejected for an emergency dead stick landing. It can be transported and assembled from a kit in under 24 hours with a single ordinary tool box. As for armament, either 2 20 mm cannons or 2 50 cal. MGs, plus 2 500 lb. bombs, plus 2 pods each containing 7 70 mm missiles, plus 2 Hellfire missiles. It can take off from a rough airfield of as little as 400 meters length. The strategy would have involved Ukraine placing an order for a mass production run of 5000 AT 802U L3 Harris Sky Wardens over a year prior to their failed summer offensive, to be delivered in time for the attack. They would train air crews and ground crews in the west while the planes were being built. Meanwhile, given the essentially static nature of the front line, identify up to 10,000 400 meter plus improvised airstrips within 20 minutes flight time of the front line, the only other requirement being a place to conceal the planes from drones and satellites beside the improvised runways. When everything was ready smuggle the aircraft into position one piece at a time to avoid detection, one plane per runway, and assemble them within 24 hours of the balloon going up. Launch all 5000 Sky Wardens at the same time! That's 80,000 missiles and 10,000 500 lb. bombs under those wings. The primary target would be the Pantsirs, Triumphs, Silkhas, Tors, everything related to the Russian Air Defenses and airfields along the Russian/Ukrainian front line. Come in just above stall speed, wheels brushing the tips of the grass, deep inside the ground clutter, a short distance, mass NOE attack using cheap aircraft. Blow a hole in the Russian air defenses in the first minutes. Return to their runways, rearm, launch the next mass strike against the artillery systems. The third attack would go after armored vehicles, finally take out the logistics. If it was the USAF, they would conduct a long range high altitude stealth attack using a small number of very expensive B1s, B2s, B21s, B52s, F22s and F35s. The only alternative for a country like Ukraine would be short range, low altitude, under the radar attack using large numbers of cheap aircraft. If it sounds ridiculous, consider that Hamas successfully bypassed the Israeli Iron Dome system using Paragliders. I don't believe the attack would succeed in the end, and I don't support the Wests position in Ukraine, it would be more like the massed kamikaze attacks on the US Navy in the S. Pacific, with the intended effect that the Tet offensive had on the US, namely, military defeat but psychological victory.
Air Tractor would never be able to ramp up production like that, in fact, I doubt any company in the US would be able to regardless of how much money was thrown around. These aircraft are still hand fitted piece by piece to the point that some components can only be used on the aircraft they were made for, and then you have to consider the other bottlenecks, such as Pratt&Whitney ramping up to build 5,000 engines with strategically limited materials, or the avionics packages made by a defense contractor in a world of chip shortages. And the price....at $30M a pop, I don't see how Ukraine or the generosity of the US could afford that. I've put an 802 together before with several people helping, and to expect 5,000 of them to be assembled covertly overnight in this age of drone surveillance and all be ready for a mass assault is wishful thinking at best. The strategy could be effective, but the logistics and losses involved would still be an immense hurdle that sounds more like a hail mary from WWII.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Yeah I was wondering about the price. Air Tractor delivers the planes to L3 Harris for a cost of 3.2 Million and after the Avionics are fitted the price jumps to 40 million each, for a glorified crop duster. 1/5th the cost of an F35? If Western industry is so completely sold off to the 3rd world we can't mass produce 5000 airplanes in a drop everything crash program then we had better not get in a real war with anybody. It's like with the Houthi's using drones built for 10k that we shoot down with 2 million dollar missiles.
@@chrishoff402 It's the avionics and electronics responsible for the price. Well, that and I'm sure L3 is in real deep milking that gov titty, so I'm sure that if push came to shove the price would be cut in half, probably more so if production ramped up to those numbers. But making 5,000 in a year? That would be WWII level production numbers, a new plane rolling out in less than two hours. Speaking of WWII era production, it took the US six years to ramp up production to the point that it was making that infamous airplane an hour. Back then it was feasible, alloys were simple and avionics were analog, most factories were able to be converted easily to handle producing strategic parts because there wasn't anything particularly specialized about them, they were just simple parts...and it still took them many years to hit peak production. P&W just recently celebrated making their 100,000th engine since they started making them back in 1928...you're asking them to build 1/20th of all the engines they've ever made within a single year. Other companies could theoretically license build them, but how many engines do you think they could make, even if the gov started shoveling money at them? It would probably take a year just to build the factory, find competent employees, train them, and then use those employees to source the tooling and supplies before they could even put calipers to a casting. Then you have to consider that the sheer quantity of high quality exotic alloys like titanium and inconel needed would likely clear the entire country of those alloys with the first few hundred engines, and all allied countries before the 1,000 mark was reached. Not even going to get into the avionics, because there's no way to ramp up that production within a reasonable time frame. The components that we use in our avionics is not sourced from China or Taiwan, we make all of those chips in house (partially why they cost so much). Any one of those chips or boards could have espionage baked into them, and that's not something we can afford to have in our fleet. Even when manufacturers are using chips sourced from all over the globe, they still had shortages. Ford, with their massive bank account that could afford paying 10x the cost for chips, and chip manufacturers ramping up production to get that big paycheck, still couldn't get enough to make their own vehicles, and so a lot of them had features entirely omitted just so they could get cars out of the factory. To think one company could ramp up chip production in that short of a time frame is unrealistic, but there's also the trained specialists needed to assemble these avionics, the hard to find components using rare elements, the ultra precision assembly done with robotics, and the fact that once it's all said and done the whole world would probably have the blueprints to our most sensitive electronics due to the mad rush of outsourcing and giving everyone the plans to make those components. That's just for two aspects of the aircraft, the engine itself and the avionics. Air Tractor utilizes a lot of components that they don't make in house, and while they're not particularly strategic in their design, just simple parts...they come from rather small businesses that aren't ready to scale up at a moment's notice with nothing but money as the incentive. Just look at how long it's taking to ramp up artillery shell production, they were given a whole lot of money to mass produce tons of shells, and it's slow going. All of those pieces would have to be scaled up and logistics would be incomprehensible on that time scale. Then you have to consider that maybe some of these businesses just wouldn't want to...once the run is over, all the infrastructure they paid for, all the employees they hired, it would be surplus and that might be too much of a headache to deal with unless you're talking total war and they have no other choice. This is Ukraine we're talking about, and half the country thinks we shouldn't even be helping them. But I wouldn't worry too much about it, no other country could mount that kind of war effort in such a short time either. They could possibly make cheap target tugs in that quantity for our aircraft to blast out of the sky by the dozens, but they won't be able to make near peer aircraft to challenge ours. We're still on top in that regard.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Yeah, it's not the same world that went to WW2 anymore. I was talking this 5000 plane attack idea before Oct. 7th. I didn't hear of a single Hamas Paraglider getting shot down, either by the Israeli air force or Iron Dome. My point being theirs an exploitable chink in the armor of all modern militaries that small aircraft in sufficient numbers at close range could exploit, and drones have real shortcomings compared to real pilots in real airplanes. It does make you wonder why they purchased so many Sky Wardens. Even 50 of them coming in a line formation at near to ground level with missiles and guns blazing would be devastating.
75 of those is going to cost 2.5B all together??? That’s crazy an aircraft that small and training is going to cost that much. Get rid of the second guy hahaha
I laughed out loud when Gonky said "what if you're missing a wing?", and Mover says "well it's gonna land a lot harder".
Its going to be a lot more survivable a landing too. One of the A-10 pilot losses in 1991 was when he attempted to land gear up in manual reversion mode in bad weather at night after taking a missile hit that destroyed one engine, the plane touched down and flipped over and crushed the pilot in his seat. The Skywarden cockpit is a full roll cage with air bags, 5-point harnesses and energy absorbing armored crash seats similar to what AH-64 pilots ride in. The roll cage is strong enough to support the maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft should it flip over on the ground.
@@DeeEightI was about to say.....these are taking a role closer to what the ah-64 does, with a shit ton more station time.
It's not another air force fighter pressed into a ground attack role
I flew the Air Tractor for 5 years spraying. Was watching a couple of video's of what appeared to be Military Pilot training in the Warden and they ground looped and balled up a couple of them while landing. A fighter pilot would have a tough time learning what his feet are for, you fighter guy's seldom have to touch your rudder pedals, with these, you NEVER take you feet off the rudder pedals! It's real seat of the pants flying! Had a friend of mine had an ultralight. His son in law was an Air Force F-16 pilot and dang near killed himself in it! He said he would never get in it again! Ha! How ironic!
Too late for using it as a cropduster in Afghanistan ... opium / heroin exports boomed during the US "special operation"
Maybe our benevolent masters NEED that many $29,000,000 sniperplanes. To watch us ti make sure we're safe. Safely making tax money.
I've been at it for over a dozen seasons at this point. The 802 flies a lot better hands off than the 602 and smaller, you can actually trim it all out and she'll let you grab something from your cooler without any funny business. I met the guy who ground looped that 802U, he wasn't even a military pilot, just a civilian that Air Tractor hired to demonstrate it to the brass. He set up a max effort short field landing and brought the tail down too far on flareout, it hit and caused it to start bucking around while in beta which made him lose it. Took me a lot of landings to figure out how to hit beta while flaring out so I could get her stopped on a dime without bouncing everywhere, it's easy for things to get away from you if you're not completely on your game. He said that 802U felt like landing with 200gal onboard with all that extra stuff added, so I'm sure that probably added to the difficulty of it. I doubt any fighter pilot is going to transition over without a lot of stick time first, but I think any competent pilot could eventually get the hang of it.
I can imagine. I got a few hours in an Aeronca 7AC Champ, and I was DANCING all over those rudder pedals on touchdown! With a taildragger, you have to fly it all the way to the tiedown or hangar.
@@markymarknj Even with a 1000 hours in one, never let your guard down! Ha! Will humble you real quick! Completely different world. Really glad to see so many get into the STOL/Bush flying, lot's of fun and teaches you excellent stick and rudder skills. Even with 6000 hrs or better in tail draggers, it will bite me as fast as it would a newby! Just when you think you can't screw up, you screw up! Ha! But once you become competent and get up to speed on them, it's a very rewarding experience and truly hones your flying skills! Keep getting some Champ time! Everyone Raves about the J3 Cub, but I will take a Champ over a Cub any day, my first plane was a 1967 Citabria 115 HP, it was actually "doggy" but taught you how to really fly. Learned aerobatics in it too! what fun!
Prop driven, light attack with ejection seats....OV-10 Bronco has entered the chat.
Bad thing is that they don't build it anymore...
@@jessebrewington9283 Boeing had the rights for it and was going to relaunch it back in the early 2010s. Not sure why it didn't gain any traction.
@@mephistoXFC459V Considering their current problems that's probably a good thing.
Probably takes less time and costs less money to buy a modified off-the-shelf platform.
@@Amalgam67 Considering Boeing is more concerned with DEI hires to build their aircraft, rather than the best they can hire.
Speaking of the airline industry, the United CEO likes to dress up as a drag queen and dance. He doesn’t want to hire experienced ( like ex military) pilots, especially White men.
Your next “pilot” could have been a baggage handler 8 months ago.
The reason they want 75 is because they're taking over both from the surveillance aircraft/drones doing long - loiter observation missions, plus the armed drone support mission (like the Reaper/Predators), and providing a level of CAS the A-10s do badly. The stall speed is significantly lower, the aircraft is armored enough to be tolerant of your typical hillbilly small arms (7.62x39, 12.7 Dshk, 7.62x54R), and there's enough external stores options to deal with most COIN missions. The max payload is 8,000 pounds of fuel, weapons and sensors which is about half of its max gross weight. There's ballistic glass windows, cockpit and engine armor (the bathtub approach), self-sealing fuel lines and tanks, and a fuel dump feature. There are no ejection seats, instead the cockpit is a energy-absorbing roll cage that can support the full aircraft weight in case of a roll over on landing, and the 5-point restraints have auto-inflating air bags and sit on energy absorbing crash seats. There are mountings for Chaff/flare dispensers and missile warning sensors. 11 external hardpoints (the A-29s have 5, OV-10 was 7 and A-10s are also 11). The standard payload is proposed as a pair of ATK 7 tube pods and a MX-15/MX-20 sensor pod.
802u.com/
Thanks for the info. I had wondered why the Pentagon didn't just buy more A-29's but with its lower number of hard points it makes sense they went with the Skywardens.
Could probably put a mini gun in the front with a whole lot of ammo with the weight carrying ability
It has two ISR MX-15 or MX-20 camera balls on it. Which rear operator runs one and the pilot runs the other when in the orbit. They are integrated in to the auto pilot as well. I flew B300’s ISR out of BAF. And these air tractor are WAY cheaper then King air/MC-12’s as we had more crew and un armed. There are cheaper then the Draco’s too best part is they are WAY stronger the king air or U-28’s. As they were built for tight turns with heavy loads. When I was in BAF Some of the Liberty birds had bent wings from pilots fighter break turns in the overhead landing. They were light on fuel load but max mission load still. Our B350’s at BAF were way over loaded. But still bagged out full fuel and mission gear. And they still handled decent even with the sensor tub on them. Fun times in ISR.
They use the same airframe as a water bomber, often in mountainous terrain so presumably it's just fine there.
I live in high desert where fires are frequent. They seem to get the job done.
The later ones with the big engine does well in hot high enviroments.. this is based on the last 802s so should be fine
yeah they were flying a bunch of these over my house for days dropping anti-erosion goop after a major wildfire on the mountainside. They hold a lot of goop for a little plane.
Now designated the OA-1K for AFSOC. 25 birds is essentially 3 squadrons of 25; with some of those being an RTU. When you look at the specs for its competitor darlings, such as the A-29 or AT-6 or even an OV-10, the Air Tractor was the best choice with respect to total load and loiter time, plus the wings come off for transport in a C-5. Although a hot seat didn't make the cut due to time & budget constraints in the competition process, I wouldn't be surprised if one isn't fielded down the road and I hope that TCTO is made a priority before there are fatalities. It fills a niche and isn't all bad. Overall cost is an issue, as is the TBD training pipeline for tailwheel transition. If the AF chooses its path wisely, there is a lot of potential here.
Not sure if they'll ever get around to that or even if it's a good idea, the cockpit was designed for maximum crash survivability and you're completely surrounded by 4130 tubing. As it is, you have a high likelihood of surviving a crash even at normal cruise speed, I see it often enough in the ag world when pilots smack into the ground or trees or poles and walk away, so it's a lot different than a jet where punching out is the only way you survive. Get rid of that tubing around you and you damn well better have an ejection seat because you're not going to survive a crash otherwise.
It's being purchased by SOCOM, not the Air Force, so different budget. No ejections seats, but it does have a roll cage and "airbag seatbelts"
I dont see the point. You still need crew, fuel, logistics, maintainers. Might as well use an A-10…everything else is a compromise as a cas platform.
Apparently the fuel tanks can also be ejected for an emergency landing.
@@RedTeufel The maintenance hours per flight hour would be much lower, fuel costs as well, loiter time would be great. It has it's uses to be sure
@@RedTeufel All the logistics you mention can be taken care of with a minimal crew. Two people could probably maintain three of them indefinitely, and the cost is a magnitude of order less. In the civilian world, oftentimes the owner is also the pilot and the mechanic, he is all of the logistics by himself. That's why SOCOM wants these so bad, because they can be stationed with a SOCOM team in austere locations and be autonomous, instead of operating from an airbase and relying on that infrastructure for each flight. SOCOM will have their own asset in the air without having to coordinate logistics with another branch potentially right on the edge of their combat radius. When you're that far away from a friendly airbase, sometimes you don't get the A-10 you want, sometimes you get a stupid F-16 that can barely strafe a town, much less lay down some cover. Everyone that doesn't understand why they "can't just use A-10's" doesn't understand the kind of role they need to fill. Think of it more like a role where an attack heli would be useful, except that you can bring more warheads and loiter for longer with a bigger combat radius, and none of the complicated logistics involved. Besides that, the A-10 doesn't actually bring all that much more to the table...it's an old airframe that needs a lot of maintenance, it needs a manicured runway and a lot of logistics to keep it in the air, it can't carry a spotter along in the back seat, it doesn't like flying slow, it can't loiter, doesn't have much range, the max loadout for its hardpoints is only twice as much as the War Tractor, it's very limited in avionics, and there's not a lot of them left to go around these days. The War Tractor is going to be better suited and more effective for the role it intends to fill, and the A-10 would bring zero advantages to the table in comparison. Now, if you were talking about a newly manufactured and modernized OV-10 Bronco instead of an A-10, there wouldn't be nearly as much disparity, and might even make more sense, but that'll never happen.
The fuel tanks are all internal, so doubtful.@@chrishoff402
Sky Warden the love child of an A-10 and a crop duster! 🤣
No, it's near literally a Crop Duster...
@@DonaldWWitt crop dusters don't have 10 hard points that can carry nearly every bomb, rocket pod, gun pod, electronic warfare and surveillance system pod available. 😂
@@erichammond9308 Maybe YOURS don’t…
@@DonaldWWitt my crop dusting is lethal. just ask my wife😂
@@erichammond9308 need to mount YOU on a pylon, but would be a war crime utilizing bio/chem weapons.
30 million a pop seems like a lot for a sub 2 million dollar plane with some extra kit tacked on.
The warming coffee cup holders are $1mil a piece...
It's all the ITAR controlled avionics crammed in there. Same goes for the fighter jets, if it weren't for the avionics onboard they'd be 1/10th the cost.
It's a bit more than that, it's state of the art targeting and tracking, upgraded armor plating, sealing gas tanks and bulletproof glass etc so it can withstand AK small arms fire etc
It's super-cheap, can be dismantled and shoved in a cargo plane and can land in places where you wouldn't keep a goat. It carries nasty weapons and surveillance gear that would make Captain Kirk weep with envy.
The best part about this was that during the testing they deployed it and had an extremely low maintenance issue report. Don't think they had ANY no fly issues or if they did they were sensor issues not airframe issues. Hey after all the civilian variants of the airframe are operated often in very austere environments where they need the simplicity of maintenance like an old tractor (Pre-Modern Electonics) For what they want to do - Should be a very good fit. I would love to see how Seal team or Delta force would use these if they got the hands on them.
The aircraft is not designed to fit ejection seats. The fuel lines and fuel tank are self-sealing and features emergency fuel jettison. Restraints include a 5-point harness equipped with airbags. Essential flight controls are present in both the front and rear seats.
If a helicopter's missing its rotors it won't fly either, but ejection seats aren't an issue. The Sky Warden is actually designed to be a stand-off support platform out of the range of most MANPADS, which is why it carries laser-guided rockets and missiles, but has no gun.
Seriously, when you look at that thing, it looks a lot like a late model Stuka, with that pointy drooped nose. Almost like a modern incarnation of the Ju-87G.
They are going to need them at the boarder.
For Maga scum
🇺🇲👍🏽
I used to work with the "Air Tractor" when I was trying to become a crop duster.
Both the Grumman AGCAT and Ait Tractor dominate the crop dusting arena.
T-bear reminds me of my boss, my mentor, and my friend his call sign was Boomer.
I love guys (shit, can I say that, or is there another pronoun I'm supposed to use😅😅) channel.
Imagine joining the USAF thinking you'll be flying the latest & hottest, and then get put into one of these ... contraptions
Probably a lot more fun than programming JDAMS at 20,000 ft.
Honestly i wouldnt mind i love prop planes
If you want to be a war fighter and be in the fight versus a jet pilot that trains for nothing, these might be alluring
It may not have ejection seats, but you can jettison the fuel and the armored cockpit has a roll cage and airbags.
There is a variant of the AT-802 that fights fires and they are amazing in British Columbia
On floats?
@@jasondelaney6849 yes and the wheeled version is in Alberta, Yukon and New Brunswick. As well as many operations in Australia Europe and South America. Very few in Africa
@@jasondelaney6849 The float version is the Fireboss , there is more "non float" firefighting ATs , they just fill in the runway .. those things are amazing , not fast but very fun to fly and in firefighting role they can take 3 tons of water wich is about half of a CL-215T/415.. so you can pretty much do the "same job" as a Scooper with 2 of theese.. but they cost much less , are cheaper to operate and require 1 pilot only..
Dont get me wrong im a hardcore fan of the Scooper but theese have been fighting fires a long time now and everyone that flies them adores them
You can't have too many Skywardens.
When I looked at this a while ago, pretty sure I counted 3 pods / track balls for 2 crew. Can't confirm, as I didn't go down tge rabbit hole that far, but I think I read the 3rd pod / FLIR was available for off board assets (SOF on ground with a ROVER type setup).
1960s : The North Vietnamese and Vietcong have heavy firepower, we need faster CAS jets with lots of armour and firepower.
2010s : The insurgents lack heavy firepower, A-10 is too overkill, we need a cheap cropduster plane with light armament.
And an ability to take off of the sort of improvised runways we're likely to use in counterinsurgencies.
Easier to maintain, the flight hour cost nothing. Most important it can taking off and landing everywhere. 😀
We gave the Taliban a bunch of the Super Tucanos. Saw a few of the 530FF attack helicopters I helped build thrown in there too.
Dudes in an Air Tractor call signs: _Harry_ and _Lloyd_
Bubba J and Dootle
Never flown a turbo prop but that thing could be some major fun!
You can buy an agcat its basically same thing just fitted with equip instead of big spray tank
@@captaintoyota3171 i used to pull banners with an ag-cat in the late 90's
@@captaintoyota3171 Good lord an agcat is nothing like an 802, I own both. One is $40K, the other is $40K short of a mil.
Navy could use these... I mean, you can land them in less than the width of a ship with no arresting gear! Makes everything a potential carrier! I also see these capable of landing on a flatbed truck moving at 45 mph by matching the speed!
Surprisingly enough, carrier landings have been verified with an AT-502B landing and taking off on the USS Lexington for a convention that was being held there. There's a picture of it floating around on the net somewhere, just search "air tractor USS Lexington" to find it. It can be done lightly loaded or empty but not with any kind of combat loadout, at least not from a smaller stationary ship like the Lexington.
I will look for that. Actually a lot of those bush planes that slow to a human running speed before touching down (serious flair and ground effects) could easily trail a 20 knot ship from astern and set gently onto a platform. In fact Red Bull did it on top of a building (maybe Burg Kalifa?) and it was like 30 feet wide! Made my heart skip a beat. Also... your name has me laughing my ass off!@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper
@@chrismaggio7879 The 802 is a huge, heavy aircraft compared to a bush plane...in fact, Air Tractor had to get a special exemption from the FAA to allow single pilot operations in it because it exceeded the 12,500lb weight limit. It's a long way off from a cub. I've made a few normal landings with a 20kt headwind, and they're certainly shorter than a carrier. Never measured distance but it was likely less than 400ft. The trick to get a minimum distance landing is to bring the prop into reverse pitch while you're still flaring and then hammer on it and the brakes as soon as you hit the ground without nosing over. The second you hit reverse pitch, the plane falls out of the sky and your elevator and rudder become all but useless, so you better have everything lined up because your inertia is going to be the only thing you rely on. If the technique isn't implemented perfectly, you'll ground loop or bury the $1M engine into the dirt, but it's very impressive and loud if done correctly.
I do love the idea of low cost alternatives and more rugged, local and affordable air support.
However, 40 million per plane is not quite the low cost i was hoping for in a 2.5 million base plane.
Sensor ball probably costs more than the airframe.
It is a state of the art 4th gen warplane. 😅
Pretty sure that Ukraine would love to have these.
Why don't they though? Perhaps Biden is still worried that a few Air Wardens will make Putin go nuclear.
Dusty Crop Hopper goes to war.
I read about using Air Tractors as CAS years ago. It looks like a great low cost/low threat concept.
... I wonder, how vulnerable are Apaches in a near peer environment?
The Warthog is starting to remind of the Ju 87 Stuka. A great CAS platform, as long as you're in a low threat environment. The Stuka got wrecked going up against the RAF.
I think Vietnam and the original Persian Gulf War are two versions of the same question. Vietnam saw a lot of downed US aircraft of all types. Major changes in tactics and philosophies resulted in a major shift in the gulf.
Well yes an a10 isnt a wild weasel flying in initial strike against sam sites etc. But after the aur dominance is obtained it maintains it. It is invaluble in any conflict as it will always devolve into war or attrition
This cropduster is barely faster than faster choppers (the Apache is rather slow)
If you worry about the A-10 , only 5 or 6 were shot down despite operating down in the weeds. This unproven cropduster should worry you a lot more
But when the air tractor is sent in everything that should be able to shoot it down is dead or in the process of dieing. You don't take a county with a air tractor you hold and rebuild it with a air tractor.
The only disadvantage I see is that it does not have ejection seats. For the rest, it is larger, more robust and with greater cargo capacity than the other aircraft that were presented in the contest. . I think it has more autonomy. Being slower also makes it harder for a jet plane to shoot down.
Mover, I remember when the F-16 cost $4 Million back when an 80286 processor was the latest and greatest and IIRC was not rated for night ops.
As pilots you know you can *never* have too many aircraft especially the fun to fly ones.
Gonky, 80+ years ago there were tens of thousands of pilots who didn't have bang seats to get them out and 25 years even earlier the pilots didn't even have a _laundry let-down_ when the 💩hit the fan.
For a couple of years, the US was looking at the Super Tocano (A29?) that was a special built aircraft with retracting landing gear, 1600 hp engine and other goodies and weapons capabilities, etc.
I believe that we left several in Afghanistan.
The latest word in the interwebs was that the US was cancelling the project, and now this?
The Super Tucanos are very good for CAS in counterinsurgencies. But the Sky Warden has a longer wingspan and a greater number of hard points. Also, and I could be wrong, the A-29's weren't build for the sort of dirt runways the Sky Warden can operate from.
@@Amalgam67 Good points, all. I guess the army or air force will keep changing the requirements for what they want.
@@duncanidaho2097 Don't think so. Programs like the Sky Warden aren't sexy enough to get the attention of the Pentagon brass. If they're going to meddle, it's going to be in the XM7 rifle program or the Gen 5 fighter program.
They need MORE skywarderns
I look at this and I wonder are they going to spray the enemy with some kind of pesticides.
Yes, yes the are. Kinda like spray and pray, only accurate!
@@nate2838 One would hope
Yes a little late for this. 1st they needed that 10 years ago, and they should be purchased for the army who know what they are doing. Giving this to the air farce is a waste because they are not true military warfighters. Just another social program.
These things are made to deploy WITH special operations teams to austere environments, where they will be based with or very close to the teams they will support. The idea is that they can provide convoy escort and just generally be very close to the team on the ground so reaction times are quick. Also since the air crew will be based with the ground teams they will have a better overall understanding of the mission and a better working relationship with SF.
Think about the insurgent ambush in Niger that killed multiple Green Berets. That is the perfect situation where something like this would be used. A clandestine mission where US forces are based on the ground, but have no air cover close by. Currently SOCOM has fixed wing assets that act in support roles for this mission, ISR, supply, Command and Control, etc. The AT-802U is meant to add something that can launch rockets and drop bombs to that mix. Totally different mission from traditional CAS or any other role the USAF or USN fixed wing assets provide.
I am not sure why they need 75 of them either, but I do know we have SOCOM teams literally all over the world in a bunch of places no one would care about even if they knew the name. Maybe SOCOM is worried about performing their tasks while the USA is simultaneously fighting a near peer threat and all available big boy aircraft are being used for that fight.
I wonder how well they handle battle damage... for the most part, boll weevils don't shoot back.......
Most of then price is in the electronics. Fly in low and shoot at something 5 miles away. I worked on the ark angel similar design.
They need that many to replace those that get too full of holes to fly.
or preposition them all over the place so they're near to need.
According to Wikipedia, it has no ejection seat. But it does have a 5 point harness restraint and airbags if that makes you guys feel any better.
Helicopters also don't have ejection seats. In this thing you can wear a parachute and jump out if necessary.
Plenty of fatalities and broken bones in GA crashes could have been avoided if aviation airbags were common.
@@petrairene Not keen on the idea of ejecting in a helicopter...
@@cameltrophy3 yep....Though you could jump out with a parachute, if you have enough altitude.
@@cameltrophy3 The Russians have been doing so
Getting rid of the rotor(s) first is a necessary hurdle
Yeah, it was the Tucano that the Taliban got a hold of.
All these years I thought his call sign was Donkey. Ya learn somethin new everyday.
A friend of mine has survived multiple crashes in his long crop dusting career 😅😎
They even type classified it as OA-1K Sky Warden ... the same A designation used for the A-1 Skyraider and even the letter follows the last Skyraider, the A-1J Skyraider.
ถ้ามันเป็นตัวเลือกมันใช้เวลานานไหมที่จะจัดส่งต้องการอย่างน้อย 6 เครื่อง
It's the Kill-R crop duster!
2.2 billion for 75 crop dusters...
Have you considered 1000 Spitfires?
These planes are loaded with tech and IIRC 10 hardpoints - 8 wings, 2 fuse.
The airplanes they gave to the T-ban was the A-29 super Tucano.
With ejection seats !
Now flying with the Taliban ...
@@Wannes_SOME of the A-29’s are believed to be serviceable.
A handful of A10s costs the same to fly as all the 75 sky sentry 🇬🇧🏴
im a 19d and i have to say there is no such thing as too much cas. i want my convoy to have something.
SOCOM really should think about putting the RED´s V12 diesel in a few of these - more than doubled range and loitering time, laods of torque, can be made whisper-quite...
Looks like it has an armored cockpit.
You’re thinking the A-29
What kind of designation is AT-802? It doesn’t fit in any series, does it. We don’t have an AT-801.
AT-802 is Air Tractor's designation numbers not military. AT=Air Tractor, 802 is airframe/engine size. AT-802F is the air firefighting unit. AT-802 Fire Boss is the firefighting unit on floats that can skim lakes for water refill.
Made not to far from where I live, in Olney Texas !!! Like anything else the government buys either we buy too little or too much
Have lots of money, will throw! 😀
Operational costs are drastically lower with great efficiency.
Has anyone ever really predicted what the "Next War" looked like?
"I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."-Einstein
no, and military procurement is about the most corrupt and inefficient thing in the USA.
So....is all visual gonna be digital? I can't see how pilots are gonna see out of this thing?
Yes, there are no ejections seats.
20$ it becomes known as war tractor!! 🤣🤣
Looks like a small arms magnet to me. Roll in on a target at 150 knots, 100 feet and everybody with a slingshot an AK and an RPG is going to be popping off. To small and light to have any real pilot saving armor like the A-10"s Titanium bathtub. So it's going to be a hairy ride for sure.
A APKWS rocket has a 5-6 mile range, battery limited.
Let's see those 5 mile AK shots against a moving target.
LOL...the "titanium bathtub" protection is over-rated myth if you read the actual specs. Its TOLERANT to 23mm fragments, not direct hits, and not to anything larger. A direct hit with a 30 to 40mm would go right thru and bag the pilot. A 57mm direct hit would obliterate the aircraft. The problem is the A-10 was designed around false thinking. The designers assumption was the heaviest thing accompanying a soviet motorized regiment for organic AA would be things like a ZSU-23-4, and they didn't consider how much the Soviets developed vehicle mounted SAM systems (which in 1991 proved very capable at killing A-10s) or the twin 30mm Tunguska replacement for the Shilka.
It's not going to be THAT close, it doesn't even have guns. It'd just take it easy at 2,000 ft, then use its $10 million electronics to guide in 500 lb bombs. This little guy can carry 8,000 lbs too...b17 bombers in ww2 carried 4,000 lbs for long range missions in comparison.
@@wnose it can carry gun pods if needed but you're correct. Laser guided rockets or hellfire missiles will be more effective in most cases.
So Dusty crophooper not only can operate in carriers but now he goes all warthog too
Forgive my ignorance, but would resurrecting the OV-10 be a plausible option? You would at least have the capability to have a couple brave souls jump out the back of the thing 😅
Slide out the back. I heard the stories from the old timers. They would stack up like it's a sled. Have the Bronco pitch up and they'd slide out. Sounded like it was a blast.
The Marines and Seals loved the Bronco because you could stuff four guys in the back for special ops missions.
No. It was brought back for Operation Inherent Resolve but after a year they just couldn't keep the airframes going.
They already did that back in 2012.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD ; Sounds like a money issue.
Think about the uses for that. Not many terrorists or third world countries have an Airforce. Most jets fly too fast against drones and risk overshoot. Plus, take a normal operator and give him the ability to fly or land and reek havoc. I love it.
Marry Christmas 🎄
I swear armed overwatch isn’t what this should be used for, though I’m sure it can do that job well enough. I’m thinking ultra low altitude penetration of enemy airspace. Flying 20 feet off the ground for 4 hours with 5,500 pounds of ordnance and smashing a target without them ever seeing you coming.
A MANPAD would really ruin the day though.
The Afghans got the A-29 Super Tucano, a more powerful aircraft that more closely resembles a WW2 fighter like the P-51 Mustang.
Support your local crop duster manufactory!
U buy 75 of them if you are expecting to lose a lot of them
0:28 Gonky outs himself as a 'FOist :)
Remember in WW1 if you got shot down... a crash landing was in order... the enemy picked you up... cordially provided drinks, dinner and then a ride to the FLOT the next morning!
75 Wardens for about the price of 6 F-22s, for whatever that's worth.
How about pilot airbags? Watch one crop dusting on a 100F day & you won't worry about mere mountains.
TRACK SELECT >
~" Danger Zone · Cherlene · Kenny Loggins "~
PLAY > > >
SHOULD HAVE GOT NEW OV-10's UPGRADED!
It isn't the plane cost... it is the per hour flight time cost. The sky warden would be orders of magnitude cheaper to fly than an A10.
Looks like a Stuka
Remember guys the Sky Warden you are showing in not fully loaded out
Watch out for the guns, they'll get ya.
Why do we need sky warden when we have the far superior a10?
because the a10 can´t fly slow enough and it is expensive
$29.3 mil a unit?
Obviously a lot of maint and facilities costs in there?
I disagree. 75 is NOT a lot, especially when talking relatively cheap aircraft. It's a training unit and a few ops squadrons...
How many Squadrons does Socom need? They have what overall? 2 Brigades worth of units and some of them are waterbased? Is every Soldier supposed to get their own emotional support cropduster?
Maybe it has airbags … LOL😊
It does has airbags.
2 seater is for training. Should be army aircraft. Pilots need minimum of 20 hours taildragger time. Landing conventional gear plane your feet dance on the rudder petals.
This goes back to the old O-2 which had 2 seats. The back seat was the covey rider and wasn't an aviator, but an operator. There is a value of having human ISR from a certain source. The back seater in this case will need some flight training as there is dual flight controls (front/rear). The 0-2 got shot up a lot, so they must have the redundant controls with that in mind.
It's was the super tucano that send to Afghanistan it was purchase in Brazil it not a US made.
They should take a page from Cirrus and at least put a CAPS parachute in the thing.
This platform is about 20 years late. This is what should have been flying over Afghanistan and Iraq dropping JDAMs and providing CAS instead of us flying the wings off of our A-10/F-15/16/18 fleets. Why would you fly those airplanes in an environment where they're using maybe 15% of their capability? Our fighters were largely designed to penetrate enemy air defense networks and strike pre-planned targets, not loiter at 30,000' dropping JDAMs or trying to use their targeting pods to track people. Now though, where would the Sky Warden find its niche? There really isn't a conflict at present or looming on the horizon (maybe east Africa?) where these things would be useful (which isn't to say we shouldn't pursue on a small scale its development, never know when the next low-intensity conflict could present itself). At least they're cheaper than AC-130's (also, anymore, a rather outdated platform).
Pilotless version is probably coming.
Super Tucano
Looks like a recycled Ju-87 Stuka cockpit
Apparently a better plane than F35 😂
I'm a wargamer and was looking at strategy for Ukraine and speculating on how it would be possible to effectively attack the Russian forces. The Sky Warden was the answer I hit upon. The plane has a roll cage and airbags, the fuel tanks can be ejected for an emergency dead stick landing. It can be transported and assembled from a kit in under 24 hours with a single ordinary tool box. As for armament, either 2 20 mm cannons or 2 50 cal. MGs, plus 2 500 lb. bombs, plus 2 pods each containing 7 70 mm missiles, plus 2 Hellfire missiles. It can take off from a rough airfield of as little as 400 meters length.
The strategy would have involved Ukraine placing an order for a mass production run of 5000 AT 802U L3 Harris Sky Wardens over a year prior to their failed summer offensive, to be delivered in time for the attack. They would train air crews and ground crews in the west while the planes were being built. Meanwhile, given the essentially static nature of the front line, identify up to 10,000 400 meter plus improvised airstrips within 20 minutes flight time of the front line, the only other requirement being a place to conceal the planes from drones and satellites beside the improvised runways. When everything was ready smuggle the aircraft into position one piece at a time to avoid detection, one plane per runway, and assemble them within 24 hours of the balloon going up.
Launch all 5000 Sky Wardens at the same time! That's 80,000 missiles and 10,000 500 lb. bombs under those wings. The primary target would be the Pantsirs, Triumphs, Silkhas, Tors, everything related to the Russian Air Defenses and airfields along the Russian/Ukrainian front line. Come in just above stall speed, wheels brushing the tips of the grass, deep inside the ground clutter, a short distance, mass NOE attack using cheap aircraft. Blow a hole in the Russian air defenses in the first minutes. Return to their runways, rearm, launch the next mass strike against the artillery systems. The third attack would go after armored vehicles, finally take out the logistics.
If it was the USAF, they would conduct a long range high altitude stealth attack using a small number of very expensive B1s, B2s, B21s, B52s, F22s and F35s. The only alternative for a country like Ukraine would be short range, low altitude, under the radar attack using large numbers of cheap aircraft. If it sounds ridiculous, consider that Hamas successfully bypassed the Israeli Iron Dome system using Paragliders. I don't believe the attack would succeed in the end, and I don't support the Wests position in Ukraine, it would be more like the massed kamikaze attacks on the US Navy in the S. Pacific, with the intended effect that the Tet offensive had on the US, namely, military defeat but psychological victory.
Air Tractor would never be able to ramp up production like that, in fact, I doubt any company in the US would be able to regardless of how much money was thrown around. These aircraft are still hand fitted piece by piece to the point that some components can only be used on the aircraft they were made for, and then you have to consider the other bottlenecks, such as Pratt&Whitney ramping up to build 5,000 engines with strategically limited materials, or the avionics packages made by a defense contractor in a world of chip shortages. And the price....at $30M a pop, I don't see how Ukraine or the generosity of the US could afford that. I've put an 802 together before with several people helping, and to expect 5,000 of them to be assembled covertly overnight in this age of drone surveillance and all be ready for a mass assault is wishful thinking at best. The strategy could be effective, but the logistics and losses involved would still be an immense hurdle that sounds more like a hail mary from WWII.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Yeah I was wondering about the price. Air Tractor delivers the planes to L3 Harris for a cost of 3.2 Million and after the Avionics are fitted the price jumps to 40 million each, for a glorified crop duster. 1/5th the cost of an F35? If Western industry is so completely sold off to the 3rd world we can't mass produce 5000 airplanes in a drop everything crash program then we had better not get in a real war with anybody. It's like with the Houthi's using drones built for 10k that we shoot down with 2 million dollar missiles.
@@chrishoff402 It's the avionics and electronics responsible for the price. Well, that and I'm sure L3 is in real deep milking that gov titty, so I'm sure that if push came to shove the price would be cut in half, probably more so if production ramped up to those numbers. But making 5,000 in a year? That would be WWII level production numbers, a new plane rolling out in less than two hours. Speaking of WWII era production, it took the US six years to ramp up production to the point that it was making that infamous airplane an hour. Back then it was feasible, alloys were simple and avionics were analog, most factories were able to be converted easily to handle producing strategic parts because there wasn't anything particularly specialized about them, they were just simple parts...and it still took them many years to hit peak production. P&W just recently celebrated making their 100,000th engine since they started making them back in 1928...you're asking them to build 1/20th of all the engines they've ever made within a single year. Other companies could theoretically license build them, but how many engines do you think they could make, even if the gov started shoveling money at them? It would probably take a year just to build the factory, find competent employees, train them, and then use those employees to source the tooling and supplies before they could even put calipers to a casting. Then you have to consider that the sheer quantity of high quality exotic alloys like titanium and inconel needed would likely clear the entire country of those alloys with the first few hundred engines, and all allied countries before the 1,000 mark was reached. Not even going to get into the avionics, because there's no way to ramp up that production within a reasonable time frame. The components that we use in our avionics is not sourced from China or Taiwan, we make all of those chips in house (partially why they cost so much). Any one of those chips or boards could have espionage baked into them, and that's not something we can afford to have in our fleet. Even when manufacturers are using chips sourced from all over the globe, they still had shortages. Ford, with their massive bank account that could afford paying 10x the cost for chips, and chip manufacturers ramping up production to get that big paycheck, still couldn't get enough to make their own vehicles, and so a lot of them had features entirely omitted just so they could get cars out of the factory. To think one company could ramp up chip production in that short of a time frame is unrealistic, but there's also the trained specialists needed to assemble these avionics, the hard to find components using rare elements, the ultra precision assembly done with robotics, and the fact that once it's all said and done the whole world would probably have the blueprints to our most sensitive electronics due to the mad rush of outsourcing and giving everyone the plans to make those components. That's just for two aspects of the aircraft, the engine itself and the avionics. Air Tractor utilizes a lot of components that they don't make in house, and while they're not particularly strategic in their design, just simple parts...they come from rather small businesses that aren't ready to scale up at a moment's notice with nothing but money as the incentive. Just look at how long it's taking to ramp up artillery shell production, they were given a whole lot of money to mass produce tons of shells, and it's slow going. All of those pieces would have to be scaled up and logistics would be incomprehensible on that time scale. Then you have to consider that maybe some of these businesses just wouldn't want to...once the run is over, all the infrastructure they paid for, all the employees they hired, it would be surplus and that might be too much of a headache to deal with unless you're talking total war and they have no other choice. This is Ukraine we're talking about, and half the country thinks we shouldn't even be helping them. But I wouldn't worry too much about it, no other country could mount that kind of war effort in such a short time either. They could possibly make cheap target tugs in that quantity for our aircraft to blast out of the sky by the dozens, but they won't be able to make near peer aircraft to challenge ours. We're still on top in that regard.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper Yeah, it's not the same world that went to WW2 anymore. I was talking this 5000 plane attack idea before Oct. 7th. I didn't hear of a single Hamas Paraglider getting shot down, either by the Israeli air force or Iron Dome. My point being theirs an exploitable chink in the armor of all modern militaries that small aircraft in sufficient numbers at close range could exploit, and drones have real shortcomings compared to real pilots in real airplanes. It does make you wonder why they purchased so many Sky Wardens. Even 50 of them coming in a line formation at near to ground level with missiles and guns blazing would be devastating.
That thing is sooo cool. I would love to fly/fight it. We should get them in the Army.
Maybe, SOCOM has a busy schedule. They're active real world allllll the time...
Should have dusted of the plans for the A-1 Skyraider instead.
75 of those is going to cost 2.5B all together??? That’s crazy an aircraft that small and training is going to cost that much. Get rid of the second guy hahaha
Could you even imagine finishing UPT and getting this thing? yikes, pushing 150 kts in a dive? no thanks
Slow flying, long loiter time, can start and land on soft fields. Can't this plane do some of the jobs of attack helicopters?
$2,200,000,000 for a crop duster with guns?