Airplanes

[mmc45414]

Ex: an ODA deploys with a single Air Tractor to support their own operations.

Dedicated resource, without a big logistical tail, flown by a WO that is part of the same team, ready to respond without phoning home to Florida, why would they want that?

[M2CattleCo]

And I think another criteria is able to be flown by indigenous folks after a (ahem...) "truncated" training cycle.

They’re not easy to fly.

Super weird/unpredictable/abrupt flight characteristics.

Very little control feedback and the cockpit position makes it difficult to judge AOA. They’re not stable and require constant input/correction to keep from oscillating.

It takes something like 2500’ to recover from a stall and spins are unrecoverable.

[Guerrero]

It's a COIN aircraft. It doesn't need to be fast. It doesn't need to be maneuverable.

It needs to be cheap, easy to maintain in austere environments, fly at low speed to observe and acquire targets on its own, and capable of landing on short and rough fields.

You can't do any of those things with an F-16.

Also loiter time.

I don’t understand what they’re really doing with that military Air Tractor.

They’re not fast.
They’re not very maneuverable.

I guess they’re cheap?

I have a little over 1K hours in Air Tractors and they’re just amazingly bad flying airplanes in every way.

But... but... an Air Tractor with mini guns!

[TGS]

Dedicated resource, without a big logistical tail, flown by a WO that is part of the same team, ready to respond without phoning home to Florida, why would they want that?

For real.

In their defense, the USAF brings up a good point that the platforms are vulnerable to even decades old MANPADs in common use by tribal warlords, and even infantry machine guns...and thus it's too high risk, especially given the value of pilots.

But, to your point (and the point of SOCOM), you don't need exceptionally well trained, world class pilots to fly these things. You don't need a guy who has gone through years of state-of-the-art flight school to fly a crop duster and shoot some rockets and guns at low altitude. You only need a few months from start to finish, realistically.

But, they have a brand to protect...and that entire idea endangers their brand.

[TGS]

They’re not easy to fly.

I don't think the comment was regarding "easy" in terms of how good you need to be on the stick.

Rather, easy in terms of effort and infrastructure needed to train someone.

If you have a grass field, canopy, and white board...you can teach someone to fly one of these. There's no need for first world infrastructure and training facilities like an F-16, is more the point.

[Suvorov]

With respect of M2’s comments, which I opine are the most pertinent to this discussion, I can’t help but wonder if there are not better aircraft for this application. While I don’t have any time in an air tractor I have trained dozens of pilots from zero time to fly airplanes and the inherent stability of an airplane is one thing that makes the job relatively easier than say rotor aircraft. Take away that stability, add a low time developing nation pilot, unforgiving airplane, and the need to divide attention between flying and combat duties and even I can do the math.

The USAF used Cessnas in Vietnam as observation aircraft and I really wonder how much ground fire an air tractor can absorb than a turbine 206 could?

[Guerrero]

With respect of M2’s comments, which I opine are the most pertinent to this discussion, I can’t help but wonder if there are not better aircraft for this application. While I don’t have any time in an air tractor I have trained dozens of pilots from zero time to fly airplanes and the inherent stability of an airplane is one thing that makes the job relatively easier than say rotor aircraft. Take away that stability, add a low time developing nation pilot, unforgiving airplane, and the need to divide attention between flying and combat duties and even I can do the math.

The USAF used Cessnas in Vietnam as observation aircraft and I really wonder how much ground fire an air tractor can absorb than a turbine 206 could?

The other competitors in the competition were:

UA-28A Draco (modified light utility plane)
AT-6E Wolverine (modified trainer plane)
MC-145B Wily Coyote (modified light cargo plane)
and, at one time, the A-29 Super Tucano (modified trainer)

so it looks like they looked around some.

As to how much ground fire the air tractor can absorb, they're basing the SOCOM one on the air tractor already modified with a armor "bathtub" used to spray drug crops.

[TGS]

With respect of M2’s comments, which I opine are the most pertinent to this discussion, I can’t help but wonder if there are not better aircraft for this application. While I don’t have any time in an air tractor I have trained dozens of pilots from zero time to fly airplanes and the inherent stability of an airplane is one thing that makes the job relatively easier than say rotor aircraft. Take away that stability, add a low time developing nation pilot, unforgiving airplane, and the need to divide attention between flying and combat duties and even I can do the math.

I'm not sure, but everything you're mentioning may be why the Super Tucano generally wins out for arming undeveloped/developing nations...whereas the Air Tractor under discussion was the winner for a specific niche of the US military.

[Stephanie B]

It's a COIN aircraft. It doesn't need to be fast. It doesn't need to be maneuverable.

It needs to be cheap, easy to maintain in austere environments, fly at low speed to observe and acquire targets on its own, and capable of landing on short and rough fields.

You can't do any of those things with an F-16.

So, a drone with an onboard pilot?

[TGS]

So, a drone with an onboard pilot?

I don't know if I'd make that equation. I'm under the impression that the AT is tens of millions of dollars cheaper per unit than drones which have the useful payload of the AT, while also being short and rough field capable unlike said drones.