Call it a kick butt cure for a strong case of “Next-War-itis”…
Sick of F-22s, Ospreys, VH-71s and JSFs? Well, then the Combat Air Truck is the plane for you.
Built by Air Tractor, a premier designer and builder of crop dusting planes, the CAT is set to debut at the Paris Air Show coming up in the middle of this month. Built as a purpose-designed counter insurgency aircraft, the CAT sports extremely short take off and landing capability (150–200 feet) with very long loiter (10 hours with fuel bladders) and plenty of lift to carry rockets, GAUs and pods in expeditionary environments.
A source who’s flacking the plane tells me the main benefit is the plane’s lack of logistics footprint…“everything can be fixed with a wrench and screwdriver,” he said, eliminating the need for expensive spare parts, maintenance bays and teams of techs to keep the thing up and running.
The plane could provide low-cost, long-loiter CAS, convoy escort and FID missions for US troops, allies and contractors flying out of areas as small as battalion — or even company-level FOBS.
“This is about having breakfast with a convoy commander before launching to provide him with route recon, battlefield overwatch, and if necessary precise and withering fires on anything that gets in the way,” my source sent me.
I’m bullish on COIN aircraft and with a USAF chief of staff who’s keen on the idea of cheaper, longer loiter, less maintenance intensive aircraft for the current fight and for allies who can’t afford $10 million aircraft, this capability is going to be increasingly attractive.
– Christian
That ain’t an Agcat, it’s an Agro-cat.
sorry.
But really, about friggin time. 21st century Spad. Buy 500.
looks more rugged than what has been proposed before.. hopefully it can carry more bombs than 2 in the picture… if thye can load this up.. it will be a great option for COIN! not to mention american built
Looks good, but can it take a shot? What about armor?
No way the USAF will EVER buy that…way too unsexy…
I’m predicting that the political gravity of the Northrup/Lockheed/Boeing-type companies in the Pentagon will neuter such a common-sense, fiscally responsible battlefield solution in favor of one of their multi-million dollar ultra-tech wonder-gizmos.
That thing makes the A-10 look Marissa Miller. But seriously, the Air Force will never buy some ugly piece of slow flying metal.
The days of the wonder gizmos are gone, they are cutting them all…
The reason we fight COIN is cause no one can stand up toe to toe with our army (At least no one that wants too). So we need to be careful to keep that front line traditional warfare ability up, but I am happy to see more equipment coming down that will help to fight the kinds of war we will be seeing.
Has anyone revisited the Rutan ARES? It would do the job admirably I think?
I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to pack that much of a punch.
Though with its long loiter time it can be used as a nuisance and keep the enemy at bay till the bigger CAS aircraft can come like the Cobras, Apaches, A-10s, and F-16s.
Needs stealth, jamming, vtol, carrier variant, afterburners before the Airforce even considers it. Also need to make it cost several million.
Long loiter would be good.
Now would be a great time to revisit Key West. Give Army all the aircraft that do X, and the airforce the craft that do Y. Of course, you’d also need to integrate their training cirricula or else you have two different training programs burning twice the cash for nothing. Maybe send army boys to the air force, then back to the army for specialized training on their particular aircraft?
I know a lot of you weren’t in Nam in the early day’s but we flew the Flint Stone Air Force And used,Old and slow worked pretty damn well until the brass couldn’t wait to get the latest go fasters over there.
I will stick with my Super Tucano.
One thing that might be problematic for the CAT, are it’s eyes. The pilot sits on the trailing edge of the wing. Creating a blind spot below & forward of the aircraft. Not to mention the canopy has some wide framing, reducing visibility even more.
“Air Truck” had me thinking of this old puppy…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/ZK-BPVa.jpg
I don’t think I was clear earlier when I wrote about liking the idea of an airframe like this. I applogize, as I love the idea of using small fixed wing non-jet aircraft.
I don’t know a lot about this aircraft but it sounds pretty nice (although I agree something that you can see out of better would be nice), give it good optics, a lazer designator, hang a bunch of guns, few hard points for missles, rockets and bombs and field it already. Our troops need more eyes in the CAS.
And I love the idea of this going to Army aviation. But I always thought the idea of the Army and the Airforce being seperate as a needless and expensive speration of duties.
looks eerily like a Stuka
The study to determine the feasibility of converting this plane for military use was an earmark steered by Frank Murtha to his pet MountainTop Technologies firm…
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09146/972702–455.stm
I have nothing against Frank, but it’s interesting backstory. Looks like this plane was created from pork.
Posted by: Camp at June 1, 2009 07:27 PM:
“Air Truck” had me thinking of this old puppy…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/ZK-BPVa.jpg
That thing (and the CAT too, for that matter) hits about a 7.6 on the Ugly Scale.….and if the on-board firepower doesn’t take care of the BG’s, there’s always the chance that they’ll severely hurt themselves laughing
Jokes aside, this is EXACTLY the sort of thing we need in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
“I like the wide-open field of view”
True, and important, but as RTLM said, it’s a trade-off between visibility and firepower. A CAS slow-mover can expect to face small arms and light weapons fire from the ground on a regular basis.
00:27 to 00:30 gives the only ‘opened up’ view, but I can’t make out if there’s any clue as to the level of protection.
“And I love the idea of this going to Army aviation. But I always thought the idea of the Army and the Airforce being seperate as a needless and expensive speration of duties.”
Something I would agree with — practicallity due to politics is something I don’t want to consider but regardless of what you think of some of the stuff in ‘America’s Defense Meltdown’, small CAS aircraft plugged directly into the battallion hierarchy always seemed a good idea to me; even if it’s a stop-gap whilst the airforce pulls something bigger off the availible assets list, having permanent, organic top cover on a convoy would certainly make me feel better.
This stuff was made obsolete by UAVs but since Afpak is going the way of Vietnam, it’s only appropriate that NAM nostalgia makes a revival.
Next up on MiltaryTech: the McNamara line and the ontos.
10 hours with fuel bladders…
MTOW in warzone will prob be exceeded… well anywhere hot and high that will be the case!
Also — the aircraft will not fly that long with the wings fully laden with external ordinance!
Useful… but it’s a bit of overkill for what can probably be done by a Predator for the same amount of money!
[hmmm… the original version of this seemed to be caught by the obscenity filter, so I have bowdlerized it.]
I don’t know whether this aircraft is a good tactical idea. I do know what the USAF’s reaction is going to be. One can easily picture the Pentagon meeting:
“It’s affordable? We hate it. It actually helps the boots on the ground? We hate it even more. Now send a memo out telling everybody who likes it to go stick their head in a pig, especially those whiny little dickheads in the Army who think that just because we aren’t interested in their kind of air cover then that gives them the right to actually want or have it. Now it’s off to a prayer meeting!”
Hmm… looks like a good plane to be flown by the Army.
Because there is no way that the zoomies would _ever_ buy this, irregardless of its utility..
Stop bitching about the AF! The Army, those fouls cant get anything right.
The USAF just does what ever AF has done since WWI, which is to rule the Sky that comes first.
On the other Hand the Army is fighting People who have nothing more then RPG and AK-47 and they cant do it without help from the AF? What The Hell? No Wonder the USA is so afraid of Kim From North Korea!
What happened to the Bronco? That craft had 2 props and a proven track record.
Slow moving manned aircraft are still needed and being requested in the field. Sometimes you actually have to put eyeballs on the target and surrounding area, especially in CAS.
The Navy is currently using a Super Tucano leased through a Black Water spinoff company. It is being used to verify and develop COIN operations using these types of aircraft. Specifically, this aircraft is being used in conjunction with special operations forces.
The Army has used manned UC-12s in Iraq for ISR missions in support of tactical operations and convoys. These are not armed however. And they have proven so effective the Army is buying UC-12s in relatively large numbers. They are also using Pilatus PC-12s.
I think this aircraft would be awesome rolling off the ski ramp of a gator freighter. Just an odd thought in my head. Jarheads love things ugly.
Someone mentioned the OV-10 Bronco. I believe Boeing has offerred a new build OV-10 to the military.
DC2
lol, so after 30 years the navy wants the skyraider back?
I’d love top cover from that, but I don’t know if I’d want to be the guy flying it. It’s gonna be low and slow enough to kill with an RPG. I don’t think theatre-level commanders are going to want an airplane than can be shot down, even if it’s cheap, because they don’t want to report the losses.
AT,
Welcome to the world of modern warfare. Where have you been for the last 5 years or so? Sorry to be sarcastic, but COIN manned light attack and surveillance aircraft with long endurance have been discussed for years. They are needed and are currently being used in some fashion.
Mike,
Apaches and other attack helicopters are being used every day. These are slower and more vulnerable than any fixed wing aircraft. I am quite certain techniques can be developed to counter any issue with survivability.
These types of aircraft are perfect for the wars we currently are fighting. Cheap to build and operate, long endurance, functional weapons payload, short and unimproved runway requirements.
DC2
Still like this plane, but–
The 802 is 40ft long with 60ft of wing, hardly a small plane. Air Tractor claims it’s the “world’s biggest single.” Maybe doesn’t need much maintenance, but that’s a a lot of ramp.
Air Tractor also sells a 502 and a 402, think it would be interesting to see those get the same treatment.
‘This stuff was made obsolete by UAVs but since Afpak is going the way of Vietnam, it’s only appropriate that NAM nostalgia makes a revival.’
I’m not sure. Not yet, anyway. A UCAV can mount JDAMs, Brimstone or similar ordnance, but against a large scale infantry presence there’s a lot to be said for an aircraft capable of carrying GAU miniguns, Hydra rockets, etc. If you’re looking at widely available, readily expended, low cost support, an important element is the ability to use low cost munitions and ordnance — which means direct fire, unguided weaponry.
At the moment I’m not aware of a UCAV which can deploy gunfire and unguided rockets effectively.
Mike,
Agreed with regards to helo ops. I understand there is a difference. However, if not used properly, an Apache will get shot down. That was evidenced by the long range search and destroy ops that almost obliterated a group of Apaches during the invasion of Iraq.
Regardless of type of aircraft, flying in such close proximity to combat will result in shoot downs. However, I can’t see any Air Force brass justify not purchasing this aircraft on that basis. Imagine telling the Army that we are sorry we cannot purchase this plane because we are afraid they may get shot down.
Also, the Air Force is losing market share (or will be) of budget dollars which all branches hate. I would be willing to bet that is one reason the Navy is flying the only Super Tucano we have.
DC2
The discussions as to whether this aircraft will or will not be effective in and of itself and whether or not is is or isn’t more effective than a helicopter are both moot. The USAF wouldn’t want it even if it were the greatest thing since firearms. It represents two orientations that the USAF is dead-set against: first, an emphasis on close ground support; second, the possibility that the Army might get fixed-wing aircraft again.
The latter is more troubling. It is only slightly hyberbolic to say that even if the USAF went out of the ground support business tomorrow it STILL wouldn’t want the Army to have close support aircraft. Watching the USAF sometimes is a bit like a spoiled fat kid who couldn’t scarf down even a tiny morsel more of pie, but still won’t let anybody else near the plate without screaming and wrapping his arms around it.
IMHO,this Stuka could be a solution for a lot of problems that we have.With a cost of 10 million dolar top of the line ‚we can use for the air national guard to replace some worn out f-16, with the cost of 4 f-16 we can have 20 Stukas.Maybe the navy could use for CAS.Should be posible modified for use in aircraft carriers?With the cost of a couple of f-18 we make a air wing for a aircraft carrier.Of course, this is thinking outside the box.In a time of crisis,this could be a common-sense, fiscally responsible battlefield solution .And I love the idea of this going to Army aviation
seeker6079–
Sorry to say you have a point, but, there’s always jealousy. Tell the Air Force that the Navy or Marines are getting the plane, and the budget to go with it, chances are that spoiled fat kid makes a grab for it, too.
Mike:
What I’d love to see is the Navy or the Marines getting the aircraft pursuant to an agreement with the Army that the plane will be tasked with providing support to the Army. Can you imagine how that would put the cat amongst the Congressional pigeons?
“The USAF is so disinterested in providing air support to the Army that the Navy has to do it for them.”
“Really? So tell me again, why exactly do we need an air force? Hand me that Robert Farley article again.…”
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=abolish_the_air_force
If it will reduce the Army’s dependence on lukearm USAF air support, I’m for it.
On a side note — thanks to government security, I can’t see the pic (if there is one) with the article so I googled it. The pics I am seeing looking nothing at all like a Stuka.
My question is whether the Key West agreements are even relevant anymore. The only reason I’ve heard behind them was to draw a final dividing line with regards to assets between an Army that wanted keep aviation to support its efforts and a brand-new Air Force that didn’t have the political or administrative clout to protect itself.
Is that still the case today? I seriously doubt it. The Air Force should be more than content to retain a strategic perspective, fix its nuclear deterrent and strategic mobility issues, and let the Army do what it knows best: killing people and breaking things on the ground.
That doesn’t mean the Air Force has to accept the role of bench-warmer either: supporting cross-border efforts into Pakistan’s NWF provinces, where there are no Army troops deployed at the moment comes to mind. We have service cultures that have developed in specific ways for specific reasons. Let’s use those, instead of trying to fight against them all the time.
I’m all in favor of cheap fixed wing CAS to supplement existing assets. Especially if the Army is allowed to fly them. But I don’t think the Air Tractor is the best option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802
With it’s fixed landing gear, slow 180 mph top speed, and 1450 hp engine it truly is nothing better than a Stuka. Better options include reviving the Scaled Composites ARES ‘mudfighter’ or bringing back the old OV-10 Bronco.
A gunship version of the Bronco could be cheap and useful. In high altitude CAS operations in Afghanistan it could evade small arms fire much better than any helicopter. It would also be perfect for CH-47 escort.
By the end of WWII didn’t we pretty much have prop driven aircraft down pat? Why not just have GM start rolling them off the lines again at one of the plants that they aren’t building cars at? With what we paid them in bailout they should be able to do what we want. Maybe a nice Avenger or Mustang with the folding wings to make space.
The real advantage is the conventional machinery of plane. It can actually be fielded by people who arent’ modern airforces.
They are also no doubt very easy to fly.
Sounds like a real workhorse, with emergency offensive capability. Or handy as a short notice pair of eyes and ears.
I think they will be extremely difficult to shoot down without guided rockets, none of which our sandal wearing foes have. RPG’s and small arms fire are of little concern.
Did someone say Afghanistan and Iraqi armies? It would be great if they actually were given some capability to do their job.
As for the technical aspects of the craft. Its not a fighter or a bomber or a transport craft. Its a actually more of a utility multipurpose craft. Also its design is no doubt superior to niche designs of world war 2, we now have CAD, computers and cheap wind tunnels.
The 802 is the culmination of years of design evolution/improvement of Leland Snow’s offering to a support service of the farming industry. If it’s rugged enough, dependable enough, and economical enough to allow ag operators to make a profit, then most of the posts are correct; the services and the politicians will not buy it.
The aircraft has more than proven it’s low level, low speed maneuverability, load hauling capability, and crash worthiness in the farming biz, fire attack, and eradication efforts of the Department of State.
Dollar for dollar it is a lot cheaper to operate than a helicopter with equal payload and the durablity, simplicity, survivablity, and load carrying capabilities are better than sleeker turboprop designs.
too lightweight and not enough armaments or armor. Great concept. Build AD-1’s.
Pilots,
Nothing is more enjoyable than to listen to a bunch military pilots with million dollar budgets argue about aircraft and their capabilities. The AT-802 costs 1/4, that is one forth of an UAV with a local in the seat vs. a six digit USAF officer and enlisted airman sipping Starbucks in an air-conditioned trailer at Luke; I would bet 4v1 AT-802 v Predator my money is on the four home boys. Give them their own and let our boys come home. This is why we are getting our asses kicked in Iraq and Aghanistan. Basics vs. technology in an basic land, the local red necks will win everytime.