Comments on: The COIN Plane Race Heats Up

By: Red Neck Ag Pilot

Red Neck Ag Pilot — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:26:12 +0000

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.

By: matt

matt — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:08:09 +0000

too lightweight and not enough armaments or armor. Great concept. Build AD-1’s.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:09:28 +0000

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.

By: Subby

Subby — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:45:50 +0000

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.

By: ejl

ejl — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:30:22 +0000

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.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:16:23 +0000

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: Tom R

Tom R — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:34:37 +0000

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.

By: JSmith

JSmith — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:35:35 +0000

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.

By: seeker6079

seeker6079 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:10:04 +0000

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

By: mike j

mike j — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:37:51 +0000

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.