(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

O/T Makes sense to me........

Goose

Goose

Well-known Member
The Air Force is apparently experimenting at turning the trusty old crop duster airplane into a low level attack aircraft.

As an old Marine Corps "Airedale", I see the point. With an armored cockpit, self sealing fuel tanks, and beefed up wings with pylons, a crop duster could fly low and slow enough to do a fantastic job of close air support for ground troops.

According to an article I read, the idea is to replace the A-10. The A-10 is still a helluvan airplane, but it's 35 years old, major components are no longer being manufactured, and attrition is taking its toll on numbers.
a169169.jpg
 
So it would have a real engine, with a propeller, pistons and cylinders?

I like it already!

Wonder if it will be their biggest drone?
 
Because Fairchild with military contracts must destroy all of the fabrication equipment and jigs. According to magazine articals and military channel. That is why all of the jets with outlawed air frames are out in the desert. They even beef up the main spar to make it air worthy again. They are recycling every nut and bold of that beast they can. The A-10 is one of the toughest and most air worthy planes ever built. You see footage from combat where planes have swiss cheese for airframes and they still fly home. Another answer is what was in cha4ge for the past eight years.
 
The Air force and Navy had a plane that did the same thing, and was used in the Vietnam war. The Douglas A1 Sky Rader. It has a 18 cylinder radial engine, and can fly low, and slow if needed. It can carry lots of bombs and rockets, and gun fire. The A-10 is still being used, but will eventually be phased out. Seams to me if a part has been made it should be able to be reproduced. When some thing works, don't fix it. Like some tractors the companies come out with a good one, then thy stop making it. Stan Former Navy Airedale myself.
 
If the military does decide go this way can virtually guarantee the engine will be a turboprop. (The Air Tractor 802 in the photo is turbine-powered...)
 
That is not a very realistic idea to try to modify a Air Tractor, Cessna Ag wagon etc. Their principal feature is a lightweight airframe, extra wide wings and tail surfaces that provide low level lift and stability. When they crash, even at low speed there isn't much left to pick up. Anybody with a deer rifle could take one down and Jonny jihadist is better equipped. I have worked on both sky raiders and ag tractors and the big difference is two guys can't lift the tail up on a sky raider to move it.....The military is better starting off from scratch with a purpose built aircraft, rather than butchering 50 year old designs hoping to save a buck, besides, they already have the T6 Texan ll which can already do low level work.
 
Air Force has been trying to kill a10 and close air support for years, recently cancelled the wing order before completion and are stripping mothballed a10's so they basically won't be able to fly again.

The light attack program will likely be cancelled too as soon as they kill the a10.

They tried the a16, they are trying to put the f35 as a cas plane all nonsense really.
 
Just because something is old, doesn't mean it still doesn't have a purpose. I think sometimes higher ups don't actually communicate with the boots on the ground or in the air. Same with tractors. If I was younger, and starting my disking business, and I could still buy a 75 year old AC M I would. The tractor is built to last. Just my opinion. Stan
 
Look up the Douglas Skyshark. It was essentially a new skyraider with turboprop. THAT is what our CAS should be. However, the army has its attack helicopters that it relies on heavily now. I would suspect that when the A10 finally tuns out of parts the army will just put more emphasis on the rotary aircraft for support.
 
On the old part with a purpose, I don't disagree with you at all. The thing is the design of the airframe was solely made for ag use, and later for minor fire suppression, not for armed low level attack. The modifications would need to be massive to carry out a counter suppression role. With the PT6 they have lots of power, but it still doesn't stop the plane from being a flying bulls eye.
 
I flew the Hog before, in, and after the Gulf War. To me there is no 'replacement' for the A-10 ever considering the world threat situation. Much of what made the Hog great in its Close Air Support role was learned in blood from the Vietnam war and the various aircraft that flew that role. They did an awesome job with what they had! There was and is a reason that the Hog has TWO turbo-fan engines, you lose one and the other gets you back in "good guy" country. Ever heard of a ZSU-23-4? Any single engine prop that gets close to one is probably going down. Where would you hang the GAU-8 30mm gatling gun on a prop? You can't because it's too big and bulky. When I heard that the AF was looking at a Hog replacement and looking at cheaper prop airframe I just laughed. If all you ever face in battle is an AK-47 then a prop makes sense but when the radar guided AAA and SAMS greet you then you need some help. We Hog Drivers also laughed when they mentioned "fast CAS" with a F-16, too little time on station, no useful Air-to-Ground gun(20mm- HA!), and lack of bombs. An F-35 CAS? What a joke!
Yes, a prop can do the job and has done the job but the Hog is light years ahead in survivability and weapons employment. They WILL wear out. I have little faith that the AF will get a better replacement.
 
The future is remotely controlled unmanned aircraft. Make then cheap; one gets shot down? Send in a few more.
 
About three to four of them flying around here almost daily. Amazing how manuverable they are over the fields. Those guys are crazy!

I love flying in small aircraft, but not like that.

Better put some armament on vital components. I'm sure I could do a bit of damage on them with a good deer rifle. Clearly I'm not going to shoot at anyone.
 
(quoted from post at 15:06:36 08/16/17) The Air force and Navy had a plane that did the same thing, and was used in the Vietnam war. The Douglas A1 Sky Rader. It has a 18 cylinder radial engine, and can fly low, and slow if needed. It can carry lots of bombs and rockets, and gun fire. The A-10 is still being used, but will eventually be phased out. Seams to me if a part has been made it should be able to be reproduced. When some thing works, don't fix it. Like some tractors the companies come out with a good one, then thy stop making it. Stan Former Navy Airedale myself.
Click to expand...

You stole my thunder Chief! The USMC had another air frame that was good for close in support- the OV-10 Bronco. Didn't have the legs of the A1 or the firepower capacity, but it was decent. The A6 was a great close air support platform that carried lots and lots of bombs and bullets. The thought was that rotary wing air craft would take the place of fixed wing, but the loiter time of fixed wing aircraft give it a big advantage in being there when needed. A Cobra gunship ripping in overhead is an impressive sight, but he can only be there a short time. That fixed wing sucker just hangs around until someone sticks their head up!
 
(quoted from post at 18:42:18 08/16/17) I flew the Hog before, in, and after the Gulf War. To me there is no 'replacement' for the A-10 ever considering the world threat situation. Much of what made the Hog great in its Close Air Support role was learned in blood from the Vietnam war and the various aircraft that flew that role. They did an awesome job with what they had! There was and is a reason that the Hog has TWO turbo-fan engines, you lose one and the other gets you back in "good guy" country. Ever heard of a ZSU-23-4? Any single engine prop that gets close to one is probably going down. Where would you hang the GAU-8 30mm gatling gun on a prop? You can't because it's too big and bulky. When I heard that the AF was looking at a Hog replacement and looking at cheaper prop airframe I just laughed. If all you ever face in battle is an AK-47 then a prop makes sense but when the radar guided AAA and SAMS greet you then you need some help. We Hog Drivers also laughed when they mentioned "fast CAS" with a F-16, too little time on station, no useful Air-to-Ground gun(20mm- HA!), and lack of bombs. An F-35 CAS? What a joke!
Yes, a prop can do the job and has done the job but the Hog is light years ahead in survivability and weapons employment. They WILL wear out. I have little faith that the AF will get a better replacement.
Click to expand...

Better be careful! All that talk of 2 engines being a good idea....people might start think you had delusions of being a Naval Aviator! :lol:
 
No offense to any Zoomies on the board, but I can't see the Air Force getting too involved with close air support. The Corps initiated it and perfected it while island hopping in the South Pacific in WWII. Back then, an Army observer commented, "You Marines are using airplanes like the Army uses artillery".
 
Who told you the spray planes are "older"?

The new ones are turbo-props and I understand they're totally controlled by GPS. The pilot enters the coordinates and other data on the field before he takes off and GPS takes it from there. Locates the field, controls the step for each pass, etc. I believe GPS even turns the spray on and off at the ends of the field. All the pilot has to do is fly the plane and follow the GPS instructions.

I found this out when I was doing insurance inspections. I inspected an aerial spray business. While I was doing my job, a pilot started the engine on a plane and while it was warming up sat in the cockpit for about 10 or 15 minutes with what looked like a laptop computer, so I asked questions.
 
There was an article about these planes that you describe. It was an article about an investigation into some corruption centered on these planes that were to be marketed to some African nations to help them fight their wars. They did mention them for the US also but they didn't go into specifics on the plane.
 
What really gets me is to hear them talking about planes like the A10, the B52, etc becoming obsolete because 'parts aren't available'. I've got to wonder if those making comments like that are serious, or just plain stupid.

Think about it, when both planes were first built things like CNC machining, and modern materials like carbon fiber, etc, were nonexistent. Now, with the advent of so many new technologies, there is absolutely no reason the repair parts, or even whole planes, can't be made better, and cheaper, than they originally were..........without spending hundreds of millions, or billions, trying to create a completely new aircraft.

If all that money was spent on existing airframes, and other weapon systems that have a proven track record already for that matter, instead of trying to come up with something new, and completely unnecessary, think about how much larger our military force could be, without spending/wasting so much money.

I guess that makes far too much sense, hence the reason our beloved politicians don't seem to care........
 
(quoted from post at 01:00:37 08/17/17) What really gets me is to hear them talking about planes like the A10, the B52, etc becoming obsolete because 'parts aren't available'. I've got to wonder if those making comments like that are serious, or just plain stupid.

Think about it, when both planes were first built things like CNC machining, and modern materials like carbon fiber, etc, were nonexistent. Now, with the advent of so many new technologies, there is absolutely no reason the repair parts, or even whole planes, can't be made better, and cheaper, than they originally were..........without spending hundreds of millions, or billions, trying to create a completely new aircraft.

If all that money was spent on existing airframes, and other weapon systems that have a proven track record already for that matter, instead of trying to come up with something new, and completely unnecessary, think about how much larger our military force could be, without spending/wasting so much money.

I guess that makes far too much sense, hence the reason our beloved politicians don't seem to care........
Click to expand...


Simple answer, you make a lot more money providing NEW! IMPROVED! stuff than just parts for the tried and true. Yes, you need cutting edge equipment in some areas, but in other it's lots cheaper to use what works instead of reinventing the mouse trap. The Corps was good at this, that I know. But sometimes you have to do what you're told and that's that.
 
Not sure it"s a good idea. When I was a kid and there were a lot of cotton fields around, these planes flew everyday all around here. My friends and I shot hundreds of them down with our imaginary AA guns, as these planes almost always sided with our imaginary enemies. They were very slow and generally showed no inclination to take evasive action when being fired on. I don"t think they would do good in real combat either.
 
Does the Air Force really have any serious interest in continuing its ground support role? Updating an existing plane for testing would let them give lip service to the request without spending any serious money on the project. The US and the manufacturer will most likely sell/give those type of planes to small banana republics to control civil uprisings.
 
(quoted from post at 18:05:53 08/17/17) Does the Air Force really have any serious interest in continuing its ground support role? Updating an existing plane for testing would let them give lip service to the request without spending any serious money on the project. The US and the manufacturer will most likely sell/give those type of planes to small banana republics to control civil uprisings.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the AF never had any interest in CAS, which is why the Army has a lot of rotary wing stuff. The Navy likes to fly up high and down low and will always have an interest in CAS. The Marine Corps is simply all about CAS. That fighter pilot stuff is just so you can get the bad guys off the tails of the low and slow guys helping the grunts. Yeah, my USMC colors are showing, but I'm okay with that! :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top