Ha ha ha that was my first thought.

You bet me to it

Came here for this comment.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 Planes Part 2: Insurgency Edition

You beat me to that one lol

CS gas, White phosphorus, Nova 6

Mustard gas

Also bioweapon ,

@@ahalfsesameseedbun7472 Zyclon B

From the Company that brought you Agent 🍊, Monsanto approved!

The issue isn't that its not practical for its role, its why would a military suddenly need to order a cheap, mass produced, low flying strike aircraft based off of something that's supposed to dump insecticide...

​@@matthewutech5970 its for aerial melee combat

​@@matthewutech5970, drones are a thing on battlefields now. This is the perfect manned platform for sneaking up behind larger suicide drones & zapping their electronics with whatever directed -energy weapon you have on one of those hard points.

@@matthewutech5970ever been to Colombia cacao fields? ever spotted an OV-10 with sprayers taking off from Patrick or Curacao? ever heard a briefing from JIATF-South or SOUTHCOM? your answers lay there....

@@matthewutech5970why not? Utility is king in the military.

Hoooooold up... The sky warden is a turbo prop, Not just a piston engine. There is STILL a complicated jet engine in there. Just an easier and cheaper to maintain one. Farmers don't open up their air tractors in the barn and fix them like they do actual tractors. They still take them to service shops

She will be loved, that I believe, loved and hated by friends and foes.

Its basically just a different looking copy of the brazilian Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, wich is famous world wide for being a great at counter insurgency, so this is probably gonna suit the US forces well

@@ghilliem.g.5824 I find it odd the airforce just said they are getting rid of the At6 an the super tucono that they have been testing for light attack role an turning that role completely over to socom. While they purchase a completely different aircraft.. I thought the at6 an the tucono were great aircraft.

First there is the tactical sight-seeing helicopter, now it is the assault crop duster. Noice

Dude prop planes are so fun to fly I’m sure they will get more than a little people wanting to fly these

Cow, its a farmers plane :)

It could carry 8000lbs for shorter ranges tho maybe even more for even shorter ranges

Tho i doubt that a crop duster with just a bit of Armor added to it can lift 6000lbs

It also carried about 4000 pounds of .50 machine guns and ammo not counting the mechanical turret gear and 10 people with their assorted oxygen and heater equipment. Kind of an apples to shoes comparison.

What kind of aviator? Those with two huge brass balls and of whom people say "fear, no, fear doesn't enter into it"

me too, man. i forsee how frightening this actually is

"a seven nation army couldn't hold me back"

what can it do? im curious, the army doesn't usually make bad decisions, so i feel like im missing something

Draw AAA fire, I guess.

@@sechesin7111 they are meant to operate in insurgency-like environment were the enemy doesn't have AA capabilities or against a conventional force that doesn't have AA support, during the falklands war the Argentinians had the Pucará, their own counter-insurgency aircraft, it would fly from makeshift runways near Goose Green, would bomb 2 Para and land again behind the cover of their AAA guns before the Harriers could do anything

@@gremlin_uwu doesn't sound to bad for a use like that i guess

@@sechesin7111 A plane specifically designed for low intensity conflicts, perfect in some African Jungle or in the Middle East blowing up irregulars with precision bombs and rockets. It can probably do casevac too if it requires it.

trump must be behind that he wanted them for himself

It is a crop duster.

@@tomg6284 I know, one that's been modified....

It also looks like it could be from a Sturmovik & a Stuka Dive Bomber.

@@tomg6284 Very astute of you!

@Ruska it is

we need more cheap and effective military stuff so we can spend more on shit at home.

"A-10 Lite"

"an economical, effective, and prolific air support platform" Economical and prolific it is. How effective an aircraft with 8 hardpoints will be is debatable.

:)

@@wisenber Run them in pairs or a team of 4 there, problem solved.

?

Yes, I got a distinct IL-2 vibe too?

Its definitely the blocky canopy

I agree. My first thought looking at the canopy was of a Stuka dive bomber.

it¨s an air tractor.

When you get the Politicians out of the mix, soldiers will decide what they need and develop solid equipment that will get the job done, efficiently and cheaply!

The Air Tractor are tough reliable aircraft. Durable and used heavily. To decide on using a durable crop duster frame into a military use attacker actually makes sense. Its basically performing the same role it does as a air tractor dropping its payload on a target :P. I bet someone took a good look and thought. Holy crap what are we doing with creating a top new aircraft when we literally have one that's been in use by civilians for the last couple of decades?

@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent So when was the last time a crop duster was shot at by a DShK? Why not find or build a proven combat aircraft like the Douglas A1 Skyraider it was in use from 1946 to the early 1980s.

Put some decent avionics on it and some good air to air missiles and this becomes almost a parity threat to incoming jets..

Don't worry mate, this advanced crop duster will still be running the DoD for 100m each plus all the Raytheon weapon systems tacked onto it.

Better do the math. you can buy 500 A-10's at 3 billion. not 74 of these.

@@troyb.4101 Probably, but jet fuel and maintenance for jet aircraft ain't cheap either.

Its combat payload is 8,000 lbs. The author misspoke.

@@troyb.4101 Do the math. Military AT-802 costs 4 million USD. A-10 is at least 10 times more expensive.

@@troyb.4101they weren’t even 6 million when they first came out, and they’re more like 20 mil a pop at best now. But also congress has spent god knows how much keeping them going over the last decades. Up to a billion in contracts for new wings alone, for example. Bearing in mind the A10 is my favourite but damn, for someone telling people to ‘do the math’….

A10 can land on pretty bad runways but this will need basically nothing

@@Swordcrusher The A-10A had a lot of issues that were fixed with the A-10C, but then the A-10C lost a lot of the advantages the A-10A had. The A-10C just cannot compete with proper multirole aircraft, doesn't have the advantages of the A, and the A is just not good enough

@@Theo-vn9hm " proper multirole aircraft" The A10 was never meant to be that. It was meant for close in air support which most multirole aircraft cannot accomplish.

@@wisenber False The "Close" in CAS refers only to the fact that the plane is supporting troops directly on the contact line. For the longest time that did indeed mean that the aircraft had to physically get close to the ground to get a good view of the battlefield and deliver payloads onto the enemy while not endangering your own troops, because there were no guided munitions and pilots relied on the Mk 1 eyeball. Thanks to targeting pods and precision munitions, not only can the pilot get a clearer view of the battlefield from kilometers above the ground, but also deliver payloads with pinpoint accuracy that not even the best dive bombing pilot can achieve. The A-10 is absolutely perfect for the pre-precision munition era, but that era is long gone. Even during the invasion of Iraq, an A-10 ended up strafing and killing British Scimtars because the pilot simply did not have good enough visual contact with them, and misidentified them. A-10 pilots used to carry binoculars with them. And that is not even mentioning the survivability. Modern AA systems are simply too precise and lethal for "taking flak" or "tanking hits" to be viable at all in any peer conflict. A multirole aircraft with speed to get in and out quickly has a much higher chance of survival. The A-10 offers a huge morale boost to the troops, but that's about it, all its ruggedness and time on station could either be met by a dedicated COIN (Counter Insurgency) aircraft or a drone. The A-10 achieved the vast majority of its kills using missiles or guided bombs, not its gun. This is not a criticism to the engineers of the A-10, they masterfully delivered what was asked of them, it's just that what was asked of them did not stay relevant.

@@Theo-vn9hm "False" You assessment of CAS is false. There's that. Ask a grunt if he appreciates the difference between an A10 that can loiter at low altitude with a 30 mm cannon with 1200 rounds versus an F16 that can fly over for less than 8 minutes with a couple of precision munitions. If that weren't the case, this video would not exist and there would be no need for the crop duster.

Yeah, propeller aircraft can out turn even a F-22.

Shredded by the slightest hint of SHORADS. Especially ones with IRST and cannons i.e Tunguska/Pantsir. These should only be used in low intensity conflict, not one like in Ukraine right now.

One scared the heck out of me in Colorado once, I'm pulling a heavy trailer down the highway and suddenly one buzzed right over my truck and started spraying the field next to me

@@maximaldinotrap I can out turn an F-22 on foot doesn't really make it relevant lmao

“Flying under the radar” doesn’t work anymore. This will be used in areas where they have total air superiority

I thought it looked like that one. So many other good designs, and now this. Okay, hope it does the job well.

@Joshua Jones True, the Ag-Cat is a biplane but it set the pattern for modern crop dusters and the Air Tractor borrowed a lot from it.

@Joshua Jones Michigan Tech University

It only took them 60 years to see its potential…

@Joshua Jones At least his comments are relevant. You,on the other hand, are a good argument against free speech. No further comment.

I know several pilots in South Dakota who would be aces with this

Perhaps Red Bull competitions will include them

Stunt Plane with Guns is also a great name for a Tinder profile.

I see they switched to the Russian approach cheap but numerous instead of quality but expensive as F,.,.,.

​@matiasd.c9949 not quite. I definitely wouldn't say that this plane is low quality at all. This plane beat out 5 others for the military contract that it won. This video misses a couple of the key reasons it was chosen. It can take off and land on much smaller runways than current military aircraft, it can be disassembled/built by a couple guys with a standard toolbox, and they can fit it inside cargo planes. It's basically a new strategy with this plane. It's going to be deployed with small units in remote areas.

propeller aircraft are very maneuverable So you can avoid bullets

@@dulguunjargal1199 and their heat quite possibly not hot enough for thermal missiles

The good ole piston engine

Because America is spending all its money on Ukraine , Hormone Blockers and Drag Queen Storybook Hour .

@@IVORY123100 🙄🤦‍♂️

The electronics on this thing are anything but simple and straightforward - this is a full ground attack fighter electronics fit in a cropduster.

@@allangibson8494 as opposed to the fiber optics in an f18 or the solenoid spaghetti in a swept wing f14?

i love the phrase "solenoid spaghetti"

What strikes me odd is that it has no Sidewinder, and not even a 20mm gun Noticeable. Cheers!!!!

@@ricardokowalski1579 I´m not sure if there´s no AA capability at all - given all the avionics seen in the video AND the fact that MANPADS like the Stinger could be easily integrated on many platforms.

If this came from the program I think it did, the Scorpion was the first to be eliminated. I believe the cost was something like $20 million per copy.

@@ricardokowalski1579 That’s because true CAS is carried out only in conditions of air superiority. This aircraft is not intended to be able to fight pitched battles against other aircraft.

@@ricardokowalski1579 Ignoring that fitting a light-weight, anti-air missile to current hardpoints is easy peasy, the current generation of Hellfire II can fulfill that anti-air role if necessary. As to the lack of a dedicated 20mm gun, gun pods my brother, gun pods. And I second a video on the Scorpion.

Must make sure the pilots are certain of which role their fulfilling, removing bugs or simply removing the entire Farm🤔

Could the military get an agricultural tax write off!?

@@ProfessorTravis If they could, they would. And they are heavily armed.

Not just Transport, but load on the GE miniguns, you have slow and low loitering wall of lead/death ground attack monster that was the first successsful gunship platform, the AC- 47 Spooky - aka Puff the Magic Dragon - also beloved by the covert guys, just like this new kid, not on the block, mainly I suspect on out of the way widernesses that are soon to become, even more wilderness/shot to shit nowheresvilles

The things that designers can do when they can choose the design specs and don't have arbitrary numbers mandated by non-engineers...

Pearl Harbor* It's an American port and you will spell it in freedom unit language. You can argue with me when your nation has a flag on the moon.

@@StudleyDuderight You killed me with that last line!

@@StudleyDuderight This makes me seethe so much, but that last line is too funny for me to stay mad!

Ever consider having 21 hours of overhead ISR and strike capability from an MQ-9 with SIGINT and FMV going back to decision-makers in real-time? No? Boy... you infantrymen are really missing out. Maybe that is why the USMC is buying MQ-9s and not this aircraft.

@@dbarbour Never said it was for me OR infantrymen. Of course drones are better for versatility. But how much does it cost to fly one? How much does it cost to maintain one? Where can you send a military grade drone without looking inconspicuous If you can tell me of a drone OR aircraft that cost less than 20,000$ to takeoff and give the same capabilities you mentioned that wasn't SPECICALLY made low intensity/armed recon. Ill gladly say you are right

@@dbarbour the goal here isn't to have the best in slot support craft, its to have a cost effective one that can be taken anywhere anytime with out breaking the bank especially when dealing with standard insurgencies, asymmetric warfare in a minimal combat environment. Or say I don't know.....training *blank* in a *blank blank* conflict zone *blank blank* REDACTED

@@keionbradley4254omg you're as accurate as you are hilarious. it wouldn't surprise me to see marines purchase this system over more fa-18s. reminds me of a Pattin quote: "amateurs talk strategy; professionals speak logistics."

why would Marines purchase this? when did i say that we should? Please read mycomment again, FORWARD TROOPS (Recon, Calvary Scouts, any primary ISTAR or armed recon unit) /and Special missions units. You speak logistics with your snide comment when THIS is the exact reason are getting it for the mentioned groups. Cost Effectiveness @@darinladd5312

Won't win any races? Damn there goes my hope that I'm winning a race with a crop duster

but toyota with some 20 mils or dshk would take down this thing from couple bursts

@@vipvip-tf9rw exactly, and those are very common.

Insurgencies actually have air/surface missiles, in the soviet-afghan war the CIA gave a lot of MANPADS and AA missiles, when the war ended the taliban keeped the weapons that the CIA gave them and as you know the taliban ended up revealing, also the taliban have bought AA missiles and weapons through the black market and using it against american soldiers, and also you think the small arms are nothing against planes but there was a female A-10 pilot flying over a firefight and she got hit several at the point that she lost half of a wing, a engine and broke the A-10s hydraulic which forced her to handle the stabilizer and the flight controls of the plane with manual reversion mode and she still managed to fly for 1 hour and land in a airbase without difficulties, and the A-10 is literally made to be punished which is the most survivable and versitable aircraft, so even with small arms this thing would get shot down.

do you think this would be good for border patrol and watching drug smugglers too? It seems as though it would be a very good plane for that type of function... IMO

@@marcospayero2959 a few things there one the taliban are no longer an insurgency there an army with the capability to buy modern equipment and two the fact you think the a10 is still viable at coin/cas is laughable it was never good to begin with for reasons I can't be bothered to explain right now because I've done it a 100 time already. 3 an aircraft doesn't have to be strong to be affective that A 10 story is over hyped only a bit of the wing was ripped of and most aircraft can still fly like that. Any way I'm getting side tracked my point is that the a 10 didn't get hit directly it was proximity if any aircraft gets hit with a rocket its gonna crash that's why black hawk and apache helicopter pilots are trained to perform special manovers if they spot an RPG rocket heading there direction and this plane will be no different as its extremely agile.

At least it flies slow enough you can open a window to let farts out

@@andrewculley8524 lmfa

just let them open the window for a while

I was just thinking the other day - wonder if they've taken the effort to breakdown some of these older, really prime machine and re-design them in CAD, do FEA/CFD work to optimize the designs on everything including engines etc... so they can turn some around for future missions where they'd both be adequate and effective... so much to be gained by having a working device that you can optimize with today's tools and mfg techniques... P51 was the one I had in mind.... plus it would give Maverick a lead into a new movie someday...

Don't worry you won in the end

My fried and I recommended Piper Pawnees for glider towing and J3 Cubs for SAR to the Air Force’s official auxiliary (the CAP) but were ignored. They gotta spend gazillion$ more on Cessna 182s with glass panels and leather seats so all the fake colonels can feel important-and “fly” them. Skills and mission long ago gave way to spend and prestige.

In 1984 Piper was trying to sell the Airforce new build turboprop P-51 Mustangs (as the Piper PA-48 Enforcer).

@@lylestavast7652 Look up the Piper PA-48 Enforcer.

The only big issue is the crew having to pee in a bottle...

@@davidhollenshead4892 We've all done it! 🤣

They are probably for the un-yabbed so Americans will get toknow them real good.

Wouldn’t a drone just do that job?

@@Chronicallyonline97511 drones would be more expensive than one of these

The USAF still lost about 200 of them in SAR missions, though.

The USAF already has the T-6 texan 2 inventory they should went with that, this thing is the typical case of cram everything and anything into it hope it actually works.

I was gonna say, reminds me of the A-1 Skyraider. "Do it for me, Sandy, I'd do it for you."

It's politics, both military and civilian. First, the Air Force doesn't really want the CAS mission in the first place, they'd rather be thinking about fighters or bombers. So they ain't exactly been fighting for it. Second, since the A-10 reached retirement age, they've run several sets of trials for a new CAS bird. Here's what happens: they try out the Super Tucano and then Beechcraft halfasses a conversion of something or other. The Super Tucano wins by a mile. But it's Brazilian, and Beechcraft is from Kansas and has the ear of the Kansas Congressional delegation. So there's a bunch of pressure to pick the home team. Now, the Air Force doesn't want to be saddled with some garbage just so Kansas can have a little pork (and IIRC some of the Beechcraft entries have been *really* halfassed). But they also don't care enough to fight hard for the Tucano... So they end up just declaring that they didn't find anything that was perfect so they aren't gonna buy anything this time.

I'm going to wager their is more wight of communications on this air tractor conversion than simlar role drones, and time delay is half the speed of light (almost 1.5million kilometers per second), your command area can be a thousand plus kilometers away and its still a small fraction of the latency of the fastest consumer computer monitors. The controls on the aircraft (including guns) simply cannot respond fast enough as to have meaningful impact because of delay. Similar erroneous claims of manned aircraft include control feedback, but most modern fighters controls are already fully electronic, so you'd feel the exact same thing safely outside the warzone. Lets not talk around the elephant in the room, they are ONLY doing this because its cheaper.

There's the legal aspect too. Many ROI's require man-in-the-loop to operate. This is easier when that person is in the cockpit and not at base. In cockpit decisions are known and backed up by superiors. When the operator is in a portacabin on home soil, it would be easier to defer to higher in the chain of command, and ultimately political leadership. Which complicates decisions much more than mere comms latency.

@@SheepInACart There's supposedly a two second delay when flying Predators. Latency isn't defined by speed of light, the speed of the transmit signal is negligible compared to the latency in the system itself. Every time a signal has to be received, processed, and sent back again adds a few hundred milliseconds of delay.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD No, not 2 seconds, and no, not hundreds of milliseconds, both of those are orders of magnitude wrong. A router handling a packet typically adds a handful of microseconds, not hundreds of milliseconds, and for the predator between node transmission added 20milliseconds total 200milliseconds observed, which itself constituted less than 10% of the allowable shot box. This also isn't some kind of super high performance code or system, its poorly optimized and runs basic over the counter china lake processors, with data logging itself accounting for an average of 38milliseconds (19%) of the delay added. A further 66milliseconds (33%) was target data being entered into the computer... both these tasks are also present for computers on manned aircraft shooting the sidewinder missile, although many have far better completion times than the predator itself does. Ergo making the predators (admittedly lackluster, 200ms is 82ft of travel) response times faster isn't about reducing network delay between pilot and aircraft, its about reducing the complexities of the route information is transferred WITHIN the predators own internal systems. Putting a pilot in a seat with poor forwards visibility of the ground bar via the glass cockpit doesn't intrinsically reduce firing delay, it does drastically increase the risk the pilot dies, which is going to happen more often on routine landings than enemy fire. Nobody weeps for the drone thats written off on the side of a friendly airfield, least of all when you can still reuse most parts to maintain other functionally identical drones... while pilots families strongly feel differently when their fathers, husbands and sons burn, this crop duster is a strong nod that the armed service commanders do not observe this as different, its still only one operational unit to them.

@@SheepInACart one thing you forgot to add to your calculus, warfighters typically wanna be in the action. If you talk to most service members in combat focused jobs, they typically want to be present for the fight and not state side. The added danger makes things more fun.

Agreed! Another factor that makes this an excellent choice is that it is built to operate very close to the ground just like combat support. Here's a tour of the factory where these planes are built. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oLx-hZafr5vepHU.html

Close to the ground... where all the enemy with their guns are.

@@shanerooney7288 Just yesterday I was watching a sky tractor dust the fields around my house and I remember thinking damn, if I had a 240 I could light that thing up.

@@shanerooney7288 close to the ground is safer against missiles and MANPADS.Maybe they added titanium or kevlar armor for bullets.

USA's *Stinger FIM-92B* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 30m. Russia's *Strela-1 9M31* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 30m. Russia's *Strela-1 9M31M* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 10m. Chinese *FN-6* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 15m. Chinese *FN-16* has a _minimum_ operating altitude of 10m. Very close to the ground isn't safe. VERY VERY close to the ground is only comparativly safe. Sure, a plane can in theory fly just 0.5m above the ground, but so can the missiles in theory. Then you come across a tree more than 15m tall. Or a building. Or a power line. Crop dusters rutinely fly super close to the crops they dust. Sure. But that is a flat, open, level field with all the crops of the same height. Not a combat zone. As for defending against bullets.... You need THICK armor to stop a bullet. And that armor needs to be even thicker the closer you get (and you're planning to fly pretty cose). And thicker still if the enemy has anything bigger than a 7.62. You then ALSO need the Kevlar to stop spalling. It isn't armor _or_ kevlar. It is armor _and_ kevlar. Then there's the problem that not everything can be armored. The wings, the tail, the propeller, cockpit canopy, the weapon points (and the bombs attached to them). Then add to that how this plane doesn't have the same level or redundancy (2nd engine and extra large wings) that the A10 has.

Alright Disney, Planes 3: Close Support when?

Dusty goes to war.

Planes wasn’t made by Pixar it was just Disney

Thank you. The A-10 is a bit of an obsolete design. Big, heavy, slow and a colossal target. No point in having a massive ass gun when you can do the same damage with a missile or two.

@@JostVanWair really, you can do *significantly more* damage and with much less splash that can hit friendlies

@@sirpuffball6366 Yep. The A-10 shills always say "but muh GAU-8!" A hellfire or maverick does the exact same thing but you only need one of them and you don't need to put your aircrew in nearly as much danger to deploy them.

Makes me wonder if they're going for a cheap frame, in order to test all the very expensive tech, before putting it on the more advanced NGAD project? 🤔

​@@Inertia888 probably not, US drones are much more modern and expensive than those little fellas.

Don't forget a roll of duct tape!

Duct tape? That’s depot level maintenance !

This has echoes in the initial deveopment of tanks from agricultural tracked vehicles in the 1910's. I think Holt was the manufacturer of the original tracked vehicle. Later developed into the first tanks.

Jesus! Worse than Ryanair. 🤣

@@ivancho5854 not as bad as the TB-3 bucket gunners tho lol

Literally duct tape for 99% of damage

@@5peciesunkn0wn You get fresh air?

@@Miles26545 If the spars aren't busted, all other airframe damage is largely superficial

I mean, every Navy, USMC, and Air Force pilot spends time flying the T-6 Super Texan in flight school. The AT-6 is floating around out there somewhere, but both the T-6 and Super Tucano are, as you state, several times the plane as far as flight capability. They were adopted because they retained "jet-like" qualities for training purposes while being cheaper to run. It's still a lot of plane. Hell, the T-6 has ejection seats. This thing on the other hand, is probably an order of magnitude cheaper to run. I mean it is a no shit crop duster with maybe a few small tweaks and a big avionics suite upgrade.

Tbh in modern times they're way safer the closer they are to the ground. Any random bumfuck forces might be employing ADA these days.

From what I understand, SOCOM already had a handful of Super Tucanos.

Speaking of Embraer, this looks like Ipanema got stretched and fitted with military equipment lol, bizarre.

da nang diary great book about both 0-2 ...ov-10 bronco.... must read

a close air support plane doesn t need long range and speed , it isn t its roll to dogfight

@@Feyser1970 oh but they do. CAS in the modern world does not require the aircraft to be within visual of friendlies or enemies.

Business Jets burn fuel like crazy at low level. This is intended to keep your opponent hiding for hours on end by just being in the general area.

​@@apachegaming9392if you'd like I can explain why your entire comment is wrong on multiple levels.

At-6 Wolverine

Utterly wild. Gulfstream prices for a small agricultural aircraft. But the US military can spend what it wants.

We also had planes that were sent to South America in the war on drugs to cropdust drug crops. Had an old guy that was sent down there as a pilot and has a few scars from AK rounds.

@@colt45strickland haha nice

More like a child's drawing of a Stuka...

@Based Boi ask a Russian helicopter in Ukraine what happens.

Jealous!

It did not matter what aircraft was used they wanted to develop the platform from the ground up.

@@bighands69 I recommend you check on the Bronco and its service history. You'll be amazed at this extremely useful aircraft.

@@terranempire725 It would not matter what aircraft they selected as a base platform it was going to be designed and fitted for special operations from the ground up. They went with a blank slate and built their own platform. The Skywarden is a completely new aircraft and its capabilities will not be public.

How is this not going to die to the first enemy unit equipped with something as puny as a stinger missile ?

@@IvanTre Anything other than a fighter is a sitting duck to other fighters. You are right about that. An air born forward air controller isn't for directing air to air combat but rather air to ground. The only way this is effective is after air dominance is established. No use even trying ground attacks till you kill off all the air threats. Even if the exact same aircraft is used the load out is completely different and if you put air to air ordinance on an aircraft that has a ground attack sortie you are either displacing ground attack ordinance or just making it ineffective in its ground support role.

these will operating in places where the enemy has no proper airdefences a cheap way of providing airsupport to allies in the middleeast and Africa