Posted on 05/04/2011 7:52:45 AM PDT by DefenseMatters
Meeting the needs of the warfighter from the air By James H. Flatley, IV - 05/04/11 08:59 AM ET
Over the past four years much has been written, debated and proposed about the need for a light attack turboprop aircraft that’s ideally suited for irregular warfare in Afghanistan. Yet here we are four years later without a deployable solution.
The leading contenders from day one have been the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano and the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6. And, they are today, both vying for the contract to supply aircraft and training for the Air Force’s Light Air Support program in Afghanistan--Embraer in partnership with Sierra Nevada Corporation and Hawker Beechcraft with Lockheed Martin.
The Air Force has said it will announce its decision in June.
The story of how we got here and why it has taken so long is telling and alarming, if you are concerned, like I am, with providing our men and women on the ground in Afghanistan the best air support for their mission.
Four years ago the Super Tucano was already a proven platform, flying missions for military in several nations. Four years ago the U.S. Navy got busy evaluating the Super Tucano, conducting flight evaluations that included ISR missions, Close Air Support missions, Direct Action missions, and FAC(A) missions. The Navy also conducted weapons evaluations; deploying rockets and bombs, and .50cal ammunition from the aircraft’s internally mounted guns.
Four years ago Hawker Beechcraft was still working on the design of the AT-6.
The Super Tucano participated in several Navy, Air Force, and special operations exercises. The exceptional performance of the aircraft was acknowledged by all who benefited from its capabilities. Nearly 400 hours were logged in the air. Many hours were spent on the ground making good use of the aircraft’s available space to add additional radios and displays to give the aircraft an exceptional capability equal to or exceeding that of some of the Navy’s and Air Force’s fixed wing strike/fighter aircraft.
The entire effort to include personnel, operations, and maintenance cost the taxpayer less than $5 million. Rapid reaction at its best. Meanwhile Hawker Beechcraft was still working on a prototype AT-6C.
By the spring/summer of 2010 the Navy, with the Air Force onboard, was ready to lease four more Super Tucanos to deploy in support of troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Meanwhile Hawker Beechcraft was flying its first prototype, but still had a ways to go before weapons testing would be conducted. However, the Navy never leased the A-29. The Kansas delegation, worried that their hometown company would lose out on this opportunity, got the lease killed.
So, today we await the outcome of the Air Force contract, which will finally provide light air attack support and training in Afghanistan. And, while the Air Force has stated that technical capabilities should be the primary selection criteria, Hawker Beechcraft has its PR machine in overdrive trying to focus attention elsewhere.
An example of this is a recent piece written by Dr. Goure of the Lexington Institute titled “AT-6 Meets The Need For An Affordable Light Attack Aircraft.” There are many problems with Dr. Goure’s piece, but one that is particularly troublesome is his contention that the AT-6 is the “low-risk” solution because it avoids the “political, logistical and operational challenges that would inevitably arise if a foreign-built aircraft were selected.”
Never mind the logistical and operational challenges that are bound to arise with a plane that is today still a prototype. Currently only two exist; yielding limited flight data to accurately understand how the modified airframe will perform with its new cockpit displays, new engine and other modifications let alone determine its affordability.
Never mind the facts that the A-29 Super Tucano has logged 100,000 hours around the world, has a proven track record and performed well in combat situations to include the destruction of FARC rebel camps in the jungles of South America. Its affordability is known, its reliability has been established, and A-29 Super Tucano’s 130 variations of armament configurations offer the warfighter a multitude of options.
Never mind that the A-29 will be built in the U.S. with parts from American suppliers.
Ultimately what’s important is that our aviators are equipped with the best aircraft that ensures the highest degree of safety and success in delivering the needed support on the ground. The warrior on the ground along with loved ones at home don’t care about the company behind the plane. It’s time to set politics aside and get serious about focusing on the needs of the warfighter now.
CDR James H. Flatley, IV USN, (Ret), a combat decorated naval aviator, served for 22 years flying the F-14 Tomcat. He served as the commanding officer of a squadron deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flying close air support and FAC(A) missions. He was awarded the Bronze Star and 4th Air Medal with bronze star distinguishing device.
Isn't it interesting that in an age of supersonically crusing stealth fighters costing over $100m each-- we still find a need for a "Super Spad" (as some called the Skyraider back in Vietnam)?
What can this aircraft do that an A-10 can’t???
Probably fly for 1/10 of the fuel cost.
That is about it.
Warfighter = PC inclusive term meant to replace Airmen.
Loiter longer.
Lower maintenance cost, more flexibility, less fuel . . .
It would be cheaper, which means we can buy more of them, and training pilots for low-speed prop planes is easier and cheaper (which means we can have more pilots for the same money).
There is a place and a roll for the turboprop aircraft. Close air support, where air superiority is already established, is an excellent role. You can buy lots of them, and they do not require the groomed, longer runways that jet aircraft require. Excellent for guerilla warfare ( and you can get warrant officers to fly them )
Don’t like it.
IF it gets “down and dirty” when strafing or delivering ordnance all the bad guys need to do is put one or two lucky bullets in the turboprop and watch it shred itself throwing blades.
The Skyraider had a big, damage resistant radial in front - armor and thrust in one package!
They’ve been operating against the FARC for years and haven’t lost one yet.
I could be wrong, then...
I just like radials...
It can be built today.
The Skyraider's engine, a WrightR-3350-26WA.
Weight = 2600 lb
Output = 2800 hp
Fuel = 130 Avgas
The Super Tucano's engine, a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-68C
Weight = 440 lb (approx)
Output = 1575 hp
Fuel = JP-8
I like turbines.
I've flown the Super Tucano...it feels alot like the T-28 and about the same size. To your concern, the ST has armor plating around the engine and crew compartment (its so-called "competition" has to strap it on). The Colombian Air Force has done a great job using LGBs to take out FARC HVTs and stay out of small arms fire but when it "gets down and dirty" as you say they haven't suffered a loss.
HERETIC!
An American pilot is a commissioned officer, steely of jaw, eagle of eye, fearless, and goes nowhere in a plane that cannot shoot down other planes at 720mph+, preferably closer to 1200mph. Aircraft such as this A-29 pansy-plane, (which of course is an updated Siaia Marchetti from Brazil,my god an Brazilian FIAT for gosh sakes) and the ridiculously slow (an uncool looking) A-10 have NO, None, Nein Place in the arsenal of democracy. Warrant Officers indeed, it's bad enough they let those boys and girl fly, noisy shaky helicopters.
Imagine loitering about some god-forsaken battle field for hours @ 150mph in some plane powered by a propeller, (LOL)droning about waiting for some chap on the the ground to vector you in at 50 ft just to terminate some scrotum-faced Third Worlder with an RPG or a mortar. Ridiculous.
Here's how it should work. (a)Hysterical chap on the ground (you know how those people are!) overestimates resistance (b)Calls The Pentagon (c)which calls the pRresident on the golf course (d)who calls Valerie Jarrett (e) who calls Leon Pannetta (f) who calls General Petraeus or his replacement if he can be located (g) they approve the target selection (h)local AWACS gets the word to us pilots (i) who rendezvous with a tanker at 35,000 ('cause heh heh, seems we ran low on fuel while waiting)(j) then make a pass at 700mph and drop a laser-guided bomb on the problem. Problem solved!
Slow-moving helicopters (pfui) piloted by warrant officers (pfui) evacuate the casualties. Another day's work ... back to base. And you are suggesting what? My God what next, a be-back on the Army Air Corps?
BTW, I am not against progress. I can even handle the drones concept, provided they are steered by rated flying officers!
Well, if I was building something that wasn’t going to get shot at, I’d LOVE turbines.
But I’ve heard too many stories of turbines throwing blades after taking damage to like ‘em in the air-to-mud role.
But apparently the stories were a bit exaggerated.
HaH! Those of us who are former enlisted ground pounders flip boogers in your general direction!
Just don't get any in the intake of my F-16. BTW I am truly sorry for dropping that stuff on our guys, it's just that at 600knts, ya sometimes can't really tell who's who, or where's what, ya know?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.