Posted on 06/05/2011 7:43:14 PM PDT by DefenseMatters
On the other hand, these are cheap aircraft and we need them now. An initial procurement of the Tucano for near term needs with with a follow on buy of the the Beech makes sense but that is not how our military works.
Both are suited to low intensity bush war COIN type missions and would not last long in any serious conflict against a modern, moderately well equipped opponent. Aircraft of this type just got creamed by the Brits in the Falklands decades ago with 1960’s vintage weapons and were out of the fight in the first few days.
In reality, a modernized, stripped down, lightened A-10 with more fuel efficient engines and optimized for ground attack with precision munitions instead of anti tank operations would make a lot of sense.
It would be more survivable and effective in a future, higher intensity conflict. It would have vastly higher payload of weapons and would not cost that much more than either the Beech or the Tucano.
In reality, most of the costs in military aircraft these days are in avionics black boxes - not the airframe or engine. It is also a fact that the A-10 was designed from the git go as an attack plane and the other two are converted training aircraft.
He makes too much sense.
http://www.embraer.com/en-US/Pages/Home.aspx
Formerly known as Embraer Aircraft Corporation (EAC), Embraer-U.S. was founded in 1979 in Fort Lauderdale, FL as a wholly owned United States corporation. On July 1, 1980, the company was incorporated in Fort Lauderdale as a subsidiary of Embraer. EAC became responsible for Embraer marketing, sales and technical support activities in the United States.
In 2008, Embraer broke ground on a new facility at the Melbourne International Airport in Melbourne, FL that will be dedicated mainly to assembly the Phenom 100 and Phenom 300 besides, support the expansion of the Company’s executive jet business. The opening of the new Melbourne facility is part of Embraer’s broader strategy of bringing operations closer to customers and to its largest market, as the Company’s first industrial site in the U.S.
You are right that the AT-6 is not a proper airframe for the COIN role because it was designed as a trainer. The Super Tucano is a "clean sheet" design precisely for that mission, which it is performing admirably against the FARC in Colombia.
OTOH, you are incorrect wrt the Super Tucano's avionics: the aircraft has demonstrated it's ability to employ the most advanced US systems (including Link-16, SADL, Rover, etc) via the USN's "Imminent Fury" program. Some of the USN/USAF's very best fighter pilots were standing in line to take the aircraft to Afghanistan.
Finally, your acquistion proposal is uninformed. The AT-6 is a converted trainer and as such it is at the end of it's growth curve. The aircraft's development has been complicated by the need to retrofit a more powerful engine (without an attendant increase in the size of control surfaces), CG problems as more equipment is added (requiring ballast to offset which is reducing payload and performance), not to mention that it has not yet been certified to drop weapons.
Congressman West has a firm grasp of the LAS/LAAR requirements, has asked the right questions, and has been able to determine the appropriate aircraft for both of these missions. Most importantly, LtCol West was "the customer" at one point. Hopefully our acquistion executives will pay attention to him.
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.