Posted on 03/05/2012 1:20:15 PM PST by DefenseMatters
An Open Letter to General Schwartz on the Light Air Support Aircraft
by Ed Timperlake
Please do not validate that the AT-6 was compliant when submitted for LAS Solicitation FA8615-10-R-6088” by allowing your investigators to focus exclusively on the end-game selection paperwork.
“There will be hell to pay” USAF Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz was recently quoted about possible results depending on what the “investigation” of the “smoking hole” debacle of trying to deliver a combat aircraft to the Afghan war effort.
This is more tough talk from a General who previously told industry:
“Don’t blow smoke up my ass” about what a platform can do and when it will be ready, said Schwartz, considered by many defense insiders as a contender to become the next Joint Chiefs chairman.
General Schwartz, with all due respect there is a cliché that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
“There’s no time for it,” the Air Chief said to a nearly silent and tense ballroom. “There’s no patience for it. OK?” (The Hill, John T. Bennett – 02/09/11)
The current state of play in this international debacle while very nasty combat is raging in Afghanistan is to yet again delay support to all troops fighting and dying.
General Donald Hoffman, commander of Air Force Materiel Command will investigate.
“Air Force to Axe Super Tucano, Investigate Choice Of Brazilian Plane For Afghanistan”, by Sydney J. Freeberg, Jr.
http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/28/air-force-sets-aside-controversial-contract-to-buy-brazilian-s/
General Schwartz, with all due respect there is a cliché that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
In order not to be seen as anything other than a fair and complete investigation the CG Material Command must start his investigation by addressing the first sentence in the RFP. If you begin at that point the “investigation” can be completed immediately: a simple yes or no will resolve that.
“BACKGROUND AND REQUIREMENTS: LAS aircraft must be a non-developmental item (NDI) that is production-ready. No development or testing funds are available. ” Introduction of LAS Solicitation FA8615-10-R-6088”
Was the AT-6 compliant when submitted into the LAS Solicitation? Yes or No.
If no, then the AT-6 is legally out and the Super Tucano can fly into combat as fast as possible.
Investigating the end-game paper work of “who shot Willy” process will be seen as the AF “blowing smoke” because it will validate Hawker’s apparent “fake it until you make it” corporate strategy.
Aviation Week reporting tells us the AT-6 was non-compliant because HBC actually bragged about USG testing and weapons qualification trials 9 months AFTER they submitted their proposal into a non-developmental, production ready, no USG funds allowed source selection.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/10/11/04.xml&channel=defense
You have earned the right as a decorated AF leader to use the word “hell.” So has Congressman Allen West “I will walk through hell with a gas can to save my men.”
http://www.sldinfo.com/a-letter-from-congress-west-where-is-the-support-for-our-afghan-ally/
So start with a simple on the record yes or no and end this foolish charade immediately.
The Air Force is top heavy with High Flying Fast Movers that care little for Ground Support.
If they would get their collective heads out of their A$$es, and transfer the A-10’s to the Army instead of retiring them to the desert and drop the “ No fixed Wings for the Army” BS.
The Tucano seems so "retro" to me. I would think the Tucano, being prop, would be more vulnerable to 23MM/37MM AA fire?
Unit cost and cost per flight hour. And I don’t think we want to give A-10s to the Afghans.
They have $500 million invested in Hawker Beech and they need a government bailout before that company goes belly-up.
Well, there are a few things. First off, the Super Tucano costs less then the A-10 in terms of up front costs (it is about half the price) and the operational costs are drastically lower as well. The Tucano is a simple, single engined turbo-prop, and the difference in operational costs per flight hour is pretty large. The A-10 runs about $3,000 per hour, compared to $470 for the Tucano. Parts are also far cheaper.
Second, the Tucano is far less costly and complex in terms of maintenance. One of the goals of this program is to purchase aircraft for foreign militaries to use, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, and using something simple is probably for the best.
Third, while the A-10 is a good CAS aircraft, it was built for fighting WW3, busting up Soviet tank columns trying to push into West Germany. It wasn’t really designed with counter-insurgency operations in mind, while the Super Tucano was. It has a far lower stall speed then the Warthog as well as superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitudes. There is better pilot visibility of the ground, and its economic single turbprop and large fuel tanks mean it has almost double the endurance of the twin-engined A-10, which gives it a far greater loiter time over the battlefield.
“ No fixed Wings for the Army”
The Army has and still does fly fixed wing aircraft but the size and mission of the assets are restricted.
“Focus on the mission and the troops and put Light Air Support into action.”
Putting light attack aircraft into the hands of Afghan pilots?? THAT mission?? Last year an Afghan pilot murdered several American soldiers in kabul airbase. Bet he would have loved to have an attack aircraft.
And if you are opposing Schwartzkopf,, you are already on thin ice. He’s the last general that wasn’t a pussy and gave a damn about the people under him.
My bad,,, Schwartz,,, without the “kopf”. This is the USAF idiot who thinks giving attack aircraft to Afghan savages, to fly overhead of our people,,,armed,,, is a bright idea.
He’s either dishonest or stupid if he thinks Afghanistan will ever have an air force,,and not be a danger to our troops. There is no alternative,,, stupid or dishonest.
“And I don’t think we want to give A-10s to the Afghans.”
Interesting,,, and please tell me, why would we hesitate to do that?? (socratic method alert)
“It has a far lower stall speed then the Warthog as well as superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitudes,,,”
Being slow at low altitude is bad. Also,,, for fun sometime,,sit on a hilltop being attacked by a couple of A-10s. You will soon note that they can work together, and turn so tight, that there is literally not a single moment when a 30mm isn’t pointed straight at you.
Warthog is good as it gets,, it beats super T in range, refueling,, guns,, sensors,,and hardpoints make it a runaway game. Or survivability,,
The super T is nothing but a joke, to pretend we are giving Afghanistan an aircraft. But we know they will be junk inside of 3 months if we leave. (im being generous)
Also, it is a near certainty they will be used against us.
And im not sure what the Taliban fusalage markings and fin flash look like,, but super T’ will have them on day one.
Schwartz will probably even deliver them with some muslim logo if they ask us to.
This whole program is a waste of money,, a danger to our troops,,and a monument to politically driven procurement.
The agreement reached in Key West gave the Army’s “tactical air support” mission — the mission of flying air strikes in direct support of troops on the ground — to the Air Force. And that decision has had pretty far-reaching consequences.
The first consequence was that the Army has consistently complained ever since that it doesn’t get the quality of tactical air support that it should. The Air Force, they complain, is full of wanna-be fighter jocks who spend all their time and money on sexy new fighters to shoot down enemy planes, paying less attention to the comparatively less romantic mission of dropping bombs on bad guys on the ground.
There is some merit to this complaint. The most effective air support plane ever developed is the A-10 Thunderbolt II, a slow, ugly beast built around an enormous cannon. It is a nightmarishly powerful killer of ground forces, especially vehicles. But it can’t dogfight enemy planes — it’s designed to fly low and slow, not high and fast — so the Air Force brass has never really taken it into their hearts; they’ve mostly retired the A-10 to the Air National Guard these days, which tells you the priority they give the ground-support mission.
The most effective air support plane ever developed is the A-10 Thunderbolt II,
If you included the caveat "in a low threat environment" you could attempt to make that argument.
No “t” in Schwarzkopf.
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.