Artwork: Hawker Beechcraft
Posted on 04/28/2011 9:04:38 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
AT-6 Meets the Need for an Affordable Light Attack Aircraft
(Source: Lexington Institute; issued April 27, 2011)
(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)
Since the United States first became heavily engaged in fighting insurgents around the globe, it was clear there would be a requirement to supplement existing conventional weapons such as tanks and fighters with military systems suited to the unique demands of irregular warfare. That is how the military ended up acquiring a "mine-resistant, ambush-protected" armored vehicle for Iraq, and an all-terrain version of the same system for Afghanistan.
The Air Force determined that it needed to complement its fleet of sophisticated fighter and attack jets with a simpler aircraft designed for operating in moderate-threat environments. It's not that fighters aren't good at what they were conceived to do, but they fly too fast, cost too much, and stay in the air too briefly to be the best answer for air operations in places like Afghanistan. In addition, they are too complicated to be piloted and maintained by the military personnel of some partner countries.
So the Air Force decided to acquire a light attack and armed reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft. The requirements were for a two-seat turboprop capable of flying at altitudes of up to 30,000 ft. with an armored cockpit and advanced sensors. The LAAR would also mount a full-motion video camera and a data link to transmit video and other information. For weapons, the LAAR would carry a cannon and be able to deliver two 500 lb. bombs, 2.75-inch rockets and rail-launched munitions.
The primary U.S. contender for the LAAR is the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6. The AT-6 is a variant of the T-6 primary trainer currently used by the U.S. Air Force and Navy as well as a number of other countries, including the new Iraqi Air Force. The T-6 is a reliable, easy-to-maintain aircraft, just what you want for teaching partner-country pilots. The same features would apply to the AT-6 variant. It would reduce the costs incurred by the U.S. Air Force in supporting partner countries. The choice of the AT-6 would realize life-cycle cost savings because of the ability to leverage the existing supply chain in place to support the T-6. In addition, the AT-6 would join some 37 Hawker Beechcraft MC-12Ws the Air Force purchased to serve as manned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.
Another reason that the AT-6 makes sense is because it facilitates an easy and natural relationship with the U.S. Air Force, given its experience with the T-6 trainer and partner countries. U.S. pilots and maintainers would not have to learn how to fly a different aircraft in order to train foreign air force personnel.
A final and not unimportant point is that unlike some of the other contenders for the LAAR role, the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 would be developed, produced and assembled in the United States. The entire supply chain would be secure, safe and American. The AT-6 is a low-risk, low-cost solution that avoids the political, logistical and operational challenges that would inevitably arise if a foreign-built aircraft were selected as the LAAR.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: In other words, competition, ma non troppo.)
-ends-
Artwork: Hawker Beechcraft
Maybe we’ve still got an AU-1 or two that we could dust off.
I still think they should have gone with a modernized OV-10 Bronco.
Better visibility for the Forward Air Control / Liaison role.
If they want a prop plane, why not just bring back the Navy’s Skyraider, AD-1. This was truly a great attack aircraft. Put a turboprop in it.
“The choice of the AT-6 would realize life-cycle cost savings because of the ability to leverage the existing supply chain in place to support the T-6.”
While I can fully understand the need for something that can fly low-and-slow to bring the rain to the terrorists, a slow aircraft is even easier to hit with machinegun fire than a fast one. Something that small can only carry so much armor before it becomes too heavy to fly, and it has to be able to get out of range quickly when it needs to.
To be honest, re-creating one of the old WWII-era fighters might have been a better choice. Some of those had ridiculously low stall speeds, and much beefier airframes. They also carried engines that could hit nearly 1000hp under emergency power. Something like the old P-40 or P-47, with modern avionics, would fit the bill nicely (and ya gotta love the sound those old fighter engines made).
Beech better not screw this up.
oh hell yeah, that's what my Dad learned to fly in.
Navy’s Skyraider, AD-1
If you can get it in the doors or hang it on the wing, it will get it off the ground.
Correction: not nearly 1000hp, nearly 3000hp (though those had some teething problems).
A Beech Craft with a PT-6 is an awesome aircraft.........god love my corporate days in a King Air 200 but this is not what we need militarily.
I’d say do an updated p-51.
A-10s are awesome. Troops also love em.
Looks like they picked perfect concept for the role.
P 47 would be better, with the radial engine for the pilot to hide behind. p-51 was better at speed and at altitude, but with an inline engine, a water filled radiator and liquid cooling, had much greater vulnerability.
“The P-47 was a 20mm sponge. It could take numerous cannon hits. I can attest to that.” Erich Hartmann, Luftwaffe
A Stearman has 2 wings;
if one gets shot off,
you got one left.
Old idea come back:
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51variants/Cavalier.shtml
Are you sure you have your plane a pilot correct? Erich Hartmann spent most of his time shooting down Russian planes. He said the Il-2 was heavily armoured and difficult to shoot down but I don't remember him engaging P-47's although he did engage a few P-51's.
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.