Posted on 06/05/2011 7:43:14 PM PDT by DefenseMatters
The Honorable Michael B. Donley Secretary of the Air Force 1060 Air Force, Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1670
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing to you about an issue of significant importance, the Light Air Support program to supply aircraft and training to the Afghanistan National Army Air Corps as well as support our partner building efforts with other allies. This is of interest to me as I was elected to Congress to protect the American taxpayer and to protect this country’s national interests and security.
I served in Afghanistan training afghan officers to take on the responsibility of securing their own country. I can personally attest to the need for this program. As we prepare to drawdown our troops, it only becomes more important. We must equip our partners with the aircraft and training they need to defend against terrorist organizations. Our security depends on it.
When it comes to the LAS mission, there is no room for politics in the procurement process. Too much time already has been wasted by political maneuvering since U.S. commanders in Afghanistan urgently requested light attack aircraft suited to the irregular warfare there. Our government must act now to select the aircraft capable of the mission.
As I understand it, there are two contenders for the contract. One is offering a plane specifically built for this type of mission, that was instrumental in defeating the FARC in Columbia and that has logged over 100,000 flight hours, 16,000 of which have been in combat without a loss. The other is offering a version of its trainer aircraft that is not in service anywhere in the world and has yet to certified to drop weapons.
The Request for Proposal was explicit instating that the aircraft selected must be non-developmental and that technical criteria must be the primary selection criteria. I would further expect that criteria including airworthiness previous operational performance and certification should factor into the consideration process. It is the low-risk, high-value option that must be selected.
I believe, as I know you do, that a fair and open competition will benefit our nation, our war fighters and our allies. I would appreciate being kept up-to-date on the schedule and results of this acquisition process.
Very Respectfully,
Allen B. West Member of Congress
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.