Posted on 01/07/2012 6:32:53 AM PST by bobsunshine
The United States Air Force is facing questions from Hawker Beechcraft Corp. after a recent GAO decision effectively removed them from the running in a bid to build our next generation of light attack aircraft....
Hawker Beechcraft, which has been excluded by the U.S. Air Force from competing for a contract to supply a new light attack aircraft, is fighting mad and fighting back. The Wichita-based manufacturer of business jets and turboprops filed suit yesterday with the Court of Federal Claims following notification that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) declined to review its protest of the Air Force decision, which was made public in November. The company’s AT-6 light attack variant of the T-6 turboprop trainer was previously considered a front-runner in the competition for a contract valued at nearly $1 billion, and Hawker Beechcraft and its partners in the AT-6 say they have invested more than $100 million preparing for the competition. .....
If the company is out of the race, the only remaining competitor is listed as being Sierra Nevada Corp.based in Nevada. The problem with that, however, is that critics have noted that Sierra Nevada is more of a front company and the actual manufacturer would be Brazilian-based Embraer, manufacturer of the Super Tucano, which would take the place of the AT-6.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Sure help foreign companies and economies over our own. makes perfect sense
Perhaps we should buy some SU-27s, after all they are a combat proven product ready for delivery.
Thank you from your post. I’d also like to add this:
http://theulstermanreport.com/2011/12/16/leo-gerard-the-most-powerful-man-in-obamas-america
Hawker president Bill Boisture has been very critical of Obama on video from at least 2009 (an interview he made at NBAA - National Business Aircraft Association trade show). Another exec made similar critical remarks in 2011.
The decision reeks of political payback to me.
A significant amount of Embraer work would be performed in FLA, but its not nearly as many jobs as would be maintained if Hawker built it in Wichita. For he record, the HBC AT-6 is license built version of the Swiss Pilatus PC9.
hawker president and his evp critical of White House & DC:
HBC president (& ex fighter pilot) at NBAA in 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCLYo4NtMCU
2011 NBAA, Hawker EVP Shawn Vick criticizes DC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7nsOPdTN8Y
Having said that, I also would not be surprised to see a Soros hand steering the decision for the USAF thru the WH...
Perhaps Embraer does make a better product... but if that were the case the USAF would have come right out and said so.
But they didn’t.
They gave no reason to HBC for their exclusion from the bidding, and then very quietly awarded to project to EMB.
I’m less concerned about who builds the so-called LAS “attack” aircraft, than who flies them.
I hope neither my AF son or any of his pilot friends draw that assignment. It is a “fool’s errand” against even disorganized light arms fire.
Oldplayer
Russian Fighters for American Airforce/Navy: The only prudent solution!
Do you think giving Dollars to Pakistan so they can buy F-16s from Lockheed makes sense?
Put another way: the AT-6 is a prototype. The Super Tocano has tooling, a supply network and could very quickly have a factory up and running.
The A-29 is at the starting line while the AT-6 doesn’t have it’s track shoes on yet.
Another critical difference: Kansas is a republican state while Florida could go either way.
Building the A-1 Skyraider would be difficult as I don’t think anybody builts a supercharged radial aircraft engine any longer. A radial is a good engine from the standpoint of withstanding battle damage. Jet engines (and essentially that is what a turboprop is) are delicate things. Not an engine type I would want to take on a straffing/rocket run if I had any choice.
Does everyone understand that these aircraft are for the Afghan Air Force--not the USAF?
I don’t know and don’t care who builds it but I sure would like to see someone develop an air cooled two stroke diesel radial engine...preferably the valveless variety.
The “Super” Tucano is less capable than a P-40, a P-39 or a Grumman Wildcat. Far slower, and much less lightly armed.
It cannot refuel and only has 4 hardpoints,, so guess what will be hanging on one of them?
It is so far less capable and survivable for the pilot than in a Warthog, that it’s embarrassing.
It’s useless in many other forseable wars. A bowie knife can do the work of a amall one,, but not the other way around.
This aircraft is a flying reminder that we are be very careful not to offend the enemy by using extremely capable machines. Grunts don’t want this,, procurement officers, politically connected builders, and politicians do.
When you are getting your ass shot up on the ground, you’ll want the help arriving faster than this machine, and you’ll want it to have more like 11 hardpoints and a 30mm cannon. Two 50s and 4 points, on limited fuel, enroute slowly is giving the finger to the ground units.
“Has it crossed anyone’s mind here that the acquisition people at Wright Patterson simply made the best choice for the requirement?”
The same people who are giving us that moonpig F-35 that India refused, that no foreign nation really wants unless enormous diplomatic pressure is brought to bear? THOSE acquistion people?
And if the USAF actually TRULY believes that Afghanistan is going to have a functional Air Force 4 weeks after we leave, then we should disband them for lunacy and let the Marines take over.
“Does everyone understand that these aircraft are for the Afghan Air Force—not the USAF?”
We shouldn’t give a Cessna to a nation that openly announced that they will support Pakistan in any fight against the USA.
I’m guessing that the COIN mission for the proposed light-attack aircraft is more that of obsevation/forward air controller. Essentially the mission of the old Cessna O-2 or maybe the heavier OV-10 Mohawk. The ability to operate from crude forward strips is a key advantage.
But if they are intending to deliver ordnance heavier than smoke rockets on a regular basis, then I would agree with you. I just don’t know much about the viability of the mission that they are looking to fill. I do know that Obama’s cuts to the Army & Marine ground forces are logicaly going to kill Counter-Insurgency operations in general. So this program should be scrapped.
Well then your argument is with this administration and the previous one...not the USAF.
Uh, India turned down the F/A-18IN not the F-35.
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.