Super Tucano Dropping 2 Mark 82 Bombs
Posted on 03/03/2012 7:44:36 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 Guns For Embraer's Super Tucano: Rival Planes Compared
It's Texan versus Tucano, take two, and the embarrassed Air Force has got to get it right this time.
With all the claims, counter-claims, and rumors swirling about the controversial contract to buy the Embraer Super Tucano, which the Air Force cancelled unexpectedly on Tuesday and will likely re-compete, AOL Defense went both to the rival companies and independent sources to distill this definitive guide to the competition, from the two planes' performance to the manufacturers' twenty-year history of feuding.
The bottom line? Both leading competitors are offering small, propeller-driven planes that derive from foreign designs but will be built in the United States. Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 Texan II (pictured above) is smaller, quicker, and more familiar to U.S. pilots and maintainers because of its similarity to the standard T-6 trainer. The Embraer Super Tucano is a larger plane with a solid track record of operating in tough conditions for non-U.S. air forces. Other contenders, including a militarized crop duster called the Air Tractor AT-800 and a proposal to resurrect the Vietnam-era OV-10 Bronco, are out of the running. It's down to two, and all eyes are on the Air Force.
For the Air Force: Small program, big stakes
The $355 million Light Air Support contract, intended as a (by Pentagon standards) quick and cheap way to get easy-to-operate ground attack planes for the nascent Afghan Air Force, has ballooned into a major embarrassment. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters yesterday that "Our institutional reputation is at stake." While the Air Force's formal court filings from Tues
(Excerpt) Read more at defense.aol.com ...
Super Tucano Dropping 2 Mark 82 Bombs
AT-6 launching LGB
These planes are going to be for the Afghan Air Force. They’ll be flying low and slow to provide ground support, so I think one of the main considerations would be how much damage they can take from ground fire and still get the job done. This article doesn’t really address that issue. Obviously, there’s politics involved in awarding the contract to an American company.
Ah that there were a way to economically begin producing the Skyraider, P-47, or F4U Corsair. All excellent for this mission.
Surely they will be responding soon and he will post their 'impartial analysis' on why the Tucano is a superplane and AT-6 is a POS.
P-51 was used for ground attack in Korea with success.
How many times has The Afghan military killed American dossiers in the last year. Why are we going to give them ANY attack aircraft?
Autocorrect,,, that’s American soldiers
Droooling over the AT-6 - wouldn’t it be something to own one????? Have flown the WWII version, cannot imagine the performance with a turboprop/modern fuselage......
I want some of the stuff you get out of the Pentagon’s water fountains! It’s got to be good stuff.
Seriously, giving any type of airpower to the friendly Afghani forces is a study in stupidity.
There is no central government.
Without a central government any 4th world nation cannot support an air force. Like it or not an air force is one of the most expensive kind of armed force; the unique logistic, manpower, and training requirements are extensive and incompatible with any other use.
No 3rd or 4th world government will internally support the air force. Unfortunately in the 3rd and 4th world military forces are kept incompetent. Yes, they look real good in a parade; but, which quasi dictator wants a professional force that can over thrown him? Their primary use is to keep the extended family of the current dictator in power (aka alive); the headlines for the last 20 plus years clearly demonstrate this.
Like it or not airpower isn’t the way to fight an irregular war. It lacks the ability to differentiate between friendly, non-target, and enemy forces. That’s right, in irregular war you have three totally different classifications of things on the ground instead of conventional war’s two. Add to the targeting issue the use of force; how good is air delivered munitions against intermixed things? Everything from staffing passes to bombs to missiles have large lethal footprints that have, and will, and will always include friendly and non-target deaths and injuries. The issue in irregular war is not time on target but response time. If your air power platform cannot put effects on target within seconds it is ineffective. This is part of the part of the targeting issues above. Finally, air forces present a large, fixed, visible, and highly valuable target on the ground that will provide the media with instant headlines which ever direction the media wants to run (friendly, transitional, opposed).
Did I miss anything Vietnam Vets? That’s right folks. Everything I quickly listed above from “no central government” down was clearly documented during our Vietnam experience, 1953 – 1973. In 1977, the year that Nordy went to squadron officer’s school, the USAF brass at Headquarters declared and started teaching that we were never going to fight another Vietnam ignoring totally the 25 – 30 “Vietnam type” (aka irregular war) conflicts going on at the time. Why did I use 1977 as a date? That was the year that Nordy Schwartz (1973 commissioning date) and I went to squadron officer’s school – he was the class ahead of me. At that time Nordy was a slick C-130 pilot; his career in SpecOps started three years later.
Full disclaimer. I have been involved in one way of the other in irregular warfare off and on since 1969 with 30 years spent in or around the USAF version of it.
Hawker Beechcraft is hurting right now and rumor has it that they'll go Chapter 11 if they don't score this contract. Obama is trying to get reelected and another bankruptcy or bailout shreds the fiction that the economy is improving.
Meanwhile, there is trouble in Afghanistan. Anti-American sentiment runs high because of the Koran-burning incident, with riots and US soldiers being killed. Christians in general don't seem to be very welcome there. I have been asking myself two questions:
1) Why should US taxpayers be giving the Afghans anything at all, much less combat aircraft? They don't appear to be trustworthy allies...2) Exactly who would these combat aircraft be deployed against? Would they be used to strafe Christian villages?
We all know Obama's #1 priority is the get reelected, so the AF (and Hawker Beechcraft) will just have to wait.
Is an LGB a Lesbian Gay Bomb? If so, what is the choice of ordinance for Transgenders?
That is true because the USAF still had a lot of LIQUID COOLED P-51s vice AIR COOLED P-47s. All three planes I mentioned were AIR cooled, thus would not stop running because of lack of coolent, due to anti-aircraft fire.
Also both of the two planes under consideration are turbo-props, which causes me to wonder if that makes them more vulnerable to a heat seeking missile such as SA-14 or Redeye? To my thinking, air cooled prop jobs don’t have that concentrated heat source. Although overall engine heat may make them vulnerable to IR missiles. I’m no expert on that and perhaps there is a knowledgeble person her on FR that is.
Other that a name their no relation between the two
Other that a name their no relation between the two
Probably loitering, solicitation and conspiracy.
As for ordnance, one round from a .45 would suffice.
Embrear spent $50,000 to fly a couple of Super Tucanos to flight tests. Hawker-Beech spent 7 figures to do the exact same thing.
They look like they came off the same drawing board.
Had a good friend that flew OV-10s in Viet Nam.
He didn’t come back.
Well, that’s another question entirely.
After this latest dust-up with the Koran burning business, the only thing I feel like giving them is - - - - you can figure it out, I’m sure.
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.