The Air Force has apparently booted Hawker-Beechcraft’s AT-6B from its light attack competition.
Hawker says it has no idea yet why its plane was disqualified from the contest a few weeks ago and is requesting a formal review of the matter from the Government Accountability Office.
The AT-6B was competing with Embraer’s Super Tucano for a U.S. Air Force contract to supply up to 20 light air support — or counterinsurgency planes — to the fledgling Afghan air force. A couple of months ago we reported that the service was supposed to decide this month on which plane it would supply the Afghans with.
Here’s a statement that Hawker released on the matter today:
Following the notification last week that Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) was excluded from the Light Air Support (LAS) bidding process, the company has requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review the Air Force’s decision. The company issued the following statement on this action:
“Yesterday, we received notification that the United States Air Force formally denied our second request for a debriefing. As a result, we still have no information on why the Beechcraft AT-6 was excluded from the Light Air Support competition. We continue to believe that we offered the most capable, affordable and sustainable light attack aircraft as measured against the Air Force’s Request for Proposal. HBC’s exclusion from competing for this important contract appears at this point to have been made without basis in process or fact. We are very interested in learning more about the decision and look forward to the results of the GAO’s review.”
The Air Force is being fairly tight lipped on the issue besides confirming that a contract award will happen in late November or early December. (That’s pretty big news by itself)
Here’s what Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy just told DT:
“The Air Force continues to be in close contact with all offerors of the LAS competition. Due to the ongoing source selection, we cannot comment on the status of any of the proposals. We anticipate awarding the contract late November/ early December. We will have more information once all offerors have been debriefed following contract award.
The picture above shows an AT-6B participating in one of the Air Force’s Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment (JEFX) events where it has flown a variety of ISR and light attack missions at the hands of A-10 pilots. Here’s more info on the plane.
{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }
So the Air Force refuses to debrief them as to why they have been disqualified?
you think the air force would try to run at least one procurement in recent history that wasn’t *****
Are we throwing a bone to the Brazilians?
seems like it to me. i also question if this is an attempt for a quid pro quo for use to acquire the super tuscano for them to give the super hornet a leg up in Brazil's fighter jet competition.
In other words, the Brazilians are throwing us a bone. Hope we don't blow with all the protectionist BS. After all, when you peel away the layers HBC is no more an American company than Embraer. HBC is half owned by the Canadians, offering a Swiss design, all the while they are moving their manufacturing to Mexico.
The "Buy American" rigamole has simply led to strange partnerships just to get a rubber stamp. I mean, H&K supplies American forces with a variety of weapons. If we ask them to make them here, then it means H&K builds a factory in Georgia and sends the USG a bill. Some people may say "it creates jobs", but what is the jobs/cost ratio for the government?
Just pick the best foreign design and move on. But perhaps you all are right-that this is a ploy to throw a cheaper contract to Brazil in exchange for them buying pricier Hornets.
Brazilian here. Don´t think it really counts, the fighter purchase is stalled and nobody is talking about resuming the process anytime soon.
The Embraer contract is a fine one but it´s not enough to change the government´s mind.
Uh, perhaps they have a better plane? The Super Tucano is a proven bird used by many air forces.
And hopefully my tax dollars are not buying these planes for the afgans. If so what do we get out of the deal? Opium? Dirt? Hmmmm
Regional stability so we don't have to go through this again in another 20 years.
So who's palms were greased?
So the USA has to pay for these? I don't understand why and if your giving away free planes CA could use a few more f-35's on the book's pls and tx
I suspect that their debrief request (along with the debrief requests of other bidders who were not selected) will be granted after a contract has been awarded. My guess is that the debrief process and timing were explicitly described in the RFP. If HBC isn't aware of the debrief schedule, I can't help but wonder what other sections of the RFP they misinterpreted. That may explain why their proposal was judged to be non-compliant.
In fact, they "misinterpreted" that the LAS contract was for a "non-developmental" aircraft. Clearly the AT-6 has still been in development and my bet is that this is why they were disqualified. This fits hand-in-glove with GEN Schwartz' "don't blow smoke up my ass" comment re: USAF acquisition.
This is why we need sequestering. Why is the USAF buying planes for Afghanistan? They can buy there own planes and pick what they want.
For us a A-10 will do fine why not buy them some SU-25s then.
I thought they were being bought for use in Afghanistan by US Pilots, as a cheaper more sustainable way of providing CAS than the hours and millions it costs to run jets for short periods of cover, unleashing weapons that are often overkill – not by Afghan Pilots?
Nope.
"The purpose of this contract is the acquisition of nondevelopmenatal Light Air Support Aircraft for current and future Building Partnership Capacity (BPC) nations. The procurement includes necessary Aircraft Interim Contractor Support (ICS); Ground Training Devices (GTDs) and corresponding Contractor Logistics Support (CLS); and Air Advisor Training for US Pilots allowing them the capability to train other Building Partnership Capacity (BPC) nations. "
Because SU-25s have been used in the past with little effect.
Just restart the A-10 production line! We'll even make a lot more jobs in the process of restarting it.
You really enjoy the debt going up, don't you?
Not at all. I believe we should also cancel the F-35 in case you didn't notice my earlier comments on article here. Unlike the JSF series, the A-10 is actually worth the price.
And a dedicated COIN aircraft would be even more cost effective/mission optimized than the A-10.
I suspect that's probably pretty doggone easy to do.
The A-10 tooling is probably mostly gone although I read something back about the Air Force having to re manufacture the ones we have. The factory on Long Island is certainly gone now.
The A 10 is not the hammer to every nail. It does not meet the need for a Light Air Support air plane. Small, cheap, & simple is what they need.
but the f35 isnt teh hammer for hte a10s work. compared to the f35, the a10 is wayyyyyyyyyy cheaper and simpler
You can NOT "re-start" what no longer exists and has not existed in decades.
A-10 can't fly at relatively low speed the same way as a propeller plane and in many occasions you don't want a giant bomber dropping payloads near allied infantry on the ground.
Nowadays the bombs are probably more accurate, unless an operator plugs in the wrong GPS coordinates and calls the bomb on his own position.
In GW1 and 2, the friendly fire incidents with aircraft involved ATGMs fired into clean targets that were misidentified as enemy targets. In GW2, the Marines got hit around Nasiriyah by an A-10 using guns and missiles for CAS, not bombs. Again, I think it was another case of mistaken identity and the aircraft engaged its targets properly. Not sure how often we are fighting our enemies danger close and having bombs dropping on our troops-such data is not easy to come by!
I agree that a piston-driven aircraft is better suited for the role than the A-10,although given the A-10 age building replacement is likely option. If a production was ever reintroduced they should consider improving the design. I mean that in regards to improving it's versatility,one would be making the GAU-8 detachable and option to accept gun pods on their pylons. This would (gun pods aside) reduced weight and streamline aerodynamics, which is turn increase it's combat radius. They are undoubtedly trivial and entirely feasible alterations that can incorporated into the design and lets be honest how many targets require a GAU-8 to destroy them in COIN operations. Aside from the physiological effects most of the rounds end hitting nothing or end embedded in the ground only to be dug up and accidently detonated by some farmer ten years latter.It would allow us to use less ammunition which means less supply convoys going through Pakistan and less trucks for the insurgents to ambush. Which makes you think is NATO even serious about their supply lines, their response always seem to be add more armor and firepower to every piece of equipment. Which any sane person knows means more weight, more maintenance, less mobility and more supply conveys to protect.In the end it's a self-defeating concept and we should consider improving versatility and weight-to-combat efficiency management.
The thing flew like a champ… loved flying these in pcola… id strap one of these on anyday.. wish they would pick this up.. would sit in the back anyday!
well it wasnt an at-6.. was a regular t-6… i can see a flame comming…
AT-6B has a more powerful engine.
Just slap some stuff on the aging T38s. I flew them when I was in my 20s in the 1970s, sounds like they will be around if I live until 120——-
What about restarting the F-20 Tigershark production line
The F20 was a great plane but not so much for the LCAS role. As a low cost, high volume air superiority and short range strike aircraft it would’ve been awesome.
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Was a great aircraft, just ask Chuck Yeager!
I suspect that's probably pretty doggone easy to do, too.
You forgot to use the sarcasm font.
It would have been perfect for a low cost ASA Aircraft that we can use to protect the CONUS and even sell to countries that were developing their Air force Like Iraq, Afghanistan and many others. I think they should have resurrect the F-20
First off you can not "re-start was no lnger exists and has not existed in decades.
Secondly the F-20's "achilles heel" was that the USAF didn't want it and as long as the USAF wanted F-16's all FMS buyers adopted the position that if the F-20 wasn't "good enough" for the USAF then they didn't want them either and insisted on F-16's of their own or no sale!
sounds like Embraer made the better post retirement deal to the greater number of airforce officers at the right price.
And the most subcontracts in the right congressional districts.
Which is hilarious because aside from a few company offices, maintenance, and repair facilities – Portugal, Brazil, and China are the only places Embraer manufactures aircraft and their components….but don't let me stop you from reinforcing 21st stereotypes and cliches'….. maybe Beechcraft just made a sh*tty non-competetive aircraft.
i guess… maybe you're right….maybe im totally off base here….maybe Beechcraft DID make a "shitty non-cometative bid"…. maybe retired US officers don't consult with "friendly" foriegn governments and corporations all over the globe
maybe…. common knownlegde about retired US armed forces officers from all branches of the service is just "cliches and stereotypes", and it never happened…. ever
maybe the info-blackout is completely innocent….
The key to this is Brazil's FX2 competition. If embraer wins the LAS contract my guess is the skids are greased for Boeing to win that $8B program. Not a bad trade.
All these little turboprop tandems look the same to me but this move smells political; Brazil is becoming more and more important.
Personally, I always liked the Scaled Composites Ares as a mini-A10 but I guess it was too niche.
I have always said that if you give Burt Rutaan a million bucks and 90 days and he would produce a COIN aircraft that was better then any out there and certainly cooler looking under budget and ahead of schedule . Something like the Ares but size wise about half way between a Long-EZ and a Beech Starship, Two seats in line like an F-4, twin PT-6's pushing you well over 400 KTIAS or a pair of bizjet turbo fans getting you to .9 mach or better.
We are probably fighting the last war again. These planes will probably be piloted by Talibainans soon enough. We should sell the Afghans the most complicated, hard to maintain, and dangerous planes we can so that when the Islamists do infiltrate maybe we can send a few to Allah.
A COIN aircraft would have been a great idea @ 6-8 years ago. Typical military.
100% right – the entire US military should have realized in March of 2004 for Iraq and after September of 2002 for Afghanistan that we were in for a long COIN – Occupation / Reconstruction operation and need appropriate vehicles, weapons, tactics, etc…
Many people in, and out of, the military did realize we would be in a long COIN war in Afghanistan (as an aside are there ever any short COIN wars?) and Iraq, it's just that they were discounted by many in the previous Administration who didn't want to admit to the risks and by service chiefs who didn't want to jeopardize their jobs or procurement budgets.
Even the same people who recognized the difficulty didn't have any new solutions-Shinseki wanted half a million troops to occupy Iraq, and he would have brought the same old pre-GWOT paradigms that the men eventually chosen for the war would have brought to the table. It took new ideas and the jeune ecole to learn in blood.
They fill the same role as the A-37's & Skyraiders we sold off after Vietnam to many small Air forces.
Agreed there is a huge gap when it comes to light fixed-winged support, the A-10 is redundantly over-powered for the role. Not mention the cost benefits of maintaining a piston engine over a jet turbine. In addition these aircraft can exploit semi-disposable dirt runways and can loiter for far greater amounts of time than a jet.. The question is "why haven't we bought these for our military".
What do you all think about getting the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle from South Korea as a ASA aircraft and be used for ASA patrols. It is after all a compact version of an F-16. Maybe that is something that the US Air force can use as well.
A/T-50s have a far more terrible combat radius than most jets currently used.
Ok…..
Let's see how many the Air Force BUYS….
Ok?
They got PROPELLER'S for goodness sakes!
I mean if they only buy maybe 5 or 10….
Maybe the Army can steal'm back from the Air Force out in Arizona where they'll be hidden until everybody forgets about them……..
So what? Reapers have PROPELLERS.
I think AF is’t fair enough for beechcraft AT-6.
Check this video about the plane guys !
Super Tucano Means New Jobs for Florida
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDpUl3UPosg
So… was there an honest technicle issue or was there was a "technicle issue".
For once, the USAF made the right call.
Just guessing (as much as any of you), but maybe we decided that it wouldn't be prudent to send Afghanistan the T-6 when we currently use that for JUPT. And it's not like we're going to use them, except for maybe training the Afghan air force. Personally, I like the AT-6, even the Super Tucano; I just don't get the impression that the USAF wants to buy an aircraft that will ultimately wind up in the hands of another country (and potentially in the wrong hands at some point), and in doing so to select an aircraft that we use to train our young pilots. So, select something else.
I'd love to see the USAF embrace the light-attack aircraft. I just don't think that will happen.
Just brainstorming…
give them the ov 10's the atf tried to get to use against the us citizens instead.
One,, we do not need to spend our tax dollars buying the Afgan's anything.
Two,, we dang sure do not need to be sending our tax dollars to Brazil when we need the work here in the US.
The AF is concealing the true decision maker to this. The Obama Adm. Why throw the bone to Embraer of Brazil while heavily lobbying oil production there? Sounds like someone politicians are investing in Brazil and are well aware of their ties to Iran.
Beechcraft is about to lose some jobs now over this decision, sadly. Brazil…gains! WTF is going on in the heads of these people.
I think the reason why Brazil is going to get to sell the A-29 Super Tucano is because the A-29 Super Tucano is a proven design and proven aircraft over Beechcraft. The A-29 has a combat track record that was witnessed by spec ops operating in Columbia. That's why I think the A-29 Super Tucano is perfect as a light attack Aircraft and also can be able to help smaller and developing foreign air forces as well
Here is an article from last spring…
Should the US Air Force buy American or Brazilian?
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2011/04/should-…
It is a COIN fight, so the surface to air threat is minimal. A-10s, F-16s and F-15Es are doing the CAS/COIN fight now. The Strike Eagle burns 10,000 lbs/hour, the AT-6 / Tucano will burn about 500 lbs/hour. A Viper or Strike Eagle needs at least one tanker for a four hour vul. An AT-6 / Tucano with drop tanks can fly a four hour vul. Simple economics. At $10K+/hour for a fighter, plus the cost of a tanker sortie on top, a COIN aircraft pays for itself over time. It will be on the order of 5 to 10 times cheaper to operate. All you need is a GBU-38 / GBU-12 capable platform, maybe a gun. The AT-6 is the modified T-6, which already has some issues with shoehorning the PT-6 motor into the airframe, ie smaller oil pan, cooling issues, etc. I would want a bigger motor for carrying 1,000 lbs more in bombs and up to 1000 lbs more in fuel as well, otherwise you end up like the A-10, underpowered. You have a million hardpoints but don't have the thrust to make use of them all. The Tucano has already solved that problem and is combat proven in South America. I'm all for supporting US manufacturing, but not if it isn't the best airplane for the job.
The other side of the coin is that this will be a Foreign Military Sales Contract for aircraft sold to Afghanistan. Afghanistan will pay for its own aircraft eventually. The USAF is looking to get 20 airplanes to train other countries, then those countries buy the COIN aircraft equaling more orders from the contract winner. So it is much more than 20 aircraft on the line for Beechcraft. We aren't going to buy airplanes to give to Afghanistan.
Well,I am a Brazilian citizen, a veteran in aviation journalism.And I'll tell you: it was becoming too late for the USA to leave that "buyAmerican" pride and recognized that the Embraer Super Tucano is just the newest face of the Tucano Turboprop trainer flying in countries like France,UK and many many countries and the Tucano "family" is ding well.You should know that the Colombian Air Force is giving hell to the FARC's members.In a single attack, a Super Tucano bombed a certain house and killed more than a dozen of the most important members of Farc in a meeting.
If I were you or your government, I would try it. It's "bom,bonito e barato" (good,pretty and not expensive) and combat proven.Until now your trying to kill fleas with machine guns. Try something less expensive and overstaged.
I am Brazilian and I edit the blog GeoPolitica Brasil, see the output of the AT-6 in two ways, first because of some deficiencies in the project and not being a proven aircraft in combat, the second as a way of putting pressure on the process of FX- 2 in Brazil, where Boeing is being seen as unlikely winners in order of my preference for government and military Rafale and Gripen NG.
But rest assured that if they acquire the Super Tucano, will be leading an outstanding aircraft, it is super capable and proven in combat not only in Colombia, but on missions to attack drug traffickers in the Brazilian Amazon.
Know a little more about Brazil visiting my blog.
The Pentagon has limited the “competition” to one company, a company that is not only not an American manufacturer, it’s a government-owned entity with ties to our enemies. The company is Embraer, which is controlled by the government of Brazil and has close ties to the government of Iran.
The a-10 fanboyism needs to stop. It's a SLOW plane. The reason why it has an acceptable kill ratio is because they've been in contact against countries with a limited air defense capability.
Go against a place such as Russia or China, then they a-10's would be wrecked.
But we're talking about a low cost COIN plane, not something to fight Russia or China with.
Try to pay attention.
The A-29 Super Tucano has certainly proven itself in a variety of roles. Indeed, perhaps it is superior to the AT-6B for COIN operations. Yet will we manufacture them in the US under license, or buy them directly from Brazil?
Considering the state of the economy and how crucial jobs are, there is going to be a ton of controversy if we aren't building them here. Enough to halt the program and force new bids to be made.
I am sorry,Captain Revenge,but please hold on as to vomit idiocies that Embraer is controlled by the Government o Brazil, or that we have "close ties" to Iran.Now look: Embrae is no more a State company but became a private enterprise.Did you know that? As to the "close ties with Iran",could you point out some examples, I mean CLEAR examples?Now llisten here: we just don't like to get involved in war after war to loose or stay there spending lots of money and lives.We have our miseries to be solved and that's not easy in case terrorism comes to here. So our governments just STAY AWAY from such continuous madness that cost you the Cold War and thousands of B-52s abandonned in deserts,after being used in a war that was LOST.So we try to have a cordial but cautious relationship with troublemakers like Iran.If you read Lula's interview to UK's "The ECONOMIST" you will have a sample about how Brazil handles such situations. Beyond closed doors he said some nearly crude things to Ahmadinejad. "Did you try to talk to the USA?What kind of foolishness is that of denying the Holocaust?" Lula looks rustic but is one of the most smart negotiators I've seen in my whole life in Brazil.You should take some classes with him.Likes a drop or two, heavy smoker that lead him to a cancer, but in spite of this he is SMART. Like many of us.Not a war in almos two centuries. That's a good average, don't you think? But if you disagree, go on, "Abyssus abyssum invocat" Check that, with a Latin professor.
Pardon me, who lost the Cold War again?
Very interesting, thank you. Now take a deep breath, calm down, and go and play with your football or something.
I say put 22 cal's on a Mooney and ,there you go for the affies.
If it came down to which was a better aircraft and was more economically feasable to buy, so be it. But, after the $$$$ sent to Brazil to drill for oil, I kind of doubt it. As far as aircraft for the Afghans to fly, well we could produce some very fine ones here. Not being USAF I would imagine that our guys could make a logical, rationalr, and nonpolitically influenced decision, right? If this contract goes to Brazil I am sure that it is being down out of gratitude for curbing the flow of drugs and supporting the GWOT. Yaawwwnnn, right. As usual howhever, this stinks to high heaven of Washington political intervention. Personally, I think a Sopwith Camel or Curtis Jenny would make an outstanding aircraft for Afghanistan. Its all a joke!
Government Accountability Office…now there is some irony.
Ernesto – thanks for the update. Now it comes down to simply which is the better aircraft.
I am from Brazil. The Super T will be built in Jacksonville, Fla. Almost 60 American companies in 19 states will provide components and services to support the mission. Certainly it is America made.
Thanks for the information.
Restart the North American P51 line!
Why don't we give the Afgans the best military weaponry America has and then invite the taliban leaders to the States so we can train them properly. We trained Bin Ladin and we see how he thanked us. We don't need to give them any military supplies that they will eventually use against us. They are not our friends people they hate us and are using us until they can destroy us. WAKE UP.
"We trained Bin Ladin and we see how he thanked us"
More like America provided funds to Pakistan (along with Saudis and Middle Easteners) to repel the Soviets. I imagine much of the funding actually went to the Haqqanis and Pashtuns(and if I recall correctly, Massoud out of the Panjshir didn't get as much, nor did Dostum: the Tajiks didn't receive quite as much largesse).
Massoud was our "friend" even when we dumped him like a used garbage bag in the '90s and left his movement on life support (because Afghanistan was no longer important to us). He warned us OBL was planning something and died two days before 9/11.
The moral is that you tie up loose ends. We discarded Afghanistan once we were done expelling the Soviets. With the demise of a previously tenuously working civil government by the Soviets, and the demise of the subsequent puppet government, instability was guaranteed.
Why not take the what we called the AD-6 sky raider in the late 50 when I was in the first marine air wing and remove the radical engine and install a turbo prop engine and give it a up grade in electronics and add a couple more hard points on it wings and you will have you a very good ground attack plane. I was a very outstanding ground attack air craft in it day there was none better in my book
John, that is the point of the contest. This is basically to buy a new Skyraider.
Beechcraft planes have to many defective parts that are built in Mexico, and the feds know it. HAA HAA HAA
The RFP called for an operational aircraft, and specifically excluded "developmental" aircraft in testing. This aircraft was simply a prototype, they put a big engine on a T-6, but hadn't increased the size of the rudder – recipe for disaster. For curiosity sake look at the Nellis video where the AT-6 starts to take off, you can see the pilot input full rudder to keep the airplane from going sideways (you can also see the intake suck up a whole bunch of sand!). The software on this plane was also just a patch of the A-10 software and was not certified or tested.
But of course giving the Afghans a fleet of these is just a waste of time, they don't have the pilots or the maintainers to support what they have now.
Obama made promises to Brazil, so the Air Force must comply with the Executive Order vs. giving the contract to the company with the best product, and one that would created US jobs.
Aerial refueling will only get you so far, if its legs are too short then it might run into a gap where it can't reach a tanker. Plus if it has short legs then that would probably affect its loiter time, a CAS plane that has to constantly take off to refuel is not much use unless you have enough of them to constantly cycle them in and out for (near) constant coverage.
More Billions evidently to Obama's Socialist Buddies in Brazil!! Lets not forget the 2 Billion in loans so they can deep drill offshore for a company that George Soros owns millions of shares in! What's wrong with American Planes? Americans died so they get a chance to fly them!
Look people. let's get serious if it was disqualified because it is something that is not well in this plane. They would not make it so easy.
Now if this guy from Kansas who entrust the lives of soldiers in a plane that is just a prototyping bad, that he send his son to Afghanistan, and good riddance.
In the end it is a political decision. The Tucano will be built in Florida by Americans, so the choice should be based on the greatest return, and it seems that Boeing is starting to look as a real contender on the Brazilian FX-2.
And regarding the brazilian "ties" to Iran, well there are none. Just one horrible decision of a ex-president.