AT-6 excluded from Light Attack Aircraft

[scoolbubba]

They're already built that way since most, if not all of them, come from trainers.

 

[helolumpy]

Why do these light attack aircraft need two seats?

WSO's have a strong union in most other countries!

 

[pilot_man]

Why do these light attack aircraft need two seats?

I also think it would be a good thing to have two sensor operators on these aircraft.

 

[Jim123]

I also think it would be a good thing to have two sensor operators on these aircraft.

Here comes the "requirements creep." (Two engine redundancy would be even better.)

 

[KBayDog]

Here comes the "requirements creep." (Two engine redundancy would be even better.)

You realize that you're risking bannination from the Shrub Club with statements like this, right?

 

[pilot_man]

The two seat platforms that exist now are just fine. Single engine and all. We just need to chose one and end the politics. For the missions that would require these assets, two aircrew and two sensors adds a much needed capability.

 

[bunk22]

Sounds like the guys who claimed an Argentine T-34C had a Harrier kill in the Falklands.

I don't know how many times I heard that ridiculous claim lol Sea Harriers did engage a flight of T-34C's and a 30mm round went through the canopy of one.

 

[bert]

While the dispute is another sign of the awful failings of our acquisition process, we can at least hope it leads to program getting the axe. Giving our "allies" those aircraft is a complete waste of money IMO.

 

[helolumpy]

Sea Harriers did engage a flight of T-34C's and a 30mm round went through the canopy of one.

A form solo strayed out of the working area again?

 

[kmac]

I can't name the source, but a fairly high ranking Air Force official recently said that there won't be any single-mission oriented aircraft in Big Blue for doing missions such as FID. Why build an AT-6-type when an F-15E can do a similar mission?

 

[eas7888]

I can't name the source, but a fairly high ranking Air Force official recently said that there won't be any single-mission oriented aircraft in Big Blue for doing missions such as FID. Why build an AT-6-type when an F-15E can do a similar mission?

Wouldn't the operating costs be significantly lower for the AT-6? I'm not an expert, by any means, it just seems that in the long run, this would be a more cost effective solution than using a platform like the F-15E in the same role.

 

[Jim123]

I can't name the source, but a fairly high ranking Air Force official recently said that there won't be any single-mission oriented aircraft in Big Blue for doing missions such as FID. Why build an AT-6-type when an F-15E can do a similar mission?

Suddenly the tanker debacle makes a little more sense...

 

[busdriver]

Yes but acquisition costs now, O&M costs later. Stupid, myopic big blue.

Edit: to be fair, I think that comment was in reference to retiring A-10s rather then buying the LAS aircraft. Either way, same same. Guess I'm just cynical.

 

[bunk22]

A form solo strayed out of the working area again?

Actually they T-34C's were being used as light strike and were jumped by Sea Harriers....the Mentor's quickly (relatively speaking) flew into some clouds but one took a single round through the canopy.

 

[bunk22]

I can't name the source, but a fairly high ranking Air Force official recently said that there won't be any single-mission oriented aircraft in Big Blue for doing missions such as FID. Why build an AT-6-type when an F-15E can do a similar mission?

It is my understanding that the AF wanted no part of this but after the Navy demonstrated it could successful, they wanted in on it and now, they want no part of it. the idea was the single-engine turbo prop could operate nearby, loiter for hours and cost a fraction of what it could cost to have a jet on scene.