-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
AT-6 excluded from Light Attack Aircraft
- Thread starter HokiePilot
- Start date
I could think of a few things...mainly the fact that it isn't carrier based and would have to be based somewhere fairly close to its target to get any loiter time (no aerial refueling). It also doesn't pack a very big punch, and let's not forget that without bigger muscle giving us air superiority this thing can't defend itself from most A/A threats.
True true. But this isn't intended to be used in a high threat area, where they need to dodge MIGs and SAMs. So they don't need to really be on a carrier. After the hornets have their fun initially, these little guys can be C-5'ed in a month or so later. They don't need a huge punch. And it would probably be cheaper to throw 4 of these guys up than 1 hornet.
In no way do I think the SuperT can ever be a stand alone A/C. But in a small war scenario, maybe not a bad idea. But there will no-doubtedly be so much creep into its requirements that it will need to be a MegaSuperT++ at a cost of stupid, that ruins the entire concept.
In no way do I think the SuperT can ever be a stand alone A/C. But in a small war scenario, maybe not a bad idea. But there will no-doubtedly be so much creep into its requirements that it will need to be a MegaSuperT++ at a cost of stupid, that ruins the entire concept.
Agree about the cost benefit. I'm not saying they have to be on a carrier, but you can't just C-5 something into somewhere unless you a) occupy that land or b) occupy land close enough to get the planes in there with aerial refueling. I just forsee a very limited use for these things and think they would fair better in the hands of some backdoor funded DARPA thing for the SOCOM guys as opposed to a major procurement program.
You're describing the AT-6. It wasn't meant to compete in the arena, it was supposed to be a trainer. Then Raytheon tried to add a bunch of "creep" into the T-6B so they could sell it elsewhere. As a result, the T-6B suffered from "creep," and was severely delayed for what it was truly needed for: teaching pilots how to fly. Now the T-34s are out of life and the fleet is still upgrading...10 years after it was originally intended.
The AT-6 competed and lost. Not really sure why you're advocating buying it anyway just to "help the economy."
I just look at this program as a cheap attack helo substitute. The 64 is a beast and pretty damn expensive to fly, and this little Tuco is pretty simple, has long loiter, and flies nice and slow for FAC duties. I do not view this aircraft to compete with any our military's current fixed wing fleet.
If only there was a recent war we could look at to see the advantages of having a light, fixed wing, ISR asset that also had the capability to be the final link in the kill chain. That would be great. So, if an example like this was out there, I bet the pros would include the fact that these light attack A/C could be forward deployed with the units that they would be working with, they could brief with the dudes on the ground and get a better feel for their role. They could also be on call assets just waiting for the bad guy to make the right move. The pros are pretty endless. And as far as the punch goes, you don't always need 2 k lb. bombs when your trying to get one dude.
Not too many helos can make it to FL200 or higher, either. This would be a one-off, niche community. It'll never happen because we continue to be pennywise, pound foolish. For the price of an F-35, we could have a squadron or two of these bubbas to put out the brush fires that don't require carpet bombing or Tomahawks.
From the linked AOL article.
..."Of course, while the Air Force is supposed to base its decision on fine distinctions of performance, what politicians and the press care most about is jobs..."
Is there any mystery to who is going to end up with this contract in the end? Ten years from now a 60 Minutes episode will address the "scandal" surrounding this procurement process and how more money was spent for an inferior product - the politicians and press will be aghast
..."Of course, while the Air Force is supposed to base its decision on fine distinctions of performance, what politicians and the press care most about is jobs..."
Is there any mystery to who is going to end up with this contract in the end? Ten years from now a 60 Minutes episode will address the "scandal" surrounding this procurement process and how more money was spent for an inferior product - the politicians and press will be aghast
[quote="Recovering LSO, post: 686758, member: 12160"] ...
Is there any mystery to who is going to end up with this contract in the end? .... [/quote]
Yyyyup.
I also facepalmed when I read the AFCOS' quote about the "institutional reputation" and a related part in one of the linked articles about the "procurement system that has repeatedly run aground* ..." Uh, sir, I don't think there's any use worrying about that reputation at this point. If I were him, I'd try to change the subject to the JSF tailhook, LCS, LPD-17... And if I were the JSF guys feeling the heat in a press conference these days, I'd try to change the subject to AT-6/Super-T, KC-X...
*Hey, run aground is a Navy phrase, not Air Force. I guess this means we're "joint screwed up!" (insert satire smiley face here)
Is there any mystery to who is going to end up with this contract in the end? .... [/quote]
Yyyyup.
I also facepalmed when I read the AFCOS' quote about the "institutional reputation" and a related part in one of the linked articles about the "procurement system that has repeatedly run aground* ..." Uh, sir, I don't think there's any use worrying about that reputation at this point. If I were him, I'd try to change the subject to the JSF tailhook, LCS, LPD-17... And if I were the JSF guys feeling the heat in a press conference these days, I'd try to change the subject to AT-6/Super-T, KC-X...
*Hey, run aground is a Navy phrase, not Air Force. I guess this means we're "joint screwed up!" (insert satire smiley face here)
To borrow a phrase from a buddy of mine...
DOD procurement could trip into a bucket of tits and come up sucking a dick.
DOD procurement could trip into a bucket of tits and come up sucking a dick.