First off: cool plane that looks like it could deliver the goods that the warfighters need.
But I've got one question. So the Navy asked for 22 million dollars to fund a ready-to-go, proven and cheap air platform that could serve a critical role. This after a number of individuals with stars on their shoulders said we needed, yet Congress turned the request down? What's the rationale for this?!?! Or am I incorrect in my assumptions? What I'm getting is that Congress denied the warfighter a critical tool....seems kinda AFU to me....
The Reprogramming ATR (Above Threshold Request) to Congress was for $44M ($22M from Navy accounts and $22M from Air Force accounts) as delineated in MOA signed by Gen Schwartz (CSAF) ADM Roughead (CNO) and ADM Olson (CDR USSOCOM) who agreed to underwrite in theatre O&M costs. See Gimp and Uncle Fester's comment for the political reason why it was shot down. Even though AT-6B is not ready and not configured for IF mission set, it was viewed as a threat for proposed larger Air Force buy of up to 100 light strike aircraft (so-called LAAR) and the Afghan and Iraqi Air Force buys. Here's Dick Young's take on situation.
Note: Kansas CODEL did what they're elected to do = All politics is local and they pushed for a Witchita-based solution even though it's not ready for prime time.