Hawker Beechcraft has begun flying the prototype AT-6 light-attack/armed-reconnaissance aircraft, a structurally strengthed version of the T-6A/B Texan II turboprop trainer.
Photo: Hawker Beechcraft
Embraer, meanwhile, will make its first appearance at the Air Force Associaation show in Washington next week. The connection - they are both pursuing a potential US Air Force procurement, possibly jointly with the US Navy, of a fleet of light-attack aircraft for irregular warfare operations.
The Air National Guard will use the AT-6 prototype for a Congressionally mandated and funded counter-insurgency demonstration later this year, while the Navy has tested a leased Super Tucano in the armed ISR role under its Imminent Fury project.
Photo: Embraer
The Air Force, meanwhile, issued a pair of requests for information in July for a light attack/armed reconnaissance (LAAR) capability and a six-passenger, civil-certificated Light Mobility Aircraft (LiMA). The RFIs talk about the need for 100 LAAR aircraft for delivery over 2-4 years beginning in FY12, and 60 LiMAs for delivery over four years beginning in FY11.
The LAAR requirements outline look to fit the AT-6 and Super Tucano: a tandem-seat aircraft capable of carrying an EO/IR sensor with laser designator and a minimum of two 500lb munitions, capable of aerial gunnery, with armored cockpits and engine and a defensive suite. Performance? Aerobatic, minimum 180kt cruise, 30,000ft ceiling, take-off and land within 6,000ft.
There are reports the USAF is considering forming a new numbered air force to operate these and other irregular-warfare platforms, including its Projet Liberty MC-12Ws. These types of low-cost, low-tech aircraft are attractive for some wars - the A-1 Skyraider and OV-10 Bronco did sterling servcie in Vietnam - but when they try to institutionize them, the whole weight of Air Force "overhead" comes down on them. I predict they'll be mothballed in five years.
Of course, those are not all fast movers, but there are a lot of sorties, a significant portion, which I concur could be more efficiently covered by a manned LAAR ship and at great savings.
Q ... exactly how 'imminent' is the Navy's 'project Imminent Fury'?
Solo - I haven't heard anything more definitive in the media other than just this, i.e., under testing for potential Navy special requirements.
Regarding the LAAR for USAF however, I'm not impressed with specs of AT-6B, as much as it seems to make a fine selection as trainer (or at best... perhaps a light-light ISR armed/recon).
1,100 shp is just too small IMO, for such a major requirement being floated by USAF. One could assess some of the loadout/performance specs as even being a little ambitious.
I'm going to bet USAF will want a bit more range and normal stores loadout capability in the final example.
For USAF (or) USSOCOM, I'm currently going with Super Tucano for extra loaded weight and range. For USN/USMC I'd actually support the OV-10X mod, given two engines but also from proven LHD/LHA operations capability - an arguably underestimated Multi-role capability for greater Fleet/USMC missions. (many unprecedented, alternative contingencies could be exploited from such a system at possible significant savings as well).
p.s., I'd go further and say US army could explore a Super Tucano, or even a single seater such as the very fast, longer-ranged A-67 Dragon (under development) to supplement Warrior UAV and AH-64 CAS.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004941.html
Also Iraq was (is?) looking for a COIN aircraft in the AT-6/EMB-314 class, so there's at least one possible AT-6 (FMS?) export customer.
Geogen - I agree with your thoughts on that COIN wing to supplement UAVs and tac helo, though I'm afraid that wing will follow the path of the Navy's hollowed out 'special' riverine boat force.
Graham is right in that the coin wing will either be mothballed or 'transferred' to the ANG when Afghanistan draws down.
SOCOM is a practical force, they just ask for what they think they need and damn the torpedoes and any possible inter-service fighting - recall the scuffles about JCA and UAV control.
Personally I prefer the EMB-314 over the AT-6, because the Embraer plane was designed from the very start to be a COIN plane (and based on the proven 312), while the AT-6 still is a modified trainer. The latter is not necessarily a bad COIN candidate, the Brazilian is just better imho.
But the T-6 is already used and produced in the US, so it has the better cards.
Inside the Air Force has covered this better than anyone, and they say an acquisition strategy will be presented to CAS Schwartz in December. If LAAR goes ahead, it should be in the FY11 budget.
Maybe more will come out at AFA this week.
I think this is the operative statement in this story though..."but when they try to institutionize them, the whole weight of Air Force "overhead" comes down on them. I predict they'll be mothballed in five years."
Totally agree....I just don't believe USAF culture will allow these to stay part of the force mix.
Wasn't that the similar perspective held w/ the A-10?
But I know what you are saying and it's definitely not Global Strike class... Perhaps it would be best to fly under an entirely new blue-suit IW-specialized command.
Yet a 25,000' cruising, cheap to maintain, easy to shelter, operate almost anywhere, Armed-recon/ISR ship (with 4 eyes and two sticks in the cockpit) couldn't be that much worse than Reaper or A-10?
I just get the feeling a few will be coming to a ANG base near you..
That's definitely the point to be pondering..
While UAV HKs and future UCAV will definitely play an increasingly vital role in the total mix capability, especially as the technology becomes more mature and reliable... cheap 'Manned' ISR/CAS/Armed-recon assets in the theater will be equally, if not more cost-effective for at least the next 8-10 yrs, IMO.
Kinda reminds me of some Burt Rutan concepts. What do you guys think? Just a "paper airplane" or does the "Machete" have merit?
The T-6 is a far better choice for four reasons: It is made today in the USA, and jobs matter. Every USAF, USN, and USMC pilot is already trained to fly them. The parts/program management already exists in DoD for hundreds of T-6s. Hundreds of maintainers who have never deployed are ready to support them.
One can argue that others are better, but adopting another type would delay deployment for years, which some in the USAF may quietly prefer. Although the T-6 is smaller, that is not a bad thing since CAS should not be its primary mission. See that article on why it should be an OV-6B, and why the Bronco is a poor choice.