Assuming the Air Force follows up with a contract, which aircraft is best for a dedicated COIN/light attack role? I am guessing the Super Tucano is the odds on favorite, being that it is in production and we've purchased it before. But, the Textron looks very interesting, although I don't know how it stacks up technically to the Tucano. From what I remember, the AT-6 has lower loadout than the Tucano, but the commonality with our primary trainer is a point in its favor. The Air Tractor is cheap (I think). I'm curious what those who know a bit more about these airframes think. What say y'all?
https://youtu.be/oa6yJrQYNQc

Question:
Who is going to win the light attack evaluation?

Choices:
A-29 Super Tucano
AT-6 Texan II
Textron Scorpion
Air Tractor AT-802L Longsword

 

I'd like to see the Scorpion get the nod.

The Tucano as a 2nd ... Argentina appear to have good results, not sure about reliability todate?

I don't think any one would want a crop duster.
The AT-6 remind me of a Dauntless ...

As an aside, the OV-10 is being useful again ...

A little bit of thread drift?

... would any of the above listed, provide survival from a catastrophic sequence of events, such as experienced by this A-10 pilot?

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/n...belly-090417186.html



After a routine training run in Alpena County, Michigan in late July, US Air National Guard Capt. Brett DeVries survived the perfect storm of malfunctions to safely land his A-10 Thunderbolt II on its belly without the benefit of landing gear.

During a training exercise where A-10 pilots practice dropping inert bombs and ripping the planes' massive gun, DeVries' gun malfunctioned. Moments later, his canopy blew off his plane as he flew along at 375 miles an hour, according to a US Air National Guard write up of the event.

The incredible winds smacked DeVries head against his seat, nearly incapacitating him. "It was like someone sucker punched me," he said. "I was just dazed for a moment."

DeVries wingman, Major Shannon Vickers, then flew under his plane to assess the damage, finding bad news. The panels under his plane had been damaged, and it was unclear if he would be able to lower his landing gear.

Meanwhile, DeVries struggled against the wind and having everything loose in his cockpit. He could no longer benefit from checklists, which had become a liability that could now potentially fly out and get stuck in his engine.

DeVries, having the flight from hell, had two of his radios go down and had to communicate with Vickers and flight control on his third backup system. They worked together to find him a nearby spot to land and Vickers observed that DeVries would not in fact be able to use his landing gear.

"I just thought, 'There is no way this is happening right now.' It all was sort of surreal, but at the same time, we were 100 per cent focused on the task ahead of us," Vickers said.

Miraculously, thanks to the meticulous training A-10 pilots undergo and the incredibly rugged design of the plane, DeVries walked away unscathed, and maintainers will be able to fix the plane.

Several good choices but, I owned an AT-802 Air Tractor. Bought it for use as a SEAT -Single Engine Air Tanker- for use on forest fires.

The aircraft has a max take-off weight of 16,000 lbs and can carry 802 gallons of retardant hence the designation. It is a tough aircraft, fixed gear, can operate off unimproved strips and carries a load. The aircraft can be ordered with a back seat for anther pilot, observer, radio operator, or whatever. I ordered mine with auto-pilot, full instrumentation, and some other specific items for forest fire work. The MGTOW requires a letter from the FAA because it is over 12,500 lbs that is the threshold for a type rating.

The aircraft was designed and manufactured by Leland Snow and our out the door cost was $1,267,000.00 I think it would be a good candidate due to the loiter time, slower speed, and load carrying ability.

The big negative is it's conventional landing gear design (tail dragger) and most pilots are not up to speed on that type of aircraft and it requires specific training to handle the take off and landing especially in cross winds,

quote:

Originally posted by Shackelford:
. . . AT-6 . . . but the commonality with our primary trainer is a point in its favor.

Since maintenance/logistics support, is very a significant cost, this gives the T-6 variant a huge edge. Again, assuming the USAF and Congress are actually serious about this.

Dude, are those real airplane names?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mr kablammo,

Air Tractor: Big load, but slow. Can't get to or from a combat zone quickly. As stated above, tail dragger take-off/landing characteristics increase chances of non-combat mishaps.

Tucano: Faster than Texan II and carries more than twice the combat load on 1/3 more HP. But rife with political baggage from past acquisition attempts. Already beat the Texan II in the first COIN competition in 2010 but that was the politically incorrect decision, so it was cancelled.

Texan II: Already in the inventory of USAF and USN, so supply chain already established. A capable aircraft.

Scorpion: Who? 4 years since first flight and not one sale around the world despite being offered to many countries.


Texan II wins by political default (if awarded at all).

quote:

He could no longer benefit from checklists, which had become a liability that could now potentially fly out and get stuck in his engine.

Laughable. Paper causing an engine to fail..

Journalist: Lets try to make this story even more harrowing. How do I do that? Hmmm, I know, lets talk about paper clogging up the engine too!

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

...Tucano: Faster than Texan II and carries more than twice the combat load on 1/3 more HP. But rife with political baggage from past acquisition attempts. Already beat the Texan II in the first COIN competition in 2010 but that was the politically incorrect decision, so it was cancelled....

Didn't the Tucano win the admittedly small contract as the Afghan AF attack plane?

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:

...Tucano: Faster than Texan II and carries more than twice the combat load on 1/3 more HP. But rife with political baggage from past acquisition attempts. Already beat the Texan II in the first COIN competition in 2010 but that was the politically incorrect decision, so it was cancelled....

Didn't the Tucano win the admittedly small contract as the Afghan AF attack plane?

In 2011, the A-29 Super Tucano was declared the winner of the US Light Air Support contract competition over the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6B Texan II.[20] The contract was cancelled in 2012 citing concerns with the procurement process,[21] but rewon in 2013. Twenty of these light attack aircraft were purchased for the Afghan Air Force.[22]


First Afghan Super Tucanos
The first four aircraft arrived in Afghanistan in January 2016, with a further four due before the end of 2016. Combat-ready Afghan A-29 pilots graduated from training at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, and returned to Afghanistan to represent the first of 30 pilots trained by the 81st Fighter Squadron at Moody AFB. A fleet of 20 A-29s will be in place by 2018, according to a senior U.S. defense official. The Pentagon purchased the Super Tucanos in a $427 million contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. and Embraer, with the aircraft produced at Embraer's facility on the grounds of Jacksonville International Airport in Jacksonville, Florida.[23] The Afghan Air Force’s A-29 Super Tucanos could soon make their combat debut after the first four aircraft arrived at Hamid Karzai International Airport on January 15, 2016.[24]

I am not an aviation guru.

I have no idea what these planes bring to the table that other air-frames do not.

---------------------------

You need to post pictures so I can vote on which one I think looks the most BA.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

He could no longer benefit from checklists, which had become a liability that could now potentially fly out and get stuck in his engine.

Laughable. Paper causing an engine to fail..

Journalist: Lets try to make this story even more harrowing. How do I do that? Hmmm, I know, lets talk about paper clogging up the engine too!

When I flew Air Force jets with a checklist strapped to my leg it was more than paper. The checklist itself had a vinyl cover and any page that was used a lot was slipped into a clear vinyl cover to make sure it could stand up to greasy flight gloves turning the pages hundreds of times. Plus the rings to hold everything together were braided metal covered in vinyl. Add in a plastic kneeboard that you put paper on so that you could write on and the nylon and velcro straps to strap it your leg and a loose checklist becomes a heavy, complicated thing that I would not want to risk chucking down a motor. So, maybe not a whole lot of journalistic license.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
You need to post pictures so I can vote on which one I think looks the most BA.

flashguy

This article has video!

IBD

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

He could no longer benefit from checklists, which had become a liability that could now potentially fly out and get stuck in his engine.

Laughable. Paper causing an engine to fail..

Journalist: Lets try to make this story even more harrowing. How do I do that? Hmmm, I know, lets talk about paper clogging up the engine too!

Being a US Military Check List I would expect those checklists are embossed and anodized aluminum plates in a T-6 condition. Suck a few of those into an engine and it may start puking out turbine blades, which will rapidly lead to an engine coming apart.

quote:

Originally posted by furlough:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
You need to post pictures so I can vote on which one I think looks the most BA.

flashguy

This article has video!

IBD

Sorry--I missed it because the link did not show up as a link, just text located tucked up against the posting.

I kind of liked the AT-6.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
I am not an aviation guru.

I have no idea what these planes bring to the table that other air-frames do not.

---------------------------

They are cheaper. A new F-16 or F-18 is $100M each, while these things are $10M if not less. More importantly, an F-16 is in the neighborhood of $22k per flight hour to operate, and an A-10 is $12k. These things clock in closer to $1k.

From a sensor and bombs perspective, these things can carry a load comparable to an F-16, with the same types of bombs. In an uncontested environment, they can do just about everything we are currently using F-16s for over Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Flashguy, sorry about the video link, I am not certain how to embed videos, and I can't edit my OP without resetting the poll.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

He could no longer benefit from checklists, which had become a liability that could now potentially fly out and get stuck in his engine.

Laughable. Paper causing an engine to fail..

Journalist: Lets try to make this story even more harrowing. How do I do that? Hmmm, I know, lets talk about paper clogging up the engine too!

Here's a better article:

http://www.127wg.ang.af.mil/Ne...f-emergency-landing/

It's my guess the checklist thing was the pilot reflecting on how he reacted under a very stressful situation. No cockpit, who knows what other problems, and his first worry is FOD in the TF34s. I think he had a grin on his face telling that part of the story.

AQ-9C

35 hours aloft with 2K of laser guided bombs costing less than $7M per plane and when not carrying anything on the wings, can stay aloft 48.2 aloft on recon.

Oh and one pilot can fly four of them half a world away.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
I am not an aviation guru.

I have no idea what these planes bring to the table that other air-frames do not.

Provide nice slow manpad targets.