Aviation Week on LAS


We’ve written several times about the ongoing effort by the USAF to buy an off the shelf light attack aircraft. We’ve always pretty much preferred the A-29B Super Tucano over the proposed AT-6. Mind you, we think either aircraft would be essentially suitable. Mainly our frustration is that such a simple, low cost program should be taking so long to move forward. It’s not quite a poster child for paralysis by analysis, but it’s pretty close. It also shows the costs of allowing contractors to protest competition results with impunity.

Fred George at Aviation Week has a nice little post about why he thinks the Super Tucano is clearly the better choice.

For a second time, W.W. “Bill” Boisture, the CEO of Beechcraft Corp. (formerly Hawker Beechcraft), is challenging the U.S. Air Force’s decision to award a contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. to supply 20 Embraer A-29B Super Tucano aircraft for the Light Air Support (LAS) program for use by the Afghan military.

Boisture claims the Defense Department is spending significantly more for the A-29B than it would for Beechcraft’s AT-6, its proposed LAS variant of the T-6 Texan II turboprop primary trainer. The T-6 is a well-proven platform, and the AT-6 shares about 80% of its parts.

I could see Boisture’s point if lowest cost were the only criterion for awarding a contract and if the AT-6 and A-29B offered equivalent capabilities. But neither point is the case.

I have flown both aircraft and there are significant differences. The AT-6 is a trainer that has been adapted for the LAS role with a 1,600-shp engine, a beefed-up wing with hard points, plus twin external gun pods, an electro-optical/infrared camera sensor ball and a network-centric C2ISR communications suite, among other significant improvements. On paper, that gives the AT-6 virtually the same capabilities as the A-29B Super Tucano.

Walk around the two aircraft, though, and obvious differences emerge. Built from the ground up for the light attack role, the Brazilian contender is considerably larger than the Beechcraft. The relatively small five-blade propeller offers 5 in. more ground clearance than the AT-6’s four-blade prop, and its oil cooler intake is much higher, for protection against foreign object damage. These features make the Super Tucano better suited to rough-field operations.

The A-29B’s wingspan is 4 ft. wider than the AT-6’s and the lateral distance between the landing gear is 50% greater, making the aircraft easier to handle on runways in stiff crosswinds. The A-29B’s main landing gear rolling stock is larger, featuring low-pressure 6.5-10 tires that are better suited to unimproved runway operations than the AT-6’s high-pressure, 4.4-20 tires that are designed for smooth pavement. The A-29B’s fuselage is 3 ft. longer and its vertical stabilizer is 2.3 ft. higher, providing more aerodynamic stability to handle the 1,600-shp engine.

Of course, my real first choice would be an updated OV-10.

About these ads

9 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Air Force

9 responses to “Aviation Week on LAS

  1. NavyDavy

    The Navy is flying two OV-10g+ aircraft out of Pax River. Navy pilots, Marine WSOs in back seat. Outfit named RCU-1. E-mailed pictures etc to bariejr.

    Like

    • Yep. One of my facebook minions pointed that tad of info to me. Apparently under Combat Dragon II, which, I haven’t found any specifics on it. I’ll extract the pics and verbiage from your email and post it later.

      Thanks.

      Like

  2. If the AC were for us, I’d buy the Bronco. For the Afghans, I think the Super Tucano is the better choice.

    Like

  3. Paul L. Quandt

    Did y’all pull the post about the mad communist in the White House?

    Paul

    Like

    • Paul L. Quandt

      Sorry, first it was there, then it wasn’t, and after I posted this question, it re-appeared.

      Paul

      Like

  4. SFC Dunlap (Ret.) 173RVN

    Fred George, and not the USAF needs to be in charge of this program. Just out of curiosity and being retired Army “got no dog in the hunt”, but why Naval Aviators in front and Marine WSO’s in back. Historically did not the USAF, Navy, and Marines fly OV-10’s during the “War of the ’60’s” (Viet-Nam)? Of course I want them back as they are a very, very special jump platform for us Airborne types.

    Like

  5. SFC Dunlap (Ret.) 173RVN

    Anyone else thinking the Argentinian built Pucara??? Minus those POS _ _ t engines and retrofitted with Garrets, P&W’s or Allison’s?? Just throwing it out there.

    Like

    • Not a bad little plane. But they’re out of production. The real challenge with LAS is more the sensors and weapons integration rather than the airframe/powerplant itself.

      Like