# AF goes with the Super Tucano for LAS



## DA SWO (Jan 3, 2012)

AF picked the Super Tucano over the Beech AT-6. Good move IMO.

Beech is suing, but hopefully the courts kick it out quickly.

Tuesday January 03, 2012
Super Tucano Picked as Light Air Support Platform: The Air Force selected the A-29 Super Tucano as the Light Air Support platform, awarding Sierra Nevada of Sparks, Nev., a $355 million contract to supply 20 Super Tucanos and associated equipment and support services. The Air Force is procuring these aircraft for the Afghan air force to serve in roles like advanced flight training, aerial reconnaissance, and light air support. Sierra Nevada is teamed with Brazil's Embraer, the Super Tucano manufacturer. Embraer will build the aircraft in Jacksonville, Fla., with delivery expected by the end of April 2014. "We are honored by this decision and the opportunity to serve our country," said Taco Gilbert, Sierra Nevada executive, in the company's release on Dec. 30, the same day as the LAS award notice. Meanwhile, Hawker Beechcraft announced that it expects to learn as soon as Jan. 11 whether a federal judge will grant the company's request for a temporary restraining order to preclude the Air Force from moving forward with LAS. Hawker last week filed a federal suit against the Air Force after the Government Accountability Office dismissed the company's protest over the Air Force's exclusion of the company's AT-6 aircraft from further consideration.

AFA Press Release is below:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DR...ary 2012/January 03 2012/pix010312tucano.aspx


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 3, 2012)

So they are buying them to go to the Afghan Air Force? I thought that whole region was covered in Soviet/Russian type equipment, would this not lead to a logistical nightmare once the US pulls out of the stan? I mean it would seem smarter for them to get their parts from next door, other than around the globe.?

I am all about keeping the money in the USA, but I would think the same style contract could be done on Russian equipment (being that this is a plane that is produced in Brazil and is merly being assembled in the USA, or did did I read that wrong?).


----------



## AWP (Jan 3, 2012)

JAB said:


> So they are buying them to go to the Afghan Air Force? I thought that whole region was covered in Soviet/Russian type equipment, would this not lead to a logistical nightmare once the US pulls out of the stan? I mean it would seem smarter for them to get their parts from next door, other than around the globe.?


 
Yes and no on the composition. The cargo aircraft being purchased is the C-27, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_G.222. This is being used to replace An-32 and whatever else they had. It looks like their rotary-wing assets will remain Russian (Mi-17/ Mi-35) and their fixed-wing assets will be a mix from other nations. I'd have to dig, but I don't think Russia has anything comparable to the Super Tucano or AT-6.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 3, 2012)

JAB said:


> So they are buying them to go to the Afghan Air Force? I thought that whole region was covered in Soviet/Russian type equipment, would this not lead to a logistical nightmare once the US pulls out of the stan? I mean it would seem smarter for them to get their parts from next door, other than around the globe.?
> 
> I am all about keeping the money in the USA, but I would think the same style contract could be done on Russian equipment (being that this is a plane that is produced in Brazil and is merly being assembled in the USA, or did did I read that wrong?).


 
The last thing we should do is introduce more Russian equipment into the AO.

The article hasn't restated it, but the original RFP also included aircraft for CentAm/SouthAM Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program aircraft. That's why I think the Super Tucano was/is a better fit (again keeping Soviet/Russian equipment out of the AO).

I don't have a problem with building the plane in the US, wish it was TX and not FL.


----------



## AWP (Feb 3, 2012)

A bit of an update with some decent commentary at the end.
http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/03/air-war-over-air-force-contract-escalates/?test=latestnews


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 4, 2012)

It seems like the Air Force is coming awfully late to the table with this.  Aren't we leaving Afghanistan next year (Panetta) or two years from now (Pres. Obama)?  Can the Air Force even get this airframes delivered by then?  And even once they get into theater, if there aren't Americans on the ground permanently to do the maintenance and training, all of those muti-million dollar planes will be rusted hulks parked on the end of Bagram airfield, stripped down to to bones for scrap.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 4, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> It seems like the Air Force is coming awfully late to the table with this. Aren't we leaving Afghanistan next year (Panetta) or two years from now (Pres. Obama)? Can the Air Force even get this airframes delivered by then? And even once they get into theater, if there aren't Americans on the ground permanently to do the maintenance and training, all of those muti-million dollar planes will be rusted hulks parked on the end of Bagram airfield, stripped down to to bones for scrap.


Again, the initial buy is for Afghanistan, the whole program is bigger then one shit hole country.

I hope the GAO agrees with the AF and Beech-Hawker can suck cock.


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2013)

Looks like the award is finally out. Production to begin next summer at 2 planes per month. 20 aircraft in the initial buy, 10 months, so spring of 2015 they are all fielded. Somewhere in there we have to train pilots and maintainers....

Yep, everyone's going home in 2014. 

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/...ract-jacksonville-build-attack-support-planes



> Jacksonville finally landed an airplane assembly plant when the Air Force awarded a hotly contested contract to a consortium that will assemble planes at Jacksonville International Airport.
> Sierra Nevada Corp. of Sparks, Nev., and Embraer, based in Brazil, will build the A-29 Super Tucano aircraft, creating 50 jobs here.
> “Amid all the concern over federal budget cuts, this is some good news for Jacksonville,” U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said Wednesday in an email from his office.
> The light attack support aircraft will be used by the Afghanistan military.
> Sierra Nevada said the initial order for 20 planes has a contract value of $427.5 million. Future orders could drive up the contract to around $950 million, according to U.S. Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla.


----------



## Viper1 (Feb 28, 2013)

I would have like to have something like that here.  I love fast movers but it's good to be versatile.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2013)

I wish AFSOC or ACC would buy a couple of Squadrons (Heck, it would be good for the Guard and AETC).


----------



## Karoshi (Feb 28, 2013)

Damn, I was hoping this was an article about the Air Force building delicious Brazilian steakhouses on their bases.


----------



## Red-Dot (Feb 28, 2013)

Viper1 said:


> I would have like to have something like that here. I love fast movers but it's good to be versatile.


 
I'll take loiter over speed most of the time.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2013)

It would be a great aircraft for initial JTAC Quals, low speed and the ability to make multiple passes over a range.  Cheaper then an A-10 or F-16.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 28, 2013)

Both aircraft are seemingly capable platforms with their advantages and disadvantages. My big issue is why did the price of the AT-6 increase ~20% over the original award bid price in 2011 (announced Dec 2011 - $355.1M vs Feb 2013 - $427.4). There does not seem to be any notable changes in scope. S0, that is an issue that requires explanation.


----------



## Viper1 (Mar 1, 2013)

Dear USAF,

Please bring back the A-1 Skyraider or the P-47 Thunderbolt for air-to-ground attack capability.

love,
Viper1


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 1, 2013)

I hate to say this and it goes almost against all logic but.....in reality the B-52 is almost the ideal CAS platform. It can stay on station hours upon hours and carry a shitload of ordnance. That, coupled with the sniper pod it's hard to beat....


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 1, 2013)

Viper1 said:


> Dear USAF,
> 
> Please bring back the A-1 Skyraider or the P-47 Thunderbolt for air-to-ground attack capability.
> 
> ...


 
O/A-10.  



Red-Dot said:


> I hate to say this and it goes almost against all logic but.....in reality the B-52 is almost the ideal CAS platform. It can stay on station hours upon hours and carry a shitload of ordnance. That, coupled with the sniper pod it's hard to beat....


 
How does the B-1 stack up?


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 1, 2013)

SOWT said:


> How does the B-1 stack up?


 
I have not personally worked with the Bone. The main difference being the Bone can carry about double of what the Buff can carry......loiter times are pretty similar (both inter-continental) if I recall correctly....also both can carry the bad-ass GBU-39 SDB.....


----------



## Viper1 (Mar 1, 2013)

Bone is amazing and I agree on the B-52 just from the stories my Dad told me about Vietnam and what my team guys have said about it on previous deployments.  Bone and Hawg are my two best friends right now...well three if you include the JTAC that controls them.


----------



## AWP (Mar 1, 2013)

As one of the guys who maintains the "kill chain", this thread makes me smile.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 1, 2013)

Viper1 said:


> Bone is amazing and I agree on the B-52 just from the stories my Dad told me about Vietnam and what my team guys have said about it on previous deployments. Bone and Hawg are my two best friends right now...well three if you include the JTAC that controls them.


 
Don't forget Mr. Spectre... when he comes out to play at night!!


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 1, 2013)

Sadly, I think the AF doomed the first attempt at getting the Supr-T into the US inventory (Google Imminent Fury).


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 11, 2013)

Fucking Beechcraft has protested the sale again.

We need to start fining companies if the protest is unsuccessful.


----------



## AWP (Mar 11, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Fucking Beechcraft has protested the sale again.
> 
> We need to start fining companies if the protest is unsuccessful.


 
No kidding. This increases the time we keep Blue Suiters (and probably by default others) in country to conduct the train-up.

Articles in case anyone is insterested.

http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/08/beechcraft-protests-super-tucano-las-award-kansas-delegation-on/

http://newsroom.hawkerbeechcraft.com/news/beechcraft-to-protest-u-s-air-force-decision/

The first link is pretty good, particularly this admission:


> We don't know those risk ratings, but the Beechcraft company just emerged from bankruptcy, and the AT-6 aircraft is still in prototype: While Beechcraft has built thousands of T-6 trainers for the US and its allies, the specific variant on offer -- the armed ground-attack version, the AT-6 -- is significantly different and not entirely proven. Competitor Sierra Nevada is hardly risk-free either, because their Florida factory has yet to build a single aircraft, but they would be making the exact same plane already mass-produced in Brazil and in service with nine nations. So there are both business and technological reasons the Air Force might have rated the Beechcraft AT-6 as higher risk.


 
Afghanistan is the wrong place for teething issues on a new aircraft design.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 11, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> No kidding. This increases the time we keep Blue Suiters (and probably by default others) in country to conduct the train-up.
> 
> Articles in case anyone is insterested.
> 
> ...


Give Beech a fixed delivery contract with a 100% refund clause if they fail to meet delivery, then see if they still go for it.


----------



## AWP (Mar 11, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Give Beech a fixed delivery contract with a 100% refund clause if they fail to meet delivery, then see if they still go for it.


 
Slow down, Cowboy. You mean you want a company to stand by their product and their word? Madness! This is America, ain't nobody got time for that.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 18, 2013)

AF killed the protest (good on them)

Here is a link :

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/a...ts-abuse-of-the-acquisition-system?a=1&c=1171


----------



## AWP (Mar 18, 2013)

Good.

Now if they would only do the same to ITT over communications contracts...


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 18, 2013)

I still want an answer to my question.


----------



## AWP (Mar 18, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> I still want an answer to my question.


 
Is this addressed to the board in general or what?


----------



## amlove21 (Mar 18, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Both aircraft are seemingly capable platforms with their advantages and disadvantages. My big issue is why did the price of the AT-6 increase ~20% over the original award bid price in 2011 (announced Dec 2011 - $355.1M vs Feb 2013 - $427.4). There does not seem to be any notable changes in scope. S0, that is an issue that requires explanation.


Yea, not really a question here, as much as a directive. Do you want an explanation about the increase in price?


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Is this addressed to the board in general or what?


Yeah, in hindsight I should've clarified. This was not really question to be addressed by anyone here.  Rather it was related to my earlier post and is an open request for explanation back to SNC.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Yea, not really a question here, as much as a directive. Do you want an explanation about the increase in price?


Roger that. It's not going to happen but someone involved with the procurement process -- AF, GAO -- should be pushing SNC for an explanation on this.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Both aircraft are seemingly capable platforms with their advantages and disadvantages. My big issue is why did the price of the AT-6 increase ~20% over the original award bid price in 2011 (announced Dec 2011 - $355.1M vs Feb 2013 - $427.4). There does not seem to be any notable changes in scope. S0, that is an issue that requires explanation.


 
Are you referring to Beech's bid or the contract award?

My guess is Beech actually did some testing and it dawned on them that they severely underbid the original contract.

AT-6 has zero combat time, not flown by anyone, and needs to be developed.
SuperT has shitloads of combat time, flown by at least two countries I have worked with (3 countries if you count Brasil), and is weapons certified.

This really was a no-brainer when it comes to selection.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Are you referring to Beech's bid or the contract award?
> 
> My guess is Beech actually did some testing and it dawned on them that they severely underbid the original contract.
> 
> ...


Good god! My posts are full of fail and I should stop typing! :blkeye: Geez. I read my own post 3 times and missed my typo (a critical one).

My original post should've read:

"Both aircraft are seemingly capable platforms with their advantages and disadvantages. My big issue is why did the price of the *A-29* increase ~20% over the original award bid price in 2011 (announced Dec 2011 - $355.1M vs Feb 2013 - $427.4). There does not seem to be any notable changes in scope. S0, that is an issue that requires explanation."​​So, perhaps now my statement makes more sense?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2013)

My guess is an increase in the cost of raw materials, shipping costs, and higher wages (i.e. Obamacare).

Thank you Beechcraft for screwing the Military and Taxpayer.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> My guess is an increase in the cost of raw materials, shipping costs, and higher wages (i.e. Obamacare).


While I agree those could account for some minor increase, they cannot account for a 20% increase in a little more than a year - that's HUGE!


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> While I agree those could account for some minor increase, they cannot account for a 20% increase in a little more than a year - that's HUGE!


 
What do you think the actual inflation rate is?

Factor fuel alone and it's in the teens.

You don't think Obamacare is adding costs yet?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2013)

Factor fuel and it's in the teens,
add the extra taxes Obamacare passes on, and you get the rest.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> What do you think the actual inflation rate is?


What do _you_ think it is? Hint: it's nowhere near 20% 



SOWT said:


> Factor fuel alone and it's in the teens.
> 
> You don't think Obamacare is adding costs yet?


Not enough to bridge a 20% increase over 14 months, even if we use government math.


----------



## Crusader74 (Mar 19, 2013)

Both Platforms are of similar performance but I think the Tucano is slightly better for the COIN ops that it will be employed in.. However The PC9 is also a viable platform for COIN.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2013)

^ Agreed.  Both are viable platforms with their own advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> What do _you_ think it is? Hint: it's nowhere near 20%
> 
> 
> Not enough to bridge a 20% increase over 14 months, even if we use government math.


10-15%.
Then add 5% for Obamacare, you can take the rest as profiteering if you want.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 19, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> ^ Agreed. Both are viable platforms with their own advantages and disadvantages.


 

Who's using the AT-6?
The initial requirement was for an off the shelf platform.  The AT-6 is still in development.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> 10-15%.
> Then add 5% for Obamacare, you can take the rest as profiteering if you want.


Actually, inflation is between 2 - 3%:





http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

The discussion is moot, given that the decision was made, but as for who is using the AT-6, you're right no one - technically.

However, the T-6 airframe is a successful, proven, and familiar to maintainers. Both airframes (T-6 and A-29) started flying an entered service around the same time (~13 years ago). So one doesn't possess a huge advantage over the other in this respect, although there are at least twice as many T-6's in service as there are A-29 airfames. Both aircraft use the same powerplant, which is an upgrade from the current T-6 powerplant. At-6 avionics package is the same package that was used to upgrade the Hog; again familiar to maintainers. The list obviously goes on and on.

TCO is an important consideration. I'm fairly confident both could perform the mission competently. I don't see one blowing the other way. There are simply tradeoffs. I'd be curious to know how the bids compared....and I still want to know why the price on the A-29 was jacked up 20%.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 20, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Factor fuel alone and it's in the teens. You don't think Obamacare is adding costs yet?


 
An interesting side note.....price of fuel.

"The Defense Logistics Agency buys military fuel for $2.82 per gallon. But that same fuel can cost $13 if it’s shipped by ground to a forward-deployed location, during peacetime. If it’s transferred in-flight from a refueling airplane to another aircraft, the gas is $42. If troops are in hostile areas, prices can range from $100 to $600 for “in theater” delivery. The Army estimated fuel can cost up to $400 a gallon if the only way to ship it is via helicopters"

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/April/Pages/HowMuchforaGallonofGas.aspx


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 20, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Actually, inflation is between 2 - 3%:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those rates don't include fuel costs.
It's nice that you can regurgitate facts gleaned via Google. The fact is, an armed aircraft developed from an unarmed aircraft still requires development.
What's your experience developing or working systems acquisition?


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 20, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Those rates don't include fuel costs.


And??? Fuel cost was not a consideration for this procurement bid, so I don't understand your point. The RFP was for an aircraft and training; fuel cost is not part of the evaluation criteria/pricing.

It's not really my intent to get into an big ongoing debate on the topic because, frankly, I don't care _that_ much. Nonetheless, I appreciate the discussion and did chuckle a couple times because I would've never guessed that a RFP to purchase a handful of airfcraft for Afghanistan would exude so much passion.


----------



## AWP (Mar 20, 2013)

I've edited some posts and the authors will recognize the subtractions from their work. I don't wish to continue down that path, so play nice or don't play at all.


----------



## justincredubil02 (Oct 9, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> It seems like the Air Force is coming awfully late to the table with this.  Aren't we leaving Afghanistan next year (Panetta) or two years from now (Pres. Obama)?  Can the Air Force even get this airframes delivered by then?  And even once they get into theater, if there aren't Americans on the ground permanently to do the maintenance and training, all of those muti-million dollar planes will be rusted hulks parked on the end of Bagram airfield, stripped down to to bones for scrap.



This is a little late, but our Air Advisory mission (one that I'm conducting as we speak) is projected to continue into 2017 at a minimum, and potentially into the 2020s, depending on the capabilities and development of the AAF.  At the current rate of progress, we'll be here forever.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 26, 2014)

First Super T was delivered to the AF.
The acquisitions process is sooo broken, sad.


----------



## pardus (Sep 27, 2014)

justincredubil02 said:


> This is a little late, but our Air Advisory mission (one that I'm conducting as we speak) is projected to continue into 2017 at a minimum, and potentially into the 2020s, depending on the capabilities and development of the AAF.  At the current rate of progress, we'll be here forever.



You seem pretty optimistic that a US friendly Afghanistan will still exist then...


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 3, 2014)

Working in MS with the Afghan AF would suck.

Getting to fly a Super T as a one time good deal lessons the suck.


----------

