AF goes with the Super Tucano for LAS

[Red-Dot]

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]

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

 

[DA SWO]

Fucking Beechcraft has protested the sale again.

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

 

[AWP]

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]

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:


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

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]

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]

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]

Good.

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

 

[Blizzard]

I still want an answer to my question.

 

[AWP]

I still want an answer to my question.

Is this addressed to the board in general or what?

 

[amlove21]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Blizzard]

What do you think the actual inflation rate is?

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

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.