Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche
"A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier
"Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas
"Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex
This is good. How much does Soros hold in Embraer stock?
Im conflicted on this. On the one hand I’d like to know why the AT-6 was excluded. On the other we cannot afford to spend years litigating the results of design competitions. At some point a decision has to be made, and if that decision is that the Brazillians make a better plane for the purpose we should buy it.
Informal word from the usual unreliable sources was that the AT-6 was getting its @$$ handed to it in every category they were testing; so much so that it was “game over” very early on into the testing. Because this time the testing was being done behind closed doors to preclude manufacturer interference and influence, it came as a “surprise” to Beechcraft. Yeah, right. But those closed doors mean that they can now cry “behind closed doors influence” at full throat.
It’s the usual source selection kabuki. You lose, you file a protest. You don’t want to know how much time and effort program offices spend trying to avoid this sort of thing.
Personally, I believe the protestor should be required to post a bond…equal to the cost of recovering the lost time in the development schedule. And the only legal grounds for protest should be criminal misconduct by a procurement official.
No vendor has a RIGHT to the taxpayer’s money.
In some states if you request an injunction you must post a bond (Ohio was one as I found out while a County Engineer). It’s not a bad idea, in my book.
Considering the last time a democrat president was in office and the contracts that were skewed (Remember Darlene Druyan), I would hold by horses about throwing rocks at Hawker Beech. Embraer’s relationship to this adminstration and its minions bears looking into.
How is it going to be cheaper to introduce a new airframe into the system? T-6 is already in the inventory.
Pat Roberts is not a democrat.
Pat Roberts is not a democrat. Neither were President Richard Nixon (the president when Druyun entered government) nor President G.H.W. Bush (the president when she made sure McDonnell Douglas got paid early and often) nor President G.W. Bush (the president when she got the tanker lease deal signed up). Not that those guys had anything to do with her work. Not that there isn’t enough contracting waste, fraud, and abuse to break the backs of every presidential administration and Congress since Eisenhower (my kind of Republican, wisely warning us against the military industrial Congressional complex).
Fine. Darlene Druyan and the results of her actions are still with us. And O’bama doesnt make a move that doesnt put bucks in his bud’s pockets.
“Pat Roberts is not a democrat….my kind of Republican, wisely warning us against the military industrial Congressional complex).”
Now where is the “like the hell out of that button…..”?
The Super-T is already out and smiting foes. The weaponized Texan is a development job. Duh. Choice = too easy.
USAF better wise-up—soon.
A more stringent fiscal climate will no doubt require almost 100% Made in USA with Profits staying within CONUS.
I’m just guessing but…..
I’ll bet I could go down to this place and find something that suits the bill, PDQ!
Isn’t that why they are mothballed, in case of future need?
BTFDIK
Yep, you’re right. Here they are:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/driko/133775559/
No Way, Jose. We gotta spend NEW money to help pay off some big real estate obligations. What value does stuff have that has already been “bought and paid for”?
Could this contract award have anything to do with the 2 BILLION dollars awarded to Brazil to pursue their offshore oil exploration that drew all the rigs idled by the suspension of drilling in the gulf by the Obama administration?
Soros?
Can anybody say Soros?
Yes, I thought you could…
This is becoming so blatant that I can’t believe the ‘Articles of Impeachment’ have not been surfaced by the House!
Along with the “Recess Appointments”, while congress was NOT recessed(by a democrat)! WTF, O?
Chris, I wouldn’t get worried about articles of impeachment just yet. Sure, they may be justified, but not for this particular incident. This is a standard contract dispute and, let’s face it, this is a democrat administration so you can be sure no matter who builds the birds the unions will get the jobs. It’s only where the jobs will go that is up to question.
Articles of impeachment against an incumbent with absolutely no record of accomplishment risk a backlash of sympathy votes. Far better to forget the impeachment route until after the elections. If he is re-elected, impeach. If not, ignore. In the mean-time, there’s this little-known clause in the Constitution that states all spending must originate in the House. If the House amends a budget to not include something, it may as well not exist. Let the Senate reconcile that with their being ignored. And if it doesn’t pass reconciliation, it’s trivial for the House to pass another spending bill the Senate can pass that doesn’t include such funding.
Personally, I’m wondering who makes the A-10 and are they being told the ugly bird for the past 30 years is now a pillar of our military strategy?
– Max
I hate to be the contrarian, but I think the Super T is the better bird.
A.) Both are foreign designs. Pilatus gets a cut on every T-6 sold, yet competes against the parent design (PC-9) on the world market.
B.) The Super T is a proven warplane with guns in the wings. Three air forces are using it very successfully. The AT-6, not so much.
C.) From what I gather, the ST flies farther & faster & carries more bombs.
I know a lot of right-wing folks see every action by the Regime as a scandal. This ain’t one, folks. The ST will be built in Jacksonville, by U.S. workers. I know Embraer sold Tucanos to Iran & Iraq, but that was years ago when they were desperate to build a market against Pilatus, which owned the basic trainer market forever. Hell, we sold Tomcats to Iran once.
Grizzeldcaostie,
Not gonna contradict you, the Tucano is a rockin’ aircraft but WHY was Hawker-Beech ELIMINATED from the contract competition? WTF, O?
Yes, the Tucano is a great CAS aircraft!
You get no argument there. That Hawker-Beech gets “Eliminated from the competition”?
WTF,O?
Educate me, please…
The AT-6 requires more time in the development oven. Turning an unarmed trainer into a real warplane that can pull Gs and drop smart bombs on target ain’t cheap. Besides, the ST is faster & carries more goodies farther. It’s no contest. It’s a mature platform. Pilatus has had a history of not selling their trainers armed, forcing customers like the Croatians to get Elbit (Israel) to equip their PC-9s with weapons & associated avionics. Neutrality and all. The ST has been dropping bombs, snapping necks & cashing checks for years now.
GC is right on this. Th development work has already been done on the ST. Hawker is just sore they don’t have something ready to go.
The specs of the AC I’ve seen shows the ST beating the weaponized PC-7 hands down. I strongly suspect Hawker has been shown the reason, they just don’t like it and are trying to hold things up as much as they can.
We should demand that requests for CAS be answered by dropping in lawyers at the troops in contact position. Armed or not, it would be a much better use of their sorry carcasses than impeding delivery of war material. If we lost a few (thousand) lawyers in the process, it would be worthwhile. Not so sure how the troops needing support would fare, but since there would be no CAS air this might be betterthan nothing…
I’m pretty sure dropping lawyers into combat violates the Geneva Conventions.
Inhumane treatment of the enemy?
Why? Shouldn’t be any different from using other forms of kinetic ordn-
Oh. You meant with *parachutes*.
Pardon the off topic question. The picture on the home page, the F-18 cat shot, I notice the leading edge on the wing is canted down. I would have thought it would be up. Please understand my knowledge of aerodynamics is limited to paper airplanes.
You’d think it’d be draggy, right? And at zero angle of attack, it probably would be but the catapult is dialed in for that. Plus, that’s why God created afterburners.
Basically those are called leading edge flaps, and they serve to increase the camber (curvature) of the wing, especially at high angles of attack (slow speeds). As soon as the jet leaves the deck, a combination of nose strut pressure and nose up elevator trim forces the nose into the air. More camber is useful on a delta wing aircraft at slow speeds, although it is indeed a source of induced drag, that is to say the drag produced as a consequence of lift being generated. As the jet accelerates, and less camber is needed so the LEF comes back up, and the wing becomes more efficient.
Always great to read everyone’s responses on topics like this. I always seem to learn more from the comments than the actual article!
This might have something to do with why the Texasn II was excluded. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/123c311a-064b-11e1-8a16-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1inYqxLV7 Lockheed bribed German officials into buying the F-104 apparently back in the day, so this is nothing new.
While I’m sure Embraer isn’t squeaky-clean, this smells like sour grapes to me. Yes, the Texan II is already in the inventory- as an unarmed trainer. The armed version does not exist. (Hawker-Beechcraft says they can build it quick and cheap- and we have their word on that as defense contractors!.) So it’s potentially lower O&M costs balanced against development risk, for a program that’s supposed to be giving our guys in the field what they need *now*. Not surprised the USAF broke the way it did, especially given the Tucano’s higher performance.
I agree with Mike M. The current process is absurd, and there’s no reason we should have to spend a year after every procurement decision consoling the loser.
I saw an article either on this website or “Last of the Few” about how the Air Force was trying to get money from Congress (wonder if that should be “congress” with a small c)to field the Texan II in Afghanistan kind of like they did with the F-5 in Vietnam. Congress declined. Then shortly later I see the Air Force had excluded the Texan II from the competition and would not debrief Beechcraft on why. Then I came across the article on Embraer. My connecting of the dots says that Embraer aggressively lobbied someone in Congress, who denied the money for operational testing, then ordered the Air Force to remove the Texan II from the contest. If I was really cynical, I would just chalk it up to the fact that most Texans vote republican and the current administration didn’t like that.
I am curious why the Pentagon insists on going back to the drawing board. Why couldn’t one dust off the plans (or dig out of the boneyard) for the OV-10 Bronco or Cessna Dragonfly? Those are designs that are know to work and for a light attack-COIN aircraft, how many more up to date bell and whistles would you need to add?
To build the Dragonfly again would involve not only a recreation of the jigs and tooling for the air frame, but either resurrecting production of the engine, or developing/adapting a new engine. The basic Tweety Bird, which has just been taken out of service hasn’t been in production for more than 30 years.
Trainers don’t have the best range as it is. The A-37 was built as a cheap attack jet, and could not loiter over the target all that long. The ST has that ability, and the ability to fly at lower air speeds is a very good asset in the situation it would be accepted for.
I don’t see the Afghans maintaining an A-10 for very long. We need to build a passle of A-10s ourselves, but the ST is a better choice for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHDZqUa0m1s
The Tucano is not a new to the game.
We already have the finest close air support aircraft in the world. It’s called the A-10. It could very easily and effectively do COIN work. It’s slow as hell, armored like a tank, and has a gun second to none. If what you really want is a slow and ultra cheap fixed wing gun platform, you might as well hang a M61 from a Cessna, rather than buying $17 million a pop armed trainers that USAF is probably going to give away to allies in just a few years anyway. USAF has proved over and over again that they don’t like unsexy combat airplanes. These are the people that have tried for years to retire the A-10 in favor of more fast movers. Truth be told, USAF is probably happy for the protest as an excuse (along with budget cuts) to just cancel the whole thing. “We’ve got F-35′s to pay for, after all”.
Hate to say it Doug, but you just may be right.