"Super Tucano goes for the U.S. Air Force." Topic

"The U.S. Air Force announced that it has selected the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano for the Light Air Support (LAS) program. The aircraft will be supplied in partnership with Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) as the prime contractor. Other major subcontractors are FLIR Systems and Elbit Systems of America. The air force awarded SNC a firm-fixed price delivery order contract in the amount of $355 USD million for the initial 20 aircraft and associated support destined to equip the new Afghan Air Force. The aircraft will be used to conduct advanced flight training, aerial reconnaissance and light air support operations by partner nations including Afghanistan. The amount also covers training devices for pilot and maintenance training, as well as support equipment.

Following the Air Force decision, Hawker Beechcraft, which lost the bid with its AT-6 moved to block the Air Force contract process, filing a lawsuit at the Court of Federal Claims over its exclusion from the bidding process. The court ruling for a temporary restraining order is expected next week (Jan. 11, 2012), leading the U.S. Air Force to issue a stop-work order on January 4, 2011.

Planning to field the first LAS aircraft in 2013, before the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Air Force was seeking a non-developmental solution for the LAS mission, one that provides the versatility, engagement, and persistence that the warfighter needs in a counterinsurgency environment, at a significantly lower cost than fighter jets. The A-29 Super Tucano built specifically for counterinsurgency missions is already operating with five air forces. Over 150 A-29s are now in operation around the world have logged over 130,000 flight hours, including more than 18,000 combat hours without any combat loss…"

From
link

Congrats to our Brazilian brothers!. (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Wow, "our" (though American pilots won't be flying it) first prop-driven CAS aircraft since the A-1 Skyraider, not counting the AC-130 Spectre of course.

It's about time.

Considering how much the Bres their mission I wonder how long they will actually serve.

Well, what is wrong with bringing back the Skyraider?

Combat-proven airframe, maybe update the powerplant, and dollars to donuts just one Skyraider carries the payload of all four of those A-29's…

$17.75 USD mil each, for those little things?

I think we, and Afghanistan are getting gouged again, this time on lightweight prop driven planes.

The sharks' mouths do make them look formidable though!

Is it me, or do they look like mini-Mustangs without the underbody air scoop?

I look at those painted shark mouths and all I can think is "d'awww"

Well, what is wrong with bringing back the Skyraider?

Same problem as building more A10s: no tooling.

Plus, those big radials suck fuel, and are enough heavier that you'd need to stretch the nose 10 feet if you put one of the engines off a herky-bird. That's not a simple re-design. Though I would like to see a ground-up CAS prop-job using one of those Herk-Juliet engines and props.

In production airframes are always a good idea.

It's a nice aircraft but what happened to the Dragonfly?

Looks an awful lot like this now sitting at the USAF Museum

Piper PA-48 Enforcer

link

So the Piper PA-48 Enforcer is a development of the P-51 Mustang … which was initailly designed for the RAF and used in a ground-attack role until it was fitted with a Merlin engine.

No wonder the Super Tucano looks like it … it has been designed for a very similar mission.

WW2Fanatik wrote:

first prop-driven CAS aircraft since the A-1 Skyraider, not counting the AC-130 Spectre of course.

…and for some reason not counting the Cessna Skymaster, Grumman Mohawk or North American Bronco, either.

All the best,

John.

They are going to be built in Florida.

Super Tucano's a pretty good plane.

It's a nice aircraft but what happened to the Dragonfly?

I'm pretty sure it got to be like 60 years old, and long out of production.
-Kle.

Yup. No T37s have been built in decades, so no tooling remains to bring the production line back up in a hurry.

@John D Salt: You mean the O2 Skymaster, OV1 Mohawk, and OV10 Bronco? Those were technically FACs or AOPs, not intended to be moving mud directly.

I'd still love to see a clean-sheet CAS propjob. 4500 horsepower from a C130 engine (which is in use *everywhere*), plus a sextet or octet of 20mm guns (NOT a vulcan).

Anybody else notice the performance numbers of the Enforcer are WAY below those of the original Mustang? (I am talking cruise and top speed here)

Lion in the Stars wrote:

@John D Salt: You mean the O2 Skymaster, OV1 Mohawk, and OV10 Bronco? Those were technically FACs or AOPs, not intended to be moving mud directly.

The Mohawk could carry one and an half tonnes, and the Bronco three tonnes, of mud-moving stores, which seems a lot more than you need for target marking rockets.

The Air Force certainly intended that they should not be used for moving mud directly, objecting vociferously to the Army owning its own armed aircraft, but up to 1965 I think the Army would have had a different opinion. Had the Army not given up its fixed-wing aircraft then, it would have got into a terrible political fight to keep its armed helicopters.

All the best,

John.

ancientsgamer wrote:

Anybody else notice the performance numbers of the Enforcer are WAY below those of the original Mustang? (I am talking cruise and top speed here)

But it lifts a bigger payload, which is probably what you care about for CAS.

All the best,

John.

Well, the Mohawk doesn't have lots of pylons. 2 pylons with a 1500lb capacity will get you 1.5 tons of payload. 1500lbs is ~220 gallons of fuel.

If you're carrying rockets, 70mm FFARs are 13.6lb each. 19 rockets are ~260lbs, but that doesn't include the launcher unit. But like I said, the limit is the number of pylons.

The Bronco has 2 underwing pylons, one centerline, and 2 under each gun sponson. The pylons under the gun sponsons are tight, I don't think you can put a pair of 19-tube rocket launchers there.

In comparison, the Super Tucano has a pair of fixed .50cals, and space for 4x 19-tube rocket launchers, or 8x Hellfires, or … Functionally, it's a much better layout than the Bronco, even though it has half the payload.

@Ancientsgamer: For COIN, the numbers that matter are payload and loiter time, both of which are far higher in the Enforcer.

I read somewhere the Marines were working on a new version of the Bronco.

The A/T-37s are still in use in some of the Latin American countries aren't they? I know they were phased out in the US in the 90s. Regarding the Bronco. Boeing states that "For operation in remote areas, the Bronco had a specially designed rough field landing gear, required no ground equipment for starting and could be maintained with simple handtools. In the event of an emergency, the Bronco could use high-octane or automotive fuel in place of jet fuel with only a slight degradation". Is the Super Tucano capable like that also? Back in 2009 there were statements that they were thinking on restarting production like Striker mentioned. Robert

It depends on the engine in the Super Tucano. Some of the PT6 engine series are designed to run off of agricultural diesel.

I don't know how tolerant the fuel system is of gasoline, which is much less energy-dense than jet fuel, and often has other undesirable-for-aviation traits.