An email from the USAF, which the Tatler has obtained from a source on the Hill, says that the Air Force is reevaluating its controversial Light Air Support (LAS) decision. The email, which went out today from Air Force’s Senate Liaison office, also promises an investigation:
Today, the Air Force advised the Department of Justice that it will take corrective action on the Afghanistan Light Air Support Contract and will set aside the contract award to Sierra Nevada effective March 2, 2012.
The Secretary of the Air Force relays the following message: “While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action. Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision.” Additionally, General Donald Hoffman, commander of Air Force Materiel Command, has initiated a Commander Directed Investigation into the matter.
The Air Force disqualified American aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft’s AT-6 under suspicious circumstances late last year. That decision benefited Brazil’s Embraer, a foreign firm controlled by the Brazilian government and with ties to the Iranian government. Hawker protested its disqualification, the Government Accounting Office declined to review the decision, and Hawker took the government to court.
The contract could be worth up to $1 billion, and create about 1,400 jobs. Most of those jobs would go to Brazil if Embraer gets the contract.
In defense of Embraer they have a plane meeting the specifications ready to go. The Hawker proposal would take a trainer and convert it into a light attack prop. Knowing the history of defense procurements who knows the time and costs Hawker would be able to make the plane.
So what? The DOD should always favor domestic production when at all feasible for obvious national security interests. This one reeks of Soros meddling…
The A-29 would be domestic production, Florida to be precise. Favoring domestic companies is idiotic.
It’s only idiotic if the quality is superb and magnitudes better than anything ANY US manufacturer can provide.
Wrong, the AT-6 started out as a COIN aircraft, converted to a trainer
Didnt we see similar behavior with the Air Force over the long disputed tanker contracts? Didnt people do time over that?
Frank, there were several things that happened during the tanker competition, but the big one was that the AF concurred to a significant specification change proposed by EADS (larger aircraft), but they never communicated the change to Boeing. The evidence was there and the protest decision was a slam dunk. The other stuff was in the noise compared to this. As far as I know, nobody has been charged with any crime in connection with this procurement.
The Light Cargo procurement looks sort of similar on the surface in that the AF seems to have busted protocol in making a decision that favors a foreign company over a domestic competitor. But I don’t know enough about the case yet to have an informed opinion.
Oops, Light Air Support, not Light Cargo… I was thinking of something else I saw yesterday.
I’d just like to see an “American” aircraft manufacturer that doesn’t share its name with a British (or Italian or French) aircraft manufacturer. Doesn’t this country build airplanes anymore?
It’s still a relatively low-tech project, and on economic and security reasons should be limited to US located and staffed companies.
We have hollowed out the US economy already, defense is almost the last thing left. Even the big tanker contract to our European allies, was galling – and overturned.
If it’s even close, it should go to the US, or perhaps it should be limited to US bidders only. And frankly, if it’s NOT close or better, than something is ALREADY very, very wrong.
This was a no-brainer until the Air Force disqualified Hawker-Beechcraft. Certainly, we have the ability to build a prop driven low attack aircraft. I think the US got around to doing that very thing almost 100 years ago. Why we would want to give a contract to an outside competitor is beyond me.
The AT-6 is already flying as a trainer. Putting guns or electronics in it is not a technical challenge. We already have support systems in line for the AT-6. Why buy a new, different plane?
The sense of entitlement by ostensibly-American companies must be put to rest once and for all. I remember the outrageous tanker deal, when Boeing tried to hoist his long-obsolete 767 airframe onto Air Force just to keep the assembly line running a little longer, after the airlines stopped buying. They did not want to give taxpayers their better wares (777), because that line was running in 3 shifts fulfilling commercial orders. Air Force rightfuly selected the superior alternative, and that decision was also deemed “controversial” and later overturned. Now other companies get into the same whine, whine, whine, shake the patriotic booty mode when they lose on merits. And it’s not like Pilatus is all that American. Frankly I am outraged by Raytheon’s behaviour.
The company that won the initial Tanker Competition was Northrop Grumman. They had tried to negotiate with Boeing, a ‘green’ aircraft to which the Northrop Grumman modifications would be made and Boeing refused, to my mind because they wanted it all. Airbus’s contribution would have been less than 50%.
That was the tanker that won, and then the buy was overruled. Northrop declined to bit on the second go round.
Sorry to correct you, Pete, but the reason Boeing didn’t offer the 777 was because the Air Force request for proposal (RFP) called for an airplane of the 767′s size (to replace the similarly sized KC-135), not for the larger 777.
The airplane that the Air Force initially selected (based on the EADS A330) was not only larger and heavier than what the RFP called for, it didn’t meet several of the key requirements. Having a larger and heavier airplane also impacts other requirements, like runway, taxiway and ramp area width and load capacity, as well as hangar space and size needed. This is why Boeing protested the decision and why the GAO threw it out and made the Air Force start over. At that point, the Air Force had the chance to revise the RFP to specify a larger and heavier airplane if that was truly was what they desired. It’s notable that the didn’t. And in the end, the Air Force chose the 767-based airplane because it was the only airplane that met all of the RFP requirements.
What Dave in SoCal said. Boeing has said repeatedly that they would have bid a 777-based aircraft if they had been given the same specifications that EADS was bidding to. The 767 and 777 are both built on the same lines in the Everett plant, so it made no diff to Boeing one way or the other. The 767 just happened to be the right size airframe for the aircraft that the AF said they wanted.
There was a recent loan of a couple billion bucks; by our Govt, to Brazil for Oil exploration, now this is going on. I smell “crony capitalism” where a major investor in the Brazilian aircraft company has ties to the Obama administration. Or Brazil has pictures of the person that made the final decision awarding the contract to the company in Brazil. GBA and RICO all banksters and their prostitutes in the congress.
I thought the T-6 Texan II, like its namesake, already had a light-attack variant flying. Maybe it needs some tweaks for the contract.
Maybe there are some Douglas Skyraiders sittng around Davis-Monthan. And don’t we have the A-10?
The wonderful old Skyraiders were flown until they were worn out. A small number of them are still being flown by people who’ve lovingly restored them. They’re pampered and treasured. As for the A-10, this is a light attack aircraft project for operations where the A-10 is just too big.
The A-10 would be a far far better thing. The problem isnt that the A-10 is too big or anything else, its that the Air Force doesnt want to do the mission that the A-10 performs. The A-10 along with 500 new airframe replacements should be given to the Marines, who could put its fearsome capability to immediate good use.
If you really want to see the very definition of airborne disaster, look no further than the F-35 program.
Presumably the Marines would do this awesome thing without any money in their budget for it, too — because that was the only reason USAF “didn’t want” the A-10 mission. They were expected to just kind of work it in somewhere. No cash.
Light attack has been done several times in the past. One really good plane for the job was the old A-1 Skyraider (aka Spad). Another that served well in Vietnam was the A-37 Dragonfly. What both of these planes had in common was the ability to loiter in the area and to hit with high accuracy.
The A-10 is a terrific attack plane. It was designed to take out tanks but it also does great ground support. Compared to what the AF wants for light attack, the A-10 is a sledgehammer. It’s simply too much plane for the job. There’s no way the light attack planes would be good going against an armored assault (e.g. Desert Storm) but that isn’t their intended mission.
IIRC, the A-37 has seen combat in South America.
IIRC, the A-37 has seen combat in South America.
We gave some A-37s to at least one South American country (Peru). They’re used to shoot down drug-smuggling planes. Unfortunately, there’s at least one incidence where they shot down and killed some missionaries (Peru, 2001).
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80691&page=1
Also, this contract is to provide planes for the Afghan Air Force, not ours. I don’t think giving A-10s to the Afghanis would be a good idea for many reasons.
If you asked me, I’d say the federal government shouldn’t be contracting with any business that is government owned or partially government owned.
And taking it a step further, government owned enterprises shouldn’t be allowed to operate in the US, nor buy/takeover private or publicly owned businesses in the US.
Hell, just did out the plans for the original AD-1, only problem would be the engines. Loved them in 1964 loiter over the horizon five hours plus time on station, heavy armor, bomb load of a B24.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-1_Skyraider
Where to start. First of all the AT-6 is not new and was purchased by Greece just before the 2004 Olympics. Second, SNC who is partnered with Embraer is only going to do minimum as far as a U.S. domestic operation goes, and they would not do that except for the fact they need to say it will bring U.S. jobs. And the few jobs it would bring would not come close to the jobs in Wichita it would cost. I totally agree the U.S.should “provide” Afghanistan’s LAS. And why shouldn’t the U.S. protect one of the few heavy industries we have left in this country. The AT-6C demonstrated the successful employment of GBU-12s, 58s, Hellfire, Talon, APKWS, GATR, and aerial gunnery. It has gone through the USAF NNMSB and AFSEO (not certification but for RA) with all those weapon systems. The Tucano has not. In my opinion the USAF and SOCOM need a Light Attack airplane in theaters where we have Air Dominence. We are paying $400 per gallon for jet fuel in Afghanistan for F-16s that cost $8000 per hour to fly. Instead we should be flying a light attack platform at $800 per hour to do the same mission and stop logistical fraticide. When DOD “sells” a weapons systems FMS we control the tactics taught and the spares which to me makes good sense in case we want to cut them off later.
P-51, anyone? Or even the tried and true BT-13?
Lycoming, Continental Pratt and Whitney powerplants…USA-all-the-way.
Rivets, cherry rivets, rivet guns, bucking bars…made in the ‘ol USA.
Jigs, Pneumatic, hydraulic landing systems…yep, USA.
Machinists, engineers, foremen, leads, three shifts…more Americans.
Why give this to a communist, corrupt, third world no nothing country called “Party Town?” 60% of all judges are corrupt…imagine trying to litigate a contact “change order” in Brazilian courts? Lawyers are worse. They’ll take any money they can, run years on any litigation…suck the client dry, then spit out what’s left. Need proof? Check out any drug lord’s hold on anything Brazilan, anywhere in Brazil?
Besides, Jet Blue’s aircraft are ALL being manufactured in Brasil, for Brasil and flown ONLY in Brazil as “AZUL!” And the current founder was ousted from America’s Jet Blue Board some years ago for “unknown reasons.”
Want to deal with embraer? Lot’s of luck!
… and this will certainly do wonders for Boeing’s and Lockheed’s attempts to sell billions in US fighters to the Brazilian military.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/
Jan 8/10: Brazil’s Estadao de Sao Paulo says that the official Air Force report has been modified. It reportedly no longer ranks the 3 finalists, treats the strengths of the Rafale and F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters as established, treats the Gripen NG’s strengths as developmental, and emphasizes the advantages of a twin-engine fighter. With the F/A-18 E/F apparently a political non-starter, it’s expected that these changes will lower the barriers to selecting France’s Rafale. As President Lula intends. Estadao de Sao Paulo | defense-aerospace translation.
The Beechcraft AT-6 does not exist. It is a proposal. The T-6 Texan II, upon with the AT-6 will be based, is a modified version of a Swiss airplane. This makes the claims against the Super Tucano rather hypocritical. Moreover, the T-6 JPATS program has had major cost overruns.
I’m also sure you are aware that Hawker Beechcraft is owned by Canadian investment firms.
The Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano exists and has been used in combat. It is a well developed aircraft and is, in my opinion, vastly superior to the fictitious AT-6. The Super Tucano for the US Military would be built in Jacksonville Florida.
I propose that to resolve this, we have a fly off this summer. The best plane wins. Or is quality not really the issue here?
Given all you say, including that the Tucano would be substantially built in the USA, well, … sounds not so bad after all.
Yet we are all (I am) at this point so paranoid about outsourcing everything, that some protectionist sentiments are pretty strong, and I do support spending some extra money for more domestic content, fuzzy though this gets when neither is 100%.
If the Embraer plane is best and wins out on the merits of its proposal, that is fine with me. What I find is objectionable is the act of refusing to allow the other manufacturer to compete, by disqualifying it, by that action refusing to permit a comparison of the merits of the two proposals.
If there is a good reason for this disqualification it should be made public. The idea that a government agency should disqualify all but one competitor without stating a substantial reason for doing so is not acceptable.
It smells bad. What could cause such a thing, other than corruption? If the Embraer proposal is better in some key respect, why not let the competition take place, in which case it should win. Disqualification is only worth doing if the disqualified proposal is expected to win the competition. Why bother with it otherwise?
That it was done suggests that the disqualified proposal was expected to win by the disqualifiers. Who are they and how do they justify their behavior?