“In order to honor a critical and time-sensitive U.S. commitment to provide air support capability to the Afghanistan Air Force (AAF), today the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting authorized Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corporation to restart work on the Light Air Support (LAS) contract after notifying the Comptroller General (GAO) of her decision,” read the statement.
OUD has no useful gain to the U.S. It is only "time-sensitive" to some general's performance metrics. Or maybe: their post retirement job.
The big LOL is this Beechcraft statement:
“When it comes to producing aircraft that will help Americans come home from Afghanistan, the U.S. Air Force today concluded that America’s “best interest” now rests on the shoulders of Brazil,” Alexander wrote. “This decision is very misguided. It will lead to the loss of American jobs and substantially higher costs to American taxpayers.”
This kind of platform is a good idea for Operation:USELESS DIRT. It would have saved us some money and possibly even saved more lives. USAF should have taken this concept on as their own in 2002 and had something fielded by 2003--even if it only carried guns and wasn't especially sophisticated.
Unfortunately, slow and stupid doesn't help. It was so important that we could have fought WWII twice since the start of the campaign in late 2001.
Great work DOD and USAF. Better late than never?
No.
But back to the Beechcraft flag-waving which is an attempt to hide politics, rent-seeking and company goals such as...killing American jobs.
Glass houses.
7 comments:
3 opinions:
2 big squadrons of USAF A-29s in Afghanistan since '04 would have paid for themselves twice by now.
Afghans will attrit to zero flyable aircraft within 7 years.
In hindsight, Beechcraft should have advertised the AT-6 as "fifth generation"...
I forgot to mention that the U.S. Navy saw a need for this but things didn't work out.
Plus the ST will be assembled in Florida.
I think the real lesson here is that we our nation building effort has failed, as evidenced by the fact that the Afghans cant even manage to procure a prop plane with some guns on it. Then again neither can we, not quickly at least, and not without rent seekers complaining about us using a proven performer. There will never be enough pork or profit for these types, so its lucky for them that even once we leave Afghanistan years after Obama promised, and years after he started getting credit for our leaving, we will still be paying for the failed Afgan state to purchase goods and services from conry contractors. The only question is will we spend "enough," and in the "right" places.
Hi Will; I feel there are other important lessons for the worldwide defence community.
Historically, the sharp end of conflict has often involved combatants slugging it out at very close quarters, moreso in vegetated and some urban environs than in somewhat arid or desert-like terrain. This often necessitates application of airborne firepower as close as 10 metres from friendly forces so they can manoeuvre. The Vietnam War in particular underscored this need which has hitherto since been overlooked by arms manufacturers and military leaders.
High speed platforms armed principally with sophisticated expensive stand-off weaponry and those equipped only with cannon delivering explosive ordnance cannot adequately perform the INTIMATE close air support role. Suitable platforms are those that can also be armed with assorted gun weapons that can deliver high density ball ammunition in close to friendlies, and also be sufficiently low speed and manoeuvrable to hang around in murky weather conditions.
Helicopter gunships partially fill this need, but AAH are arguably less suitable; even if podded 7.62mm or 0.50in weapons are substituted in lieu of say unguided rockets. Consider these snippets from the US Army Air Mobility Vietnam 1961-1971 study:
‘The range and killing power of the minigun was limited and though the 70 millimetre rockets had much more reach and punch, they were inaccurate and had to generally be fired in salvos to blanket a target...While many (US Army) gunship crews liked the speed, agility and hard-to-hit slender lines of the Cobra, there was another faction that preferred the old Huey gunships since the door gunners not only provided additional eyes and ears but could lay down suppressive fire to the rear of the helicopter...The debate between the two factions went on through the war.’
The Super Tucano has desirable gun/cannon armament flexibility plus multiple other beaut features including good range and endurance plus the capability to deliver sophisticated stand-off weapons. Full marks to Embraer for recognising the INTIMATE close air support need, whereas all of the bigger arms conglomerates continually try to oversell their costly multi-role products that are somewhat unsuited for real sharp end battlefield support.
As the world heads into defence expenditure austerity, there is opportunity for nations now to rethink how they can restructure their armed forces to remain within budgets while operating costs are escalating.
It really remains to be seen whether political and military leaders are prepared to focus more on basic military needs rather than too much emphasis on increasingly unaffordable high end performance hardware.
Bushranger 71, I completely agree. Im guilty of the assumption that light infantry wins wars and that military forces should be geared around helping infantry succeed. Thats entails a whole lot of things, things often distal to infantry, but it should include intimate air support, and lots of it. The A-29 is pretty ideal for this, but I was commenting more on the politicking over supplying it to a failed foriegn power and less on the many virtues of the platform itself.
Hi again Will. Sorry, but I omitted to say that I agree with your perspective re political considerations and especially the inappropriate influence of players in the arms industry. That aspect has greatly weakened Australia's military capacity over the past couple of decades.
Post a Comment