The Air Guard has purchased 1 of these which should be delivered in FY09. Not sure why the guard, but if you go to Beechcraft's website, they tell all about it. Basically, it is a combination RECCE/Light Attack aircraft with up to 6 hard points for various smaller munitions. Specifically designed to help with COIN (Counter-insurgency) ops utilizing net-centric principles. Makes total sense to me. After all, the USAF is wasting flight hours and airframe time on fighters that were not meant to loiter waiting for Achmed to plant his roadside bomb. Why keep burning up 16s and 15Es when a T-6 with some armor and hardpoints can do the same job, perhaps even more effectively, for less money.

Now, true, just about all of this can be done via a predator, but perhaps they are finding that there are some human factors limitations (communications, visual, who knows) with the predators which facilitate still having a person up in the sky. Don't know if they'd let a heavy guy like me fly it, but honestly, some of the coolest stories I've read have been of guys who years ago flew the same type of missions helping out the grunts in A-1 skyraiders and A-37s.

Plus, it seems like a good mix of cost/effectiveness for COIN ops which is something we are not only involved in for OEF and OIF but also will be even more involved in over in Africa for the foreseeable future.

Way to expose some sterotypes! Classic.

You're right, my "herbivore" attitude keeps me from pointing with my elbows, saying "so to speak" every other phrase, and drinking crappy alcohol (weed). My "herbivore" attitude has nothing to do with how I fly. I won't even begin a heavy/fighter discussion, I was merely saying no heavy driver in today's air force will ever fly anything more than a UAV that carries ordinance.

I was a heavy driver in today's Air Force who went from heavies to fighters on AD, and plenty more have done it both on AD and in transitioning to a Guard/Reserve unit. I never agreed with the decision to bring in the T-1 vs the T-38, for many reasons - and crossflow ability is one of them. USAF leadership made decisions that hinder you ability to crossflow, these current pilots didn't - but your attitude seems more directed at them than the leadership. There are traditions and heritage reasons for why they do what they do, and good on them for maintaining those traditions. We could learn a lot from the pilots of the past.

Amongst the fighter community lives depend on this thing called mutual support, and mutual support is supported by camaraderie, and camaraderie is supported by silly games such as pointing with your elbows, etc.

We apparently have plenty of guys who will be willing to jump in a single-engine turbo-prop and fly behind enemy lines in a low-altitude high-threat area - knowing all the while that if they get shot down or hit a bird, they are on their own and if captured will suffer a horrific death. If they want to play any games in the bar, I am all for it. That group of guys would be doing something and putting themselves in harms way that 99.9% of this USAF will never have to, and I am willing to give them whatever credit they deserve. If I was making the manning decisions on this aircraft, I would pick the most lean-forward pilots I could find regardless of background - they'll need that attitude.

There is a time and place for showing up at CP and getting your flight plan, sitting in a comfortable seat in flight eating your container lunch, and landing somewhere and drinking beer. Unfortunately, if this aircraft comes through, these guys won't have that luxury while deployed. They will have their own fears and stresses and you won't understand or give them credit for how they decide to relieve them, you'll mock them instead. But, they will step up to the plate and do their job regardless.

Don't know if you'll be seeing the AT-6B in this environment, but you might in a lot of places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wouldn't you agree that it was pretty much decided after the Gulf War that the day of a turbo-prop aircraft loitering over a HIGH THREAT area ended when we lost quite a few OV-10s in the early Gulf War days and even the venerable A-10s were forced up into the higher altitudes than they were use too?

USMCFLYR

Bite your tongue, Weed is the nectar of the gods...You'd understand if you had to lip crawl to a pub in the desert with a couple broken limbs. Albie, you've heard this one before...

Here's to chicks with small craniums that make my....

I'd probably have jumped on the AT-6 at age 25, and think it will be a very rewarding job for the RIGHT person. I flew the OV10 as a Lt, and it was a great seasoning job. We didn't have a real air combat mission as we were really just battallion ALOs on loan to the Army when they needed us, but it was cool mission anyway.

In Vietnam the FAC job could go to SAC, MAC, or TAC guys if they wanted it. Perhaps the T-6 could go the same way. While stick and rudder skills are important in COIN and FAC ops, they are probably secondary to good headwork and personal courage. I am confident we have aviators in a lot of different MWSs that would do a good job.

Single ship missions in an AOR, however, might be worth a hard look. Having an extra set of eyes to watch your belly and 6 could be huge in an area with manpads or AAA.

Haven't said it in friggin' years...but...."Hit my smoke!"

Also...

With a HMS and a pair of 9xs that thing would be a helicopter killing MOFO and the absolute last thing a Mig wanted to jump in a valley. Anyone who has ever seen the A-10 boys "circle the hogs..." can understand how with an HMS low and slow with a tight turn radius can be a very sticky problem for fast movers...

Except with the fast movers also equiped with the HMS and 9xs
Btw - I've been in the middle of those wagon wheels a few times. It is impressive to hear the gun shot coming at you from an airplane that you can ahrdly see

USMCFLYR

I consider Iraq and Afghan to be low-altitude high-threat considering the small arms and potential manpad threat.