HBC AT-6 not good enough for Air Force
 

Could someone please explain to me how something like this happens. It appears the AT-6 is a superior aircraft and it's made in USA. :eek:

Hawker Beechcraft protests trainer contract

It probably came down to cost, not superiority.

Also it would be illegal for the executive branch to inject itself into a competition mid-stream. Maybe you could write the RFP to require that all or some of the work is done in the US, but of course there would be tit-for-tat repercussions overseas.

I agree it is probably not the airplane, it's probably worries about HBC becoming insolvent and folding. I spent a little time working there, and I sure did not get warm happies about their long term longevity. HBC is currently restructuring/ headed for bankruptcy. They have been bleeding red constantly since 2008. Embraer is absolutely killing them in their market segment.

Embraer promotional materials also like to tell you that it is because their Super Tucano is a battle proven airframe and that the AT-6 s not.

Aren't the USAF Super Tucano's going to be built in Florida?

Well.....that much is true.
The T-6 can point to being a proven training aircraft, just as the Super Tucano can with many services around the world. Since they competed against each other for the JPATS contract and the T-6 won that contract. maybe they ought to focus their efforts on advertising its' strengths since the reports are saying that the AT-6 failed to meet some expectations.

The promotional material shows that much of the production line and other parts of the aircraft (like the avionics and the weapons/sensor packages are made in America. SNC has been around for awhile and has fingers in many different DoD contracts ongoing.

USMCFLYR

Ground Clearance
 

I read many months ago (so I can't remember the source) that one of the issues for the AT-6 was ground-clearance of weapons. The wing is relatively low (short struts), and it gave limited ground clearance for some of the weapons they planned to hang on it.

It may have also been a problem for the jammers (Air Force slang term for the self-propelled weapons-loading-tugs) to get under the wings. And I think they would want universal support equipment (ie, a jammer that worked on anything) to minimize the number of C-17 flights it takes to get the Ground Troops set-up in a combat location.

Clearly you have much to learn about the Air Force aquisitions process. The process *always* begins with an insane contract award, followed by 5 years of protests, followed by a reversal of the contract.

It's how we get things done in Big Blue.

That's a good one... But I thought it may be in response to HBC's CEO talking bad about Obama's administration spending or the pending F-18 contract to Brazil.... Oh well, I'd like to see the US maintain those jobs and keep building aircraft in the US. I hope that's just not wishful thinking or being naive:rolleyes:

When I worked at HQ ACC Weapons & Tactics we worked hard to kill this abortion. Of course, our protestations fell on deaf ears. Case of simply buying the cheapest possible attack aircraft we could find vs. one that actually handles the mission and can bring the pilot home. Another sad case of letting the budget drive the equipment and tactics instead of the other way around, and senior leadership ignoring the seasoned advice of their best tacticians. I'd hate to find out MY son got tapped to fly one of these. It's another A-37. And we were smart enough to ditch those ourselves way back when and give them all to the Banana Republics.

Me wonders how this is possible with all the MC-12 backlogged orders, and civilian King Air sales. Granted the Premier is not selling as expected.

Please shed more light on this !