Check Out the Super Tucano Counterinsurgency Fighter Plane In Action
- Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:36am by
Buck Sexton
- Print »
- Email »
In an era of stealth bombers and super fighters, the U.S. and its allies still have a need for rugged, no-nonsense turboprop fighter planes that harken back to the old days of the P-51 Mustang.
The Blaze brings you the A-29 Super Tucano.
In conflict zones around the world, the need for nimble, low-maintenance reconnaissance and light attack capability far outstrips the need for the most advanced 5th generation airframes. The U.S. needs an aerial platform it can give to and train allies on as part of partner building efforts in Afghanistan and other conflict nations.
To meet the demand for counterinsurgency airframes, the U.S. Air Force has awarded Embraer’s Super Tucano a major contract as a Light Air Support (LAS) aircraft, also known as a counterinsurgency (COIN) plane.
The price tag of $355 million for 20 planes is low by combat aviation standards, and the Super Tucano fills a number of aerial defense roles at a tiny fraction of the price of the cost for a modern jet fighter. The U.S. Airforce is buying 20 Super Ts from Embraer and its U.S. partner, Sierra Nevada Corporation.
The Super Tucano will be used to conduct advanced flight training, aerial reconnaissance and light air support combat operations around the world. It is currently in widespread use by Brazil and Colombia, though many more countries have purchased them.
The manufacturer of the Super Tucano, Embraer, described the ideas behind the plane’s design and its evolution over the years as:
“ideally suited to deal with current and future military fight training requirements and also deployable in scenarios that do not fit high-performance combat aircraft…This new multi-purpose military turboprop aircraft embodies features guaranteed to make it as legendary as its predecessor, the Tucano, a favorite of so many air forces throughout the world.”
Indeed, earlier versions of the Tucano have been in service for decades. The name Tucano is taken from a town in northeast Brazil, as the company’s founder was Brazilian.
To handle its various roles, Embraer has equipped the A-29 with systems designed not only to comply with basic requirements, but also to keep pace with the continual changes taking place in the aircraft’s potential operating theaters. The Super T’s armaments include:
“Two .50″ machine guns (200 rounds each) in the wings. Five hard points under the wing and fuselage allow up to 1,500 kg of weapons for most configurations…with additional underwing armament, such as two 20mm gun pods or .50″ machine guns, thereby significantly increasing its firepower for missions requiring air-to-ground saturation.”
In addition, all weapons stations can be loaded with the Mk 81 or Mk 82 bombs, SBAT-70/19 or LAU-68 rocket launchers. So the Super T has plenty of punch in a small package.
It’s also pretty tough. Crew survivability is ensured through armor protection and state-of-the-art provisions such as a Missile Approach Warning System and Radar Warning Receiver, alongside chaff and flare dispensers.
The Super Tucano’s airframe was designed for single- and twin-seater versions and can withstand +7G/-3.5G loads. The aircraft’s structure is corrosion-protected and the side-hinged canopy has a windshield capable of withstanding a bird strike at 270 kts.
The propulsion system is not especially fancy, but it’s effective. A 1,600 SHP Pratt & Whitney PT6A-68/3 turboprop engine that incorporates FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) and EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) powers the aircraft.
It does carry some nifty new electronics, and provides a state-of-the art Human-Machine Interface designed to minimize pilot workload and avionics system structured around a MIL-STD-1533 Databus Architecture.
You can watch a video of the Super Tucano during some live fire exercises below, courtesy of Military.com:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 670 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 387 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 365 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 257 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 266 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 117 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 257 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (273)
abseas
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:51pmSomeone got a mighty fine “kickback” on this deal . . What a load of poo . . l.
Report Post »jnobfan
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:03pmJust another car on the “money Train”
Report Post »Stay the hell out of places like Afgan and Iraq and Viet Nam and Korea and Somalia and all of Africa and we don’t need this crap.
Vote for Ron Paul or keep paying for the train.
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:15pmGuess we are seeing the new “Obama AirForce” he wants to make reality.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:57pmThe brand new Biofuel Transport System will be introduced for the low price of $100 Million, it is an all terrain vehicle that doesn’t use gas, can transport 2 men or 400lbs of equipment and has a life cycle of 20 years. It’s called a horse. What’s next, bring back the steam engine? For all they did with this aircraft, why not just bring back the A-1 Skyraider? Better armed and a proven plane.
Report Post »pavepaws
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:06pmRefurbish the A-10′s.
Report Post »HellPhish89
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:09pmuhh, the Tucano is an amazing aircraft and is exactly what is needed to fill the gap in CAS in a-stan. long loiter time, lots of ordnance, great targeting and recon equipment..
Report Post »HellPhish89
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:11pmwe are refurbing A-10s, the problem is, jet engines are thirsty and the A10′s original role is tank busting. the Tucano is a supplemental aircraft NOT a replacement
Report Post »noahkat
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:15pmAt least there are no solar panels on the wings…
Report Post »scheduler
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:37pmThat thing is a beast.
http://politicalbowl.com – Political Videos
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:03pmThe Goodyear Blimp has a better loiter time, can carry as much payload, and is way cheaper. Come on, close air Blimps. And you can advertise on them.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:23pmThese can pack a real punch but would no doubt be used to raze and terrorize civilian populations to keep them under the control of the host country who buys these toys which will be no match for even 1 American Drone equally equiped or for that matter 1 F16 Falcon.
Report Post »bolack
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:44pmThe airplane will be built in Jacksonville by a U.S. Corporation, using U.S. workers (non-union!). It won a flyoff against the AT-6 Texan II proposal from Hawker Beechcraft (a licensed-built Pilatus {from Switzerland} no less). Having worked at the manufacturing facility in Wichita where the T-6 Texan II is built, I applaud the move. It would cost much, much more to produce by a union-heavy manufacturer.
Also, what about the F-22 and F-35? How much have we sunk into those flying junk heaps? Other than air shows, when was the last time you saw a F-22 reported deployed to engage in the mission for which it was designed? I think this aircraft follows in the design mantra of the A-10 (a FANTASTIC CAS platform), going simpler and more rugged instead of gold-plating with needless systems. The KISS principal being used again… how refreshing.
So again, it beat out another foreign design and will be manufactured in the U.S. with U.S. labor. And this is bad how?
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:57pm1.8 million per plane. We have OV-10′s that did the same thing. Not saying it’s not a good plane, but for what they are trying to build it up to, not so good. This is like trying to bring back the Pinto, but it’s a more modern version, with a computer and cool gadgets. The military keeps saying why they want to get rid of the A-10′s, slow, can be hit by ground fire. That is why we need to get rid of them, Helicopters, they can be brought down by ground fire, get rid of them. Hey, we got these cheap planes that will be made in the US, and they have 200 rounds of ammo in the wings!!! That is about 3 bursts of fire. Not very much, really.
It can carry bombs. So can predator drones, we already got them, and they are cheaper.
At a time that we are cutting soldiers and weapon systems because of budget cuts, does this make any sense?
Report Post »go2mikerenzi
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:05pm@JNOBFAN… you RonBots see RonPaulBillBob’s image on your stained sheets
Report Post »theaveng
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:30pmMustang was a turboprop?
I thought it was a piston-fired engine.
Report Post »little big man
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:36pmjnobfan
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:03pm
Ron Paul = nut case. he will only win iowa where any nut bag can vote. when the real voting gets started Paul will go down in flaims.
Report Post »Captain Crunch
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:40pmI’m sooo sick of you PaulBot jerks and your stupid mindnumb comments. You’re like trained monkeys always spewing the same repetitive responses. Ron Paul is god…all hail the _sshole god!
Report Post »Cynic-clinic
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:52pmLooks like a warmed over Navion with a few leftover T-34 parts thrown in. Hope it handles better than a Navion and it should with that big PT turboprop.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 5:00pmThese are some of the most inane comments I have seen on the Blaze. It is obvious most of you know nothing about aircraft or aircraft development/manufacturing. This is a low cost alternative for a specific use and is a very good fit for what it is intended to do. All this crap about OV-10′s and P-51′s just shows and amazing amount of ignorance. Both are old, obsolete and would require enormous amounts of maintenance and spare parts, not to mention the cost of retrofitting and updating.
Report Post »ICEDRAGONNITE
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 5:12pmEnough already. As soon as we leave the Afgans will be at each other again. Why waste the money?
Report Post »Jinglebob
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 6:33pmIn an age where most of our future enemies will be either Third World countries or Low Intensity conflicts, both with few “modern Jet fighters,” it makes perfect sence to have a balance Air Force. With the price of new jets costing, what $5 million plus, we could get more bank for the buck with a modern turbo prop fighter. I did say balence here, we will need an jet air force as well but perhaps less. At the current rate of cost we will just be able to buy a hand full of F-25′s and be afraid to use them because thay cost so much (see drones and cruse missles that we are using instead of jets). If we would stop selling these high performance jet fighters to foreign governments we wouldn’t have to meet them in the skies in the future. People first laughted at the A-10 Warthog ground support fighter, much less in cost and a top performer. The ground pounders love them but they are not sexy enough for the brass. With the costs of conflicts we will some day be back to cap and ball small arms, with less death. We see that now with the high cost of civilian ammo and firearms as well.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 6:42pmGuess they could not get an American company to build some retro WWII planes? What about rehashing the P-47 thunderbolt, it did good up until vietnam.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 6:49pm@Jim in Houston
So enlighten us on how a cheapo light weight plane, that carry’s two people into combat is sooo much better that what we fly? They are talking about a close air support plane. Just like when the IED‘s were blowing the crap out of HUMVEE’s and everyone was up in arms about why we didn’t spend the extra money for the armor. As soon as these planes are shot down left and right, because they are cheap alternatives to flying multi-million dollars jets, the same questions will be, why are they so slow and lightly armored? Then we spend millions to “Harden” them, and they go from 1.8 million to 20 or 30 million each. And we will still have a small, armored, slow prop plane that can be shot down. Why isn’t a drone better?
And I do work in aquistions for the military, this project won’t end up cheap, and I gaurantee, once they take this into combat, they will find “Problems” that need fixed, but of course, that won’t be in the scope of the project. Bring your checkbook. Sounds like Florida just got a project to help with votes.
Report Post »LouC57
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 6:56pmjnobfan, I prefer to PAY for that train you’re talking about, rather than lose superpower status which is what Paul would like.
Report Post »Reavin
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:15pmDarmok,
Report Post »It’s not 1.8 million per plane, it’s almost 18 million per plane…. I guess it could be worse. We could be spending that on souped up Ultralights.
Leavon
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:22pmIt will not be “Built” in the United States…. it will be “ASSEMBLED” in the United States from major subassemblies. Virtually none of this aircraft will actually have been designed, parts manufactured or have been built from the ground up. More defense money going over seas never to be seen again. I’m not saying the competitor was much better along these lines but at least more of it would have originated here in the U.S. We need to spend our tax dollars here in the U.S. not providing foreign gov‘t welfare to countries that will evemtually stab us in the back if they haven’t done so already.
Report Post »BONETRAUMA
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:23pm335 million….for what??????? Build mustangs with 6 each 50 cals and kick some sand bro”s ass!!!!!
Report Post »Cake
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:40pmHonestly its a smart aircraft to get. You get the mission done minus the fuel cost and likely the maintenance time of an A-10. You are buying a proven, off the shelf, multipurpose piece of equipment rather than spending billions designing the one. For its purpose its really a good pick.
And to all those comparing it to the P-51, think of this. How many P-51s are around anymore? How much would it cost to modernize the P-51 up to modern avionics standards? How much would it cost to start a factory from scratch and tool the factory to build them?
Some people are comparing top speeds etc; that’s half the point of using the Super Tuscano. Its not a high speed fighter. Its for close air support, something that I bet any grunt would agree, they would rather be done by an aircraft that is up close, low and slow. Fast enough not to get taken down easily by ground fire but slow enough to put the ordnance on target without fratricide.
Report Post »chris3
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:15pmas long as there is a good counter defense system I would rather be in one of these,sometimes you don’t need a sledge hammer to smack a fly
Report Post »Old_Bones
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:35pmRon Paul is a space alien.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:36pm@Reavin
Report Post »Good catch, calculator dropped a zero. 18 million makes it even worse. The OV-10 was scrapped because it was costing too much money, and was cheaper than that. But suddenly, this makes sense to the Air Force? I still say drones can do this better and cheaper, and we already have them. As I said, I work in aquisitions for the DoD, and there are a lot of things that are done that leave you scratching your head. The problem is the long-term sustainment. Yes, older systems cost money, but when you look at this project, an existing system (OV-10) could have been upgraded with the same systems, you have people already trained on the maintenace. You have the tools, infrastructure, a proven system, Technical Orders, spare parts, etc. A new system you have to develope all of those, train the crew, maintenance, instructors, basically replace all of those systems that you just got rid of with the older systems 10 years ago, we didn’t need anymore. So that 20 million price tag will double very easily, just like every system I have seen, that starting price tag is to sell it, once we bought it, we are stuck.
Uranium Wedge
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 10:38pmFear this.
Report Post »Mr Galt
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:03pmAnyone that thinks this is a replacement for an F-22 or F-35 is clueless. The mission of this aircraft is totally different. The Tucano will never be an air superiority fighter.
Doubt me? Have a conversation with an old P-51 pilot that tried to duke it out with the ME-262.
Report Post »stairgauge
Posted on January 4, 2012 at 1:51amFine I vote for the F4U built in America……America? who builds anything in America? I still vote for the Corsair
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on January 4, 2012 at 2:18amLooks like someone painted sharks teeth on a Piper Cub. A P-51D will out run, out turn, out climb, out manuver, out shoot and out everyting this little pea-shooter has to offer. If you don’t believe me ask any P-51 pilot except for Kermit Weeks. He’s the FOF ass wipe off of I-4. He really thinks that the P-51 B is faster than P-51D because he ‘s into the Tuskegee Airmen struff. Sorry Kermit, the P-51 D has more horse power and the cowling of the P-51 B is negligent. Which means it’s slower.
Report Post »heavenboundteapartier
Posted on January 7, 2012 at 9:14ammade in brazil,,,,
Report Post »65Plus
Posted on January 8, 2012 at 4:03pmGeorge Soros, to be exact. Plus, the Pres. of Brazil is a Marxist/Communist. A Win-Win, for someone.
Report Post »abseas
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:47pmWhat a joke!!! Give me a break. The U.S. couldn’t come up with something better and cheaper? What a total load this is!
Report Post »Hickory
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:56pmBy the time the clowns in Washington got through with a program to produce something like this, it would be twice as heavy, half as fast, require 2 engines and be built with union labor. Total cost would be ten times as much. Our manufacturing companies can design anything but…… our government officials have to hang buckets of money on it so they can steal for themselvs and their owners. You know I’m right……………………..
Report Post »VTDave
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:31pm@HICKORY You’ve got that right!!!!
Report Post »HellPhish89
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:12pmuhh… it is quite cheap actually.
Report Post »Mathew Manhorne
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:44pmI must say there is some poor research done on the news stories on this site. Number 1) these 20 are only being bought to be used as trained aircraft for the Iraqi Air force and other air forces that the US trains that intend to use this type of platform. 2) there were those in the Air Force and the Navy that had pushed and wanted a decent number of these planes for the role described which would make sense since it makes no sense that we are using aircraft that cost 20+ million dollars to build and cost several thousand dollars an hour to fly being used to take out a couple of guys in a tree line with an AK. But the brass shot it down to sink the money into the POS F-35 which in the end will turn out to be a big ,big failure….
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:16pmRevive the stillborn 2 seat A-10, give it modern avionics, and you have the perfect bird for the job. Or at least revive the OV-10, and give the flight crew a second engine.
Report Post »blackstone22
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:19pmLike you know what you are talking about….not.
Report Post »get a life
bjornskis
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:43pmare there any old L39′s we can buy cheap from the Czech republic
Report Post »Latter-Day-Soldier
Posted on January 5, 2012 at 3:14pmOr better yet, old Vietnam and cold war era ground attack aircraft from Russia, They would probably sell em in case lots! Or better yet again, a bunch of Antonov An-2 colt biplanes!
Report Post »jdarbysh
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:40pmWorks for me.. Built in Jacksonville. Pratt & Whitney (US) engine. Much cheaper to order and do a build program of an existing airframe than R&D and tool for something new. Also our government and DOD does not have the best record of independent developed airframes and systems – Google Northrop F20.
Report Post »Taldren
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:38pmAnd the reason they just didn’t refit the p-51 (which was used all the way up to Vietnam) was … ???
Report Post »FlamingFartSyndrome
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:13pmIf you ask those kind of questions you dont believe in our national security! Or at least thats how neo cons throw out rationality
Report Post »HellPhish89
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:14pmPt-48 ;)
Report Post »HellPhish89
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:20pmcorrection… PA-48
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:55pmThat was a really stupid comment. Perhaps you would like a Wright Flyer with squirt gun on the wing.
Report Post »Taldren
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 6:56pm@Jim in Houston, I am an aerospace engineer and WWII aircraft enthusiast. The P-51H: 2000lb payload, Max Speed 490 mph, Range 1200mi, Ceiling 42000ft, and an endurance of 8hr 42m … all with an engine designed in WWII. The A-29: 3400lb, Max Speed 367 mph, Range 1300mi, Ceiling 35000ft, and an endurance of 8hr 40m. With its original engine the P-51 has a higher top speed, almost the same range, and a higher ceiling.
Report Post »The airframe design of the P-51 is not archaic; if they updated the engine, cockpit, and materials they could have an all American aircraft that would dominate the A-29 in every category.
Even if they didn’t update it … it’s still highly competitive.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:17pm@Taldren
Exactly. Just as my point with the A-1 Skyraider.
When they get this thing, it will be basically, a trainer with 400 rounds of .50 cal, and a great target for an AK-47.
Report Post »stairgauge
Posted on January 4, 2012 at 2:02amBecause 1 well placed pistol shot can bring it down. I still vote for an F4U corsair. You can shoot out a couple of the wasps piston and still limp home. [in general ]
Report Post »CaptainEmeritus
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:35pmThe “Super Tacano” made its MAIDEN FLIGHT in June of 1999.
Report Post »Sorta like upgrading your Ford Pinto with GPS. It’s still a Pinto.
V-MAN MACE
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:42pmLOL!
We need a swarm of 10000 little RC ionocrafts with mirrors attached that can get into formation and reflect the sun’s rays to a specific point like a satellite dish focuses, creating a superweapon that gets hot as the sun’s surface (not the corona-which is millions of degrees).
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 8:42pmBut the core of the earth is millions of degrees…..“Al Gore”
Report Post »Godssailor
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:32pmThis may be a really cool plane, but I personally think that comparing it to the P-51 is crazy. This plane looks anorexic compared to the P-51.
Report Post »ravinginfidel
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:30pmI’d bet Burt Rutan could design a little composite aircraft that would outperform be cheaper safer, and more flexible than the Tucano, on the other hand it is kind of sexy and anything that helps our troops and confounds the enemy I’m for.
Report Post »warhorse_03826
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:01pmhe did..it was called the ARES
Report Post »KeithofBoston
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:29pmWhoa, hold on just a minute, take a read of this first
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/22/air-force-bounces-us-manufacturer-for-brazilian-competitor/
Report Post »USAMEDIC3008
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:43pmSounds like the oil deal
Report Post »You drill it we buy it
SPREAD THE WEALTH
garylee123
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:26pmI’ll take an A10 Warthog any day
Report Post »Workforit
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:52pmI couldn’t remember the name of the plane… And that’s it… The A-10 Warthog… That is the plane they built around a volkswagen sized gun right??? Now that is
This little pea shooter is a waste of our money… Cessna could have done a better job for a ton less money.
Report Post »Workforit
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:55pm“Now that is a plane” …. sorry
Report Post »TEXIFICATION
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:24pmTypical choice FORCED on the U.S. Military by Obama administration. Certianly a suitable aircraft for Barbatos, Grenada or Costa Rica but not for the greatest military in the history of the world. And the bonus insult is that it is made in BRAZIL by Embarer and paid for by money borrowed from China. Sounds like Obama’s “Job Czar” from GE set up this deal. Get this fool out of the Whitehouse…..
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:10pmEmbraer? Really?
Report Post »There was no aircraft manufacturer in the U.S.?
(Oh, I forgot, “and it’s US partner Sierra Nevada”)
Based on that, I’d look closely into who has ties to Sierra Nevada corp.!
To me, this says it is going to provide JOBS OUTSIDE the US, and PROFIT to a political insider.
(But, maybe I’m just being cynical?)
boca_chica
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:23pmOur Meyers 200b was stessed for + – 11 g’s and IT was built in Michigan in 1960. I find it hard to belive Beechcraft t-34c could not be updated. I used to watch them run them around the SAR Hanger at work.
Report Post »Noahide Ron
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:20pmWell, at least now I know what’ll be strafing my house when “it” hits the fan later this year….}}}}wink{{{{
Report Post »texasfireguy
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:18pmWhy not dust the plans off the old A-1 Skyraider. American made, owned and probably more than enough to do the job.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:05pmI am with you. The A1E would fit this role well.
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:52pmBingo.
For any of us Nam vets we know this bird well.
Granted the A-1 Skyraiders are worn out and we left most of them in Nam in 1973.
We need another just like it. This aircraft may fit the needs?
Do freak out guys. I said “may”
Report Post »navydoc2008
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:23pm@Texas – Because, it would employ unionized US workers which would probably cost 3 times more.
The reality is that we have plenty of these type of aircraft mothballed at Davis Monthan in AZ. We should un-mothball and refurbish them, but who am I to say.
Report Post »Alvin691
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:15pmWhy are we buying planes from a Brazillian company?
Report Post »rt elms
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:29pmWhen Obama told Brazil “we want to be their customer,” I knew he meant more than oil, but I didn’t see this coming. I’ve logged many hours strapped in the back of Embraer aircraft. I walked away from every landing a little more rattled and slightly more deaf.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:29pmIt is a well known fact that it is proper to buy from others what it would cost more to produce yourself. Also, we already buy our current aircraft from nations like Taiwan. I spent 5 year in the USMC as a aviation electronics repair technician and 90% of our systems upgrade components and repair parts are from Asia. I‘m willing to bet that if boeing or northrup gruman were to build this plane it would cost 2x as much and wouldn’t come with avionics suites as standard either.
Report Post »jdarbysh
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:35pmBecause it costs too much to prototype and tool up or retool for a limited number of aircraft and the DOD and government have not been the best about independent aircraft development – google Northrop‘s F20 from the 80’s.
Report Post »Oh and the aircraft is being built in the US in Jacksonville.
jasmer
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:35pmBecause Leftist ambulance chasers destroyed the U.S. small aircraft industry, duh. If they can do the same to U.S. arms manufacturing they’ll be dancing in the streets.
Of course, there‘s nothing the Progressives have wrecked already that can’t be outdone by “THE WON” -
http://ncrenegade.com/financial/obama-admin-bans-us-aircraft-maker-favors-non-us-firm-with-ties-to-iran-on-light-aircraft-project/
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:38pmOnly because North-worth and Boeing are corrupt, and 75% of the costs gets kicked back to elections campaigns, union thugs, and out right bribes of government workers/officials.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:05pm@Rt Helms
I didn’t see this coming either…wait…this administration probably has more surprises from below.Yikes!
Report Post »Yepyep6598
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:59pmWe gave Solyndra a half a billion dollars and nothing to show for it, atleast we are getting something tangible Im not saying it is right.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on January 4, 2012 at 12:01amBecause Soros is involved with the company that produces the “Super Tucan” of course! The Beechcraft/Hawker AT-6 attack aircraft (which was not allowed to compete for the contract) is faster, just as effective in the role, and already has a complete support/parts system in place! BUT IT’S MADE IN THE U.S.A. which makes it a non-player!
Report Post »As for those who wish to bring back the old days….The F-51 Mustang was more labor intensive with it’s Rolls Royce Merlin engine, had a top speed of 440 mph (not the claimed 490), uses an engine that hasn’t been produced in 50 years, and would have to be completely re-designed for modern use. Same with the Skyraider which used an engine produced by a company that no longer exists (Wright Aircraft) and the tools and dies for production would have to be completely rebuilt since they no longer exist either. Likewise, the A-10 is no longer in production and the tooling and dies no longer exist for it (or the 2 seater version) either since the parent company also doesn’t exist (Fairchild Aircraft).
stairgauge
Posted on January 4, 2012 at 2:07amBecause in general America has become a nation of fools in the era of stupidity.
Report Post »nando nyc
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:10pmsexxxy
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:01pmt seems perfect for the role.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:58amnice aircraft ive been in one, and they are sweet
similar in many ways to the p-38
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:19pmNot made in America?
Report Post »commonsenseguy
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:58amto help train allies on parts of the rebuilding efforts in afghanistan and other in conflict nations, well hello stupid,those countries will always have conflicts,we have tried and spent billions on trying to help most all of those countries,and look they still hate us,use us and want to kill us,and they still starve,rape,murder and suppress their own people so they can kept their power,how about we kept the money and help our own for once, quit trying to help those who don’t like us,we have millions here that really need help,not hand outs but help,wake up and help our own first,
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:52amSo, we are borrowing 358 million dollars from China , to purchase these….. Cool
Report Post »Survivor101
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:02pmIt is probably all we can afford on the new allowance China allows us to spend….
Report Post »Lotus503
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:51amLooks like a Platus PC-9 that’s been around for years…
http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/pc.html
Report Post »ZAP
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:51amAll you 3rd world countries that want to go out and kill people but can’t afford jets.This is the ticket to be like the big boys
Report Post »countryfirst
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:43pmBarry is working his tail off to get us there.
Report Post »LastingLiberty
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:48amI guess sometimes less is more.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 4:41pmWhen?
Report Post »MeteoricLimbo
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:44amBoots on the ground….
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:51amNice plane, but it’s a shame that if the military had a need for an aircraft like this, why couldn’t they have acquired it from a US company?
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:28pmTX I think the union labor would send the cost through the roof. Remember the BIG Dig?
Report Post »Mathew Manhorne
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:46pmA US plane was in the competition. The AT-6 Texan II but they went with the one not made here for some reason…
Report Post »RedDawn2012
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 7:02pmThis one will be made in the USA at a non-union plant. The rejected AT-6 Texan was to be made in the USA at a union plant at, presumably, a much higher cost. Plenty of USA jobs in this one. $17.7 million each seems like a lot, but it’s probably as cheap as you can do it these days. Beautiful plane!
Report Post »