I'm kind of fuzzy on this article. Are they saying that the USAF has a requirement for OA-X, or is this an "FMS only"-type program? Seems kinda like an A-1 Skyraider for the new era








News

U.S. Need For Armed AT-6B Eyed as COIN Aircraft Readied To Fly


AWIN First May 08 , 2009
Graham Warwick graham_warwick@aviationweek.com
Washington




Hawker Beechcraft expects to fly the AT-6B counterinsurgency (COIN) aircraft in late June, but is shifting focus to emerging U.S. irregular-warfare requirements because of delays to an Iraqi order for the armed turboprop trainer.

Congress was notified in December of the proposed $520 million sale of 36 AT-6B Texan IIs to the Iraqi air force, but falling oil prices have hit Baghdad’s defense budget and an order has been delayed.

Meanwhile, U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command has launched a study of the requirements for a possible light-attack aircraft dubbed OA-X, with a sensor- and weapon-equipped version of the service’s T-6A primary trainer a likely candidate.

In January, the U.S. Navy’s irregular-warfare office completed an assessment of a leased Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano armed trainer under a classified effort called Imminent Fury, but the program is on hold pending a decision on funding.

The AT-6B is based on the glass-cockpit T-6B trainer being delivered to the Navy and the weapon-carrying wing developed for armed T-6As produced for Greece. Additionally, the aircraft can carry an electro-optical/infrared sensor under the fuselage.

The demonstrator is projected to fly at Hawker Beechcraft’s Wichita, Kan., plant on June 26. The aircraft will conduct congressionally funded demonstrations for the Air National Guard from late this year into the first half of 2010.

On the Iraqi order, the company says it has submitted its information to the U.S. government, which is in discussions with Baghdad. “Our current focus is on making sure we are ready to meet emerging irregular-warfare opportunities such as OA-X,” it says.

Dumb.

They should be developing/fielding UCAVs that have better sensors and loiter time than any old trainer could hope to have.

Bah, A-10s for life.

Are they sticking any armour into this thing?
How vulnerable is the turbo-prop engine to ground fire?

Here's one proponent's thoughts on the subject:

http://www.excaliburrd.com/docs/AT-6Projec...FInvestment.pdf

I do think that a MANPADS environment might drastically affect employment of this aircraft, but it may prove useful in more benign circumstances. Heck, there was even a rumor circulating that Boeing was considering reopening the OV-10 Bronco production line.

The US is fast running out of modern, economically viable aircraft with modern systems which to arm the ANG. There must be a lot pressure from the individual states to keep their units in a flying (and preferably combat*) role. This looks like a way round that, although it does appear a retrograde step in some respects.

*With the possible exception of States that would need ANG C-130s to fight forest fires etc.

Really, it's just a way for Hawker to get the development costs for the TA-6B paid by the US govt. The primary customer is not the ANG, it's just a congressional funding pipeline that isn't saturated right now. The ANG doesn't have a lot of contracts people who handle contracts of this size and complexity, so this has been a bit of a struggle for them to date, and the way this has been handled from the Hawker end looks promising up front, but has a high probability of collapsing later due to using the less than optimal contract vehicles in acquiring government funding for development. Don't be too surprised if this one falls on it's face later.

The trainer turned attack aircraft aspect is an argument for selling the aircraft to foreign militaries that have low technical overhead requirements, unlike UAVs. Also a trainer tends to have more forgiving flight characteristics in addition to a decent payload if engined correctly. I do not have detailed knowledge of the technical differences of the proposed attack aircraft from the trainer however.