Centennial of Naval Aviation T-6, done up in a mid/late 1940′s paint scheme. They got these into the Fleet after I’d gotten into testing Other Flying Machines.
I wasn’t involved in the JPATS selection, but know one of the engineers that did the testing. The Great Worry was that the Air Force would insist on a jet because it had a pointy nose and fire belching out the back…when every analysis clearly indicated that a turboprop was the right choice. The other question being which turboprop – the modified Pilatus PC-9 that won, or the Super Tucano. An interesting choice. I know the Super Tucanos have racked up a good reputation as a light attack/COIN platform, but the PC-9 might be a more economical trainer.
The PC-9 was the better choice because of economy. I am not privy to the thoughts of the AF on selection of a primary trainer, but they used both the T-34 and T-28 in the 50s, so they weren’t against the fan in front, although they did field the Tweety Bird in the early 60s which was a jet. My understanding was they were not against either the PC-9 or Tucano.
I had the distinct impression at the time that the Air Force wanted a jet…probably the Siai Marchetti S211. Pretty airplane, I saw one up close & personal once.
One of these: http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/Current%20Inventory/N852TC%20Siai%20Marchetti%20S-211.htm
I heard the same, but not from any official sources. I remember the discussions about a primary trainer back in the 90s. I’m not sure why they didn’t just continue the T-34C, but as I recall it didn’t even rise on the AF side. Didn’t want anything that had Navy on it at one time. The AF used to use both the T-34 and the T-28 (a retired AF Colonel friend went through pilot training after he was commissioned in ’57 with both). AF decided they needed a torch, so they bought the T-37 Tweet for primary training, and it worked, but was expensive to operate and didn’t really give them a better pilot for it. I think that’s why the 211 didn’t go far.
There may have been some economics involved in the selection of the PC-9, but the Tucano is making quite a comeback lately as a candidate for Close Air Support platform. There are those who see converting the PC-9, but Tucano already has years and equippage to field it now.
I’m of the mindset that Army should field the beast, however, and make it organic to their Brigade Aviation assets. Give it to the Air Force and they’ll squabble over how to trim it out of the budget in a couple of years, just as they’re doing with 5 A-10 squadrons. Close Air Support just doesn’t seem to blow up the Zoomie’s skirt, leaving an already over-tasked Navy and Marine Corps to lend a hand. Not that they’re complaining, mind you.
That brings me to the third option…OV-10X by Boeing (Is there a company Boeing hasn’t eaten yet? The world wonders!) Talk about the perfect multi-service option, having already been there/done that decades ago. Even BLM and DEA are hot to use the Bronco, what with a multitude of equipment options and forever loiter time.
The AT-6 is in service with Morocco, I believe. It is the first country to do so.
I think I read where Mexico is going to buy some of them. The AT-6 is a very good training platform where the Super Tucano is built as a CAS platform. The Standard Tucano is a trainer as well. Both are good solid and dependable air craft.
Stat wise, I would lean to the Super Tucano in the CAS role as it is a proven entity in these kind of operations. The Air Force may not have a problem with a prop driven trainer but the Fighter Mafia is still dominant and close support is something these kids do not like. I work at a T and E operation for the F-16 and most of it is for air to ground weapons. But an F-16 is still a fast mover.
The Air Farce problem can be solved by recreating the Army Air Corps. The AF can give them their song back too.
Mongo, did you see my comment over at your place?
I can shed some light. I was involved both in the drafting of the performance section of the RFP and in the source selection Op-Eval (I had moved into flight test in the meantime). The Air Force bent over backwards to make the RFP as fair as possible and NOT rule out a turboprop. We recognized that a turboprop would have a cost advantage and tried to keep the performance requirements limited to just that: THE REQUIREMENTS. I would say that we did a pretty good job since we had 2 qualified turboprop competitors and a number of jets. I can’t speak to what the “Air Force” “wanted” since the Air Force was not and is not a single entity, but from my corner of the world, the powers-that-be in the program office (who were responsible for defining the requirements) did it right. FWIW, my take on things was that the Siai Marchetti was a sweet little bird and was probably one of the top 4 (but I have no information or insight on cost, reliability, etc, this is just my opinion).