Specialist troops on the ground in Afghanistan have requested the acquisition of a new aircraft for close air support during special forces operations with the aircraft in question being the Brazilian manufactured turbo prop Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano .

Source.

That the US Military should wish for a small turboprop aircraft designed for light attack and counter insurgency missions doesn't surprise me, since such aircraft were employed extensively in previous conflicts, I'm thinking of the OV-10 and the A1. What surprises me is that the USA doesn't already have such an aircraft since the price for such aircraft can't be all that excessive when compared to other aircaft currently under development.

General McChrystal, who recently retired under a dark cloud, had requested the deployment of four Super Tucano's under the code name Imminent Fury, over a year ago. These aircraft have apparently not yet been delivered because....Source.


Should the USA acquire the Super Tucano, should it develop its own turboprop light attack aircraft, or should it do both?

Is US national pride a factor in any reluctance to buy a Brazilian built military aircraft?

Should the USA acquire the Super Tucano, should it develop its own turboprop light attack aircraft, or should it do both?

Although I'm not an aviator, I have intimate and personal experience with the need for ground support aircraft, so my opinion is premised on such a need, not on the merits of the Tucano specifically. Dear god, yes the the US should acquire the airframe, not only for the current need, but a similar platform will be needed for future non-standard [read asymmetric] conflicts in the future.

Is US national pride a factor in any reluctance to buy a Brazilian built military aircraft?

I'm all about 'buy American' and there may be legislation in place that requires some finagling in order to purchase these airframes. But unless the Tucano is a sub-par platform, the nationality should not override the need.

Should the USA acquire the Super Tucano, should it develop its own turboprop light attack aircraft, or should it do both?

I thought the MC 12 carried weapons too (though I can't seem to find much online)? I'm about as sure as can be it does, because they're procuring fighter pilots to fly the things in Afghanistan, a couple of F22 people I know are over there flying them now. But if the Tucano can do a better job, I think whatever works best should be purchased and employed. I agree with DTOM 100 percent above (we posted at the same time)

Is US national pride a factor in any reluctance to buy a Brazilian built military aircraft?

Probably one factor. The largest being that Congress holds the purse-strings and they're much more inclined to support something that brings money to their districts over something efficient that makes sense. If it were a system that rewarded success and efficiency over politics, the F22s wouldn't be scheduled to leave Holloman and going to bases with a poorer record for efficiency.

I could be wrong also, but I don't think the Liberty is armed. It's an ISR platform designed to replace the Bronco's and Mohawks that have already been phased out as fixed wing ISR for some time now. Many whom I served with even agreed that bringing back the Sandy would make sense in Afghanistan. I hope this purchase goes through.

As far as I can make out, the MC12 is an entirely different class of aircraft, made for ISTAR missions rather than ground attack.

DTOM.

I'm curious as to whether the A1 could be just as efficient now as it was in the 1970's. It was thought to be an anachronism even then, but I suspect so is the Super Tucano today. I can't help thinking that a prejudice exists against prop driven aircraft because they are seen as old fashioned.

What I find really strange is when reading about the development history of the A10, a lot of the input gathered from experienced piots came from A1 pilots and one might think that the lessons learned from the A10's currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan would serve to underline the need for more ground attack and infantry support aircraft. I find it odd that after so many decades of combat, western soldiers on the ground still have to ask for these types of aircraft.

Curiously there was even a final variant of the venerable P51 Mustang; the Piper PA-48 Enforcer, which was designed in the early 1970's to do exactly what the Super Tucano does today. Its astounding that having lead the way in developing these (relatively cheap) aircraft, America now finds itself without any.

I'm quite certain that a certain level of prejudice exists among the pilot community. But for guys on the ground, especially we who find ourselves far forward of indirect fire and rotary wing support, the need for an airframe that can both fly low enough to identify and engage targets close to our position - and loiter on the battlefield long enough to be effective, is crucial. The reason for the reference to the Sandy is that outside of the A-10, the Air Force has generally not filled this need. Even the A-10 wasn't as slow as the Sandy, though maneuverability could be debated.

Hm. Guess I was wrong.

I texted my husband and asked "what that little plane that's out in Afghanistan you wanted to fly and it shoots" was....
and he said the AT-6. Whatever that is. I think this might be it? The article seems to indicate it hasn't been fielded completely yet.

Light turboprop attack aircraft. Sounds pretty neat.

Edited to add: Found another article. Since the company that makes them is a US company, there might be hope.