wannabecrewman: actually, I think you are spot on and BEagle and the d.dude are out of touch.
Anyone with experience of HERRICK CAS who examined your proposal properly would struggle to dismiss it. But I doubt anyone bothered to research the capability offered by these 2 aircraft. The Texan is the better option, but the Supertucano is still credible.
If you understand how we are doing CAS in Afghanistan, the light CAS aircraft makes sense. Last analysis I saw (you're not the first to ask this) showed some options can carry a truly impressive payload even compared to the GR4 (which carries less than you'd think for its size - less than the single engined Harrier, for example, due to its new engine's hot and high performance). For your money, you get much more firepower over the scene - or the same amount for cheaper (more airframes but not double the number so you'd still have fewer aircrew due to binning the navs).
By the way - the Americans are taking this route in a big way. I think they're getting the Texan. They looked at Afghanistan and they concluded light CAS aircraft was the future. We will follow, just a question of when.
So, to really save money: bin the Tucano at Linton, bin the Hawk, get the Texan and use it for BFJT and AFJT, fly them from the same base (close Linton), economies of scale with engineering, ground school, simulators. And have some operational for CAS. I would never advocate getting rid of another front line type as a result, the Harriers and Typhoons offer much more than CAS (despite the eternally ignorant Vev's categorising of the Typhoon as an Air Defence aircraft alone). But it might make the Tornado a bit more redundant...
