Textron Air Land Scorpion

[Ken Estes]

I know, next thing, the RPA pilots will want expensive clubs so they can drag like the Top Guns and play topless volleyball....

[seahawk]

And the situational awareness of the manned plane is still better. If the sensor pod looks to the left, there can be a platoon of T-72 coming down a dusty high way it won´t be seen. The manned crew might pick up the dust cloud from peripheral vision.

[shep854]

And the situational awareness of the manned plane is still better. If the sensor pod looks to the left, there can be a platoon of T-72 coming down a dusty high way it won´t be seen. The manned crew might pick up the dust cloud from peripheral vision.

That, plus the off chance that some Gates/Jobs level genius sees a way to initiate broad-band/broad-based jamming of data links.

[Chris Werb]

RPA crews only get to play PGA Tour on the PS3 rather than having actual golf courses, so there's a substantial saving right there!

[Arminius]

http://s571.photobucket.com/user/5757_photos/media/a-37-dragonfly-2_zpse254f9e6.jpg.html

 

Looks like the Child of a P 51 Mustang and a Hawker Hunter Trainer Version ...

 

 

Hermann

[Kenneth P. Katz]

That's a temporary limitation of contemporary technology, not a fundamental limitation. Wait until something like Gorgon Stare becomes operational.

 

And the situational awareness of the manned plane is still better. If the sensor pod looks to the left, there can be a platoon of T-72 coming down a dusty high way it won´t be seen. The manned crew might pick up the dust cloud from peripheral vision.

[Mr King]

[shep854]

A discussion of missions and goals on StrategyPage:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20140729.aspx

"July 29, 2014: One of the more unusual, and potentially useful combat aircraft currently under development is the 9.6 ton Scorpion. This design was conceived by some private investors who noted that with the arrival of smart bombs along with lighter and more powerful sensors had made it possible for a combat aircraft to avoid most ground fire while delivering precise ground attacks with smart bombs and missiles. Over the last decade this has led the U.S. Air Force to develop a large (4.6 ton) UAV (Reaper) that often replaces fighters (F-16s and F-15s) and ground attack (A-10s) aircraft and does the job more cheaply."

 

As I understand this, the plane is not intended to go down into the weeds, but function as a relatively inexpensive PGM platform.

[Argus]

Why bother with this when you can get UCAV's with far longer loiter and more useful weapons load outs for less money? And no expensive pilots...

S/F....Ken M

 

I turn that on its head Ken.

 

As UCAV's fill more and more of the combat spectrum, aircraft like this can have a role - as the cheapest most economic 'seat for meat' to cover those few situations that do call for a man on the spot. Once manned aircraft are relegated to second line roles, using second line aircraft follows.

 

shane

[Josh]

Pointless to have a 2nd tier a/c unless you are a 2nd tier air power and that *is* your manned aircraft. There is nothing that this plane can do that can't be done better by practically anything else, unless you just can't afford anything else. Then I guess it would be mildly more capable than a jet trainer for combat. Other than that, its just a new strain on the logistical system.

[Argus]

If that was directed at me Josh, perhaps I didn't express myself very well.

 

I'm just saying that once unmanned aircraft take over the first line roles (inc Air Superiority), which seems to be more or less inevitable. There will still be times when a man in the cockpit is desired and at that point these el cheapo semi-fighters start to make some sense for first rate airforces. Why pay the added cost of putting that pilot in an F-35 or 22 or whatever, when he's only being asked to intercept civilian aircraft or playing high altitude FAC in a low threat environment? The question is already being asked now from various different directions, and in different forms since the 60's. I'm not suggesting this bird or Rutan's pocket rocket are an answer, but I suspect they are going to be part of whatever answer does emerge.

 

shane

[seahawk]

It will a long time until the situational awareness of a UAV matches a plane with a human on board. Especially not for low-intensity conflicts. That plane is a nice step up from the armed turboprop trainers. A good thing for Bush wars.

[Burncycle360]

It's bigger than I thought it would be. Kinda reminds me of the BD-10.

 

As a platform for delivering smart ordnance in a low intensity environment it could work... Hell, hang some laser guided 120mm Mortar rounds on there for a pseudo LGB, or an IIR Hellfire that can self designate like Maverick. Stingers for those pesky OPFOR helicopters. Remember LOCAAS?

 

The problem is, if you can afford the neat guided toys, you can probably afford UAVs or a better manned (and more survivable) platform. If you can't afford the neat toys, this little guy isn't going to be able to make up for it by hauling around more dumb ordnance.

 

And 9.6 tons? I hope that's not an empty weight figure, this thing doesn't look heavier than an F-5. Or better in any way.

 

It'd be nice for a dale brown-esque story... private aerospace company makes half scale century series fighters for the ultra wealthy, when an embargo forces the nation to make do and militarize them. With brave pilots squeezing into tiny BD-5 sized cockpits, they drop 155mm GPS guided artillery rounds as "mini JDAMs" onto enemy C4I for great justice. The baby radars in the nosecone of the miniature F-14, F-15 and F-4 dopplegangers removed from active seeker air to air missiles and fed into an open source arduino based computers to spot pesky hinds so they can take them out with their stingers. FLIR taken from luxury BMWs for road hazard avoidance allows them to operate in all weather

Edited August 1, 2014 by Burncycle360

[Tony Williams]

 

It'd be nice for a dale brown-esque story... private aerospace company makes half scale century series fighters for the ultra wealthy, when an embargo forces the nation to make do and militarize them. With brave pilots squeezing into tiny BD-5 sized cockpits, they drop 155mm GPS guided artillery rounds as "mini JDAMs" onto enemy C4I for great justice. The baby radars in the nosecone of the miniature F-14, F-15 and F-4 dopplegangers removed from active seeker air to air missiles and fed into an open source arduino based computers to spot pesky hinds so they can take them out with their stingers. FLIR taken from luxury BMWs for road hazard avoidance allows them to operate in all weather

 

Not a chance: far too sensible, much too cheap for the aerospace industry to make big profits, so no use to any senior people involved in procurement who might be hoping for a lucrative transfer to industry later...

[bojan]

Tucanos are getting a bit slow to catch faster narco-airlines planes, I think that is an idea. IIRC didn't someone in South America announced getting Yak-130 trainers for same role? Scorpion should have easier and cheaper maintenance so there is a chance of it actually "taking off". Slim but there.

[DougRichards]

It's bigger than I thought it would be. Kinda reminds me of the BD-10.

 

As a platform for delivering smart ordnance in a low intensity environment it could work... Hell, hang some laser guided 120mm Mortar rounds on there for a pseudo LGB, or an IIR Hellfire that can self designate like Maverick. Stingers for those pesky OPFOR helicopters. Remember LOCAAS?

 

The problem is, if you can afford the neat guided toys, you can probably afford UAVs or a better manned (and more survivable) platform. If you can't afford the neat toys, this little guy isn't going to be able to make up for it by hauling around more dumb ordnance.

 

And 9.6 tons? I hope that's not an empty weight figure, this thing doesn't look heavier than an F-5. Or better in any way.

 

It'd be nice for a dale brown-esque story... private aerospace company makes half scale century series fighters for the ultra wealthy, when an embargo forces the nation to make do and militarize them. With brave pilots squeezing into tiny BD-5 sized cockpits, they drop 155mm GPS guided artillery rounds as "mini JDAMs" onto enemy C4I for great justice. The baby radars in the nosecone of the miniature F-14, F-15 and F-4 dopplegangers removed from active seeker air to air missiles and fed into an open source arduino based computers to spot pesky hinds so they can take them out with their stingers. FLIR taken from luxury BMWs for road hazard avoidance allows them to operate in all weather

 

Bring back the A-4!

[seahawk]

But those not so sexy light attack planes have shown are strange tendency to shine when real conflicts broke out. Think of A-1 Skyraider in Nam, the A-37, A-4 or how the A-10 got a lease of live doing CAS or the Italian AMX fleet showing their worth in Afghanistan. Such planes can be deployed to forward airfleids and if some are damaged or destroyed by rocket or mortar fire you do not end up being short 1.000.000.000.$ for 10 destroyed planes. Yes, they might not be of much use for a China Rising Scenario, but they surely make sure that your first Tier fleet has not been worn down flying lazy circles in third world shit holes.

[Olof Larsson]

Pointless to have a 2nd tier a/c unless you are a 2nd tier air power and that *is* your manned aircraft. There is nothing that this plane can do that can't be done better by practically anything else, unless you just can't afford anything else. Then I guess it would be mildly more capable than a jet trainer for combat. Other than that, its just a new strain on the logistical system.

 

Well, how many modern manned combat aircrafts can stay airborne for 5 hours without using a tanker?

 

#1 - B-2

#2 - Textron AirLand Scorpion

 

Neighter the F-22, nor the F-35 will come close to that,

and if you use multiple 180 million USD F-35, that costs 20k USD per hour to fly,

that could be done with one 20 million USD aircraft that costs 3k USD per hour to fly,

then you waste huge amounts of money, that could be used elsewhere.

 

It's bigger than I thought it would be. Kinda reminds me of the BD-10.

 

As a platform for delivering smart ordnance in a low intensity environment it could work... Hell, hang some laser guided 120mm Mortar rounds on there for a pseudo LGB, or an IIR Hellfire that can self designate like Maverick. Stingers for those pesky OPFOR helicopters. Remember LOCAAS?

 

The problem is, if you can afford the neat guided toys, you can probably afford UAVs or a better manned (and more survivable) platform. If you can't afford the neat toys, this little guy isn't going to be able to make up for it by hauling around more dumb ordnance.

 

The problem is not affording the UAV:s.

 

The problem is affording the COMSAT's to use the UCAV:s over long distances,

that would make a long range UCAV with a man in the loop impossible for...

perhaps 95-98% of the countries on the planet, unless they expect

to be able to use COMSAT's from an allied country (i.e. USA).

[seahawk]

Operational costs of UAVs are not that lower. The ground crews need to deploy any way, so the pilot and sensor operator stay at home, but you need to have the bandwith to operate from home. Otherwise you also deploy the pilots and the ground station. Apart from that operating in controlled airspace is easy, as is deploying the plane. I would be happy if Germany would pick that instead of the armed MALE UAV. Takes away all legal problems, offers more situational awareness, will probably have fewer technical related crashes.

[Brian Kennedy]

Pilot cost is a factor too though...

[Tony Williams]

Pilot cost is a factor too though...

 

Which begs a question: what's the difference in cost between a pilot sitting in the plane and one on the ground controlling a UAV, as a percentage of the total acquisition and running cost of the aircraft?

[Tony Williams]

 

and if you use multiple 180 million USD F-35, that costs 20k USD per hour to fly,

that could be done with one 20 million USD aircraft that costs 3k USD per hour to fly,

then you waste huge amounts of money, that could be used elsewhere.

 

 

This is a reflection of the arguments currently running about warships.

 

The frigates and destroyers (of European navies, at least) spend virtually all of their time on duties which could be performed just as well by an OPV with a small fraction of the acquisition and running costs. But the RN is very reluctant to acquire such vessels (despite being desperately short of escorts to meet the demands on them), arguing that it would lead to a reduction in the number of high-end ships needed for hot wars. They claim that it is therefore better to use costly warships for simple tasks, simply to ensure that you have them when you need them.

 

So the same sort of arguments would doubtless go on over acquiring a cheap combat plane like the Scorpion. The USAF is already unhappy about the small number of F-22 bought, and worried about how many F-35 will actually be acquired. They would probably see the Scorpion as a threat to their future acquisition of top-end combat planes.

[Olof Larsson]

 

 

and if you use multiple 180 million USD F-35, that costs 20k USD per hour to fly,

that could be done with one 20 million USD aircraft that costs 3k USD per hour to fly,

then you waste huge amounts of money, that could be used elsewhere.

 

 

This is a reflection of the arguments currently running about warships.

 

The frigates and destroyers (of European navies, at least) spend virtually all of their time on duties which could be performed just as well by an OPV with a small fraction of the acquisition and running costs. But the RN is very reluctant to acquire such vessels (despite being desperately short of escorts to meet the demands on them), arguing that it would lead to a reduction in the number of high-end ships needed for hot wars. They claim that it is therefore better to use costly warships for simple tasks, simply to ensure that you have them when you need them.

 

So the same sort of arguments would doubtless go on over acquiring a cheap combat plane like the Scorpion. The USAF is already unhappy about the small number of F-22 bought, and worried about how many F-35 will actually be acquired. They would probably see the Scorpion as a threat to their future acquisition of top-end combat planes.

 

 

And yet the USAF spends money on even more specialised aircraft like the AC-130,

that (unlike something like the Scorpion) are quite useless in a proper war.

 

And many of the UAV:s would have very little utility in a proper war as well.

 

 

As for the Royal Navy, as it is and will be, with the Global Combat Ship

(in all probably about 4 destroyers and 8 frigates available at any time)

they should have enough escorts for a CVBG and a ATF,

but only if the fleet train is left undefended,

along with the remaining >99% of the worlds oceans.

 

To bad the Royal Navy doesn't have access to MPA any more,

but then MPA isn't very useful for colonial policing.

 

Not that I'm arguing that the US should get the Scorpion of something of that sort,

(though they could serve a use in COIN and the war on drugs)

but for many air forces, having such an aircraft would make sence.

[mnm]

 

 

and if you use multiple 180 million USD F-35, that costs 20k USD per hour to fly,

that could be done with one 20 million USD aircraft that costs 3k USD per hour to fly,

then you waste huge amounts of money, that could be used elsewhere.

 

 

This is a reflection of the arguments currently running about warships.

 

The frigates and destroyers (of European navies, at least) spend virtually all of their time on duties which could be performed just as well by an OPV with a small fraction of the acquisition and running costs. But the RN is very reluctant to acquire such vessels (despite being desperately short of escorts to meet the demands on them), arguing that it would lead to a reduction in the number of high-end ships needed for hot wars. They claim that it is therefore better to use costly warships for simple tasks, simply to ensure that you have them when you need them.

...

 

 

Tell me about it! One of the arguments "my" navy used to buy two very controversial subs was that they were an ideal platform for fisheries and smuggling patrol! Excellent, you detect a Stilletto running with a tobacco load and torpedo it.

[seahawk]

Yes, that is some strange logic. Imagine a major war in the Persian Gulf or Asia, would it be not even more important to keep the Somali Pirates down in that case, so that you have protected supply line.