User Panel
Posted: 9/17/2013 9:15:50 AM EDT
It looks like an F-15, an A-10, and an A-6 all blended together. Interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/tech/innovation/new-scorpion-attack-jet/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 |
|
"In an impressively short time, the joint venture has designed and built
a capable and mission-ready aircraft with no up-front government funding." So the military won't pick it up, and Bushmaster will put out a really heavy overpriced version? |
|
Been several light attack aircraft over the decades; Folland Gnat/Ajeet, Italian/Brazilian AMX, to some extant the F-5 series. Given the enormous cost of new fighter aircraft this one might have a market in the second or thrid world air forces. I doubt the US has any interest in it, other than as a foreign aid item (like the Cessna Caravans we gave Iraq).
|
|
Quoted:
Only holds 3000 lbs of munitions? That's not much at all View Quote That's at least 600 rounds of 20mm, and 6-10 HellFire missiles and/or the new laser guided 5" Zuni or 2.75" rockets, with the option of two to four LGB's in the 250-500 pound class. In this day of guided weapons, you don't need nearly as much ordnance to kill each target. The key to success here is higher speeds to the turboprop ground attack aircraft and hopefully loiter times of at least two hours at a max combat radius of 300MN. |
|
Considering they were going for as cheap as possible, the fact that it'd a twin really surprises me. I guess engineers consider redundancy to be critical on aircraft that will be subjected to potential ground fire...small arms and such.
I do not see this thing surviving in SAM territory, and if a current generation first-world enemy fighter gets near it, goodbye. It won't be put into that environment, though. |
|
Quoted:
Considering they were going for as cheap as possible, the fact that it'd a twin really surprises me. I guess engineers consider redundancy to be critical on aircraft that will be subjected to potential ground fire...small arms and such. I do not see this thing surviving in SAM territory, and if a current generation first-world enemy fighter gets near it, goodbye. It won't be put into that environment, though. View Quote Yes, above in bold, exactly. We destroy all of their expensive shit with our expensive shit, and then when it's just IED's and mud huts and it's "boots on the ground", but currently, we keep on patrolling the skies and blowing up mud huts with our expensive shit. Preadators/Reapers, and whatever undeclared armed systems we also have operating can blow things up, and they have good loiter ability, but they're still no good at CAS. If after the initial first wave of shock-n-awe someone managed to hide a SAM site and finally decides to use it, we keep one expensive plane on standby to do a Wild-Weasel mission on it with an AGM88-HARM or whatever, a drone to drop a Hellfire on it, or maybe an Apache to fly nap-of-the-earth and bring in Hellfire or 30mm love. Then this cheaper plane goes back to blowing up the mud huts and mortars when the infantry runs into them. However I too don't see this getting picked up. The politics/procurement barriers are probably just too high. |
|
This also seems like something Iran would design - it tries to look high-tech with canted verticals, etc. but has traditional control surfaces and a straight wing.
It seems like a fun alternative to a Citation Mustang though. |
|
As far as when it's flown by pilots with stars and stripes on flight suits, I imagine this being used on drug interdiction missions and to illegally monitor and/or kill US citizens, nothing more.
|
|
Quoted: This also seems like something Iran would design - it tries to look high-tech with canted verticals, etc. but has traditional control surfaces and a straight wing. It seems like a fun alternative to a Citation Mustang though. View Quote The ENTIRE point of the straight wing & traditional controls surfaces is for slow speed maneuvers which is what is needed for CAS. You also want to be able to glide around at altitude and loiter over the field for long periods, you need efficient wings and deltas & swept wings are not remotely efficient at low speeds. The design is purposeful for the stated mission type. In the age of our High Tech AirForce, I doubt they'll be impressed though; and I'll surely miss the A-10 and it's GAU-8... |
|
Quoted:
The ENTIRE point of the straight wing & traditional controls surfaces is for slow speed maneuvers which is what is needed for CAS. You also want to be able to glide around at altitude and loiter over the field for long periods, you need efficient wings and deltas & swept wings are not remotely efficient at low speeds. The design is purposeful for the stated mission type. In the age of our High Tech AirForce, I doubt they'll be impressed though; and I'll surely miss the A-10 and it's GAU-8... View Quote I get that - high aspect ratio trumps low for the mission. Turboprops also trump turbofans for that mission. I predict this design goes nowhere. |
|
Read the first few sentences and scrolled up to make sure this wasn't a Duffleblog article
|
|
If the politics of cas would get put if the way, this could be used something like the ov10 in project imminent fury
|
|
Full of derp (emphasis added):
He indicated that worldwide fleets of A-37s, as well as the US Air Force’s fleets of A-10s and F-15Cs, could be platforms replaced by the Scorpion. Both those Air Force platforms are potentially on the cutting block due to sequestration. View Quote http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130916/DEFREG02/309160016/Textron-unveils-light-attack-Scorpion I imagine pilots of MiG-29, SU-27, and other platforms the world over shall lose sleep over this startling revelation. |
|
Yeah, I agree the MIG jockeys won't have a panic attack. However, the stated purpose is for low threat environments, patrolling, etc. I vote for it'll die on the vine since the brass hats didn't think of it.
|
|
Too bad they couldnt make the airplane adaptable so that you could adjust the angle of the wings on the ground for different missions. Like a ground only adjustable propeller it would be neat. You could use it for cas and then make it more efficient for long range ferry.
|
|
|
|
View Quote Maybe they'll sell them to civilians :) |
|
Quoted:
Sounds like about the same mission as this... Crop dusters go to war http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/September/0910_ga_warplaneswideaspectratio.jpg?w=640&h=374 View Quote I AM PARTICULARLY FOND OF THE EXTERNAL SUN VISOR. My Kubota tractor has some thing similar, but it cautions against going too fast and not using it as protection from falling objects. |
|
Quoted:
I AM PARTICULARLY FOND OF THE EXTERNAL SUN VISOR. My Kubota tractor has some thing similar, but it cautions against going too fast and not using it as protection from falling objects. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like about the same mission as this... Crop dusters go to war http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/September/0910_ga_warplaneswideaspectratio.jpg?w=640&h=374 I AM PARTICULARLY FOND OF THE EXTERNAL SUN VISOR. My Kubota tractor has some thing similar, but it cautions against going too fast and not using it as protection from falling objects. Yes, and notice the airfoil shape. It adds 1500 pounds to max payload. |
|
Quoted:
I AM PARTICULARLY FOND OF THE EXTERNAL SUN VISOR. My Kubota tractor has some thing similar, but it cautions against going too fast and not using it as protection from falling objects. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like about the same mission as this... Crop dusters go to war http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/September/0910_ga_warplaneswideaspectratio.jpg?w=640&h=374 I AM PARTICULARLY FOND OF THE EXTERNAL SUN VISOR. My Kubota tractor has some thing similar, but it cautions against going too fast and not using it as protection from falling objects. Actually thats a solar panel. The weapons panel/fire control is powered by 100% renewable energy. |
|
Quoted:
That's at least 600 rounds of 20mm, and 6-10 HellFire missiles and/or the new laser guided 5" Zuni or 2.75" rockets, with the option of two to four LGB's in the 250-500 pound class. In this day of guided weapons, you don't need nearly as much ordnance to kill each target. The key to success here is higher speeds to the turboprop ground attack aircraft and hopefully loiter times of at least two hours at a max combat radius of 300MN. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Only holds 3000 lbs of munitions? That's not much at all That's at least 600 rounds of 20mm, and 6-10 HellFire missiles and/or the new laser guided 5" Zuni or 2.75" rockets, with the option of two to four LGB's in the 250-500 pound class. In this day of guided weapons, you don't need nearly as much ordnance to kill each target. The key to success here is higher speeds to the turboprop ground attack aircraft and hopefully loiter times of at least two hours at a max combat radius of 300MN. Aviation Week posted the spec's in a recent article. Looks similar to the early A-4 from an ordnance standpoint. Internal is 3,000 pounds plus 6,100 pounds on six hardpoints, dual optic mounts on lower fuselage, 425kts top speed and five hours of internal fuel with two seats. Not for high threat environments and better redundancy than any single engine turbo prop or training jet. Projected operating cost is $3000 per hour, less than one sixth of the cost of an F-16 and an even smaller fraction by a wide margin than any other current or future USAF jet. |
|
Quoted:
Considering they were going for as cheap as possible, the fact that it'd a twin really surprises me. I guess engineers consider redundancy to be critical on aircraft that will be subjected to potential ground fire...small arms and such. I do not see this thing surviving in SAM territory, and if a current generation first-world enemy fighter gets near it, goodbye. It won't be put into that environment, though. View Quote It has a ceiling well above what would be required for 99% of the Sam threat we fly against. CAS usually assumes air superiority. I think it would be perfect for the last two wars we fought. Not sure what the take off and land distance is, but if low this could be a great asset. Use fighters/missiles to get rid of the med and high alt threats. Then for next 99% of the war use these. Save money and wear and the expensive stuff. |
|
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used.
|
|
Quoted:
Considering they were going for as cheap as possible, the fact that it'd a twin really surprises me. I guess engineers consider redundancy to be critical on aircraft that will be subjected to potential ground fire...small arms and such. I do not see this thing surviving in SAM territory, and if a current generation first-world enemy fighter gets near it, goodbye. It won't be put into that environment, though. View Quote Wish the US Governmet and Lockheed saw it that way with the FTurdy5. |
|
Quoted:
Sounds like about the same mission as this... Crop dusters go to war http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/September/0910_ga_warplaneswideaspectratio.jpg?w=640&h=374 View Quote I fucking want one. |
|
Quoted:
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used. View Quote I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. |
|
Quoted:
I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used. I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. How does "anti-satellite" capability work in aircraft? |
|
Quoted:
How does "anti-satellite" capability work in aircraft? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used. I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. How does "anti-satellite" capability work in aircraft? It's an essential capability for all newly developed aircraft. Otherwise they're not worth buying. |
|
Quoted:
I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used. I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. who said it wasn't an issue. I think manpads are an issue for all low slow fliers. |
|
Quoted:
It's an essential capability for all newly developed aircraft. Otherwise they're not worth buying. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used. I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. How does "anti-satellite" capability work in aircraft? It's an essential capability for all newly developed aircraft. Otherwise they're not worth buying. Does this mean they can launch anti-sat missiles? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like about the same mission as this... Crop dusters go to war http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/September/0910_ga_warplaneswideaspectratio.jpg?w=640&h=374 I fucking want one. Oh, hell yeah. Rides like this, and the one in the OP are the solution to the pilot shortage. Everyone sees drones as the future, but the biggest, and insurmountable problem with them is that nobody wants to fly them. The idea is to not risk lives, put pilots want to fly airplanes. |
|
Quoted:
Oh, hell yeah. Rides like this, and the one in the OP are the solution to the pilot shortage. Everyone sees drones as the future, but the biggest, and insurmountable problem with them is that nobody wants to fly them. The idea is to not risk lives, put pilots want to fly airplanes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like about the same mission as this... Crop dusters go to war http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/September/0910_ga_warplaneswideaspectratio.jpg?w=640&h=374 I fucking want one. Oh, hell yeah. Rides like this, and the one in the OP are the solution to the pilot shortage. Everyone sees drones as the future, but the biggest, and insurmountable problem with them is that nobody wants to fly them. The idea is to not risk lives, put pilots want to fly airplanes. Sad fact is that it's only going to be a few more short years before we're at the point where the only people actually riding in aircraft are those who's only goal is to get from point A to point B. |
|
Quoted:
I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used. I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. Because in high threat environments, Army helicopters operate nap-of-the-earth, below the minimum engagement altitude for 98% of all SAM's. But when down that low, we are at risk from small arms, anti-aircraft guns, conventional artillery and tank main guns. That's why they pay us the big bucks! And we have no anti-satellite weapon capabilities... |
|
Quoted:
Does this mean they can launch anti-sat missiles? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh yeah, forgot to add twin engine would be nice when the occasional manpad gets used. I cannot understand why this threat of SAMs isn't a problem for single engine Army helicopters. It's the primary argument I've seen against LAAR-type aircraft. Oh, and not having an anti-satellite capability is a real downer for this aircraft, but I guess it looks good at air shows, so maybe it's a wash. How does "anti-satellite" capability work in aircraft? It's an essential capability for all newly developed aircraft. Otherwise they're not worth buying. Does this mean they can launch anti-sat missiles? The F-15 has. |
|
View Quote They kept crashing and coming apart in mid air. |
|
517mph and a 3000 pound load?
What is the price of a P-51 adjusted for inflation? ETA: $50,945 in 1945 unit cost CPI adjusted for inflation: $661,936.88 in 2013 |
|
|
Quoted:
Yeah, I was thinking about a turboprop mustang, but I was afraid to mention it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
517mph and a 3000 pound load? What is the price of a P-51 adjusted for inflation? ETA: $50,945 in 1945 unit cost CPI adjusted for inflation: $661,936.88 in 2013 Yeah, I was thinking about a turboprop mustang, but I was afraid to mention it. It needs to be a two-seater. And a more comprehensive avionics/sensor suite. Then you pretty much have a Super Tucano. |
|
Quoted:
It needs to be a two-seater. And a more comprehensive avionics/sensor suite. Then you pretty much have a Super Tucano. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
517mph and a 3000 pound load? What is the price of a P-51 adjusted for inflation? ETA: $50,945 in 1945 unit cost CPI adjusted for inflation: $661,936.88 in 2013 Yeah, I was thinking about a turboprop mustang, but I was afraid to mention it. It needs to be a two-seater. And a more comprehensive avionics/sensor suite. Then you pretty much have a Super Tucano. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
517mph and a 3000 pound load? What is the price of a P-51 adjusted for inflation? ETA: $50,945 in 1945 unit cost CPI adjusted for inflation: $661,936.88 in 2013 Yeah, I was thinking about a turboprop mustang, but I was afraid to mention it. It needs to be a two-seater. And a more comprehensive avionics/sensor suite. Then you pretty much have a Super Tucano. OK, 2x the capacity, plus 2x for the avionics/doohickeys/magic buttons and shit. Would 4 x 661,936.88 = $2,647,747.52 cover it? We are a bit thin these days but I think if we raid all the sofa cushions in all .gov offices we can buy at least a dozen. |
|
But it still won't have stealth or anti-satellite capability.
|
|
So, I wonder if this aircraft was designed to be modified into the T-38 replacement... hmmm.
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure that design will meet ALL of those program goals.
I mean, seriously, do you see that CGI? It's practically a done deal! |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.