nsplayr Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) Press release quoted a test up to 430 knots back in 2014...that's about .75 mach. I'm gonna go with yes. LMGTFY = scorpion jet max speed http://www.scorpionjet.com/textron-airlands-scorpion-isrstrike-aircraft-reaches-50-test-flight-hours-achieves-mach-0-72-air-speed/ Edited February 27, 2017 by nsplayr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 I just can't figure out what the Scorpion brings to the fight an A-29 can't. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookieRookie Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, di1630 said: I just can't figure out what the Scorpion brings to the fight an A-29 can't. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums Not sending royalties to Embraer by way of SNC. The AT-6 does the same thing with Pilatus. Edited February 27, 2017 by LookieRookie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) Scorpion climbs higher, moves faster, carries more payload, has better mission software, has 2x engines and the "prestige" of a jet vs a prop.* A-29 is combat proven and already flown by USAF and is likely more than "good enough" for the intended mission even without any of the above strengths of the Scorpion. I have a personal preference based on a good amount of knowledge about one of the platforms, but both seem capable and I'd love to fly either. *Jet prestige is BS IMHO, coming from a guy who rode a mighty single-engine prop steed into battle many times, but it's a valid point, especially to potential foreign customers. Princes don't fly props. Edited February 27, 2017 by nsplayr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Somebody once, on this site touted this airplane for air defense, I'm to lazy to use the search function so we will just blame NS due to his man crush on this airplane. .75, really? Defend the nation against 172's cause that's all you are chasing down. Hell, I think event the piggy 737 does .82. Not an air defense platform, Therefore probably not a good ANG platform. Strike 1 or 2 depending how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 43 minutes ago, matmacwc said: Somebody once, on this site touted this airplane for air defense, I'm to lazy to use the search function so we will just blame NS due to his man crush on this airplane. .75, really? Defend the nation against 172's cause that's all you are chasing down. Hell, I think event the piggy 737 does .82. Not an air defense platform, Therefore probably not a good ANG platform. Strike 1 or 2 depending how you look at it. By air defense, how do you mean? Air Defense as a fighter capable of BFM - no way. Air Defense as a missile platform for BVR missiles then defending or egressing, maybe if you wanted to invest that kind of money into this platform for this new/added capability. For the US, it could be useful but would likely substantially increase the cost and likely doom the project for us but you could use it to entice a FMS customer. Take a potential customer like the PI, they have a basic Air Defense needs but large FID needs with various insurgencies, TNCO, etc... Have a "super" Scorpion model that has that capability to deliver ISR & kinetic effects inexpensively and with a suitable radar like a Raytheon RACR, to shoot AMRAAMs then egress bravely to avoid a shot from an encroaching J-15. The platform is not a fighter but a missile platform, a slow moving interceptor really. How effective would it be, don't know. But if you are a resource short AF needing some capability to defend against air to air threats and a lot of capability to deliver ISR and light/precision strike, this could be a novel way of doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 You can't even intercept a passenger airline. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk1313 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Hate to be the shallow one, but the looks alone are depressing. Did the design engineers not learn anything from the X-32? FFS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bb17 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 On 1/29/2017 at 9:56 PM, Kiloalpha said: I'll make this perfectly short and simple. It's ugly. Real, real ugly. Looks like a tweet mated with an F-18 and not in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 You can't even intercept a passenger airline.It would be tough - read impossible - for Scorp to intercept anything but a recip or turboprop but that's not its bread and butter. This hypothetical capability would be as a second echelon or compliment to a true fighter. Real fighters cost too much to buy and operate, they carry prestige but often can't be procured in relevant numbers or the fleet is not nearly as available as needed due to MX costs. This is the case for a lot of our budget conscious partners. Providing them an option that lets have some A2A capability but gives them a lot of ISR and Light Strike can fill a niche the F-5 used to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookieRookie Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: It would be tough - read impossible - for Scorp to intercept anything but a recip or turboprop but that's not its bread and butter. This hypothetical capability would be as a second echelon or compliment to a true fighter. Real fighters cost too much to buy and operate, they carry prestige but often can't be procured in relevant numbers or the fleet is not nearly as available as needed due to MX costs. This is the case for a lot of our budget conscious partners. Providing them an option that lets have some A2A capability but gives them a lot of ISR and Light Strike can fill a niche the F-5 used to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Meh, the T-50 will end up doing a homeland defense mission and the AF will buy A-29s for light attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, LookieRookie said: Meh, the T-50 will end up doing a homeland defense mission and the AF will buy A-29s for light attack. Possibly but my comment was mainly meant for FMS customers like the PI's, Columbia, etc... For the cost of one F/A-50 at $30 mil, you could get a hypothetical Super Scorpion at $25 mil (WAG) and 6 AIM-120C + 2 AIM-9X for Air Defense and 20 SDB + 10 AGM-114 + 10 APKWS for Precision Strike. You'd have about 800k left over for training, spare parts, etc... That's just simple math but you get the point, a less expensive platform that still has enough capability to deliver advanced weapons is a more viable COA than blowing all your money in a few fighters that you have no money to arm, train or maintain properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Re Scorpion and AMRAAM: Kinematically, you kind of lose out going slow and launching BVR. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jice Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Possibly but my comment was mainly meant for FMS customers like the PI's, Columbia, etc... For the cost of one F/A-50 at $30 mil, you could get a hypothetical Super Scorpion at $25 mil (WAG) and 6 AIM-120C + 2 AIM-9X for Air Defense and 20 SDB + 10 AGM-114 + 10 APKWS for Precision Strike. You'd have about 800k left over for training, spare parts, etc... That's just simple math but you get the point, a less expensive platform that still has enough capability to deliver advanced weapons is a more viable COA than blowing all your money in a few fighters that you have no money to arm, train or maintain properly. Is this a good buy? VID for homeland defense (their homeland, assuming some risk of intercepting a shooter) is out the window at .76 mach & the kinematics basically limit it to point defense... temporarily. Same effect less money: buy something cheap for attack and a patriot battery or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 7 hours ago, SurelySerious said: Re Scorpion and AMRAAM: Kinematically, you kind of lose out going slow and launching BVR. True but it is probably what they could truly afford. Now if we want to just give them second hand 16s then that changes the equation but this idea is that Country X is paying for everything themselves. 7 hours ago, jice said: Is this a good buy? VID for homeland defense (their homeland, assuming some risk of intercepting a shooter) is out the window at .76 mach & the kinematics basically limit it to point defense... temporarily. Same effect less money: buy something cheap for attack and a patriot battery or two. I was thinking something similar also, County X with limited resources for defense uses a Patriot battery for their first ring of air defense with Super Scorpions forming a second echelon that fires and retrogrades to preserve the asset and the aircrew lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Re Scorpion and AMRAAM: Kinematically, you kind of lose out going slow and launching BVR. It still beats the option a lot of little Island countries currently have of driving toward the engagement in an Alfa jet or similar and then trying to hit the guy with unguided rockets.I know those on the site used to what we have would be disgusted by the idea of a "fighter" that would have trouble keeping up with an ME-262, but in all seriousness this is an airplane built for countries who are putting stingers on helicopters because they can't competently expect any sort of air defense. So anybody that can bring a missile better do it, because it's the air equivalent to a bunch of barely armed settlers circling wagons to repel the Indians. Any while yes the fighters from big countries with big missiles would eat its lunch it would at least give pause to something like the a Heliborn air assault or paratroop force being put in with a bunch of Hips/Hinds. That's the more likely reality for those nations. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprkt69 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 10 minutes ago, Lawman said: It still beats the option a lot of little Island countries currently have of driving toward the engagement in an Alfa jet or similar and then trying to hit the guy with unguided rockets. I know those on the site used to what we have would be disgusted by the idea of a "fighter" that would have trouble keeping up with an ME-262, but in all seriousness this is an airplane built for countries who are putting stingers on helicopters because they can't competently expect any sort of air defense. So anybody that can bring a missile better do it, because it's the air equivalent to a bunch of barely armed settlers circling wagons to repel the Indians. Any while yes the fighters from big countries with big missiles would eat its lunch it would at least give pause to something like the a Heliborn air assault or paratroop force being put in with a bunch of Hips/Hinds. That's the more likely reality for those nations. You still have to sell the missiles to country X. Which may or may not be an issue. And for some nations, having a larger helicopter fleet is cheaper since they do not have to pay for airfields to the extent that fixed wing aircraft require Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Sprkt69 said: You still have to sell the missiles to country X. Which may or may not be an issue. And for some nations, having a larger helicopter fleet is cheaper since they do not have to pay for airfields to the extent that fixed wing aircraft require True, but selling the AIM-120C model should not be a stretch or the Israeli Derby BVR missile. The case for the fixed wing is made for the capabilities (speed, range, endurance, altitude, payload and self-defense) matched with much lower operational costs. Particularly when you have a large geographical area to patrol and secure like the PI, Columbia, Nigeria, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseAg03 Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Weren't they talking about a modified Scorpion competing for T-X? I think they should rip off that ugly straight wing and give it a little sweep. It will kill some fuel economy, but it would make it a hell of a lot cooler and a little bit faster. Maybe then it could catch a Southwest jet.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said: Weren't they talking about a modified Scorpion competing for T-X? I think they should rip off that ugly straight wing and give it a little sweep. It will kill some fuel economy, but it would make it a hell of a lot cooler and a little bit faster. Maybe then it could catch a Southwest jet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk They talked about it but never pursued it, can't meet the sustained turn requirements they want in T-X for BFM instruction. They added 4 degrees of sweep to the wing and and all moving horizontal stab for better high speed control. I thought they had it right with the first aircraft and it's Hershey Bar wing but they modified based on testing inputs so be it. It's still not going to catch an airliner unless it is OEI but a supersonic BVR missile fired from it will catch almost anything. Edited March 1, 2017 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 You still have to sell the missiles to country X. Which may or may not be an issue. And for some nations, having a larger helicopter fleet is cheaper since they do not have to pay for airfields to the extent that fixed wing aircraft requireNo doubt about it, but that's the other crux of the "get a better jet" argument.A lot of the countries that would be looking at this vs say a bunch of old Blk 30/40 vipers aren't eligible for FMS vipers because of the Leahy amendment. They can still get stuff from DCS or our foreign competitors but would you think going from a 230-250mph training pipeline and experience base straight into an afterburner equipped 4th generation fighter is something those countries could realistically do? I think they'd plant more planes trying to monkey through learning them before they ever even got the chance at any real useful training. Realistically it would be far easier and safer for them to go buy a python or similar missile off the commercial market and figure out how to make it work on their easy to fly cheap to maintain jet. Otherwise they gotta go whole hog with virtually no lead it.... like the Phils are doing with FA-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) On 3/1/2017 at 1:25 PM, Lawman said: No doubt about it, but that's the other crux of the "get a better jet" argument. A lot of the countries that would be looking at this vs say a bunch of old Blk 30/40 vipers aren't eligible for FMS vipers because of the Leahy amendment. They can still get stuff from DCS or our foreign competitors but would you think going from a 230-250mph training pipeline and experience base straight into an afterburner equipped 4th generation fighter is something those countries could realistically do? I think they'd plant more planes trying to monkey through learning them before they ever even got the chance at any real useful training. Realistically it would be far easier and safer for them to go buy a python or similar missile off the commercial market and figure out how to make it work on their easy to fly cheap to maintain jet. Otherwise they gotta go whole hog with virtually no lead it.... like the Phils are doing with FA-50. 2 On the related subject of Building Partnership Capacity, a briefing from NGAUS & Textron making the argument to buy something you can afford and is what you really need. http://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/TEXTRON.pdf In the case of the PI, when the US gives you 120 mil+ in 2016 in military aid, we do have an opinion that counts on what you should buy. https://fronteranews.com/news/asia/much-foreign-aid-manila-lose-washington/ Edited March 5, 2017 by Clark Griswold link fix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Shitters full Clark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Man Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 A-29A Super Tucano from Moody Air Force Base crashes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now