According to the manufacturer.

16 hours total endurance with a 500lb payload (i.e. ISR only).
10.5 hours at 1500 km from base, with same payload.

Why do you say ISR only? The Selex ES Falco Evo (i.e. the larger version of the Falco), which I believe has been doing only ISR for customers, has a max payload weight of 100 kg.

The MQ-9 Reaper has an internal payload of 360 kg, besides hardpoints. 226 kg (500 pounds) – 100 kg = an extra 126 kg for payload compared to the Falco Evo. However that is assuming that the payload design is not modular, where you swap out unwanted kit. The Falco design is modular (with 4 different modules for customers to choose from), and (from the page you linked) the Hammerhead’s “capabilities include being able to host several payload combinations” … “as well as other roles”. The UK CAMM missile, for example, is 99 kg I believe. Gen. Claudio Debertolis also said the Hammerhead could be armed

Engineers from Thales Alenia Space Italy flown in to rescue Galileo project from Germany’s OHB.
(in French)
« Les décideurs européens ont promu un outsider qui sort aujourd’hui des produits en retard, au double du prix prévu, et qui a besoin de l’aide des deux grands pour s’en sortir »
“Europe’s decision-makers have promoted an outsider which today delivers products late, at double the expected price, and which needs the help of Thales Alenia Space and Astrium to sort things out”

Finalement, OHB a demandé fin juin à Thales Alenia Space de l’aider pour l’intégration et les tests. Dix à quinze experts en ingénierie de la filiale italienne de TAS sont partis en Allemagne en septembre, et resteront jusqu’aux premières livraisons.
Finally, at the end of June OHB asked Thales Alenia Space for help for integration and testing. Ten to fifteen engineering experts from TAS Italy went to Germany in September, and will remain there until the first deliveries.

Galileo is Europe’s GNSS system for both military and civilian applications. The satellites feature a Selex Passive Hydrogen Maser atomic clock and were originally based on the French Proteus platform.

Why would they publicly make such statements?

I thought they already had:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/
“This is going to have a big tactical impact,” one highly experienced officer says. “Anytime you have to lower performance standards, the capability of what the airframe can do goes down as well.”
…
“What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5,” another highly experienced fighter pilot says. “[It’s] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft.”
At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed “double-digit” surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in for the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery.
Most egregious is the F-35C-model’s drastically reduced transonic acceleration capabilities. “That [43 seconds] is a massive amount of time, and assuming you are in afterburner for acceleration, it’s going to cost you even more gas,” the pilot says. “This will directly impact tactical execution, and not in a good way.”
Pilots typically make the decision to trade a very high rate of fuel consumption for supersonic airspeeds for one of two reasons. “They are either getting ready to kill something or they are trying to defend against something [that’s trying to kill] them,” the pilot says. “Every second counts in both of those scenarios. The longer it takes, the more compressed the battle space gets. That is not a good thing.”

Then again do you even need such statements? The downgrading of the spec (i.e. drastic non-compliances) and huge cost increases (including the “no-engine” figures!) means that the “partner” countries embroiled in this concurrent development and production have either reduced their potential orders or walked away. It’s not just Canada that’s in this mess.

UN picks Italian drones for landmark DR Congo mission
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-congo-democratic-un-drones-idUSBRE97014720130801
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-selex-es-strives-for-flexibility-with-falco-uav-evolution-381712/
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/07/17450/selex-galileos-falco-continues-to-soar-with-4th-export-customer-and-falco-evo-runway-rollout/

I’ve been looking into getting a scooter recently, it’s the only reason I was familiar with the Piaggio name at all! I did some reading on Wikipedia just now — interesting company history.

The MP3 design is certainly innovative and by all accounts has a lot of practical advantages, but the aesthetic doesn’t really do it for me. Nor does the maxi scooter aesthetic. I have my fingers crossed that Piaggio brings their new 330cc engine to the Vespa and Aprilia lines soon — big upgrade over the current 278cc! Peugot scoots aren’t available here anymore (2009 models were the last imported) so I haven’t been following them.

Same here. I wouldn’t mind trying one of these larger scooters for the heck of it, but I wouldn’t buy anything larger than a Vespa.
Incidentally this may seem off-topic but it isn’t entirely. Improvements in automotive combustion engines can have a direct bearing on aerospace applications. e.g. the Sky-Y UAS I linked above uses a Fiat common rail engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_Aermacchi_Sky-Y
Powerplant: 1 × DieselJet FIAT 1.9 JTD common rail FADEC turbodiesel four-cylinder engine, 170 hp (126 kW)

The 16 hours figure is the only prob for it as maLE drone. Btw it has MPA wings.

Are you certain? To the best of my knowledge, in the one-ton class the Alenia Aermacchi Sky-Y detains the european endurance record with an 8-hour flight (test campaign at Vidsel range in Sweden, September 26 – October 25 2007)
http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/Media/News/documents/new145_3.pdf

With all the suggestions of exotic airframes for the MPA, can I just remind everyone that there simply isn’t the money for a gold plated aircraft of which the UK will probably be the only user.

We need an off the shelf solution.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/145946/piaggio-unveils-hammerhead-uav-at-paris-show.html
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130618/SHOWSCOUT02/306180021/Italian-Procurement-Chief-Backs-Hammerhead-Replace-Reapers

The Italian armed forces are purchasing 10 Hammerhead aircraft if it meets their requirements. The article doesn’t mention the cost of the aircraft, but the Avanti civilian aircraft, on which it is based, from the wiki page costs US$7M. In other words not only does the Hammerhead promise to be technically unbeatable on many fronts (and for the UK with extra industrial benefits through Selex ES UK), but it may prove to be by far the most economical solution, allowing for formation flying – as is done with LEO satellites, interferometry, etc.

I would go for a mix of ATR72-600 MPA, Piaggio MPA and Piaggio Hammerhead.

Alenia Aermacchi delivered the first ATR72-600 TMUA (Turkish Maritime Utility Aircraft) to the Turkish Navy last Wednesday.

The derivatives of the Piaggio Avanti afford excellent loitering capability despite having exceptional speed for a turboprop, together with unmatched cabin x-section and volume for its class as well as endurance (due to the innovative and very aerodynamic design). With the Hammerhead one would also have a first experience with unmanned aircraft of this class.

The VEGA (Vettore Europeo di Generazione Avanzata) launcher launched three payloads this morning at 0206 GMT: Proba-V, VNREDSat-1A (both for Earth Observation) and ESTCube-1.

Seven ESA Member States (Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden) are contributing to the Vega programme. The industrial prime contractor is ELV SpA, 70% of which is owned by Avio SpA and 30% by Italy’s ASI space agency.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216263[/ATTACH]
ESA image

VEGA now provides an affordable, dedicated solution for military earth observation payloads.