H_KOK, to sum up the critics’ arguments:
[*]Light Attack (COIN): Scorpion is too expensive to compete with turboprops like the Super Tucano
[*]ISR: Nothing beats a UAV for low-cost, long-endurance surveillance
[*]Jet trainer: Scorpion doesn’t bring anything new to the table vs. the many existing alternatives (Hawk, M346, Yak-130…)
[*]Light fighter: Small airforces are better off buying a single, relatively cheap, high-performance, multirole type with real A2A capabilities (JF-17, FA-50, Tejas, Gripen etc)
All these points are valid, so Scorpion’s only chance is to find users whose needs overlap across several of the above categories. They’re the ones who might *just* go for a jack-of-all-trades solution. So IMHO the ideal Scorpion customers are:
[INDENT]1) Top tier air forces
They all want more ISR, and are all feeling the financial squeeze because of their fast jet fleets’ running costs. One of the solutions is to turn UAVs into dual-use ISR + COIN/CAS assets, but there are limits to what UAVs can do. You still need manned fighters for this role (as gun platforms, for shows-of-force etc). None of them really want a turboprop, because of the low performance. The obvious solution, known since the 1970s, is a small Blitzfighter* to slot in nicely between drones and fast jets as a true dual-use ISR + COIN/CAS asset.[/INDENT]
[INDENT]2) Air forces that can’t afford fighters of any kind
If you can’t afford even a light fighter, then you’re pretty much stuck with buying turboprop COIN aircraft. Although cheap, they can’t do much. You don’t need a jet trainer and probably can’t afford to splurge on single-role UAVs either. Except… what if you could get a lot more bang for you buck for just a bit more money? Especially in terms of ISR & CAS capability? Then you might be very interested. [/INDENT]
*More on the “Blitzfighter” concept in my next post.
H_KNot sure this thread has any legs, but if you want a serious answer, Israel was committed to being the launch customer for the TF306-powered Mirage F2. This would probably have been modified into an order for the F2’s variable wing derivative, the Mirage G.
Mirage F2 & F1
Mirage F2 & Mirage G
H_KApparently UAVs aren’t allowed to perform domestic ISR (airspace restructions), which leaves the 35-odd single-mission MC-12s as the only useful “homeland” fleet. The USAF is definitely done buying single-mission aircraft, so a dual-use ISR aircraft that has a useful secondary military capability might *just* pass the bar.
Regarding an A_10 replacement for FAC / CAS / COIN, the USAF might not care, but the US Army and SOCOM probably do. Might help with lobbying or even releasing joint funds (despite the C-27J debacle)… but probably only down the road.
H_KThere is pretty much no chance we shall ever see this aircraft being purchased by the US in this role so the question is “what is Textron’s game here”?
One word: ISR. Textron have pretty much said so. I think they’re betting that ISR budgets will be preserved, especially with the US turning inwards, since that’s going to lead to a renewed focus on domestic & foreign security missions (border protection, drug interdiction, special forces support etc).
So I think Textron are offering the USAF the following short-term political play: “you can’t avoid sequestration, so why not capture some of the homeland security budget to cushion the fall”. The USAF may want to play along, to at least preserve some of its squadron numbers, since nothing can save its front-line fleet.
Anyway, this pitch isn’t about light attack… not yet, at least. Long term, I do think that Textron’s play is to push Scorpion as a dedicated FAC(A) / CAS platform. So in effect an A-10 replacement for the USAF, and an A-37 replacement or Super Tucano alternative for export.
This dual ISR/light-attack role opens up some interesting possibilities, since theoretically small airforces could replace 3-4 micro-fleets with a single jack-of-all-trades Scorpion buy (COIN turboprop + maritime patrol turboprop + jet trainer + legacy Cold War attack aircraft). The economics might be interesting, even if the Scorpion doesn’t excel at anything.
H_KJust buy a few Saab integrated countermeasures pods or DIRCM turrets to share as needed across the fleet, and Igla will say “Bye”!
That’s the advantage of modern modular payloads… Scorpion seems to be the first manned aircraft designed with modularity in mind. (UAVs are already there)
H_KWell, it looks like even the pros are overwhelmingly skeptical about the market for Scorpion.
Bill Sweetman: Can This Scorpion Fly?
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:35cd622d-3206-45a4-b840-224377278ded
Flying Magazine: Scorpion – The Light Attack Jet Nobody Asked For
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/scorpion-light-attack-jet-nobody-asked
Defense Aerospace: It is not certain that the Scorpion is what the market wants
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/147993/new-private-venture-scorpion-isr%C2%A7strike-aircraft-unveiled.html
IMHO, it all hinges on whether they can make those “bizjet economics” work (my term, not Textron’s)… If so, then THAT is a big novelty and game changer. As I said before, the economics of a twin turbofan Citation Jet 4 versus a PC-12 turboprop aren’t more than $500/hour apart. The platform just isn’t the main cost driver – it’s the weapons, sensors, and comms outfit. Just look at a Predator: $3,500 per flight hour for a dinky 950hp turboprop platform!
H_KAccording to Textron’s CEO, Scorpion will be serviced by Cessna’s worldwide network. That opens up some interesting cost reduction possibilities, since there are Cessna maintenance centers in half-a-dozen South American and a couple of Asian countries…
Even more so if the claim about 70% of Scorpion’s components being off-the-shelf is true.
H_KThe only thing left is COIN market..well then it faced the mighty and yet economical Super Tucano…well a good market prospect for this one.
Problem is, the Super Tucano is neither mighty nor very economical. $12-20 million for a 280 knot aircraft with a range of only 780nm and 4 weapons pylons (the centerline pylon will always be used to carry extra fuel)… that’s a lot of buck for not much bang.
Yes, this aircraft would really only be suitable for use against very lightly armed insurgents, or in environments where it could conduct operations from higher altitudes.
This concept would not be worth much in a scenario where it needed to get low in an environment where the enemy is shooting back.
I also notice that they included no internal gun, which I find a little bit odd. A gun is useful both as a weapon and as a means to demonstrate intent in both CAS and air policing missions. I suppose the aircraft could be outfitted with a podded gun, but I suspect this aircraft really isn’t intended for use down low at all.
No aircraft currently in production is designed to go low when the enemy is shooting back. So when all the A-10s and Su-25s retire, we’ll have to choose between sending down slow, expendable prop aircraft (Super Tucanos, drones etc), or expensive front-line fighters. Or nothing at all.
One of the great things about the A-10 wasn’t just the gun & armor. It was the twin turbofan layout, with most of the speed advantages of a fighter plus the situational awareness and loitering advantages of a slow turboprop. So the Scorpion at least in that respect may be a good middle-of-the-road solution.
H_KClearly it’s important to military operators and especially third world operators who seldom have enough money for maintenance or fuel or training. And it’s going to be third world types to whom this kind of platform appeals, not the more high end who just load up on supersonics.
As stated it’s why Hawk 200, AMX and L159s are relative flops and why EMB-314 and PC-7 are replacing jets in service.
You also forget the maintenance costs of 2 engines over 1.
I agree that the light jets you mentioned have been failures (AMX, Hawk, L-159, Pampa). They are expensive, short-legged and lacking in payload, so no wonder that turboprops like the Super Tucano & PC-7/21 have been more successful.
The reason this time may be different, is that this is a very different animal from previous light jets. Essentially Scorpion is a bizjet-like (Cessna) platform, optimized for payload/range as well as cost. Just look at the engine choice & wing. Bizjets have done very well against turboprops, even in the cost-conscious civilian market. Simply because their performance edge often more than makes up for their higher costs.
The military market puts a lot more value on performance, and a lot less on saving $500 per hour, which should work in Scorpion’s favor.
P.S. The $500/hr cost difference I keep quoting includes the maintenance cost difference of 2 engines vs. 1.
H_KI don’t see much market opportunity for this.
US is struggling even with funding the light turbo prop strike aircraft and most poorer operators prefer cheaper to operate turboprops in COIN role ala EMB312/314 and PC-7. These have been replacing a whole heap of jets ala A-37, AT-33, Strikemaster and MB-326.
No, in fact the turboprop is only marginaly cheaper. A military operator won’t even notice the cost difference.
Let’s compare two very similar civilian platforms: the PC-12 (6,500lb light turboprop) versus the Citation Jet 4 (10,000lb twin turbofan). Critics will complain that the CJ4 guzzles fuel and has two engines. And indeed, it at first blush it costs twice as much per flight hour: $1,800 vs. $750. BUT, the CJ4 flies 50% faster and 30% farther than the PC-12. Once you adjust for the jet’s much shorter block times, the cost difference is reduced to only $500 per hour.
Now $500/hr may be a big deal in the civilian world, but it’s peanuts for a military operator. The overall mission cost will be dominated by all the other factors like pilot training, avionics maintenance and weapons costs. Not to mention that the jet’s extra speed, payload, range and survivability makes it much more useful.
IMHO that’s why this annoucnement is a big deal. We have a potential Super Tucano killer.
As we’ve seen in Libya and Syria (and Croatia, Angola, Vietnam etc etc) sending low armoured jets/aircraft is risky. There’s not just MANPADS to worry about but also light AAA ala 14.5mm, 20mm and 40mm systems.
I guess it’s time to throw away all those F-16s, Migs and Mirages then. Wait… there aren’t ANY customers for new-build Su-25s and A-10s. Gosh, wonder what they know that you don’t? :p
H_KIt’s not really an A-10 replacement. The A-10 isn’t going to be replaced. Sad but true.
It’s a replacement for the A-37, OV-10, L-39, MB-326/339. A COIN aircraft that also has the payload/range to do real combat CAS missions over lightly defended air space like over Libya/Kosovo.
If manpads are a threat it can just stay at high altitude like everyone else. If you have grunts on the ground in trouble, you’re better off sending this down low than an F-35.
H_KThe payload bay dimensions are approx. 4.25 x 0.90 x 0.45 m (L x W x H, measured on drawings). Good for 2 GBU-12s or a 25mm GAU-22 gun pod, plus fore & aft sensors (e.g. FLIR, SAR radar).
TomcatVIP, the max speed is 450 KTAS. Hopefully the wing can handle a bit more in a dive, even though it’s very straight. Should be more than enough for CAS?
H_Kso what advantage does this jet have over an Su-25?
1) Cheaper to operate, probably. And still relatively affordable to buy, thanks to Cessna’s economies of scale (and the 20,000 hour airframe life)
2) Far superior Western avionics that can be shared among planes (FLIR sensors in the ISR payload bay, podded countermeasures etc)
3) Excellent endurance (5hrs at 150nm)
Downsides: no armor.
H_KBy the way, aren’t we overly focusing on “Black Buck” style missions, when a strike by a dozen Super Etendards from the French carrier would be a much simpler way of disabling these airfields?
H_KSwerve is thinking about routing too rigidly, IMHO.
Take the “problem” of overflying Brazil for example. Easy solution: file a civilian flight plan for a pair of C-135s, and let the Mirage IV hide in the C-135’s echo. I’m not making this up – that’s exactly what the French did on one of their Mirage IV missions over Libya in the 1980s!
Guyana to Port Stanley would be 3,400nm each way.
Guyana to Buenos Aires would be 2,400nm.
Obviously you might only be able to do this once, if the Argentines or Brazilians figure it out. But perhaps the Brazilians would turn a blind eye if the French pulled a “Shangri La” play… deny any airspace violation and claim that the Mirage IV took-off from a secret location!
Sign In
