A modern Folland Gnat?

[Van]

The Textron Scorpion. Small, light and cheap

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28260781

[HOUSTON]

Blimey .....

[dambuster]

The Textron Scorpion. Small, light and cheap

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28260781

It isn't that small..... Think A-10.

Peter

[Giorgio N]

Just the latest in a long line of proposed light and cheap combat aircrafts that achieved absolutely no success. And this is likely to follow the same path !

[PLC1966]

I would be surprised if they can sell 2000 airframes as they believe the market size is.

[Panoz]

Just the latest in a long line of proposed light and cheap combat aircrafts that achieved absolutely no success. And this is likely to follow the same path !

Add light and cheap combat helicopters to that list. (See AAC Penetrator.)

Jet Trainers too. (Promavia Jet Squalus & Skyfox anyone??? )

[Panoz]

I would be surprised if they can sell 2000 airframes as they believe the market size is.

If you were running an African country's Air Force and you were looking for a CAS platform,

would you choose this over a second hand Su-25 (that comes with its own pilots & ground crew)???

Yeah right....

[Mitch K]

Can they make it carrier capable? It might not have the potential the F-35 has but it can at least actually fly, it seems!

[PLC1966]

There will be as many Vulcans flying in ten years as there will be these...

[Rick Brown]

Love it!

Just placed my order for one, maybe two. One for the wife.

Rick.

[Procopius]

The F-16 is a super-jet now? My word, what ever has the world come to.

[oggy4624]

Remember the skyfox?

[dambuster]

Remember the Mosquito?

Peter

[charley420]

Remember remember the 5th of November.

[Rick Brown]

Remember remember the 5th of November.

Is some reference to the F35's engine?

Rick.

[charley420]

well definitely the treason and plot behind the whole procurement process.

[Mitch K]

There will be as many Vulcans flying in ten years as there will be these...

At the rate it's going currently, there will be as many Vulcans flying in the UK are there will be F-35's as well.

[Julien]

Given that its a private project and they actually managed to get their aircraft to the show I hope they do well.

You never know if something happens to F-35 we might need a few!!

[Radleigh]

There will be as many Vulcans flying in ten years as there will be these...

Genuine question, why the negativity?

My shots of it departing RIAT on Sunday.

N531TA Textron AirLand Scorpion by Totallyrad.co.uk, on Flickr

N531TA Textron AirLand Scorpion by Totallyrad.co.uk, on Flickr

[Julien]

Genuine question, why the negativity?

My thoughts as well. A company doing this off its own back with no taxpayers cash should be applauded.

Great pics as well.

Julien

[Giorgio N]

The negativity from my side comes from years of seeing similar projects being announced and then fail miserably.

If you have some time to waste, here's some of my thoughts on this and similar machines:

The validity of the so-called light fighters is something that has been debated for decades, at least since the development of the 100-Series fighters in the US. The trend had initially been for more and more sophisticated machines that were also becoming very specialised. This ended with the Phantom, the first true modern multirole fighter. This was and still is a superb aircraft but it was also sophisticated and expensive.

Other Air Forces could not afford similar aircrafts and here comes the light fighter, a combat aircraft that is cheap to purchase and operate tailored to the needs of the less rich Air Forces. Now staying with the Western types, the most succesful light fighter was the F-5 that offered supersonic performance into a small airframe for a very good price. This aircraft was and is still used by many operators, not all of them "third world" countries. For a number of richer countries the F-5 offered the possibility of increasing the fleet without spending too much money and this led to the first examples of the so-called "hi-low" mix. Holland, Greece and Norway for example had the F-104 as main combat type supplemented by the F-5 and so did Canada (with the addition of the Voodoo for continental air defence).

In the same years the USAF started looking into what happened in Vietnam and the concept of a similar hi-low mix emerged, with the result being the birth of the F-16, initially a light fighter itself.

The F-16 is a huge success however with the time it becomes more and more sophisticated and expensive itself and the same happens to the F-18 or the Mirage 2000. Hence a number of private companies that start to look at a light fighter for all the countries that can not afford these fighters or countries that want to increase the fleet through a hi-low mix. The shift toward conflicts involving insurgents has also contributed to this research effort: many wonder why use an F-16 against insurgents when a cheaper and simpler type would work as well.

Problem: is the market really there ? According to many, myself included, the answer is no and for a number of reasons.

Capability: the light fighter is less capable than the "heavy" ones. It can carry less fuel, less equipment, less payload. Performances are also lower. Chosing a light fighter as the only equipment of an air force means accepting these limitations. A country may be happy with it, but if there are alternatives around, why go for a light fighter ?

Costs: here's where many companies did their maths wrong IMHO ! The light fighter is cheaper to buy but today for many Air Forces the purchase price is not the real problem. The problem is in the operating costs. Now the proposers of the light fighters explain how these types require less fuel and less maintenance... however if I have 100 light fighters some costs are the same as for the heavy ones ! I still need 120 pilots, a number of air bases and all the related infrastructures. And all these things cost a lot of money. If I know I can only afford to run 2 bases, each with 2 squadrons each, what's the point of being able to purchase 6 squadrons of aircrafts ? At that point I'd rather buy 4 squadrons only of more capable aircrafts (back to capability)

Competition: the supporters of the light fighter compare these with brand new high performance combat aircrafts, but the competition out there is more articulated. For a starter we have a class of aircrafts that have served for years in many countries: the armed trainers. Why should I buy a brand new light fighter to fight insurgents when a Hawk or even a PC-9 with 4 pylons is perfectly adequate and I can use the same aircrafts for training. Then there's a class of aicrafts that have killed many a light fighter project: the second hand F-16 and MiG-29 ! There are plenty of these available on the market, they are cheap to buy and can be upgraded easily. Is the MiG-29 too expensive ? Then there are MiG-21s still available aplenty, upgraded with Israeli avionics they offer good capabilities, spare parts are plentiful and cheap and the aircraft is not too complicated.

Sustainability: types used in large numbers have plenty of spare parts available. Many question the availability of spare parts for aircrafts made in small numbers, would the manufacturers of these types keep supplying spares for 20 years if they only manage a small sale or two ? The experience on the civil market shows that aircrafts made in small numbers have suffered from these problems, no air force would like to see this happening and for this reason prefer a type that is at least in service in the country where it's built.

Politics: most arms deals have a strong political content. Being able to be sold say the F-16 is a sign that the US trusts the customer as an ally. Often these deals are part of larger commercial deals, can the manufacturers of these light fighters get backing from their own country governments ?

So here we have two different situations:

- Rich country: why go for a hi-low mix when the numbers are dictated by things like number of bases and so on ? Better have a small number of very capable fighters with all the bells and whistles, acquisition pods, guided bombs, AA missiles. Better use a single type or 2 maximum as this means less maintenance costs overall. A third type even if cheap is only going to add costs through the need of a new logistics chain. I can still use my advanced fighter in low-tech conflicts but the light type would be useless in a conflict against more advanced adversaries

- Poorer country: why buy a dedicated light fighter when there are on the market even cheaper alternatives ? If my enemy is likely to be insurgents only, then armed trainers are usually enough. If I'm surrounded by potentially hostyle countries better have a more capable aircraft and here there are plenty of second hand types that can offer a lot more than any light fighter for less money. Besides, there are plenty of spares around for the older types, will the manufacturer of the new light fighter be able to supply the same ? Or will they stop once they close the production lines after the first 1 or 2 contracts ?

For all the reasons above I'm skeptical about the success of these aircrafts.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Giorgio N

[dambuster]

Giorgio,

I think you misunderstand the market for the Scorpion.

"The aircraft is intended to handle mission profiles typically performed by the U.S. Air National Guard, including domestic interdiction, quick-reaction natural disaster support, air sovereignty patrols, and low-threat battlefield missions."

Think OV-10 Bronco, or A-10. It is not a fighter, but designed to operate where there is no Air threat, or where other types (fighters) can provide air cover. Even the USAF recognise the need for this role by deciding to replace the A-10 with, well, another A-10. But eventually the A-10 will become too expensive to keep running so conceivably there is a home market for the Scorpion.

Currently, would you wish to see F-35 or Typhoon operating in these roles? OK they may be super-modern but if you can only afford 40 then you will be less likely to use these assets where they may be lost to ground fire unless there is a compelling reason. But if you have 80 light types you can take greater operating risks whilst still maintaining a baseline capability.

In some ways the UAV is the proof if the concept, however not all air forces would have access to the technology or wish to leave the man out of the loop. AFAIK current UAVs have more 'flight crew' than their manned equivalents, so this factor alone increases operating costs, as you point out.

I wish Textron success, although they do have a lot of nay-sayers who are still thinking cold-war type conflicts

Peter

[depressed lemur]

I for one applaud anyone who throws their hat into this ring. I hope that there is success with this, as we will that get a kit, and the whiff possibilities are endless.

[Giorgio N]

Peter, I see your points, but in any case I'm not convinced

"The aircraft is intended to handle mission profiles typically performed by the U.S. Air National Guard, including domestic interdiction, quick-reaction natural disaster support, air sovereignty patrols, and low-threat battlefield missions."

Are these really the missions that ANG units perform ? Most missions performed by ANG units are pretty much the same carried out by their regular counterparts, usually in the same theatres. The kind of missions described in Textron's ads are more what agencies like the BATF and other agencies carry out... but would these agencies actually buy a combat aircraft ???

Think OV-10 Bronco, or A-10. It is not a fighter, but designed to operate where there is no Air threat, or where other types (fighters) can provide air cover. Even the USAF recognise the need for this role by deciding to replace the A-10 with, well, another A-10. But eventually the A-10 will become too expensive to keep running so conceivably there is a home market for the Scorpion.

Actually the Air Force did not decide to replace the A-10. The USAF wanted to retire the A-10 because the presence of a logistic chain for a type that could not operate in anything except low threat conflicts was seen as a waste of resources. With less money available, the USAF wants to have every aircraft capable of operating in the most demanding theatres, they believe that there's no place for types not capable of being used in every possible situation. It was the Congress that forced on the USAF the continuation of operations with the A-10 and this mainly for reasons that have nothing to do with the operational capabilities of the type.

Currently, would you wish to see F-35 or Typhoon operating in these roles? OK they may be super-modern but if you can only afford 40 then you will be less likely to use these assets where they may be lost to ground fire unless there is a compelling reason. But if you have 80 light types you can take greater operating risks whilst still maintaining a baseline capability.

History has shown otherwise: what were and are complex and expensive types have been used down in the dirt regardless of the cost and the risks. Thuds and Phantoms have been sent to bomb tactical targets in Vietnam, F-14s have been used to strafe Taliban targets and even bombers have been used when necessary in situations way different from the ones they were designed for. Even aircrafts available in limited numbers have been thrown in harm's way with no problem if this was felt necessary, just look at the Sea Harriers in the Falklands where practically the whole force was in action.

We should also not forget that the "expendebility" of an aircraft is seen today in a very different way: the loss of the aircraft is not a problem, it's the loss of the pilot that is a problem ! The sight on the TV of a pilot dragged through a hostile crowd is much worse than the cost of the aircraft lost. For this reason losses must be kept to a minimum and this can only be achieved through superior equipment and techniques not through cheaper aircrafts. It's the fear of losing men that may prevent the use of the assets, not the fear of losing the machines.

Mind, don't look at my position on this as a personal crusade against the Scorpion or any similar aircraft. I'm just reporting why this class of aircrafts has never succeeded and IMHO will never succeed. I'm sure Textron have done their homework in identifying a market, but the same could be said for the Skyfox, the F-20 and many other types that never left the drawing board.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Giorgio N

[Panoz]

. I'm sure Textron have done their homework in identifying a market, but the same could be said for the Skyfox, the F-20 and many other types that never left the drawing board.

Actually Skyfox got an order:

To replace the T-33A, Portugal signed a letter of intent with the Skyfox Corporation in the middle of the 1980s for 20 conversion kits. The Força Aérea Portuguesa (FAP) proposed that Oficinas Gerais de Material Aeronautico (OGMA) in Alverca would undertake the conversions, but insufficient orders were obtained from other nations to motivate Boeing to continue with the project.

And guess who was interested in the Jet Squalus; yup Portugal again:

* Promavia. Spirits were high at the Promavia chalet. The Belgian company chose the Paris Air Show to announce an agreement with Portugal on the manufacture of 30 Jet Squalus trainer aircraft, with an option for a further 70 units. The aircraft, of which three prototypes have been built to date, will be manufactured by OGMA (Oficinas Gerais de Material Aeronautico), and the first production aircraft should roll out in December 1990.

The first 30 Jet Squalus will be used for military training, but Portugal intends to set up an air academy for civil applications as well. With the Squalus programme virtually "off the ground", Promavia was able to announce two other twin-engine projects designated ARA-3600 (single seater) and ATTA-3000 (tandem seats). Although the two aircraft bear a strong resemblance to the Jet Squalus, they feature a higher sweep wing and a narrower fuselage.

I honestly hope that Portugal has no interest in the Scorpion...