Textron Scorpion

"punkgoose17" (punkgoose17) 09/18/2018 at 09:27 • Filed to: Textron, Textron Scorpion, planelopnik, airplanes, aircraft, Scorpion

2

20

I am just sharing this because I thought some of you would also find this interesting. I was not aware of this and the other similar aircraft.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 09:36

2

Given how warfare has changed today, this should have been the approach at least 10 years back given how expensive F16s,F15s and other attack aircraft are to operate on a per hour basis(Guess the A10 is wayy cheaper). Also, Textron Scorpion, Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine, and Sierra Nevada/Embraer A-29 Super Tucano aircraft were in a competition but looks like they’ve still yet to make a decision

  http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22666/usaf-reveals-timeline-for-buying-light-attack-aircraft-it-now-says-it-needed-decades-ago?iid=sr-link4

OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 09:40

1

Apparently the people at Textron are not big fans of it. “I sat in the cockpit of that POS” is a direct quote.

TheRealBicycleBuck > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 09:43

0

Cut out all the fancy avionics and you can have a jet for less than $100k.

facw > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 09:43

1

I really don’t think they are going to find many buyers. I mean maybe there are people who should be buying the Super Tucano or similar but who are too embarrassed to buy a propeller plane.

Meanwhile if you want a cheap fighter, that FA-50 seems to offer better performance and weapons capability.

A fighter variant of the Boeing T-X might be able to fill the same role.

The Scorpion just seems to be in a bad place to me. Not good enough to fill in as a real multi-role fighter, not tough enough to take an A-10 style CAS support role, and if your enemy is not capable of fighting back, why do you need to spend the money for a jet at all?

Someone is going to cash in though, the sort of country that operated the F-5 is going to want a modern version, and this sort of high-performance trainer seems like the way to go for countries that can’t move to an F-16 or Gripen.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 09:44

3

It’s the plane the Air Force needs, not the plane the Air Force wants. And as usual, the Air Force typically ignores what they actually need in favor of bigger, faster, sexier fighters.

LongbowMkII > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 09:50

0

This is the funny thing about the Military industrial complex. They saw the losing strategy of WWII (highly advanced technical marvels) and decided to copy it. T housands  of  cheap, reliable,   easily trainable fighters/tanks/ships whatever   will be more effective in a large scale war a few dozen top of the line machines.

punkgoose17 > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 09/18/2018 at 09:51

0

I did not know the Scorpion was in this competition. I was aware of the other 2 planes.

3point8isgreat > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 09/18/2018 at 10:03

0

That line of thinking at least makes for cool posters and air shows though.  I guess that’s something?

facw > KingT- 60% of the time, it works every time 09/18/2018 at 10:06

0

A decision hasn’t been made (and the crash may have messed everything up), but the Scorpion has already been eliminated.

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > 3point8isgreat 09/18/2018 at 10:07

0

Yeah, it’s great for recruiting dumb 18 year olds and not much else.

facw > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 09/18/2018 at 10:07

0

Not true at all though. The Air Force considered this for their light attack program but rejected it in favor of cheaper alternatives. They also rejected it in their T-X trainer program. This that does nothing well, and isn’t cheap enough to justify it.

Spanfeller is a twat > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 10:08

0

But does it go BRRRRRRRRRT

punkgoose17 > facw 09/18/2018 at 10:09

1

You make a good point. FA-50 is about twice the price but the L-159 seems to have extremely similar specs for half the price. I think the U.S. airforce may be the only people to ever maybe buy this as they would probably be embarrassed to buy a propeller and would pick a domestic company over the Czech L-159.

punkgoose17 > OpposResidentLexusGuy - USE20, XF20, XU30 and Press Cars 09/18/2018 at 10:10

1

I wonder why. I did rea lize it costs twice as much as the L-159 with similar specs so that is pretty bad.

BigBlock440 > LongbowMkII 09/18/2018 at 10:13

0

The winning strategy of throwing more bodies at it won’t be acceptable again until another world war.

facw > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 10:16

1

The FA-50 is vastly more capable, with much, much better performance, higher payload, and greater range. It also has superior avionics and radar . There are good reasons why it costs more.

facw > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 10:37

1

I think I misread your comment, I thought you were comparing the FA-50 to the L-159, but I guess you were actually saying the L-159 would be a bargain compared to the Scorpion, which is probably right. It is older, but they occupy a similar space.

punkgoose17 > facw 09/18/2018 at 10:41

1

Yes you are correct. Looking back it is a little unclear I was comparing both of them to the Scorpion.

LongbowMkII > BigBlock440 09/18/2018 at 11:41

0

Aka the only type of war that’s a direct threat to the US.

The military  investment in regional conflicts have returned rather poor results for all except stockholders. 

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > punkgoose17 09/18/2018 at 21:14

1

because when it is said “ the US is giving $$$$ ___ military aid” , a part that is not mentioned is the condition is typically that $$$ have to be spent from US manufacturers. Dumb people get all bent out of shape “I can’t beleive our Gov’ment just hands out cash blah blah blah”. It is why it often is news when “huh the us equipment didn’t do so well, and they’re Iraq is buying frnech, russian stuff”.

People get bent out shape when talking about NATO and gdp, but gloss over how us manufacturers are subsidized.