The Scorpion is a tandem-seat twinjet aircraft with an all-composite material fuselage designed for light attack and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Production costs were minimized by using common commercial off the shelf technology, manufacturing resources and components developed for Cessna’s business jets; such as the flap drive mechanism is from the Cessna Citation XLS and Cessna Citation Mustang, the aileron drive mechanism is from the Citation X.[3][6][7][8][25] Textron AirLand calls the Scorpion an ISR/strike aircraft, instead of a “light attack” aircraft. The joint venture also states the Scorpion is intended to handle “non-traditional ISR” flights such as those performed by U.S. fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Scorpion is designed to cheaply perform armed reconnaissance using sensors to cruise above 15,000 ft, higher than most ground fire can reach, and still be rugged enough to sustain minimal damage.[26]
The Scorpion is designed to be affordable, costing US$3,000 per flight hour, with a unit cost expected to be below US$20 million.[22]
Vs F-16 “more recent variants starting at $25 to $30 million but potentially reaching $60 to $70 million with improvements.” and $22,000 per hour.
Vid of it https://youtu.be/q7qwQGksyPk
They hope it will replace the A-10.
“And other parts” on a fighter jet feels a bit like “and other ingredients” on your food/medicine label.
“Don’t worry, we made this baby as cheaply as possible! It’s got Cessna engines! It’s got…lots of other parts in there!”
“Contains no more than 20% bulk jet meal”
Ok I’ll clarify the title to other Cessna parts.
I think the title is great. I’m just being intentionally obtuse. I understand it’s not truly a mish-mash of parts, that’s just how I initially read it. It’s a cool jet!
Well, it would be weird if they used parts from other aircraft manufacturers.
“100% made of Cessna concentrate”
It looks like the Scorpion was not selected by the USAF for the light-strike or patrolling craft role, in favor of pursuing turboprop options (Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine and Embraer EMB-314 Super Tucano).
Reading more of this, the Beechcraft may be used for basic training, then the T7 for advanced training. The Scorpion would have been smack in the middle, doing neither as well, and probably not worth it.
Sounds like they want to armed version of the T7. So everything armed.
And rightfully so. They are straight up better options.
And if I read the literature correctly, the craft actually selected was the OA-1K Sky Warden, the airframe based on the agricultural aircraft designs of Air Tractor AT-802.
They were going with the Super Tuscano. I don’t know what happened. But somewhere in there they also decided to order 75 of them instead of something like half that number.
I think US military operations moved away from counter-insurgency to preparedness with conflicts with mechanized military forces that have actual air power, so a low-and-slow airframe wasn’t considered as necessary. That, and drones are filling a lot of the air coverage and surveillance gap (though no one on the ground will tell you there could ever be a complete replacement for the BRRRRRRRR of an A-10.)
I would think the same thing but the order for 75 is the Sky Warden. An armed Air Tractor. Which doesn’t make sense to me.
Super Tuscano
🤌
The problem with replacing the A-10 is the lack of wing space for hard points. Everyone thinks about the gun but the real thing the A-10 brought was 11 hard points and a 7600kg weight budget for them. That means 30 500 pound guided munitions. And hours to use them.
The F 35 in beast mode carries around half the hard points but the same weight, and the strike eagle carries around 2/3rds. So the question becomes about economy. This plane carries half the hard points and half the weight.
So the question becomes economics. In a world of F-35s and Strike Eagles is it cheaper to keep them grounded and source, train, maintain, and fly the scorpion. The answer is no. In fact the 2 main arguments for keeping the A-10 for the last 40 years have been, we already have them, and they are the best aircraft for the job. We’re not going to buy another unless it is also the best plane for the job.
All good points. I just want to add that the issue with the f35 afaik is the long down time for every hour of flight, and cost per hour. That could be overcome with cheaper planes. But like you say, is it really worth a whole new manned system.
As I understand it, the Armed Overwatch pick that would at least sometimes replace the A-10 for close air support is the OA-1K Sky Warden, which has 10 hard points, and a 7,257kg gross weight. I don’t know how to accurately calculate the Sky Warden’s weight budget, but it’s a little more than half of the gross weight of the A-10, so I’d guess it’s roughly half, or 3,500kg or so. Which is definitely a step down in terms of weight and ability, but I guess the hope is that it will be cheaper to fly and maintain, particularly since it’s based off the long-running Air Tractor AT-802 airframe. I think the other two planes in consideration, the EMB-314 Super Tucano and the AT-6B Wolverine, have fewer hard points (5 each) and lower maximum take-off weights (5,400kg and 2,948kg, respectively).
It’ll be somewhere in the 3,000ish kg between it’s dry weight and it’s max take off weight. Also of note to my earlier bit SOCOM got this money directly and will control these planes directly. And the GAO is not happy about it. Especially that SOCOM ordered 75 of them, which is enough to put 10 in each region. Basically they don’t want to have to ferry them around, even though that’s part of their selling point. However I think GAO has the same question I do. What is wrong with the MQ-9 and eight hellfire missiles? What is SOCOM thinking they’re getting into that they need more than the 300 MQ-9 Predators already available largely just to them?
If I had to take a guess the Sky Warden’s ordnance carry isn’t even that much higher than the MQ-9, about 900 kg or 2,000 pounds more. (Max minus dry weight, fuel, and 10 percent for other equipment, less if you want to use drop tanks)
Looks like a plane to me.
Disgusting. I would never park one in my driveway. What would the neighbors think??
At front I get the feeling of a woman with huge ass bolted on titties. Behind looks slim and appealing.
Would.
I actually like it a lot ngl.
From the side it looks like the bastard son of a Frogfoot, the backside looks like they stole the tail rudders from an F-18 and strapped them on something F-14 adjacent.
The front is very A-10, just with the engines in a different orientation.
“They hope it will replace the A-10”
Aaaahahahahaha "Lets give it no BBBRRRRRRRPPP, a low service ceiling, use the engines as shielding / flak generators for the pilots, and hope to sell it as an A-10!
Well afaik Brrrrrrp is giving way to precision missiles.
The big advantage of brrrp is simplicity. Pull trigger, things go asplodsy and/or turn into pink mist. Close air support, which the 'hog kicked ass at in the sandbox, needs to be reliable and simple. With the proliferation of GPS jamming technologies and other countermeasures, simple and cheap should carry the day.
I don’t know if anything is as physically survivable as the A-10. Certainly not some modern composite that will be grounded for fractures after taking small arms fire. Also, the boots on the ground love the support provided by the A-10, as do the congress critters whose bases are in their districts.
Just rambling thoughts from a village idiot, not looking to start a fight
Yeah but that requires you to be super close. Missile you can fire from far away.
that’s the best part, the brrrt never really worked well.
what boggles the mind is why people think cheap is good when it’s about war, when we have seen time and time again that cheap and simple gets dominated by advanced but more expensive.
