Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gman on April 10, 2014, 06:26:29 PM
-
http://theaviationist.com/2014/04/10/scorpion-low-speed-interception/
Cessna’s parent company Textron Scorpion is a low cost Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)/Strike aircraft with a cruising speed of up to 450 knots.
Developed in about 2 years, the aircraft has a ferry range of 2,400 NM (nautical miles) and a payload of 3,000 lbs internal stores as well as underwing PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions), is pitched for ISR and homeland security mission set.
Indeed, the “affordable warplane for low-threat missions” has shown its impressive stability and responsiveness by intercepting a Cessna 182 flying at extremely low speed: 120 KCAS (Knots Calibrated Air Speed).
The two-seater with twin tails, a two 8,000 lb turbofan engines, straight wings and all-composite fuselage seems be a perfect match for the “low-cost combat plane to contain the cost of prolonged operations,” whose need emerged during Libya Air War 2011.
Even if it is unclear whether such platform has real chances to see active service within the U.S. or any other country’s air arm, for sure the image of the mock interception on the C182 shows that the Scorpion would be capable to perform, if needed, even the SMI (Slow Mover Interceptor) role.
I've posted here before about this little bird. It's kind of interesting, internal weapons bays, able to cruise at 450 kts, is very, very cheap, yet can employ pretty much all the weapons in the USAF arsenal. Maybe it isn't a bad way to go for places that aren't denied areas, or once air superiority is completely established. Who knows, just something to think about none the less, and obviosly the folks at Cessna think there is potential of some sort with it.
In uncontested airspace where the F15/16/A10/etc cost 30,000 per hour to operate, just to provide overwatch and drop the occasional bomb or burst of cannon fire, why not have a plane that can do all that for less than 3000$ per hour, 1/10 the cost? I'm not saying it's perfect, but it isn't the worst idea I've seen, to be sure, especially with the cost of defense and the current issues around that.
I also read today that even if there needs to be a radar and supersonic flight capable version for intercepting airborne threats, it can easily and cheaply be done with this design by adding more powerful engines and a bit of wing sweep - they've already done the specs for it supposedly. It would no doubt cost a little more to operate, but not much more. The current version has plug and play removable wings, so a redesign for a supersonic capable interceptor was obviously considered from the start. The current air to ground/surveillance version has a reconfigurable internal bay that can hold up to 3000lb of equipment/ordinance, and the 6 hardpoints under the wings can hold an additional 3200lbs, giving it a 6000lb+ capability for sensors/weapons. That isn't too bad, and having 2 pilots is a great idea, something I know Eagl and Mace here have spoken about at great length, regarding crew workload and the advantages of having two guys in the cockpit.
There's a pile of pilots, enthusiast, x-military, etc here - there has to be some good opinions for and against this type of aircraft from those here. Comments?
-
Just an Arm Chair cartoon pilot here, but it looks to me to have the potential to be the next F-5, perhaps cheaper? Not sure.
Just curious the need for two crewmen? I guess two more sets of eyes? Doesn't seem like it would have a powerful radar or optics system that required the need for RIO or B/N, etc..
-
Too vulnerable to manpads or even 50 cal machine guns. History is repeating itself. During the Vietnam War, the U.S used a whole host of light attack aircraft. From the Cessna Birddog to the Bronco. They were very vulnerable to AA fire. The A-1 Skyraider was a bit different though. It possessed attributes that allowed it to get in and out without being targeted for too long. Probably more to do with Naval tactics than anything else.
-
Just curious the need for two crewmen? I guess two more sets of eyes? Doesn't seem like it would have a powerful radar or optics system that required the need for RIO or B/N, etc..
Potential trainer with 2 seats. Also as tech gets better, the option to install as full suit of electronics might become an option.
-
Potential trainer with 2 seats. Also as tech gets better, the option to install as full suit of electronics might become an option.
Yep. Good call.
-
Too vulnerable to manpads or even 50 cal machine guns
That's a valid point. However, like I said, I've read that it would only be for areas were the airspace is completely uncontested, like Iraq and Afghanistan turned out. Could there be a manpads and large caliber gun threat still? Absolutely, you're right, but it would hopefully be nothing like the level of threat there was in your Vietnam example. I'm talking about say Afghanistan right now as is. So long as the aircraft stayed at medium, to higher low alt sort of heights, say whatever that is, 6 or 8k feet, whatever the experts here say is out of gun range essentially, the only possible threat would be a manpads missile. There are off the shelf systems available now in the USA that very effectively counter these missiles. I have first hand pictures and knowledge of this, from an incident with coworkers in Iraq (I've sent the pics to Gsholz in the past) - the countermeasures do work vs manpads missiles, and that was at far lower altitude than this Scorpion jet would be flying.
Nevertheless, I believe that it's a valid point and consideration, and would have to be carefully examined with regards to how, when, and where this little bird could be deployed and used.
-
Must be dirt cheap, it has the 182's wings.
-
That's a valid point. However, like I said, I've read that it would only be for areas were the airspace is completely uncontested, like Iraq and Afghanistan turned out. Could there be a manpads and large caliber gun threat still? Absolutely, you're right, but it would hopefully be nothing like the level of threat there was in your Vietnam example. I'm talking about say Afghanistan right now as is. So long as the aircraft stayed at medium, to higher low alt sort of heights, say whatever that is, 6 or 8k feet, whatever the experts here say is out of gun range essentially, the only possible threat would be a manpads missile. There are off the shelf systems available now in the USA that very effectively counter these missiles. I have first hand pictures and knowledge of this, from an incident with coworkers in Iraq (I've sent the pics to Gsholz in the past) - the countermeasures do work vs manpads missiles, and that was at far lower altitude than this Scorpion jet would be flying.
Nevertheless, I believe that it's a valid point and consideration, and would have to be carefully examined with regards to how, when, and where this little bird could be deployed and used.
These things would be the biggest threat I think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDwMPGn80VQ
-
I reckon if you made a single seat CAS version, replacing the 2nd crew member with all the nifty gear, while more expensive per unit. Its combat effectiveness could be quite potent.
-
Why not just put a bomb bay to that 182, even cheaper!
-
A marketing team must have picked the name cos it's stupid. The thing should be called a TomKitten.
-
That reminds me of the mercenarys in Africa fighting with 40 year old Fouga Magisters. Not state of the art but when the enemy has no airpower at all, it's pretty cool tool.
-
Underneath the ugly with a capital "F" exterior is a hodgepodge of Citation parts with Garrett/Honeywell motors. $3,000 would probably be on the high side of operating cost but makes sense given they'd not be flown the way a business jet would be.
I hope they buy a pile of them, build a pile of new F15's and nix the F35 and put the dollars into a couple hundred more F22s and 2 A-10's for every one of those. I'm not in charge it turns out so we'll see if my wish is granted by the armament fairy.
-
I want one.
-
What was that light trainer used in Africa and maybe Indo/Pako as a light CAS?
-
What was that light trainer used in Africa and maybe Indo/Pako as a light CAS?
Any particular timeframe?
The Super Tucano is popular for that.
-
Golfer, you have a pile of time in similarly sized smaller biz jets like the Citation if memory serves - how hard/easy is it to train guys to fly and be able to drop bombs on targets do you think it is with these el-cheapo types of ideas? Could they cut down on the most expensive part (training and pilots) a great deal compared to more complicated types like the F15/16 for just overwatch types of missions in non denied areas?
-
Any particular timeframe?
The Super Tucano is popular for that.
While that names sounds super familiar Im thinking like South Africas bush wars in the '60s and '70s and maybe some middle Africa conflicts. I would say '60s and '70s would be the time frame.
-
Ok one such I believe was the Hawk light attack/trainer but Im thinking theres another.
-
Golfer, you have a pile of time in similarly sized smaller biz jets like the Citation if memory serves - how hard/easy is it to train guys to fly and be able to drop bombs on targets do you think it is with these el-cheapo types of ideas? Could they cut down on the most expensive part (training and pilots) a great deal compared to more complicated types like the F15/16 for just overwatch types of missions in non denied areas?
Eagl would probably be a better person to ask but I would be shocked that the fundamentals of aerial bombing and strafing couldn't be taught and mastered on these and those principals transferred to a front line fighter airplane for less money than using the fighter to learn.
Frankly the millions if pounds of virtual ordnance I've dropped in AW and AH over the last 19 years I bet I could figure it out. I'd expect there's some sort of sinulation available to supplement in aircraft training but have no fires hand experience with USAF training.
I flew Citations for a brief while but left those 8 years ago. I'm getting old...
-
Ok one such I believe was the Hawk light attack/trainer but Im thinking theres another.
Gnat?
They were used with good results in Hot Shots.
-
Eagl would probably be a better person to ask but I would be shocked that the fundamentals of aerial bombing and strafing couldn't be taught and mastered on these and those principals transferred to a front line fighter airplane for less money than using the fighter to learn.
Frankly the millions if pounds of virtual ordnance I've dropped in AW and AH over the last 19 years I bet I could figure it out. I'd expect there's some sort of sinulation available to supplement in aircraft training but have no fires hand experience with USAF training.
Good luck with that. Try dropping bombs correctly in Dcs Warthog.. It is hard with the modern weapons
-
Eagl would probably be a better person to ask but I would be shocked that the fundamentals of aerial bombing and strafing couldn't be taught and mastered on these and those principals transferred to a front line fighter airplane for less money than using the fighter to learn.
Frankly the millions if pounds of virtual ordnance I've dropped in AW and AH over the last 19 years I bet I could figure it out. I'd expect there's some sort of sinulation available to supplement in aircraft training but have no fires hand experience with USAF training.
I flew Citations for a brief while but left those 8 years ago. I'm getting old...
Do you really think for a second that the virtual bombing in AH or AW relate in any imaginable way to a real bombing sortie? You wouldn't have a clue on how to actually bomb with a lancaster even if you flew AH with them for your whole life.
-
Which isn't at all what I'm talking about.
We're talking about light attack airplanes and what amounts to glide bombing. And yes, if left to my own devices I'm saying I'd figure out how to take an airplane with ordnance under the wings and put the ordnance an acceptable distance from a stationary target on a range while not being shot at without too much fuss.
Glide bombing basically. A weapon selector, a pickle switch, a little bit of TLAR figurin' and a few times to try it out? I'll get close.
-
And besides, a Norden bomb site is a different kettle of fish to modern 'playstation' avionics.
-
Good luck with that. Try dropping bombs correctly in Dcs Warthog.. It is hard with the modern weapons
Actually, it's not IF properly trained on how to employ the weapons system. The latest systems are designed for ease of use versus the old school "iron sights" of the early days which required manual adjustments for winds, dive angle, airspeed, etc variations. :salute
-
The thing looks like the end result of a bad weekend in Vegas for a Hornet and a Skylane that both drank too much and didn't use a condom. :huh
-
Actually, it's not IF properly trained on how to employ the weapons system. The latest systems are designed for ease of use versus the old school "iron sights" of the early days which required manual adjustments for winds, dive angle, airspeed, etc variations. :salute
Yep but the iron sights are easyer for the 'rtfm? Never!' people called average gamers.
-
True. It's a choice to either train and learn how to use the technology, or not. TLAR is always a good fall back method. :D
-
for "homeland security mission set"?
-
The A10 is perfect for the missions it's designed for, carries more ords, and you already have a fleet of them. Seems like a waste.
-
The A10 is perfect for the job. However, even with the C upgrades and support, fatigue and operating costs/ part production will catch up to her :frown: This new jet could be more cost effective and might be good for exports.
Looks only about as big as the GAU-8 though ;)
-
for "homeland security mission set"?
Thank you. That jumped out at me first thing.
That aside, I wants me one. :joystick: