By: ananda
- 17th September 2013 at 04:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what is the market for this jet?
- Europe - NO
- North America - NO
- Central America - Mexico. Anyone else is too poor to afford anything and relies on US aid.
- Latin America - Maybe someone like Peru but that's about it. Most of the light jets have been replaced by new EMB-314s in recent years and most other A-37 operators cannot afford new aircraft (Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina).
- Middle East - NO
- Africa - NO - not many could afford it and those that could buy supersonics.
- Asia - maybe Thailand and Philippines.
So this thing looks at best the equivalent of a Hawk 200 in sales or at worst nothing at all.
Latin America is Super Tucano land. Thailand already replacing their OV-10 in operational sense with surplus Alpha Jets, and already donating some surplus OV-10 to Philipines. Philipines the only viable market left. It clearly still need COIN, their OV-10 already hard pressed, and their Economy is doing well. Problem is, they want to finish the deal for FA-50 first. While for replacing OV-10, super tucano still a favorite. Some Philippines AF contingent already visiting Indonesian AF Super Tucano for comparison studies. If Textron want to sell this to Philippines, then they must work hard and fast.
But even somehow Philippines AF show interest with this Aircraft, it will be only for 1 sq at most. After that..which market left ? Facing that possibility, Philippines AF I believe will think hard on the possibility they will be the sole operators of this Aircraft.
By: TomcatViP
- 17th September 2013 at 04:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
EMB314 is also handy for training.
Also EMB314s PT6 engine is used by a whole heap of other aircraft often found in other aircraft used by smaller operators - Beech B90, B200, Air Tractors, T-34Cs, DHC-6s, PC-6s, PC-7s, BT-67s, Y-12s, Pipers and Cessnas (and even the old IAI Aravas if any are still operational).
This simplifies logistics and training.
Also many small operators don't operate any jet aircraft, so a turbofan equipped aircraft brings moe complexity into the mix.
Given that we hve seen and still see T37, Bronco, Mohawk, Puccara being flown till the last remaining hours of their cells, I hve no doubt that there is a market for the plane. Payload wise, performances are on the top list. You can't compare it with a turboprop.
By: H_K
- 17th September 2013 at 04:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 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.
By: thobbes
- 17th September 2013 at 04:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Given that we hve seen and still see T37, Bronco, Mohawk, Puccara being flown till the last remaining hours of their cells, I hve no doubt that there is a market for the plane. Payload wise, performances are on the top list. You can't compare it with a turboprop.
T-37 is a trainer.
OV-1 Mohawk is only in service with Argentina.
IA-58 is in service with Argentina and possibly still in service with Uruguay in really small numbers (like 4 aircraft).
Argentina has IA-63B and won't buy new US light jets.
All A-37s in service have generally been donated* and there's not many left:
- Colombia - partially replaced by EMB-314.
- Ecuador - being replaced by EMB-314
- El Salvador
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Peru - up to 18 including recent South Korean donations.
- Uruguay
Maybe 80 airframes in existence, not many operational
*Donations
Most A-37s were donated by the USA in 1980s and 1990s mainly as counter insurgency aircraft. Most of the forces listed above cannot afford new aircraft and most are in decline in terms of numbers of aircraft operated. They often can't even afford new helicopters or light aircraft in most instances and any "new" aircraft are either second hand or mainly donated for counter narcotics.
OV-10:
Colombia
Phillipines - looking at EMB-314
Venezuela - apparently all unserviceable.
Indonesia - being replaced by EMB-314.
Maybe 40 airframes in existence, not many operational and at least half to be gone by 2015
By: thobbes
- 17th September 2013 at 04:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
. 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.
Or attack choppers which is most air force's preference and which sell far better than even EMB314s.
NATO tactics have developed to allow CAS to be performed at high/medium altitude anyhow. There should not be a need for low CAS.
So the Scorpion at least in that respect may be a good middle-of-the-road solution.
I don't disagree that Scorpion might be a good middle-of-the road solution.
Problem is it's potential market is mainly impoverished countries who struggle to afford second hand Vietnam era airframes and let alone anything new.
And it's come a bit late with EMB 314 pretty much taking over entire market.
By: ananda
- 17th September 2013 at 05:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 .
The price tag depends on which electronics modules you want to put it. Still even that price tag, I don't this Textron Scorpion can do much better than that. Fully equiped, I believe potentialy higher than that.
Again the Economical of Super Tucano, is due to operational costs. How this Textron Scorpion with twin turbofan can compete operational cost wise with singgle turboprop ? Mighthy, because for the price and operational cost wise, Super Tucano can do much and more as 'COIN' fighters need to be. Super Tucano will not and need not pretend more than what it is, a COIN fighter.
Now, this Scorpion yes can be perfect replacement for A-37 and OV-10. Still under current situations, will Pentagon bankrolled it ? A-37 and OV-10 become economical because there's huge need for them by then US, due to Vietnsm and Indochina conflict. The surplus of OV-10 and A-37 become handily available in the 70's for US to supply the choosen third world nation. Unless the same situation happen, and US once again become 'Uncle Nick' handing over surplus toys like in the 70's, then those OV-10 and A-37 operators will choose Super Tucano...not because no other Fighters that can out match Super Tucano..but because it simply meet their 'operstional budgets' for the job they expect to do for...which is mostly COIN.
By: alexz
- 17th September 2013 at 08:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems that prototypes (flying/nonflying?) of this aircraft have been built. Just wondering if textron will offer this aircraft for the upcoming usaf jet trainer contest?
Still a lot of info that we dont know. Is it cleared for high g maneuvers? And composites, will be tough to do battle damage repairs especially with low tech users...
By: PhantomII
- 18th September 2013 at 00:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I doubt high-g maneuvers are part of the design requirement. Provided it gives agility similar to an A-10/Su-25 (or even better, the A-37) type of platform, then it will be sufficient for the mission.
I'm not sure what it is about this forum, but everything that shoots weapons does not have to be a fighter, and this concept isn't intended to be in the sense that we know it. Perhaps light patrol (anti-helicopter or narcotics), but it won't likely be marketed (and shouldn't be) as any sort of fighter.
By: H_K
- 18th September 2013 at 16:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According 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.
By: Sintra
- 18th September 2013 at 18:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
The EMB-314 at MTOW is lighter than a completely clean Textron Scorpion, we are looking at a twin engined AMX/A4 sized combat jet against a 50% smaller (area) single engine Turboprop, the diference in costs is not "peanuts", its massive. The only chance that this "Scorpion" has is the Congress to force it down the USAF throat, no one else is going to buy it without the Pentagon ordering it, and the chances of that happening are slightly better (but just) than North Korea being invited to be part of the JSF team.
It will end up like the Scaled Composites ARES, unfortunately because its a pretty neat concept.
By: Siddar
- 18th September 2013 at 19:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The EMB-314 at MTOW is lighter than a completely clean Textron Scorpion, we are looking at a twin engined AMX/A4 sized combat jet against a 50% smaller (area) single engine Turboprop, the diference in costs is not "peanuts", its massive. The only chance that this "Scorpion" has is the Congress to force it down the USAF throat, no one else is going to buy it without the Pentagon ordering it, and the chances of that happening are slightly better (but just) than North Korea being invited to be part of the JSF team.
It will end up like the Scaled Composites ARES, unfortunately because its a pretty neat concept.
Cheers
Three key points that could lead to success for this plane.
One US buys some.
Two US foreign military aid is used to support sales to other countries.
Three plane has a low cost global maintenance system in place and also plane has a reasonable purchase cost.
If the above three items fall in place then there is no reason this plane can't find a market.
By: Sintra
- 18th September 2013 at 19:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Three key points that could lead to success for this plane.
One US buys some.
Two US foreign military aid is used to support sales to other countries.
Three plane has a low cost global maintenance system in place and also plane has a reasonable purchase cost.
If the above three items fall in place then there is no reason this plane can't find a market.
Completely agree, if those three items fall in place it could find an interesting market. The dam problem (IMO) is the chances of that happening "are slightly better (but just) than North Korea being invited to be part of the JSF team". Unless a miracle happens the Pentagon is not going to order it, end of story for the Scorpion (unfortunately).
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!
By: H_K
- 18th September 2013 at 23:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just 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)
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 17th September 2013 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Latin America is Super Tucano land. Thailand already replacing their OV-10 in operational sense with surplus Alpha Jets, and already donating some surplus OV-10 to Philipines. Philipines the only viable market left. It clearly still need COIN, their OV-10 already hard pressed, and their Economy is doing well. Problem is, they want to finish the deal for FA-50 first. While for replacing OV-10, super tucano still a favorite. Some Philippines AF contingent already visiting Indonesian AF Super Tucano for comparison studies. If Textron want to sell this to Philippines, then they must work hard and fast.
But even somehow Philippines AF show interest with this Aircraft, it will be only for 1 sq at most. After that..which market left ? Facing that possibility, Philippines AF I believe will think hard on the possibility they will be the sole operators of this Aircraft.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 17th September 2013 at 04:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Given that we hve seen and still see T37, Bronco, Mohawk, Puccara being flown till the last remaining hours of their cells, I hve no doubt that there is a market for the plane. Payload wise, performances are on the top list. You can't compare it with a turboprop.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 17th September 2013 at 04:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 17th September 2013 at 04:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
T-37 is a trainer.
OV-1 Mohawk is only in service with Argentina.
IA-58 is in service with Argentina and possibly still in service with Uruguay in really small numbers (like 4 aircraft).
Argentina has IA-63B and won't buy new US light jets.
All A-37s in service have generally been donated* and there's not many left:
- Colombia - partially replaced by EMB-314.
- Ecuador - being replaced by EMB-314
- El Salvador
- Guatemala
- Honduras
- Peru - up to 18 including recent South Korean donations.
- Uruguay
Maybe 80 airframes in existence, not many operational
*Donations
Most A-37s were donated by the USA in 1980s and 1990s mainly as counter insurgency aircraft. Most of the forces listed above cannot afford new aircraft and most are in decline in terms of numbers of aircraft operated. They often can't even afford new helicopters or light aircraft in most instances and any "new" aircraft are either second hand or mainly donated for counter narcotics.
OV-10:
Colombia
Phillipines - looking at EMB-314
Venezuela - apparently all unserviceable.
Indonesia - being replaced by EMB-314.
Maybe 40 airframes in existence, not many operational and at least half to be gone by 2015
- Again mostly donated airframes.
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 17th September 2013 at 04:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Or attack choppers which is most air force's preference and which sell far better than even EMB314s.
NATO tactics have developed to allow CAS to be performed at high/medium altitude anyhow. There should not be a need for low CAS.
I don't disagree that Scorpion might be a good middle-of-the road solution.
Problem is it's potential market is mainly impoverished countries who struggle to afford second hand Vietnam era airframes and let alone anything new.
And it's come a bit late with EMB 314 pretty much taking over entire market.
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 17th September 2013 at 05:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The price tag depends on which electronics modules you want to put it. Still even that price tag, I don't this Textron Scorpion can do much better than that. Fully equiped, I believe potentialy higher than that.
Again the Economical of Super Tucano, is due to operational costs. How this Textron Scorpion with twin turbofan can compete operational cost wise with singgle turboprop ? Mighthy, because for the price and operational cost wise, Super Tucano can do much and more as 'COIN' fighters need to be. Super Tucano will not and need not pretend more than what it is, a COIN fighter.
Now, this Scorpion yes can be perfect replacement for A-37 and OV-10. Still under current situations, will Pentagon bankrolled it ? A-37 and OV-10 become economical because there's huge need for them by then US, due to Vietnsm and Indochina conflict. The surplus of OV-10 and A-37 become handily available in the 70's for US to supply the choosen third world nation. Unless the same situation happen, and US once again become 'Uncle Nick' handing over surplus toys like in the 70's, then those OV-10 and A-37 operators will choose Super Tucano...not because no other Fighters that can out match Super Tucano..but because it simply meet their 'operstional budgets' for the job they expect to do for...which is mostly COIN.
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 17th September 2013 at 07:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While I don't think the DoD will purchase this aircraft, it is a fascinating concept, and if done properly it could be a useful weapons system.
Posts: 300
By: alexz - 17th September 2013 at 08:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems that prototypes (flying/nonflying?) of this aircraft have been built. Just wondering if textron will offer this aircraft for the upcoming usaf jet trainer contest?
Still a lot of info that we dont know. Is it cleared for high g maneuvers? And composites, will be tough to do battle damage repairs especially with low tech users...
Posts: 7,989
By: PhantomII - 18th September 2013 at 00:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I doubt high-g maneuvers are part of the design requirement. Provided it gives agility similar to an A-10/Su-25 (or even better, the A-37) type of platform, then it will be sufficient for the mission.
I'm not sure what it is about this forum, but everything that shoots weapons does not have to be a fighter, and this concept isn't intended to be in the sense that we know it. Perhaps light patrol (anti-helicopter or narcotics), but it won't likely be marketed (and shouldn't be) as any sort of fighter.
Posts: 2,120
By: thobbes - 18th September 2013 at 01:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It actually seems like a decent counter-narcotics bird indeed!
The only problem is that I can't see a healthy market for it as the most likely users are all generally broke.
And I like the look of thing too!
Totally agree. After all one of the most useful bits of shooty kit in the US arsenal is the AC-130 gunship.
And the Mi-17 and Mi-35 are superb multi-role birds that pack meaty punches.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 18th September 2013 at 16:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According 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.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 18th September 2013 at 18:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The EMB-314 at MTOW is lighter than a completely clean Textron Scorpion, we are looking at a twin engined AMX/A4 sized combat jet against a 50% smaller (area) single engine Turboprop, the diference in costs is not "peanuts", its massive. The only chance that this "Scorpion" has is the Congress to force it down the USAF throat, no one else is going to buy it without the Pentagon ordering it, and the chances of that happening are slightly better (but just) than North Korea being invited to be part of the JSF team.
It will end up like the Scaled Composites ARES, unfortunately because its a pretty neat concept.
Cheers
Posts: 253
By: Siddar - 18th September 2013 at 19:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Three key points that could lead to success for this plane.
One US buys some.
Two US foreign military aid is used to support sales to other countries.
Three plane has a low cost global maintenance system in place and also plane has a reasonable purchase cost.
If the above three items fall in place then there is no reason this plane can't find a market.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 18th September 2013 at 19:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Completely agree, if those three items fall in place it could find an interesting market. The dam problem (IMO) is the chances of that happening "are slightly better (but just) than North Korea being invited to be part of the JSF team". Unless a miracle happens the Pentagon is not going to order it, end of story for the Scorpion (unfortunately).
Cheers
Posts: 253
By: Siddar - 18th September 2013 at 19:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US government has bought far weirder things then Scorpion in the past.
Posts: 305
By: ClanWarrior - 18th September 2013 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USAF needs an aircraft like the Scorpion to replace the A-10C. Anyone know how much a single wing of Scorpion's would cost to operate?
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 18th September 2013 at 19:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, it looks like even the pros are overwhelmingly skeptical about the market for Scorpion.
Bill Sweetman: Can This Scorpion Fly?
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
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
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!
Posts: 770
By: 19kilo10 - 18th September 2013 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scorpion is a complete nonstarter as far as the usaf is concerned.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 18th September 2013 at 23:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
igla sez hi!
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 18th September 2013 at 23:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just 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)