Future Light Attack - Textron Scorpion

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

With the Budget sequestration ongoing and the DOD/USAF agonizing over retiring a number of types including the A-10, B-1B and KC-10 the idea that funding could be found for a twin light attack jet is wishful thinking at best and a pitiful joke at worst.

Textron knows this full well! Yet there is a prototype so they clearly want to do something with it, there is pretty much no chance we shall ever see this aircraft being purchased by the US in this role so the question is "what is Textron's game here"?

I wonder is this a sideways step at T-X?

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

Very good post Fedaykin.

This isn't the 1960s/70s where America has enough case for thousands of jet fighters, transports and bombers and enough change to buy smaller mission specific aircraft ala OV-1, OV-10, AU-23, A-37 etc etc.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 96

Textron knows this full well! Yet there is a prototype so they clearly want to do something with it, there is pretty much no chance we shall ever see this aircraft being purchased by the US in this role so the question is "what is Textron's game here"?

I wonder is this a sideways step at T-X?


One of my first thoughts was in that regard. Could this be also used for advanced training? Maybe this project is itself the result of an attempt to compete on the T-X contract but weren't able to get a better partner?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it develops. As you wrote, Textron must be expecting something to even spend money on something like this.

It would actually have been more interesting to see them partner with AeroSud to offer a more advanced AHRLAC. That could probably compete better against the Super Tucano and AT-6, or at least in the same category.

Best regards,

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 253

I think the idea in regards to trainers is to be lower cost compared to other more expensive options.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

Depends on the types of training. Remember Swiss are doing advanced training with PC-21.

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 253

True there are both higher and lower cost trainers.

What aircraft still in production compete with it in the same weight class?

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

There is pretty much no chance we shall ever see this aircraft being purchased by the US in this role so the question is "what is Textron's game here"?

One word: ISR. Textron have pretty much said so. I think they're betting that ISR budgets will be preserved, especially with the US turning inwards, since that's going to lead to a renewed focus on domestic & foreign security missions (border protection, drug interdiction, special forces support etc).

So I think Textron are offering the USAF the following short-term political play: "you can't avoid sequestration, so why not capture some of the homeland security budget to cushion the fall". The USAF may want to play along, to at least preserve some of its squadron numbers, since nothing can save its front-line fleet.

Anyway, this pitch isn't about light attack... not yet, at least. Long term, I do think that Textron's play is to push Scorpion as a dedicated FAC(A) / CAS platform. So in effect an A-10 replacement for the USAF, and an A-37 replacement or Super Tucano alternative for export.

This dual ISR/light-attack role opens up some interesting possibilities, since theoretically small airforces could replace 3-4 micro-fleets with a single jack-of-all-trades Scorpion buy (COIN turboprop + maritime patrol turboprop + jet trainer + legacy Cold War attack aircraft). The economics might be interesting, even if the Scorpion doesn't excel at anything.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

The US already has numerous ISR systems - a myriads of UAVs and a large variety of manned aircraft ranging from MC-12s to E-8s.

As for A-10 replacement, that is the F-35. The USAF doesn't want another CAS platform to replace A-10. They want to replace A-10 with a multirole type.

In fact they've been trying to get rid of A-10s for decades now and are pushing to do it again. And they're actually looking at getting rid of these squadrons by the looks of things.

And they've got rid of all the lighter FAC(A)/Observation types years ago (A-37, OV-10, OV-1).

This is the confusing thing about the Scorpion - it's a type that fits 1980s market niches when budgets were big and not 2010s when US military is reemphasising high end peer level conflict.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

Apparently UAVs aren't allowed to perform domestic ISR (airspace restructions), which leaves the 35-odd single-mission MC-12s as the only useful "homeland" fleet. The USAF is definitely done buying single-mission aircraft, so a dual-use ISR aircraft that has a useful secondary military capability might *just* pass the bar.

Regarding an A_10 replacement for FAC / CAS / COIN, the USAF might not care, but the US Army and SOCOM probably do. Might help with lobbying or even releasing joint funds (despite the C-27J debacle)... but probably only down the road.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

Apparently UAVs aren't allowed to perform domestic ISR (airspace restructions),

That's a very good point!


Regarding an A_10 replacement for FAC / CAS / COIN, the USAF might not care, but the US Army and SOCOM probably do. Might help with lobbying or even releasing joint funds (despite the C-27J debacle)... but probably only down the road.

US Army will never be allowed to operate anything even resembling tactical combat aircraft.

As for SOCOM, they don't operate combat aircraft - it's helos, utility aircraft and airliners all the way.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

With the Budget sequestration ongoing and the DOD/USAF agonizing over retiring a number of types including the A-10, B-1B and KC-10 the idea that funding could be found for a twin light attack jet is wishful thinking at best and a pitiful joke at worst.

Textron knows this full well! Yet there is a prototype so they clearly want to do something with it, there is pretty much no chance we shall ever see this aircraft being purchased by the US in this role so the question is "what is Textron's game here"?

I wonder is this a sideways step at T-X?

Didn't the services set up something like a Venture capital fund for small sector projects looking to break into the defense establishments. It may have been an Army only effort but with the current environment and the acknowledged need to protect aerospace and defense sector companies (and to create some growth) this may be something that the DOD could look at.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109


Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

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?

It could not replace the A-10. The A-10 is tough. It is meant to survive trashfire & manpads, to fly low in dangerous places & get away with it.

This Textron design is liightly built. It could not survive anywhere there is heavy fire from the ground, except by flying high enough to be out of the trashfire. F-16s, F-15s, F-18s etc already do ground attack from up there.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 594

Had the USN been looking to replace its Goshawks, then I could see where a navalised version of the Scorpion, where the internal bay could be loaded with black boxes relating to different mission profiles.

But with the T-45As being upgraded to T-45C, that doesn't really make sense of this aircraft either.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Structurally it's a beauty. Where was made the fuselage ?

Country like Israel cld see an interest in it (persistent manned ISR over congestioned airspace with light strike cap). But definitively, this thing is riding on the A/T37 legacy.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

Israel is currently slashing it's defence force, so any money left is going to go to maintain high end capability.

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 5,267

After a bit of web news searching it looks like I am not the only person thinking T-X when it comes to editorial.

As for Israel they are already purchasing a type very similar to the Scorpion (actually better performing in many respects) the M346 Lavi. If they needed to press an aircraft into the role why purchase another type when they already have m346 Lavi?

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 784

The gap between the intake and wing.. um... is odd to say the least. Drag comes to mind.

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 46

Very interesting announcement today, the Textron (Cessna) Scorpion light attack aircraft: www.scorpionjet.com

Aviation Week: Textron Unveils Scorpion Light Attack, Recce Jet
The Scorpion demonstrator is intended to whet the U.S. Air Force's appetite with the promise of a low procurement and operating cost. The pitch is for this aircraft, which is optimized for 5-hr. endurance with onboard intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) collectors and weapons, to handle the Air Force's low-end missions such as U.S.-based interdiction, quick-reaction natural disaster support and air sovereignty patrols.
www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_16_2013_p22-615375.xml

2 seat, twin engine light attack jet
Max speed: 450 knots

Air sovereignty in a 450 knot plane? Yeah... I'm sure the ANG is just itching to be outrun by terrorists in a chartered Airbus. :rolleyes:

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

OK, to sum up the critics' arguments:

  1. Close Air Support: Scorpion isn't tough enough & big enough to replace the A-10... which the USAF doesn't even want to replace anyway

    [*]Light Attack (COIN): Scorpion is too expensive to compete with turboprops like the Super Tucano


    [*]ISR: Nothing beats a UAV for low-cost, long-endurance surveillance


    [*]Jet trainer: Scorpion doesn't bring anything new to the table vs. the many existing alternatives (Hawk, M346, Yak-130...)


    [*]Light fighter: Small airforces are better off buying a single, relatively cheap, high-performance, multirole type with real A2A capabilities (JF-17, FA-50, Tejas, Gripen etc)


All these points are valid, so Scorpion's only chance is to find users whose needs overlap across several of the above categories. They're the ones who might *just* go for a jack-of-all-trades solution. So IMHO the ideal Scorpion customers are:

[INDENT]1) Top tier air forces
They all want more ISR, and are all feeling the financial squeeze because of their fast jet fleets' running costs. One of the solutions is to turn UAVs into dual-use ISR + COIN/CAS assets, but there are limits to what UAVs can do. You still need manned fighters for this role (as gun platforms, for shows-of-force etc). None of them really want a turboprop, because of the low performance. The obvious solution, known since the 1970s, is a small Blitzfighter* to slot in nicely between drones and fast jets as a true dual-use ISR + COIN/CAS asset.[/INDENT]

[INDENT]2) Air forces that can't afford fighters of any kind
If you can't afford even a light fighter, then you're pretty much stuck with buying turboprop COIN aircraft. Although cheap, they can't do much. You don't need a jet trainer and probably can't afford to splurge on single-role UAVs either. Except... what if you could get a lot more bang for you buck for just a bit more money? Especially in terms of ISR & CAS capability? Then you might be very interested. [/INDENT]

*More on the "Blitzfighter" concept in my next post.