Posted on 05/16/2015 5:02:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Textron Scorpion costs $20 million, still not exactly a bargain by most people's standards, but a fifth of the cost of the F-35. It suggests that not every advanced defence project has to necessarily come in years late and billions over budget – and points to a new twist in not only the future of fighter-jet design, but also in more humanitarian roles that a budget jet could carry out.
Textron aren’t the only ones creating the tech to address this issue. The single jet fighter JF-17 is a Chinese design, currently being built in collaboration with its sole export customer, Pakistan, and is said to be available for around the same per-plane price of US$20m. Meanwhile, a Russian design, the Yak-130, has also been touted as a low-cost plane to carry out everything from air combat to reconnaissance, as well as train pilots.
The Scorpion took only two years to go from concept to its first flight
Textron describes Scorpion as a modern "surveillance and strike" aircraft boasting:
* twin turbofan engines, producing 8,000 lbs. of combined thrust * a 45,000-foot top altitude * a top speed of 520 mph * six hard points for carrying weapons on its wings (6,200 lbs. capacity) * room for 3,000 lbs. more payload in an internal weapons bay
a flyaway cost of less than $20 million -- and an hourly operations cost of about $3,000
Relative to the A-10 Warthog, Textron's Scorpion has about half as much engine power -- but also half the weight. The aircraft's range is roughly equal to the A-10's, but the Scorpion is a better "sprinter," featuring both a faster maximum speed and a slower "stall speed" -- important for flying low-and-slow on ground support missions.
The Scorpion doesn't carry an integrated 30 mm cannon (like the A-10), its modular design permits it to carry one or even two cannon "pods" on its wings, to provide a strafing ability when there's a need to get up close and personal.
Citing research from DARPA, Anderson notes that, in decades past, it was possible to design and build a new fighter jet in five to 10 years. These days, it takes closer to 20 years to bring a new concept to market. Thus, technology that was cutting-edge when the Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II were first envisioned, for example, is now already becoming obsolete -- just as the planes are starting to fly.
To address this problem, Textron built Scorpion with off-the-shelf parts -- taking fully vetted "mature high technology" that is already available, and assembling it into a jet that's modern today -- and can be upgraded as technology advances tomorrow. This permitted an exceptionally fast turnaround time in developing the plane. As Anderson describes it, "From the time we got the 'go' signal, from a clean slate, it took 23 months for Scorpion to take its first test flight."
There are three main classes of potential customers for planes like the Scorpion, which has a top speed of around 520mph. The first are air forces who want a small jet aircraft capable of carrying out a range of strike and intelligence-gathering missions, and who have either never flown combat jets before or are looking to replace older aircraft. The second are countries who already have, or are developing, high-end fighter forces, but who might buy fewer of the more expensive jets to obtain a larger number of cheaper aircraft. The third are the major military powers who will need the advanced jets for simpler missions in low-risk environments.
This is a quasi-military plane, better suited to low intensity conflict.
Reminds me a bit of the efforts with the F-20, but that plane had much higher performance numbers.
It actually sounds over priced to me.
Part of the benefits the F-35 has is stealth.
You can’t shoot, what you don’t see.
Here is one!
F-22 production shouldn’t have been halted. It is fully operational, and a much better plane by most metrics than the F-35 - for a cheaper flyaway cost at this point.
If we need a “low cost, low tech” fighter, churn out more F-16s. They’re far superior to these for not a lot more money.
A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for air-to-air combat against other aircraft, as opposed to bombers and attack aircraft, whose main mission is to attack ground targets. The hallmarks of a fighter are its speed, maneuverability, and small size relative to other combat aircraft.
The pilot better hope he is going up against a 50's era fighter.
Otherwise he'll no longer be flying a "fighter" but an exploder.
Stealth is relative, and stealth countermeasures are improving very rapidly. The degree of stealth of the F35 may well prove inadequate within a few years.
2 minutes of engagement and there'd be 7 aircraft burning on the ground.
Someone needs to buy them. I have a contract to machine some of the parts. And it is mislabeled again. It’s not a fighter. It is a military support capable of being armed.
Only radar can't see it. An enemy pilot on its six can see it just fine.
Haha, stealth? That can be negated already, F-35 is a pile of crap and I hope we don’t buy any. We’d be far better served with super hornets or latest model F-15.
“This is a quasi-military plane, better suited to low intensity conflict.”
But isn’t that what we are mostly fighting? ISIS doesn’t have an airforce.
I’m thinking a redesigned A10 would be awesome too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg
Turbofan Killer Bee: Rutan ARES “Mudfighter” for U.S. Army Close Air Support
Of course not, if up against advanced radars and other advanced detection technologies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.