Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Scorpion Seduces
SYSOP    7/29/2014 5:23:53 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
HR    Keffler   7/29/2014 9:51:56 AM
Two weeks ago Keffler spent two weeks arguing that this aircraft could not intercept airliners and escort them or down them if necessary... and now this article says "Scorpion can be equipped with air-to-air missiles".
 
When you have a clown like Keffler his posts are only good for laughs...
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       7/29/2014 11:21:27 AM
Airliner 580 Knots cruise
 
Scorpion 540 Knots cruise
 
Difference? SWEPT wing.
 
HR is a joke.
 
See above for why6..
 
Quote    Reply

HR    Keffler   7/29/2014 11:29:12 AM
Here you go again... the resident clown fails to read again... the airplane comes with both straight and sweep wings.
 
Read first and talk latter.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       7/29/2014 12:53:55 PM
No it doesn't, you poster.
 
You change the sweep angle you change the center of gravity on the fuselage barrel you ignorant of aeronautics man and have to move the wing root to compensate..
 
And you made up a lie hoping no one would notice or know why you lied? 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Scorpion is a Quesationable "Buy"   7/29/2014 1:17:00 PM
It's all right if you are Afghanistan or Iraq fighting the Taliban or ISIL, units with no air force or air defenses, to speak of.  Think of it as a Super Turbo Mechano, if I got the name right.  It's a good COIN aircraft, mayhap.  For anyone who may be facing real air defenses or A2A platforms it's not a good buy.
 
I'm with Keffler, HR...."switching out wings" is changing your airframe dynamic, isn't it?  So, just because I can put swept wings on it, doesn't make it as good as an aircraft designed with swept wings....
 
Again, it's for export to places with a low threat, aircraft-wise, environment.  As long as you recognize that, it's not, necessarily, a bad buy.  HOWEVER, realize the wing swap feature may increase costs, & in the market you are targeting increased costs DECREASE your market.  And the question to be asked is, how much does a BAE Hawk or Turbo Mechano cost to operate per hour?  The fact that Scorpion costs "only" $3,000/hour may or may not mean a thing....what if a Mechano only costs $1,500/hour?
 
Also, it's a low-cost airframe, but operates HI-COST weapons....it is so cheap, because it has a very costly FLIR pod & uses costly JDAMS....costly, & diplomatically sensitive weapons.  I can put a 7.62mm gun pod, a 12.7mm gun pod, 68 mm SNEB or 70mm FFAR's on an aircraft & do the same thing, & have a diversified supply base.  IF, the US should decide they don't like me, I can buy French, or British, or a number of other suppliers.  With Scorpion you can't do that, it's designed for Stand-off weapons.
 
Bottom-Line: I'm not saying it's a bad plane, but also beware of the trade-offs in buying it.
 
Quote    Reply

HR    JFKW   7/29/2014 2:58:24 PM
Textron has gone on the record as saying that the aircraft can have swept wings and a bigger engine as well as being configured as a drone with longer wings and more economical engines... all of that is modular.
 
The demonstrator that you are seeing is optimized for endurance which is believed to be the largest market.
 
In none of its versions you would be able to consider it a front line fighter. But most air forces do not need a front line fighter for 95% of their missions so this will occupy the low end in a low/high end mix bringing with it economy.
 
I do not pay too much attention to Keffler in general specially when he is completely off track like he is in this one... I do not think he has a clue of what he is talking about.
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       7/29/2014 3:00:34 PM
Scorpion could be a great export success. Smaller countries often need that kind of aircraft. With targeting pod, its survivability would good enough, otherwise it doesn't look like something that can take a lot of ground fire.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    HR   7/29/2014 3:26:26 PM
I can put a turbine engine generating hundreds if not thousands of horsepower in my Ford Escape...HOWEVER, that won't make my Escape a Bonneville Racer.  I think what Keffler is getting at is Swept Wings, Hi-Mach numbers mean area ruled bodies...OR you are wasting your wings & engine...plus, engine/wing swap-outs mean INCREASED complexity, cost & weight....
 
You can soup your station wagon up, but in the end there's appoint of diminishing returns, in no event will it become a sports car or a muscle car...beyond a certain point you're just sinking money, uselessly, into a platform.  Alternatively, the Stoner Weapons System still has supporters, but basically because it was designed to be simultaneously an assault rifle, a light machine gun AND a medium machine gun, as a rifle it was too heavy, because you cannot be all things to all roles, even with modularity.  The basic building blocks & their attendant connections impose costs & weights on you.
 
And again, look at its weapons load-out, calculate on $3,000/hour flight costs, plus $50,000/JDAMS versus SNEB's & gun-pods...yes you have to factor in increased ground fire losses, and then look at Scorpion.
 
I don't know it's as good a buy as you make it sound....I'm not against Scorpion, but please take a SYSTEMS APPROACH to the platform, in the end, after you factor in TOTAL SYSTEMS COSTS is it preferable to a more conventional lo-tech COIN aircraft?
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/29/2014 3:37:15 PM
The PILOTS are what you protect, at all cost, if you have half a brain, most of these missions might as well be flown by a UAV and expecting this platform to be survivable against contemporary IADS or pretty much anything else is just asking for trouble. 
 
This is basically a "fools gold" type idea - the gripen was also supposed to sell like hot cakes because what it delivered was useful for the "majority" of combat missions that didn't require top-of-the-line systems - what in fact happened was that nations prioritised systems that would deliver the 100% combat readiness required by most nations - they STILL have to field the same number of top-flight systems as before to defend their airspace but are supposed to invest in a new procurement chain AND pilots (most importantly) AND weapon systems (that may or may not fit existing logistics pipeline). 
 
Even assuming that 95% of air sorties don't require top-of the line systems you could just as easily say "95% of the time our air-force is not engaged in any combat missions whatsoever" or "this system only delivers 5% of our air-defence capability" - cost per flying-hour doesn't mean nearly as much when the majority of hours you spend flying are training for high-intensity combat.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HR    JFKY   7/29/2014 3:43:31 PM
"after you factor in TOTAL SYSTEMS COSTS is it preferable to a more conventional lo-tech COIN aircraft?"
 
Absolutely YES. Those COINS are usually propellers...
 
The key is that you must look at three things... one is the COINS pay load and what sensors it can carry compared to this one, their endurance and speed compared to this one...
 
A Super Tucano cannot even dream of carrying the load of sensors the Scorpion can carry.
 
The scorpion endurance and higher speed means that it can patrol an equal distance with FEWER airplanes as well as FEWER air fields.
 
In other words if a Super Tucano has to patrol 1000 miles of coast line it will need three airfields... one to take off, another to refuel half way there and a third to refuel once it arrives and turns back. And it will do that with fewer sensors. That would be 6 hours total for $6000 plus the cost of three airfields.
 
The Scorpion will need only one airfield... it takes off, goes the 1000 miles and then returns with out needing to refuel. That will be 4 hours total $12,000 less the cost of operating the two not needed now airfields. 
 
And you are not even considering that the Scorpion can be rigged for in flight refueling as well as with its speed it can react quicker to a distress. It is an all around superior solution and you do it with fewer aircrafts and fewer bases.
 
It is perfect for countries with long coast lines or long borders.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics