Textron Corp.


Looks interesting, but it lacks the huge gatling gun.

quote:

---

a prototype aircraft was secretly constructed between April 2012 and September 2013 at the Cessna facility, Wichita, Kansas: the
Textron AirLand Scorpion completed its maiden flight on December 12,
2013. Designed Textron AirLand's Scorpion as an ISR/Strike
(Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) aircraft with ease
of maintenance and operability, it has a unit cost of below $20m (three
to four times less than an F-16) and operating costs of $3,000/hr
(at least five times less than an F-16). Dan Hinson, Chief Pilot at
Textron and a Scorpion test pilot explains the concept behind the
aircraft: "We need high end fighters to do things but they have
been used in low-end missions exhausting airframes and service life. You
don't need them for missions in a low-threat/no-threat environment to
gather information."

---

quote:

---

Emphasis seems to be on ISR. Looks light on ordnance. Can't see putting two aviators at risk when drones, AWACS, satellites and comm. intercept capablities are so sophisticated.

---

Light on ordnance and armor. The specific reason the A-10 was built was for pilot protection from ground fire.

Plenty of ordnance. No refueling capability is an issue. The A-10 needs protection since it was designed to employ a gun. There's not as much need for it if you're not needing to get that close.

What is the top end speed of the A-10?

Does anyone remember the cost of the A-10?

Thanks

quote:

---

Doesn't have stealth, fly fast, and shoot down fighters, Air Force doesn't care about anything else.

---

SAF/AQ translation: Not technically acceptable, needs more cowbell.

I wonder what the Fighter Mafia would have to say if they were around today?

There's no money for it. Besides, CAS isn't an aircraft, it's a mission, and the last 20 years of continuous war have amply demonstrated that it doesn't matter which platform delivers direct infantry support. Modern fighters, bombers, UAVs, attack helos and even artillery are all now equipped with the sensors and precision munitions to provide effective close fires on today's battlefield.

AWT is by far the best platform, then Cobras, Little Birds, than a big gap to any platform flown by a Navy/Marine pilot, then whatever has the longest loiter time.

Apache Weapons Team AWT

No way this replaces the A-10 for low slow flight and have the rugged ability to survive
heavy hits.

quote:

---

No way this replaces the A-10 for low slow flight and have the rugged ability to survive
heavy hits.

---

Good thing it's not a contest to see who can get shot the most

quote:

---

No way this replaces the A-10 for low slow flight and have the rugged ability to survive
heavy hits.

---

It looks like it relies on missiles and not on a gun, so I don't think it needs low & slow passes. That being said, while I have no experience being in the field, I suspect that the low & slow passes is what gave the A10 good ability to hit the right targets in tricky/tight situations.

quote:

---

AWT is by far the best platform, then Cobras, Little Birds, than a big gap to any platform flown by a Navy/Marine pilot, then whatever has the longest loiter time.

---

You sound just a little biased. Oh and Cobras are flown by marine pilots, FYI.

Little birds for CAS?

quote:

---

Little birds for CAS?

---

Yea apparently a minigun, a few rockets, and zero armor is better than "anything the Navy or Marines fly". I guess that includes hornets and harriers... Hahaha

Yes I am bias, AWT & Little Birds have saved my life multiple times. Marine Cobra pilots are pretty amazing & very aggressive, I love those guys. Hornets will fly low enough to make the ground shake & put the fear of God in the enemy but unless they are very inconsistent at engaging dismounts. Great for mounted or static bad guys, borderline ineffective against dismounts. A-10's will sometimes fly low, normally they go to the wrong place & look mean but don't actually do anything useful. Everything else American is great for visuals, warnings, command & control ect... but worse than Hornets at engaging dismounts & borderline at victors.

And yes that mini gun is a lot better at putting bad guys six feet under than a dozen jdams. So yes no armor a few rockets & a mini gun is a lot better than an F-18 for this context of direct troop support.

You are 100% right but poor avionics make it tough for them to even ID the right target. When your FSO can snake the hell out of a target & the A-10 still can not find it... that's a problem. But the A-10 is still a hell of a lot better than a F-16 for direct support.

Wanna know why no helos are being used for CAS in Iraq and Syria right now? Because inevitably, one of them would get shot down. Helos are great for getting close to the fight but they are an enormous liability due to the fact that they are slow, loud, and fly low.

quote:

---

And yes that mini gun is a lot better at putting bad guys six feet under than a dozen jdams. So yes no armor a few rockets & a mini gun is a lot better than an F-18 for this context of direct troop support.

---

You're talking about shooting at one guy or a very small group. Killing one ****head on a moped with a $100,000 weapon isn't the most efficient way but it works just fine. You're talking about a very specific niche, and it's not what most of our stuff was designed for. In a conventional war, a tiny helo with pathetic range and weapons similar to the guys on the ground is pretty pointless. Making broad judgements about what's best for close air support based only on narrow experience is also kind of pointless.

Having said that, jets get talked on to plenty of individuals or pairs from altitude just fine.

for CAS Close Air Support as in getting in to effectively contribute to the fight on the ground yeah the Little Bird is better. For hitting a loan biker or pair of guys, Little Birds are better & a ton cheaper. A F-18 can hit a loan guy, just not nearly as well, not with out much greater collateral damage risks, & at a much greater cost. We are not talking about strategic air support. For that almost any fast mover is better than almost any rotary wing.

What we do in a conventional war would be radically different.

For strategic usage your F-18 is a better air frame. Hell against identified structures or from on high looking down your F-18 is a better air frame. But for Close Air Support, as in actually providing air support to the guys on the ground in a direct sense, the Little Bird is vastly better.

Now In Syria & modern Iraq when providing CAS to rebels/IA who we valued less than American Soldiers & Marines, but who we still want to help we can do that with fixed wings at a much lower risk to American lives. So yes AWT & Little Birds do expose American pilots to much greater risk, but for Close Air Support (the niche use we are talking about) they do a vastly better job & it is worth the extra danger to the pilot when supporting American Soldiers & Marines.

In conventional war rotary wing would still be much better at CAS, but the majority of missions would not be CAS. It would be hitting enemy pax who are either pretty far from friendlies or are IDd by recon elements. That's not CAS.

And this is all in reference to 740A stating that any aircraft can provide effective CAS. I'm saying that's not even remotely true. AWT, Cobras, & Little Birds provide by far the best close air support to guys on the ground.

Navy/Marine fixed wing provide the next best CAS. To be clear an F-18 can & does provide effective CAS. It can kill lone bad guys just not as easily, quickly, cheaply, or safely (to the guys on the ground) as rotary wing.

Then whatever has the longest loiter time. Can a UAV kill a lone dude on a moped? Yes, & frequently. Can they do it nearly as well as an F-18? No. Can a F-16 break up an ambush? Yes, just not as well as an F-18. So can they provide CAS? Yes just not nearly as well as Rottary Wing.

My point is that you are (incorrectly) defining CAS as killing small groups of insurgents in a low intensity conflict. You are stating an opinion that little birds are best at a niche CAS scenario, not CAS in general.

I too would prefer something that starts with an "A" over and "F" or a "B", and generally Marines then Navy then AF. The reason I'd prefer a harrier then a hornet then a viper has little to do with the platform itself. It has to do with proficiency and how much those communities train and focus on CAS.

quote:

---

The reason I'd prefer a harrier then a hornet then a viper has little to do with the platform itself. It has to do with proficiency and how much those communities train and focus on CAS.

---

Excellent point!

quote:

---

I too would prefer something that starts with an "A" over and "F" or a "B", and generally Marines then Navy then AF. The reason I'd prefer a harrier then a hornet then a viper has little to do with the platform itself. It has to do with proficiency and how much those communities train and focus on CAS.

---

This is my point on the A-10 and derived from talking to various pilots. A-10 pilots grow up from day one learning the craft of attacking ground targets. All other pilots learn it as an auxiliary skill. No doubt some do it well, but it's not the same. The same goes for the helo's. As a former Infantryman I can tell you nothing makes you feel better in a tight situation than an Apache coming over the net and properly identifying your location.

The primary mission for harriers is CAS. However, we are in agreement mostly.

quote:

---

The reason I'd prefer a harrier then a hornet then a viper has little to do with the platform itself. It has to do with proficiency and how much those communities train and focus on CAS.

---

Harrier pilots are very good at getting effects on target on the first pass. They must because they probably don't have enough fuel to hang around for a re-attack. Harriers have shorter legs than Peter Dinklage.

Good one. A lot goes into time on station. In Afghanistan we did 60 minutes before heading to a tanker and more like 80-90 if we weren't. That was comparable or better than other tacair platforms in use in our region.