Does the Textron AirLand Scorpion stand any chance at all of being successful with so many competitors for the trainer/light attack market?
>Hongdu L-15 is cheaper and will only get cheaper as production scales
>Yakovlev is cheaper, in wide use by Russia, and has Russian market connections
>Aermacchi is already being sold to client nations and has Raytheon and Finmeccanica involvement
>KAI is already proven with several countries and has less diplomatic hangups than Russian, Chinese, or American aircraft purchases
Is the Scorpion going to be successful? They seem to want to position it as a low-cost, long-loiter light attack jet. Will anyone buy into it even with the propeller-driven Super Tucano out there and the above jet options? Will the program even finish?
>>30653411
i dont even know why the scorpion is so expensive in the first place
>>30653411
>Is the Scorpion going to be successful?
I wager it'll come down to the flight readiness, operational endurance, quality of the avionics, and what weapons systems of each aircraft. Either that or the biggest political and economic bully in each competitor's sphere of influence.
>>30653411
The Scorpion is principally marketed as an ISR platform, then light attack then any possible training applications.
>>30653481
So, business as usual
>>30653486
Will that play a role in success/failure? What is the modern market space like for new acquisition surveillance and recon craft that arent drones?
>>30653411
Super Tucano is only considered an option for extra poor 3rd worlders. Nobody else will buy it.
The US may purchase them as trainers, everyone else will choose the M-346 or FA-50. Who wants to buy weapons from Russia or China in 2016? India? Venezuela?
>>30653509
To clarify, the US may choose the Scorpion as their next generation trainer aircraft.
The Scorpion can't enter the T-X competition. The rules were changed, and the gov't is looking for a more advanced trainer.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/02/24/textron-airland-t-x-trainer-air-force/80821836/
I personally like it, more so as a light attack aircraft than a trainer. What the fuck do we need a hundred million dollar stealth plane for when all we're doing is bombing sandniggers?
>>30653580
>What the fuck do we need a hundred million dollar stealth plane for when all we're doing is bombing sandniggers?
Depends who their friends are.
Otherwise, I'd start looking at flight costs per ton of ordnance dropped.
Macc and Yak get the cuteness points, no contest.
Anyway OP, the Scorpion has economy bizjet fans, those other aircraft have military level thrust (some even afterburner) speed, maneuver etc. they are not its competition. Real competition is Tucano and other TPs.
>>30653411
The Scorpion may have a little success, but any of the sort will be overshadowed by the USAF T-X; the T-X will be bulk-ordered, have high performance kinematics, good avionics, and is being considered with potential cross-development into A-X.
>>30653466
Low production numbers - the more of a plane is made, the lower the overal price per unit generally is.
The Chinese L-15 is the only trainer in the world that is featuring a multi-function PESA radar.
And that, for 15 mil.
You cant find anything better.
>>30653411
In military acquisition programs technical comparisons will only be discussed by nerds. Politics will determine all. Vietnam war showed what happens when politics overrules technical issues, as did the Space Shuttle disasters.
Nerds will discuss trust weight ratios. The companies on the other hand will prepare sub contractor contracts in many states to get senators in on their side.
>>30653411
And what about ALCA L-159 ?
>>30653411
Scorpion would make a poor trainer. Afaik it can't pull moderately high G (about 7 for top of the line LIFT and 6.7 for your average medium trainer), the avionics wouldn't simulate 4.5/5th gen fighter and on top of that, at 20 mil a pop you could get cheaper trainer that works better
Scorpion is intended as ISR/light attack aircraft, and thus is configured for such. Wanna see what them "freedom fighters" is doing deep in the jungle. Wanna throw a quick driveby while you're at it? Scorpion's your choice
>>30653411
>buying into the supertucano when the bronco exists.
The OV-10's are already being brought back into service.
>>30654010
>>30653411
T-50 variant the (FA-50) and L-15 are both supersonic and have a radar. So they offer a rather good package for a lot of countries that need a aircraft for air patrol. Having a capable combat variant for a trainer also means that trainers will probably sell better due to reduced maintenance costs.
>>30654010
Shame it's a PESA shit.
I'm waiting for Boeing/SAAB to offer a stripped down Gripen to the T-X program.
Where is the Alpha Jet
>>30654108
I really dig the OV-10 and its quad .308s having fixed guns on a slow moving CAS is a must and them there's the 20mm and various bombs, rockets and missiles is can carry and that's not even factoring in the cargo drop capability casivac and medivac ability and hell even the paratrooper ability the OV-10 can be tasked to do a lot more than the mini jets listed here
>>30654002
>>30654054
I was originally going to include these two, but they didn't fit the graphic and they're older designs, so I held back. It's fair to include them, though, I suppose.
>>30653509
Even if a US$10-14,000,000 Super Tucano is the choice for shitty countries, that is a ton of market space soaked up that the Textron cannot access, whereas without it, some of those countries might have selected a Scorpion potentially?
>>30653716
Yeah, with the Tucano out there in so many hands I suspect it is the default new purchase COIN vehicle. And yeah, the rest of the jets can do Mach or close, but they seem to be positioned in similar spaces, and that's my concern. I would think dollar for dollar an M-346 is going to outshine a Scorpion for a lot of buyers. As everyone has said, I think politics might be the only savior.
>>30654010
I was not aware of that (I must admit my knowledge on this one is cursory). While a technical boon, do you think it can sway buyers outside China's immediate sphere of trade influence to purchase it? Can it sway people to purchase it over the Scorpion or others?
>>30654044
Yeah, that's always the way. At the end it all comes down to that, I guess, but I like pretending we live in a world where this other stuff matters. Can't get away from it, though. That's why I mentioned spheres of influence.
>>30654108
OV-10 is my planefu but I don't think the OV-10X program went ahead... the ones SOCOM is tossing around the middle east right now are retrofitted NASA OV-10As converted to new attack configurations. I would be ecstatic to see the OV-10 come back in line production, though, to challenge the A-29 (which I also like).
cont.
>>30654842
Yeah, that's part of why I have begun to worry the Scorpion just straight up doesn't have a market space left to it. As everyone has said, it's an ISR and light attack craft, but I don't know if that niche is available to it with the Tucano and drones out there for a lot of countries, and as people have said it's less desirable as a trainer, and as you and others point out the T-50 and L-15 have large radar suites built-in at their price points that makes them much more flexible for nations needing dual role. I just don't see how the program (if it is successful in producing a functioning, quality plane) will be successful on the market.
>>30653509
>Super Tucano is only considered an option for extra poor 3rd worlders. Nobody else will buy it.
Super Tacos and OV-10s are of immediate use to anyone fighting goatfuckers in sand-land, since their cost per hour of slow loiter flight time is so much lower than jets.
>>30653411
The L-15 and Yak-130 aren't even being considered.
The T-50 will win and is the best of all those aircraft.
>>30657920
Considered for what
>>30657938
For the T-X program.
>>30657948
The OP is more general, as in, does the Scorpion stand a chance in the market at all, not just for the US T-X program. The L-15 and Yak-130 are being sold to international buyers as trainers, light attack, patrol, etc craft, as are the others. I was asking if the Textron has a real chance in any of those markets with the abundance of successful or politically-charged options out there already.
>>30657316
The 20mm was only mounted on the experimental YOV-10D NOGS system. It didn't actually see the light of day.
>>30658008
Unlikely it will find success in that market segment. It's a shit value.
>>30658732
That's what I'm seeing too, yeah. I can't picture a situation where it is successful as a market product even if the development program succeeds, and I don't think Textron has the US gov't support/handout bullshit that Boeing and L-M are practically guaranteed to ensure it gets favorably pushed on US client states.
>>30659034
The one that's going to win isn't even an American design.
>>30659167
Again, not talking about T-X.
Could this thing be a modern day F-5? Slap some AESA on it if you're feeling spendy.
>>30659343
Could be, with current price at $30mill, one could probably add a better radar and integrate AMRAAM and still keep the price under $35 mill, making it a good replacement for Mig-21s but also filling the role of F-16s, as the newer models seem to cost a lot.
Do small countries in Eastern Europe have any plans for retiring their old MiG-21s and MiG-29s? If they do, reckon they´ll buy something cheap like the AirLand Scorpion or will they just buy second/third hand F-16s for cheap?
>>30659650
Second/third hand F-16's will be old as fuck. Barely better then the MiG-29's they have right now in terms of airframe/engine longevity.
Its a bit of a headache for these countries. Glorified trainers are a downgrade in performance but are cheap enough and if you want to match or exceed current performance, you either have to buy new F-16's/F-18's/Gripens or you have to spend that much more money on Eurofighters/F-35's/Rafales.
NATO or NATO friendly countries not having a modern, cheap light fighter that can replace the older F-16's and MiG-29's directly is realy stupid.
>>30660549
Absolutely correct. There is no F-5 anymore for a sort of cheap, small footprint/low cost fighter; there is no affordable F-16 direct replacement. That's a step up from the planes in this thread, really, as you point out, but it's absolutely the same vein. The cost and complexity of aircraft has skyrocketed and left behind tons and tons of countries that need options most.
I'd be interested to know if you're aware of any planes/dev programs in that vein, actually? I am not up to date if there is... It's definitely very necessary, like you said.
>>30658681
well we should make it see the light of day
Can't you get JF17's for that price?
>>30662416
That neighborhood, US$25-35,000,000.
But that's not a NATO or NATO-aligned producer, which makes it even more frustrating that there isn't a current-production western option for allied countries with lower budgets.
>>30659232
It has no advantage for any purpose over the alternatives.
