Textron Scorpion, Replacement for the A-10?

[GoldenRivet]

While the development costs of the F-35 transformer jet have been estimated to exceed $395,000,000,000 and the program is plagued with delays... Textron has taken its crayons, sat quietly in the corner, and designed - built - flown - tested - demonstrated and marketed the Scorpion.

Notably absent from the scorpion design is "the big gun" - the primary weapon of the A-10 the GAU-8 30mm Avenger Cannon. But according to the article, the scorpion can carry similar strike guns in the form of pods attached to wing pylons when the mission requires the sort of personal touch that only depleted uranium can deliver.

Is the scorpion a suitable replacement for the A-10? maybe... the scorpion, like the Su-25, performs the same job as the A-10 but does so with a different approach.

But it's $20M price tag and estimated $3,000/hr operating costs must surely make the aircraft an attractive option in the budget minded era

What i admire most about the aircraft is the modest, "keep it simple, stupid" approach to its development - certainly as compared to the F-35

After more than four decades in service, the A-10 Warthog is due for a replacement. So says the U.S. Air Combat Command.


What's more, ACC says it's already "thinking about" fielding such a replacement. But what might that replacement be?


Last week, we got a clue. As reported by Reuters, the Air Force has recently begun evaluating Textron's (NYSE: TXT ) Scorpion fighter jet as a potential 21st-century replacement for the 20th-century Warthog.
Quoting Air Force Gen. Herbert Carlisle, head of ACC, Reuters reports that the Air Force has done "some research" on Textron's new budget-priced Scorpion. And Carlisle thinks the plane just might be what the Air Force needs to perform close-air support in "contested environments" that could prove lethal to the A-10.


But what exactly is Scorpion, and how does it stack up against the A-10 Thunderbolt Warthog?


Introducing Scorpion
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.


Of course, the biggest difference between Scorpion and the A-10 Warthog is the absence of a "big gun" -- specifically, the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon that is both the A-10's primary weapon and its defining feature. Designed to kill Soviet tanks in a circa-1980s Cold War confrontation -- and actually used to destroy nearly 900 Soviet-vintage Iraqi tanks in the 1990s Gulf War I -- the A-10's big gun is notably absent from Textron's Scorpion.


But can Scorpion replace the A-10 Warthog without it?


Bill Anderson, president of Textron AirLand, thinks so. In a recent phone conversation, Anderson pointed out that Textron originally developed Scorpion to perform a "Multi Mission, ISR/strike platform" role. It thus was not designed to duplicate the A-10's mission; it prefers using precision weapons to attack ground targets from a safe distance out of range of enemy defenses.


That fact addresses the Air Force's concerns about the A-10 Warthog's survivability. And flying high and fast, Scorpion might be a good candidate to take over the A-10's role in some threat environments.


As Anderson explains it, "two abilities are critical" for any aircraft performing close-air support: "The ability to communicate with ground forces, and the ability to find and fix a target." Anderson argues that "Scorpion is very good in both these roles, and can loiter up to five hours," providing ground support as needed through its suite of high-tech, standoff weapons. What's more, while the aircraft doesn't carry an integrated 30 mm cannon, 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.

article http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...0-warthog.aspx

[Wolferz]

But, can it still fly with half a wing shot off?

The A-10 also has that armored tub cockpit to protect the pilot from ground fire. Have they excluded that to save on weight?

Newer isn't always better.
And lastly, why would a close air support craft require a 45,000 foot ceiling?
The action is down here, not way the hell up there.

Common sense is rare. Especially in the Pentagon.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

But, can it still fly with half a wing shot off?

yet to be determined

Originally Posted by Wolferz

The A-10 also has that armored tub cockpit to protect the pilot from ground fire. Have they excluded that to save on weight?

No armored bathtub that i am aware of

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Newer isn't always better.

The USAF and its ever growing budget concerns are dictating the terms at this point.

Originally Posted by Wolferz

why would a close air support craft require a 45,000 foot ceiling?

yet the fabled A-10 (of which i am a huge supporter and fan) has a published service ceiling of 45,000 ft, i dont know... what I do know is that the Scorpion as being marketed as a multi-role aircraft, one that can fly and fight, but also excels at engaging ground targets and conducting reconnaissance flights

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Common sense is rare. Especially in the Pentagon.

nail, hammer, head

bottom line is quite simple really

money

if the air force can find a comparable replacement for an aging fleet that can operate at 1/10th the cost... why wouldn't they pull the trigger.

i think it is funny that the DOD keeps pouring billions on billions on billions of dollars into the F-35 wonder weapon that in reality - cant fly - cannot carry some of the munitions it was meant to carry - and relies on weapons software that wont be operational for another 7 years... yet textron went old school and designed what at least appears to be a capable platform that has already toured most of the western world capturing the interest of at least a hand full of military forces

bottom line is... one day we will miss the Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt - but the day is coming, and we have to do something

[Stealhead]

The problem that the A-10 faces is that it simply can not survive in a modern air defense environment. It doesn't matter that its very tough and it is. What matters is due to its speed and low altitude (that it must get to in order to "go kinetic" most every last would either get destroyed or damaged to such a state as to become a write off)

Another disadvantage the A-10 has that few realize is that it is primarily a day time operating platform it lacks the ability to operate at night effectively. This hurts as the military special forces in particular prefer to operate nocturnaly.

A third weakness of the A-10 is that the surviving airframes a nearing the end of their service lives most where made between 1978 and 1982 so there are 33 years old at the youngest. Now true there's BUFFs that are older but they have not spent their lives pulling the GS that the A-10 dose.

The truth is that several aircraft can in fact perform the modern CAS role as well as the A-10 can and in a superior manner during darkness. An example that you might not expect is the Bone (B-1B and yes I'm aware of the 2013 fratricide incident the A-10 has also been involved in fratricides several in fact).

I have a personal connection with the A-10 having served with "her" in the USAF but she's an old lady now and deserves to go and play bridge with the A-1 Skyraider and P-47 while drinking a nice hot cup of JP8.

The F-35 can croak for all I care best short to midterm solution is to use the the existing airframes that have already replaced the A-10 in areas of the CAS role since the late 80's (F-16 and F-15E Strike Eagle both are fully night operable).

The A-10 got lucky seeing as we got involved COIN warfare for a few years but that environment dose not represent the conditions of a modern equally equipped enemy in nearly any way. Not to mention the fact that even the Taliban and ISIL don't have to worry about the Hog at night.

@Wolf a JADM and many other munitions used in CAS these days can be deployed to great effect without the need to get low.

[Oberon]

The A10 can kinda bodge night service by using the seeker head on the Mavericks, but yeah, it's not really geared for that role.

Scorpion, it's an attractive prospect that's for certain. I think one of the bigger challenges is deciding what role and enemy that the US is gearing itself towards for the 21st century. In fact, to be honest, it's a problem that's facing all NATO militaries, not just the US. We've spent most of the past decade reconfiguring our armed forces from taking on Russia to taking on insurgencies and armed militia, and now we've got a resurgent Russia we're having to quickly reconfigure units back to their original mission. Sods law really.

The Scorpion might not have the survivability of the A10, but if it's going to be a stand-off attack platform then it doesn't really need it. The problem is, is that the USAF already has a couple of good solid multi-role aircraft in the F-15E and F-16s, not to mention of course, the Reaper and upcoming drones, which are cheaper (by about $4million) and have the advantage of not having a fleshy bit to get killed in action.
So where does the Scorpion fit in? When the A10 is retired, the only thing that is going to be lost is the Gau-8, the use of which requires the aircraft to get danger close to the enemy, which the Scorpion will lack the survivability of the A10 if the enemy decides to shoot back. The Mavericks can be used by a multi-platform selection of units, as can most of the freefall and guided munitions that the A10 carries, the Scorpion can only carry just over 9,000lb worth of munitions or fuel, compared to the A10s 16,000 and the F-15Es 10,400, although in the Scorpions favour it can carry more than a drone, so there's that.
I do struggle to see the part that the Scorpion would play though, if it's not going to have the survivability of the A10 and will be a stand-off aircraft then its role is better filled by an F15E, or if you're looking for cost effectiveness then by a group of drones which also have the advantage of not having a pilot to be captured by the enemy if it gets shot down (which in todays fight against barbarians like Daesh is, as the Jordanian airforce found out, an invaluable advantage).
It's cheap, I'll give it that, but its mission is already covered in the USAF, I think that it will probably do better in the foreign market.

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Another disadvantage the A-10 has that few realize is that it is primarily a day time operating platform it lacks the ability to operate at night effectively. This hurts as the military special forces in particular prefer to operate nocturnaly.

The A-10A had that problem, the A-10C has a FLIR pod and the pilot has NVG.
It can operate at night just fine actually.

[Pisces]

Looks more like a rehashed F-5/F-20/T-38, aside from the slender wingspan and dual vertical stabilizer.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

The A-10A had that problem, the A-10C has a FLIR pod and the pilot has NVG.
It can operate at night just fine actually.

I did not say that it lacked nocturnal capabilities but that they are even with the A-10C inferior to other platforms particularly the the F-15E and B-1B simple truth is when it counts they do not call on the A-10C during nocturnal missions because there are always superior assets in theater which can perform far better than the A-10C can. For night operations the Bone is the CAS platform of choice not the A-10C. The Bone can loiter just as long as the A-10 and one Bone car carry the loadout of several Hogs. On many occasions Mk84(2000lb) with JADM kit (or Paveway kit)dropped by a Bone has saved units from being overrun.




the Bone can easily carry a mix of Mk84,82,and small diameter bombs which allow it to provide very devastating attacks down to very danger close attacks.

The fact also is that using the camera seeker head on the AGM-65 is very difficult in fact its why they made the radar guided version of the Mavrick which was originally employed by fast movers like the F-16. Having worked with A-10 drivers I know from their banter just how hard it is to effectively use the camera on the 65 even in daylight and they are on a slower platform. Its why the C can fire the radar guided 65.

[AngusJS]

Doesn't look cool enough. We stick with the A-10.

[Mr Quatro]

No wonder the scorpion flys slower with those wings.

Like Wolferz said can it fly with damage and why 45,000 ft ceiling?

I don't like it ... I hope the USAF likes a better design with a canon that punch a tank or ground troops.

Shoot I'd pay 40 million dollars for a real A-10 replacement

[Red October1984]

Replace the A-10?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

No wonder the scorpion flys slower with those wings.

Like Wolferz said can it fly with damage and why 45,000 ft ceiling?

I don't like it ... I hope the USAF likes a better design with a canon that punch a tank or ground troops.

Shoot I'd pay 40 million dollars for a real A-10 replacement

With what budget?

The GAU-8 is a good gun, but there's a number of problems with it.

A) The recoil, which is slight stronger than the A10s engines.
B) The gases, which whilst already solved in the A10 would be something that any other aircraft using the GAU-8 would have to consider
C) The range, which is shorter than most Surface to Air Missiles, meaning that it's only really useful against something that doesn't have any air defence.
D) The aspect ratio of the target attack run. The GAU-8 isn't as a surefire tank killer as its made out to be. I refer people to the A10 pilots colouring book which indicates the angle at which a pilot must attack a tank in order to increase the probability of penetration. Against softer targets its fine but is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, not very cost effective to a nation with a $18t and climbing debt problem. It is debatable, questionable even, how effective the GAU-8 is against modern MBTs.

As much as I do love the A10, and I do, they were the first combat aircraft I saw when I moved to Suffolk back when they flew out of Bentwaters, as much as I love them, their role is overlapped by other aircraft, and with cheaper and more cost effective drones coming in, once you can get accurate gun platforms on them, then well most COIN operations can be turned over to them. Tank plinking can be left to AH-64s, F-16s and F-15Es with Hellfires, Mavericks and GBUs.

I think the thing that the US should consider focusing on is making more cost effective munitions rather than munition platforms. The Iraq and Afghan wars have shown how much ammunition a modern conflict will chew through and that's against a relatively unsophisticated enemy. Smart bombs are great, but dozens of times more expensive to create and use, which is a problem when you're eating through them like Rice Crispies. However it's plain to see (pardon the pun) that smart bombs are an invaluable asset in reducing collateral damage, despite their cost. So it's an awkward balancing act between having a munition that is smart enough to kill the people you want it to kill and them only, but cheap enough that you're not going to go bankrupt when you fire it.

[Stealhead]

Indeed in fact the JADM was created to allow a lower cost alternative to the Paveway and also to counter its then weaknesses which have largely been resolved through advancements. Still the JADM is much cheaper than Paveway and still pretty darn accurate.

As was said the GAU-8 is a bit over rated most A-10 kills are achieved via other means. Pound for pound the best airborne tank killer is the Apache and it has better surviabilty as it can fly nap of the earth expose itself very breifly and then hide. The A-10 must expose itself to air defenses for an extended period during an attack. I think had the Cold War gone hot A-10 units that lacked good SEAD and fighter coverage would have been decimated.

@Oberon I'd make the counter point that smart muntions though more expensive actually reduce costs and overall risk. For example the very first combat use against the Dragons Jaw Bridge in N. Vietnam in one strike they leveled two spans. Something that dozens of strikes using hundreds of dumb bombs was unable to achieve. Also your having to risk less aircraft on a mission therefore I argue that overall smart munitions actually save money.

Or when I asked my father why in Vietnam did they expend so much ammo in combat he said why not its only a waste when you aren't having any effect.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So it's an awkward balancing act between having a munition that is smart enough to kill the people you want it to kill and them only, but cheap enough that you're not going to go bankrupt when you fire it.

BUT...BUT...It's all about the boom economy! Not saving money; just ask the congressman from the defense industry ba$ed district that makes Abram tanks the army doesn't need: "The combat vehicle industrial base is a unique asset that consists of hundreds of public and private facilities across the United States," the letter said. The outlook for selling Abrams tanks to other nations appears "stronger than prior years," the letter said. But those sales would be "inadequate to sustain the industrial base and in some cases uncertain. In light of this, modest and continued Abrams production for the Army is necessary to protect the industrial base."
Lima, Ohio, is a long way from this dusty tank parking lot. The tiny town in the northwestern part of the Buckeye State is where defense manufacturing heavyweight General Dynamics makes these 60-plus-ton behemoths.
The tanks create 16,000 jobs and involve 882 suppliers, says Kendell Pease, the company's vice-president of government relations and communications. That job figure includes ancillary positions like gas station workers who fill up employees' cars coming and going to the plant." http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/comment-page-4/ Yet another case involves converting our Afghan allies soldiers to M-14 rifles when every kid over ten years old Akbar Allah's with the weapon of choice' the AK-47 his grandpa trained him on....ITS THE ECONOMY BBY not economics In short, there is no awkward balancing of the American Indusrial-Military complex....as long as you ignore Ike's famous parting warning: "Beware..... Greed is alive and GOOD!

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I did not say that it lacked nocturnal capabilities but that they are even with the A-10C inferior to other platforms particularly the the F-15E and B-1B

True, I misunderstood, you really just said they are insufficient.

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Another disadvantage the A-10 has that few realize is that it is primarily a day time operating platform it lacks the ability to operate at night effectively.

Which both isn't true.
The A-10C's mission is to provide day and night CAS, nothing states it is restricted or favored for day sorties only.

You mentioned the Maverick seeker again and I wonder when you spoke to A-10 pilots that they mentioned them.
The "poor man's FLIR" is a tactic from the second gulf war and surely from the Kosovo conflict, maybe even early in the OEF and OIF campaigns but since 2005, I doubt any hog pilot ever had to rely on a Mav seeker again to see something, really.
Why would they use Mav seekers if they have perfectly fine FLIR targeting pods, just like the F-15 or the B-1B?
Where is the difference?
Why do you claim that the hog can't "effectively" operate at night?
It sure can, I mean where is the difference of dropping a GBU-12 onto something from a Hog or anything else?

Originally Posted by Stealhead

simple truth is when it counts they do not call on the A-10C during nocturnal missions because there are always superior assets in theater which can perform far better than the A-10C can. For night operations the Bone is the CAS platform of choice not the A-10C. The Bone can loiter just as long as the A-10 and one Bone car carry the loadout of several Hogs. On many occasions Mk84(2000lb) with JADM kit (or Paveway kit)dropped by a Bone has saved units from being overrun.

Well that can be said for basically every US aircraft with CAS abilities (saving units from being overrun...).

Regarding the Lancer being preferred for night sorties (assuming you're right). Why is that so?
Because it has more ordnance?
Well then why doesn't it fly day and night?

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this has nothing at all to do with capabilities, since the A-10C does have these capabilities, but with bureaucracy and how things are managed in the forces.
For example. Why did DEVGRU raid Osama's little fortress?
"Because they are the best?"
No, because of internal JSOC "politics", that's it.
So I wouldn't blame the A-10 for not flying as much at night, but the people who make the calls. Again, the A-10C is perfectly operational at night without any restrictions.

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The fact also is that using the camera seeker head on the AGM-65 is very difficult in fact its why they made the radar guided version of the Mavrick which was originally employed by fast movers like the F-16. Having worked with A-10 drivers I know from their banter just how hard it is to effectively use the camera on the 65 even in daylight and they are on a slower platform. Its why the C can fire the radar guided 65.

The radar guided Maverick?

How exactly did you work with Hog pilots?
Cause it starts to get funny...