Textron AirLand (Cessna) Scorpion - a light attack, reconnaissance jet project

The OV-10 is a 240-knot bird, roughly. Certainly faster than the TurboPorters, but nowhere near as fast as a jet. I'd think that it would be about the top end of the speed range for helicopter-style turrets.
 
cluttonfred said:
Still, I think that a single-engine equivalent to the Scorpion, basically an oversized, modernized, composite Alenia Aermacchi M-311, would make more sense. Somebody needs to make the cheap bomb truck to bring the hurt once the FACs in Embraer Super Tucanos find the bad guys. ;-)

I still favour the Russian and Canadian attitude on twin engines. It is better to retrieve the plane than just the pilot - especially in a war zone.

*Edit* I just crunched the number and the Scorpion could theoretically haul 2800 kg of bombs - which is fairly good for its size. I guess it could qualify as a *bomb truck* like the A-1 and A-37...
 
cluttonfred said:
Somebody needs to make the cheap bomb truck to bring the hurt once the FACs in Embraer Super Tucanos find the bad guys. ;-)

All you cut out the middle man and have a single type. Flying ISR/FAC missions in one config and CAS in another. The loiter time of the Scorpion makes it look like it will signficiantly outperform Super Tucano types in FAC and compete with SKAs in ISR.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
cluttonfred said:
Somebody needs to make the cheap bomb truck to bring the hurt once the FACs in Embraer Super Tucanos find the bad guys. ;-)
All you cut out the middle man and have a single type. Flying ISR/FAC missions in one config and CAS in another. The loiter time of the Scorpion makes it look like it will signficiantly outperform Super Tucano types in FAC and compete with SKAs in ISR.

True enough, but it's going to be a question of cost. I don't argue that there is definitely a role for the T/AL Scorpion, but it's still a pretty high end product relative to the market. Something like the Embraer Super Tucano that can be used in trainer, light attack and FAC roles with the cost of a single turboprop and relatively simple but still modern systems makes a lot of sense. I would be worried that the T/AL Scorpion might be in between the desired roles--too capable and too expensive for most asymmetric warfare needs but not cabable enough to go in against a target defended by AA systems and enemy fighters.

I say that as someone who has lived in many developing countries--presumably the intended market for the Scorpion. I currently live in Kenya and right now the Kenya Air Forice is using F-5s with iron bombs in the CAS and strike roles against al-Shabaab in Somalia with quite a bit of success. I think the pilots would be thrilled at the prospect of the Scorpion, despite it's much lower speed, but I don't see how they could pay for them. According to press reports, their last batch of 15 F-5s were purchased second-hand in kit form from Jordan for about $500,000 each. Even if they put in another $1,000,000 apiece in overhauls and upgrades, even $2,000,000 million dollars apiece, that's still a fraction of the price of a Scorpion. Even Super Tucanos are at least $9,000,000 each.

At the same time, those cold-war era planes are beginning to wear out and, as you can see from the F-5 example, may not really be the right tool for the job. Somebody needs to come out with a 21st century Folland Gnat.
 
found on a Chinese site ! ;)
 

Attachments

  • Textron AirLand Scorpion - pt.1.jpg
    Textron AirLand Scorpion - pt.1.jpg
    317.3 KB · Views: 323
The thoughts of Bill Sweetman concerning the Textron Scorpion:

"Can This Scorpion Fly?"
Posted by Bill Sweetman 3:02 PM on Sep 18, 2013

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:35cd622d-3206-45a4-b840-224377278ded


Somewhere in the deeper recesses of the US Air Force museum is one of two surviving Piper PA-48 Enforcer close air support aircraft. It looks a lot like a P-51D Mustang, from which it was derived, but was almost entirely new in detail. Its origins lay in the Cavalier Aircraft company, which had spent the 1960s remanufacturing P-51s for enthusiasts and smaller air forces and had gradually evolved a turbine-powered aircraft, which was eventually adopted by Piper.

The USAF's interest in the Enforcer could not be measured by the most sensitive instruments known to science, but friendly Congressmen managed to stuff the concept down the service's throat, at least as far as an evaluation program. That was farther than any of the many subsequent attempts to design a light combat aircraft got. (These included the Scaled Composites Ares and the Fairchild Republic AT-46, the latter being based on what was probably one of the lamest aircraft ever to make it to Edwards.)

The Textron Scorpion is not, conceptually, very different from these. The basic idea is to sacrifice fighter-type air-to-air performance, and a heavy weapon load, in order to reduce acquisition and operating cost. However, "mudfighter" concepts have also appealed to military commentators and thinkers who suspect that the USAF and other air services don't pay enough attention to close air support: in their view, the fact that a low-performance aircraft can't be used for air combat or deep strike is an advantage in itself.

So far, those arguments have resulted in exactly two successful programs in the past 70 years (the A-10 and the Su-25). The Scorpion does not introduce any radical new technologies, so the question is whether the environment has changed enough give the new aircraft a chance of success.

The biggest environmental change has been the number of air combat operations flown in permissive airspace, where the threat is limited to small arms and manportable air defense systems. Scorpion should be effective in that environment - particularly with the help of modern sensors and communications systems, and small precision weapons, which allow an effective overwatch mission to stay out of the range of the "golden BB". The jet is also big enough to mount a directed infrared countermeasures system for MANPADS defense, as laser DIRCM systems themselves are getting smaller.

With a design optimized for endurance, and with the availability of lightweight, high-performance radars, processors and displays, Scorpion is being pushed for maritime and border surveillance -- the kind of mission where modified light commercial aircraft are widely used today -- and even for low-speed air interdiction, a mission that Textron Cessna's Citation 550s already perform for US Customs & Border Protection.

The question is whether Scorpion's backers can persuade customers to carve out a mission space large enough to justify adding a new type to their fleets. The aircraft does not have any direct competitors -- but its missions overlap in some areas with other aircraft. A King Air or the new Piaggio-ADASI multi-role ISR aircraft can perform maritime or border missions, carrying a crew of sensor operators and mission managers. With a loaded weight of 21,250 pounds, the Scorpion is not tiny -- it's the size of an A-1 Skyraider or A-4 Skyhawk -- and while today's least costly fighter, the JAS 39 Gripen, is about 50 percent bigger, it has far greater performance, except in endurance. On the lower end, Textron has to convince people looking at light combat aircraft that they need something around twice the size of a Super Tucano or AT-6.

Regardless of the design's merits, Textron had better be prepared to commit some serious time and money to this project if it is to find an economically realistic market.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wXRajxHb530
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?232888-VIDEO-Scorpion-light-strike-aircraft-completes-pre-flight-taxi-trial​
 
Crazy though it may seem, this is the first time I've seen this thread or even heard of the Scorpion!

Is this Textron company still connected to Bell in anyway?
 
Textron still owns Bell (and Cessna). Textron teamed up with a very small company called AirLand Enterprises, which seems to be a pretty new outfit. It's not clear to me what AirLand's role is -- supposedly the design is mainly Cessna, with some input from Bell and other Textron companies. AirLand is so small they don't even have a website and their Linkedin page is decidedly amateurish (there are a couple of spelling errors, for example).
 
TomS said:
Textron still owns Bell (and Cessna). Textron teamed up with a very small company called AirLand Enterprises, which seems to be a pretty new outfit. It's not clear to me what AirLand's role is -- supposedly the design is mainly Cessna, with some input from Bell and other Textron companies. AirLand is so small they don't even have a website and their Linkedin page is decidedly amateurish (there are a couple of spelling errors, for example).

Thanks. Funny that you mention Cessna as the main designer, since my first though on seeing this was that it reminded me of the Cessna 526 CitationJet Trainer. And now we have this prototype (configured as a trainer) carrying the registration N531TA — a possible indication this might have started as the Model 531... Just a guess.
 
For comparision:
 

Attachments

  • Scorpion-Side.png
    Scorpion-Side.png
    91.9 KB · Views: 494
  • Scorpion-Top.png
    Scorpion-Top.png
    118.6 KB · Views: 490
  • Scorpion-Front.png
    Scorpion-Front.png
    82.7 KB · Views: 478
  • Scorpion-Rear.png
    Scorpion-Rear.png
    85.6 KB · Views: 464
  • Scorpion-Bottom.png
    Scorpion-Bottom.png
    133.2 KB · Views: 461
Some amusing mission art:
 

Attachments

  • Scorpion-Mission-Aerospace-Control-Alert.jpg
    Scorpion-Mission-Aerospace-Control-Alert.jpg
    736.1 KB · Views: 92
  • Scorpion-Mission-HADR.jpg
    Scorpion-Mission-HADR.jpg
    538.8 KB · Views: 71
  • Scorpion-Mission-Irregular-Warfare.jpg
    Scorpion-Mission-Irregular-Warfare.jpg
    748 KB · Views: 69
  • Scorpion-Mission-Counter-Narcotics.jpg
    Scorpion-Mission-Counter-Narcotics.jpg
    584.3 KB · Views: 65
  • Scorpion-Mission-Maritime.jpg
    Scorpion-Mission-Maritime.jpg
    609.9 KB · Views: 76
  • Scorpion-Mission-Border-Patrol.jpg
    Scorpion-Mission-Border-Patrol.jpg
    627.1 KB · Views: 74
Odd that the registeries list N531TA as having reciprocating engines, rather than turbines. Presumably just a mistake in data entry somewhere.
 
I love the last one that has a Cessna chasing an aircraft from the competition! LOL
 
Very interesting, this gives a good look at what Textron is pitching to the customer, which should be at least one notch up from marketing BS usually served to the wide public. Thanks for posting ;) .


I was surprised by the label "Composite structure and skin" on slide 7. Does Cessna make primary structure in composites? if it's just a tail or trailing edge surfaces, it's really nothing to be proud of. Do Cessna Bizjets have major composite content in them?


On slide 15, "70% parts in Cessna inventory". Are they counting the thousands of rivets as individual parts to get to that percentage? It's certainly not by weight. I can't recognize major components lifted from Citation jets other than possibly the turbofans. The landing gear is most likely COTS but not from a Cessna aircraft.


Maybe i'm being too harsh, after all, all companies peddle semi-BS in their powerpoints, mine included!
 
AeroFranz said:
Maybe i'm being too harsh, after all, all companies peddle semi-BS in their powerpoints, mine included!

What some call BS is what others may describe as an "alternate perspective" on the facts... ;D
 
Scorpion's First Taxi - McConnell AFB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R9ado92c50
Code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R9ado92c50


The front perspective reminds me very much of the Folland Gnat... B)
Maybe I watched too much the movie "Hot Shots!"! ;) ;D
 
There are aspects of this design that surprise me, notably the optional armor/chaff/flares and fundamentally the twin-engine design if the goal was low cost. Still, if they can get these into production for, say, under $10M, they will have a product vastly more capably than the single-engine turboprops like the AT-6 Texan II for only a little more money. I can definitely see them going to a number of smaller nations as light attack aircraft using precision-guided weapons.
 
cluttonfred said:
There are aspects of this design that surprise me, notably the optional armor/chaff/flares and fundamentally the twin-engine design if the goal was low cost.


It would appear the primary design aim beyond achieving a class of capability was to reuse as much as possible of the Cessna Citation. This is where the cost savings in buy and own are. You are effectively building and flying a militarised Citation jet. Citation is twin engine so therefore so is the Scorpion.
 
“A large percentage” of parts come from the Cessna Citation line, including the flap drive mechanism from the Citation XLS and Mustang and aileron drive mechanism from the Citation X. Cessna’s knowledge of the parts’ performance supports its estimate that the Scorpion can be operated for less than $3,000 per hour, a fraction of a fighter’s operating cost. The aircraft is constructed mostly of composites, with the exception of its landing gear and engine fittings and mounts.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2013-11-18/textron-scorpion-aims-december-first-flight
 
AeroFranz said:
I was surprised by the label "Composite structure and skin" on slide 7. Does Cessna make primary structure in composites? if it's just a tail or trailing edge surfaces, it's really nothing to be proud of. Do Cessna Bizjets have major composite content in them?


Maybe i'm being too harsh, after all, all companies peddle semi-BS in their powerpoints, mine included!


They purchased Columbia aircraft, who made composite general aviation aircraft, in 2007. All promo materials say Scorpion has
all-composite airframe and structure


They have help from subcontractors:

Kaman Aerosystems announced today that its subsidiary, Kaman Composites - Wichita, Inc., provided a number of components for the recently introduced Textron AirLand Scorpion prototype aircraft. These components included the wing assembly, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, wing fuel access panels, main landing gear doors and several closeout panels.

“Kaman is proud to have supported the development effort for the Scorpion program. This new twin-jet aircraft is a cost effective solution for lower-threat battlefield and homeland security missions. Our efforts highlight the capabilities of our Wichita composites facility to produce a range of components and assemblies,” stated James Larwood, President, Kaman Aerosystems.
 
Is the Textron AirLand Scorpion really intended for the United States Air Force or is it intended for smaller air forces in the developing/third world?
 
Triton said:
Is the Textron AirLand Scorpion really intended for the United States Air Force or is it intended for smaller air forces in the developing/third world?

It's intended for whoever will buy it. A Textron/Bell executive said earlier this year that they'd either sell thousands of them or none. Even if the latter turns out to be the case, they're not that worried. One of the major drivers of the program is that Cessna (and that's whose project this is, but "Textron" is the name military types feel more comfortable with) doesn't have a lot of experience with design, manufacture and support of large composite structures. Just buying Columbia off the shelf won't help much with that. This exercise will also proved the"seed" for Cessna's growth in that area whether anybody buys Scorpion or not.
 
What I find interesting is that in some ways, it seems to me that the Scorpion and the NG Firebird have some overlapping areas of operation with regard to mission profiles.
 
Sundog said:
What I find interesting is that in some ways, it seems to me that the Scorpion and the NG Firebird have some overlapping areas of operation with regard to mission profiles.

Which made me believe that this aircraft was not intended for air forces that operate UAVs, such as the United States Air Force, but air forces in Central and South America and Asia who currently operate the A-37, OV-01, OV-10, A-4, and IA-58 Pucará. Maybe Textron AirLand also hopes that the aircraft will be sold to Iraq and Afghanistan as well.
 
Triton said:
Probably Scorpion is probably a much more impressive name for military types than Dragonfly II or Super Tweet II.

Skymaster II? Bobcat II? Oh, heck: Bamboo Bomber II
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
They purchased Columbia aircraft, who made composite general aviation aircraft, in 2007. All promo materials say Scorpion has
all-composite airframe and structure

They have help from subcontractors [...]


Remarkable that they went all in with composites- I looked quickly at the Kaman website and they seemed to have pretty serious capabilities, although i could not find examples of parts they build for other primes.
I am still puzzled by the 70% parts commonality assertion. If the structure is completely composites, it's totally new. Maybe they can reuse engines, systems, and avionics, but that's still way short of 70% common or modified Citation parts. ???






I still don't understand the assertion of 70% commonality with a Citation
 
Triton said:
Sundog said:
What I find interesting is that in some ways, it seems to me that the Scorpion and the NG Firebird have some overlapping areas of operation with regard to mission profiles.

Which made me believe that this aircraft was not intended for air forces that operate UAVs, such as the United States Air Force, but air forces in Central and South America and Asia who currently operate the A-37, OV-01, OV-10, A-4, and IA-58 Pucará. Maybe Textron AirLand also hopes that the aircraft will be sold to Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

Or even western air forces who have political difficulty at home finding support for unmanned operations. Particularly domestically.
 
One thing for sure is if they ever want to sell it to Poland they'll have to choose a different name for it!
 
_Del_ said:
Or even western air forces who have political difficulty at home finding support for unmanned operations. Particularly domestically.

Fair enough, as 14-D pointed out, Textron AirLand would be delighted to sell the Scorpion to anyone willing to buy it.
 
Nothing wrong with "Dragonfly II", the A-37 was a fine plane well-liked by pilots and crews.

F-14D said:
Triton said:
Probably Scorpion is probably a much more impressive name for military types than Dragonfly II or Super Tweet II.

Skymaster II? Bobcat II? Oh, heck: Bamboo Bomber II
 
cluttonfred said:
Nothing wrong with "Dragonfly II", the A-37 was a fine plane well-liked by pilots and crews.

My reply was more a comment on the bellicose names that are usually chosen for military aircraft.
 
In flight photo

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.453753431411967.1073741829.453732971414013&type=1
 

Attachments

  • 1501336_502125866574723_935112400_o.jpg
    1501336_502125866574723_935112400_o.jpg
    145.2 KB · Views: 930
Back
Top Bottom