4 ms·

Aviation Week had a pretty good article about this plane http://aviationweek.com/awin/textron-unveils-scorpion-light-attack-recce-jet http://aviationweek.com/a

Aviation Week had a pretty good article about this plane http://aviationweek.com/awin/textron-unveils-scorpion-light-attack-recce-jet http://aviationweek.com/awin/textron-unveils-scorpion-light-... Outside of the politics, the bigger issue is that it lies in a kinda idiotic middle ground. It's not good enough to go against more advanced fighter jets (so you can't use it to ensure air superiority) and it's not as cheap as "weaponized" trainer aircraft - which is what most governments need (to bomb rebels or whatever) You can buy a L-39 for ~$200K, retrofit it with modern weapon systems (easier said than done, but still) and you won't be that much worse off than a guy with a $20m Scorpion. Just a cost comparison from wikipedia Aero L-159 Alca - $13-17 million Northrop T-38 Talon - $5.9 million Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano - $9–14 million

commandar 12y ago
Your article touches on just where it differentiates from those options, though. >Comparatively, Scorpion offers speed over the twin-turboprops and simplicity versus the trainers, which are structurally optimized to withstand high G forces in order to prepare pilots for the F-22 or F-35. And, although some parties may want to recast Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft for air and border patrols in the future, these UAVs remain blocked from operating in most of the domestic airspace. I'd also be curious to know what percentage of that price tag is made up by the modern avionics and datalink systems that you get out of the box with the Scorpion.