7 ms·

Do you think the USAF will look down on Textron's "world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft."[1] and the concept of private companies building tactical air

Do you think the USAF will look down on Textron's "world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft."[1] and the concept of private companies building tactical aircraft prior to orders From a development cost standpoint I think this is a great experiment as it will skip a lot of the external politics, project managment headaches, requirements changes and politics again. But I fear politics will shun this type of development from taking off. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion

thrill 12y ago
Do you think the USAF will look down on Textron's "world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft."[1] and the concept of private companies building tactical aircraft prior to orders You mean like they did with the F-20 Tigershark? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark
- hydrogen18 12y ago
  I think you're missing the mark with F-20 Tigershark. The development was started under one political mindset and that mindset was blown away by Reagan. It doesn't make sense to develop an export aircraft when there are existing aircraft with superior capabilities suddenly available for export. There is a point to be made: aircraft are chosen for political reasons, not for their suitably to the mission. The A-10 is an example of an exceptionally suitable aircraft as is the B-52. This is not a reflection of good decision making, but just the outcome of random selection. If you build enough boondoogles (i.e. JSF) you eventually accidentally build a useful aircraft. These aircraft prove their utility and are kept around whereas the glass elephants are quietly retired. For example, consider the B-58. By all measures it was an amazing aircraft that met all of its goals. But by the time it was complete, it was built for a mission that no longer existed. The aircraft literally had no role by the time it became operational.
  - sgnelson 12y ago
    THe B-1 is another great example of a plane built for a mission that no longer exists. We still fly them, but it was a true boondoggle of it's time.
    - hydrogen18 12y ago
      Absolutely. It was meant to replace the B-52 but the B-52 is likely to outlive it. I'm not really even sure how it is an improvement on the B-52 anyways. The listed payloads on Wikipedia is higher than that of the B-52, but I'm not sure I trust those numbers. I don't think it much matters that it is supersonic. The US enjoys air superiority in all conflicts by virtue of it being the only one with planes in the air. Perhaps it is slightly less vulnerable to SAMs due to its speed advantage? The US is pretty good at neutralizing SAM installations using missiles, long before any planes get over the battlefield. I don't see how the B-1B can fit into a modern military.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  Never mind the F-104 "lawn dart".
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    Yeah, but it looked cool. :-)
Roboprog 12y ago
The Wikipedia description of the Scorpion describes a plane which has a top speed and ceiling that barely match a commercial jet liner. Maybe they are going to sell these to 3rd world countries to harass revolutionaries? The USAF would not use these to fight other countries. Edit: or maybe to sell to rich kids who want to pretend that they are fighter pilots (I suppose it would be a hell of a hobbyist ride) :-)
- hydrogen18 12y ago
  It is a morbid reality, but the market for those planes is exactly as you described it. The established warlord who has become wealthy through conquest and now wants ground-attack aircraft to reinforce his authority. It'll be popular amongst supporters as well since it is such a visible emblem of power and collateral damage will be low. But yes, the idea of that plane going up against any modern fighter is a joke. Even the dated Mig-21 would have no problem destroying that plane using just the cannon.
  - Roboprog 12y ago
    I looked at the article again a bit more closely. The Scorpion does have a valid use: as an observation platform. Essentially, replacing the repurposed Pipers or Cessnas that were used in the WW II to Vietnam era for spotting ground targets.

thrill 12y ago

Do you think the USAF will look down on Textron's "world’s most affordable tactical jet aircraft."[1] and the concept of private companies building tactical aircraft prior to orders You mean like they did with the F-20 Tigershark? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

hydrogen18 12y ago
I think you're missing the mark with F-20 Tigershark. The development was started under one political mindset and that mindset was blown away by Reagan. It doesn't make sense to develop an export aircraft when there are existing aircraft with superior capabilities suddenly available for export. There is a point to be made: aircraft are chosen for political reasons, not for their suitably to the mission. The A-10 is an example of an exceptionally suitable aircraft as is the B-52. This is not a reflection of good decision making, but just the outcome of random selection. If you build enough boondoogles (i.e. JSF) you eventually accidentally build a useful aircraft. These aircraft prove their utility and are kept around whereas the glass elephants are quietly retired. For example, consider the B-58. By all measures it was an amazing aircraft that met all of its goals. But by the time it was complete, it was built for a mission that no longer existed. The aircraft literally had no role by the time it became operational.
- sgnelson 12y ago
  THe B-1 is another great example of a plane built for a mission that no longer exists. We still fly them, but it was a true boondoggle of it's time.
  - hydrogen18 12y ago
    Absolutely. It was meant to replace the B-52 but the B-52 is likely to outlive it. I'm not really even sure how it is an improvement on the B-52 anyways. The listed payloads on Wikipedia is higher than that of the B-52, but I'm not sure I trust those numbers. I don't think it much matters that it is supersonic. The US enjoys air superiority in all conflicts by virtue of it being the only one with planes in the air. Perhaps it is slightly less vulnerable to SAMs due to its speed advantage? The US is pretty good at neutralizing SAM installations using missiles, long before any planes get over the battlefield. I don't see how the B-1B can fit into a modern military.
digi_owl 12y ago
Never mind the F-104 "lawn dart".
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  Yeah, but it looked cool. :-)

Roboprog 12y ago

The Wikipedia description of the Scorpion describes a plane which has a top speed and ceiling that barely match a commercial jet liner. Maybe they are going to sell these to 3rd world countries to harass revolutionaries? The USAF would not use these to fight other countries. Edit: or maybe to sell to rich kids who want to pretend that they are fighter pilots (I suppose it would be a hell of a hobbyist ride) :-)

hydrogen18 12y ago
It is a morbid reality, but the market for those planes is exactly as you described it. The established warlord who has become wealthy through conquest and now wants ground-attack aircraft to reinforce his authority. It'll be popular amongst supporters as well since it is such a visible emblem of power and collateral damage will be low. But yes, the idea of that plane going up against any modern fighter is a joke. Even the dated Mig-21 would have no problem destroying that plane using just the cannon.
- Roboprog 12y ago
  I looked at the article again a bit more closely. The Scorpion does have a valid use: as an observation platform. Essentially, replacing the repurposed Pipers or Cessnas that were used in the WW II to Vietnam era for spotting ground targets.