Scorpion: The New Light Jet Fighter Nobody Asked For

This week there was a surprising announcement by Textron CEO Scott Donnelly at the Air Force Association technology conference outside of Washington, D.C.  It seems that Textron teamed up with Cessna to design a new, low-cost jet fighter designed for countries that have very tight defense budgets (i.e. The United States for one).

As described and revealed in a photograph, the Scorpion is a versatile twin-engine Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)/Strike aircraft. Engines are expected to be built by Honeywell (specifically the Honeywell TFE731s).  Empty weight of 11,800 pounds and max speed of 450 knots and a ceiling of 45,000 feet. Textron/Cessna is targeting a operating cost of $3000.00 a flight hour for this aircraft.

To this blogger, the Scorpion looks like a fixed wing F-14 Tomcat with its wings in the extended position. But I'm thinking that this could be a great aircraft for Great Britain and Japan for their respective "aircraft carrier" programs if the Scorpion can be navalized.


___
Ref.
1.  www.flyingmag.com. "" by Stephen Pope. September 17, 2013. (http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/scorpion-light-attack-jet-nobody-asked?cmpid=enews091213&spPodID=030&spMailingID=17904912&spUserID=NTI1OTk5OTQ5OTMS1&spJobID=229891228&spReportId=MjI5ODkxMjI4S0).  image from same website.

The New Cessna 162

Fun at Mach 0.162

EAA Pilot Building 1/3rd scale B-17 Homebuilt

Some guy by the name of Jack Bally of Dixon, Illinois, loves B-17s (love him already for that). He likes them so much that he decided to build his own B-17 homebuilt aircraft.

Startign with a set of 1/9th scale radio control B-17 model plans, he then spent the next 10 years of his life building his very own B-17.

Power will be provided by four four-cylinder, air-cooled 80-hp Hirth F-30 two-stroke engines. That engine would fit inside the 20" diameter engine nacelles. The aircraft itself is all aluminum, 34'7" wingspan, 24-foot long fuse whihc makes it slightly bigger than a Cessna 152.

For more information, please use the url link below to read the fine article by Patrick Panzera.

___

Ref. Experimenter, Patrick Panzera. EAA.org(http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-06_womb.asp). picture from same article.

Does Lockheed-Martin have a future? F-35 in Doubt?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wanted to accelerate the purchase of F-35s through 2015. In the Market Watch article I read, that figure was from 513 F-35 fighters through 2015 and up to a fleet of 2,443 F-35s eventually. But in latest report from the Pentagon, planned purchases for fiscal year 2011 will be about 391 - a reduction of 122 fighters through the same year.

This cutback for Lockhed-Martin which was trying to increase its production rate of the aircraft to one a day in the next 5-6 years. Higher production rates mean a lower cost for each individual airplane. Plus Lockheed will be relying heavily on automated and assembly-line production methods to meet its target goals.

While the United States is the primary customer, other countries are wanting some of the action as well. Such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia, and Turkey. Sales of the F-35 expect to top out over $16 billion by 2016. Reporter Christopher Hinton in his article stated that this is 25% of Lockheed-Martin's total revenue. This is information provided for by Bernstein Research. Each F-35 costs about $83 million right now and costs per plane by 2014 is expecting to go down to $80 million per airplane.

The title for my post is more tongue in cheek than any actual threats to production. But I have been thinking lately that these big companies in the US Industrial/Military complex are pricing themselves out of business with their biggest customer - the United States of America.

Not being an insider, I wonder if smaller companies - say Cessna, Piper, Air Tractor, etc., be given funding to produce flying prototypes of next generation fighter aircraft. Look at the problems the USAF is having trying to get a replacement for the air tanker role. It is so bogged down with politics now. Boeing or Northrup/Grumman(EADS). There is a article on James Hasik blog you ought to take a look at. See the ref section for the link. I mean, we are at the point that we might as well split the purchase of those tankers between the two companies.

These other companies should be able to come up with fresh ideas that do not cost in the billions the same old way that Lockheed and Boeing keep on doing for the past 50 years. We keep finding ourselves in COIN operations and not World War Three. While I realize that we need to have equipment that can operate in WW3, those same fighters do not have the abilities that aircraft set up for COIN operations need to have.

And I guess the main thrust of my post here is that we seem to be stuck in a groove. We want fighters for World War Three - go to Lockheed-Martin. Want a fighter for the Navy-go to Northrup/Grumman. Need a bomber or tanker-Boeing or Airbus now.

Maybe in 2010, things will settle down as far as how new equipment for our military will be planned for and purchased.

Bloomberg also had a new article on military programs January 8, 2010 by Tony Capaccio (see link below). It delt more with Def. Secretary Robert Gates restoring funding to several programs including the C-130 upgrade program.

___

Ref. Market Watch, Christopher Hinton, January 7, 2010. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pentagon-may-cut-production-for-lockheeds-f-35-2010-01-07?siteid=rss&rss=1).

James Shasik, January 3, 2010 (http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2010/01/four-issues-with-the-usafs-tanker-rfp-and-an-analysis-of-the-split-buy-concept-part-one.html).

Bloomberg, Tony Capaccio, January 8, 2010. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a..NOafAKjFw)