The twenty million dollar fighter jet

OV-10 or OV-1 would've done it's job at a fraction of the cost.
 
How many Scorpions would it take to tie up a F-35?;) Overwhelm the enemy with junk, worked for us in WWII how soon we forget.
 
I do believe the US needs something to bridge the gap between the (relatively) lightweight armed drones and the big stick of F-16's, F-18's, A-10s, and other cold war designs.

But the USAF and USN both have higher <internal> priorities, and neither one really wants to deal with the rhetoric (See: 60 Minutes) that will come the first time a US airman is downed in a bargain basement combat jet.
 
I dont think DoD is the target market. More likely DHS and HHS.
 
Foreign markets as well, it's a discount plane to arm our less fortunate allies with.
 
Side note: given Textron's multiple acquisitions, how soon before the fed steps in to bring anti-trust suit?
 
Richard said:
Side note: given Textron's multiple acquisitions, how soon before the fed steps in to bring anti-trust suit?
Click to expand...

Won't happen and doesn't need to happen. Which industry are you worried about them being a monopoly? Bizjets they're just one player. Light GA they're probably more likely to exit the industry altogether than exert monopolistic pressure. Defense they're a tiny fish in a big pond even with their helicopter and drone businesses.

They "only" do ~$3 billion in annual revenue which is peanuts compared to Lockheed, Boeing, GE, or any of the other big industrial conglomerates.
 
Looks interesting, but it's design assumes that opposing air defense have been virtually eliminated in the theater. Though it is a start in fixing the fiscal unsuitability of military action.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Looks interesting, but it's design assumes that opposing air defense have been virtually eliminated in the theater. Though it is a start in fixing the fiscal unsuitability of military action.
Click to expand...

All of our military engagements have taken place in conditions of air superiority (established by air superiority fighters). They could have done just about everything after the initial fight with these things at a considerably reduced cost.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Looks interesting, but it's design assumes that opposing air defense have been virtually eliminated in the theater. Though it is a start in fixing the fiscal unsuitability of military action.
Click to expand...

Which is plausible. It certainly makes more sense to use something like this domestically for border patrol, TFR interceptions, and the like, while allowing the F-35 and F-22 airframes to be focused on missions that require them.

My question would be whether this aircraft is better than an armed drone at what it does.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Which is plausible. It certainly makes more sense to use something like this domestically for border patrol, TFR interceptions, and the like, while allowing the F-35 and F-22 airframes to be focused on missions that require them.

My question would be whether this aircraft is better than an armed drone at what it does.
Click to expand...
Umm no the TSA and friends do not need fighter jets. Think man, think. Holy shizznizzle the empire is over.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Which is plausible. It certainly makes more sense to use something like this domestically for border patrol, TFR interceptions, and the like, while allowing the F-35 and F-22 airframes to be focused on missions that require them.

My question would be whether this aircraft is better than an armed drone at what it does.
Click to expand...

Yep. Since this aircraft is no "fighter," I think a drone could do it's primary real world mission (armed ISR). Still, I don't think you can completely replace eyes on the scene that's why I say round up all the OV-1s & 10s for low intensity conflicts where an F-16 / F-18 isn't needed. Kinda like what Afghanistan wants to do with the Tucano / AT-6 variant, only we'd have more fire power and more on station time.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Won't happen and doesn't need to happen. Which industry are you worried about them being a monopoly? Bizjets they're just one player. Light GA they're probably more likely to exit the industry altogether than exert monopolistic pressure. Defense they're a tiny fish in a big pond even with their helicopter and drone businesses.

They "only" do ~$3 billion in annual revenue which is peanuts compared to Lockheed, Boeing, GE, or any of the other big industrial conglomerates.
Click to expand...
As you have identified there are multiple segments of commercial aviation. Certainly it is obvious that TXT is not a major defense contractor or are they a 'player' in transport category aircraft.

However, what is current today does not mean it will hold true for the future. Witness the subject of this thread. Independent of the viability of the Scorpion is that the company has made the attempt. That it is being shown at Farnborough should be evidence that this project is not only proof of concept. Apparently the company has seen a market. Are you to say there will be no M&A in the near future?
 
Richard said:
As you have identified there are multiple segments of commercial aviation. Certainly it is obvious that TXT is not a major defense contractor or are they a 'player' in transport category aircraft.

However, what is current today does not mean it will hold true for the future. Witness the subject of this thread. Independent of the viability of the Scorpion is that the company has made the attempt. That it is being shown at Farnborough should be evidence that this project is not only proof of concept. Apparently the company has seen a market. Are you to say there will be no M&A in the near future?
Click to expand...

They're making strategic aquisitions in a variety of different industries that are somewhat related (TUG, TRU Simulation/ProFlight, and Beechcraft). What M&A are you proposing will come about in the near future that will suddenly make them a monopoly in any one market segment?
 
I think the AW&ST article makes some sense about possible uses for this airplane. For example, whenever they send up an Apache or F-16 to chase a C-172 that wandered into a TFR they are doing two things:

1) Spending a lot per hour. Of course federal money is free anyway, so that's not much of an argument.

2) Burning up an expensive to replace wartime asset. That's a fairly compelling. We know that to replace an Apache or an F-16 is very difficult, no matter how much money we print. It's a pity to burn up a warplane to chase a Cessna.

Certainly there is a business case for using this camo-painted Citation for TFR patrols.
 
JimNtexas said:
I think the AW&ST article makes some sense about possible uses for this airplane. For example, whenever they send up an Apache or F-16 to chase a C-172 that wandered into a TFR they are doing two things:

1) Spending a lot per hour. Of course federal money is free anyway, so that's not much of an argument.

2) Burning up an expensive to replace wartime asset. That's a fairly compelling. We know that to replace an Apache or an F-16 is very difficult, no matter how much money we print. It's a pity to burn up a warplane to chase a Cessna.

Certainly there is a business case for using this camo-painted Citation for TFR patrols.
Click to expand...



There is no business case for having TFRs, much less TFR 'patrols' in the first place!:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
ebykowsky said:
They're making strategic aquisitions in a variety of different industries that are somewhat related (TUG, TRU Simulation/ProFlight, and Beechcraft). What M&A are you proposing will come about in the near future that will suddenly make them a monopoly in any one market segment?
Click to expand...

I don't have any specific business move in mind. It was only a question that occurred to me. I admit I was miffed that it was dismissed out of hand. I doubt that because one works at or has worked at or is a shareholder is privy to the strategic development of TXT holdings.
 
Richard said:
I don't have any specific business move in mind. It was only a question that occurred to me. I admit I was miffed that it was dismissed out of hand. I doubt that because one works at or has worked at or is a shareholder is privy to the strategic development of TXT holdings.
Click to expand...

I'm quite honestly no more informed than the general public is. Of course I follow the business's development religiously, so I am apprised on all the company's public dealings. The overall strategy is organic growth coupled with inorganic growth through strategic acquisitions, but from where I stand, they're nowhere near any kind of monopoly in any specific industry. It's an extremely diversified company, even though some of the offerings do have a common theme.
 
Why do people call every military plane that doesn't look like an airliner a fighter?

Cute little tandem Slowtation.
 
Last edited:
turbofan said:
Why do people call every military plane that doesn't look like an airliner a fighter?

Cute little tandem Slowtation.
Click to expand...

I guess maybe because that's what the mfgr is calling it?

I found it interesting that even Boeing's COO was apparently impressed...

He told the BBC: "Capability at a low cost: that is the consistent theme across the defence and civil sectors these days." Given this environment Textron's "underlying idea makes sense".
 
timwinters said:
I guess maybe because that's what the mfgr is calling it?
Click to expand...
You gotta admit, "$20M Fighter" is a lot more eye-catching than "$20M Observation/Patrol Airplane with no Integrated Weapon System or Sensor Suite" ;)

It'll be interesting to watch a market develop and see if we hear a total unit acquisition cost including the (sub)systems and logistics/support chain. I think there's a market but when more advanced and somewhat proven airplanes are available for slightly more cost it's a tough market.

Nauga,
and the tough and ruthless tiger. Or is it rough and toothless?
 
I bet they sell them overseas. Why should our military buy them? They're flush with our cash.
 
Our military won't buy many more planes that take a pilot inside them.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Umm no the TSA and friends do not need fighter jets. Think man, think. Holy shizznizzle the empire is over.
Click to expand...

That's a noble thought and all, but you can't just ignore reality, either. Of course the TSA doesn't need fighter jets. But the USAF and ANG do, and right now they're using some really, really expensive airframes to do the work that these guys could (supposedly) do. Would you rather have an F-22 checking out a NORDO airliner and a suspected low-level drug runner, or a cheaper alternative?

Choosing to do neither is not a realistic scenario without significant political change, which we can work on at the same time.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Would you rather have an F-22 checking out a NORDO airliner and a suspected low-level drug runner, or a cheaper alternative?
Click to expand...
Depends on ROE but given the availability and readiness of both I'd probably prefer the guy with better sensors and capability.

Nauga,
who doesn't use his small light hammer to keep his good one from wearing out.
 
dukeblue219 said:
That's a noble thought and all, but you can't just ignore reality, either. Of course the TSA doesn't need fighter jets. But the USAF and ANG do, and right now they're using some really, really expensive airframes to do the work that these guys could (supposedly) do. Would you rather have an F-22 checking out a NORDO airliner and a suspected low-level drug runner, or a cheaper alternative?

Choosing to do neither is not a realistic scenario without significant political change, which we can work on at the same time.
Click to expand...

The proposed fighter won't be able to catch up with a NORDO airliner. With that straight wing it will be as slow as a Citation. :D
 
Clark1961 said:
The proposed fighter won't be able to catch up with a NORDO airliner. With that straight wing it will be as slow as a Citation. :D
Click to expand...

You mean as slow as the world's fastest business jet? :)
 
My Plantation got so much easier to run once I convinced my slaves they needed to wear shackles for their own protection.
dukeblue219 said:
That's a noble thought and all, but you can't just ignore reality, either. Of course the TSA doesn't need fighter jets. But the USAF and ANG do, and right now they're using some really, really expensive airframes to do the work that these guys could (supposedly) do. Would you rather have an F-22 checking out a NORDO airliner and a suspected low-level drug runner, or a cheaper alternative?

Choosing to do neither is not a realistic scenario without significant political change, which we can work on at the same time.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top