Thales/QinetiQ Scorpion for ASDOT

[ORAC]

Thales-QinetiQ Select Scorpion for UK Training Bid (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/farnborough/2016/07/13/thales--qinetiq-select-scorpion-uk-training-bid/87021188/)

FARNBOROUGH, England — Thales and QinetiQ have signed an agreement granting them exclusive use of the Textron AirLand Scorpion jet for the UK’s upcoming Air Support to Defence Operational Training (ASDOT).

It’s a big step for the Scorpion jet, which has gone almost three years without securing a customer. If Thales and QinetiQ can win the competition, between 10 and 25 Scorpion jets would be required, according to Bill Anderson, Textron AirLand president. Under the memorandum of understanding signed Tuesday at the Farnborough International Airshow, QinetiQ will provide synthetic training, integration and air worthiness certification, as well as handle maintenance for the Scorpion fleet. Thales will help with simulation work and provide sensors, while Textron will provide the physical jets.

The exact requirements for ASDOT are unclear to the public, but it is part of a wider attempt by the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) to consolidate the number of training programs it has, while emphasizing synthetic training to keep costs and hours down on its fleets of aircraft. A key part of ASDOT seems to be aggressor, or “red air,” aircraft services. It also appears to have an electronic warfare training element involved. The contract is planned for a September 2018 award, with a service start date of Jan. 1, 2020. The companies anticipate the contract to be worth up to £1.2 billion (US $1.6 billion) over 15 years.............

http://www.diseno-art.com/news_content/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Textron-AirLand-Scorpion-Jet-1-730x449.jpg

SRTeakeeT7Q

[CoffmanStarter]

How about increasing the 'supply' by a further 12 aircraft (3 spares) ... paint them red and fit smoke generation kit ;)

[BATCO]

A key part might be 'red air' (always of interest to fighter pilots) as stated by ORAC, but ASDOT also encompasses:

"The scope of the ASDOT programme currently covers provision of live
flying assets to meet the following training requirements:
-Air to Air Combat;
-Air to Surface Combat;
-Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC)/Forward Air Controller
(Airborne) (FAC(A));
-Electronic Warfare;
-Air Traffic Control (ATC);
-Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD);
-Aerospace Battle Management (ABM);
-Live Gunnery."

Regards
Batco

[Arclite01]

Is it just me or is it an ugly spud ??

The lack of sweep make it look odd to me, sort of like an Alpha Jet 'pulled through a hedge backwards'.

I am guessing it's relatively cheap though pro-rata.

Arc

[Tourist]

The production model is going to have more sweep to help the CofG. Might make it look a little prettier.

The figures that Textron are giving are if I remember correctly $3000 per hour which, if true, are spectacular.

Hell of a coup getting the exclusivity deal at Thales/QinetiQ.
Other bidders like Cobham are probably having very painful discussions right now...

[VX275]

So that's why it kept on turning up at Boscombe Down

[Arclite01]

$3K is very cheap.

I do hope it gets more sweep - that would alter the whole aesthetics of the thing, and probably give a performance increase too.

On the video it actually sounds relatively quiet................

Arc

[ORAC]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/scorpion-readied-for-another-starring-role-at-farnbo-424893/

...."Meanwhile, workers are making adjustments to the original Scorpion design. Textron AirLand rushed the Scorpion from design concept to first flight in less than 20 months. The production version allows them to refine the design of certain components. The main landing gear, for example, of the Scorpion demonstrator is an elaborate oleo strut design. It is being replaced with a simplified trailing link gear, removing 90kg (200lb) in the process, Tutt says.

Another change adds 4˚ of sweep to the outboard span of the wing leading-edge. The demonstrator revealed a centre of gravity slightly aft of the design intent, Tutt says. Increasing the sweep angle should correct the centre of gravity position while not affecting speed or manoeuvrability performance, he adds.

Other changes from the demonstrator design include the speed brake, which was bolted on to the top of the aft fuselage as an afterthought. The speed brake on the production version is designed to be flush with the fuselage skin, Tutt says.

More tweaks are being made beneath the skin. Cessna designed the Scorpion with a unique twin-keel hull, allowing the fuselage to accommodate a centerline payload bay. The original design allowed the Scorpion to fully retract a 15in-wide sensor turret assembly. Cessna changed the production design to store a 25in-wide sensor, such as the Sierra Nevada Gorgon Stare wide area surveillance system.

In the nose Textron AirLand is expanding optional payloads beyond the standard weather radar. The production Scorpion will have space reserved to instead house a multimode fighter radar, such as Northrop Grumman’s APG-68 fire control and synthetic aperture system."....

New Scorpion twin-jet to debut at Farnborough Air Show - Textron AirLand (http://www.scorpionjet.com/scorpion-debuts-farnborough/)

Increased wingsweep isn't really noticeable. That flat belly between the keels for the payload bay is though.

http://www.scorpionjet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DSC2201.jpg

[Davef68]

So replacing 100 Squadron and 736 Squadron, along with all the other support roles currently done by first-gen Hawks and the Cobham Falcons as well as HHA's Hunters?

[Out Of Trim]

Another change adds 4˚ of sweep to the outboard span of the wing leading-edge. The demonstrator revealed a centre of gravity slightly aft of the design intent, Tutt says. Increasing the sweep angle should correct the centre of gravity position while not affecting speed or manoeuvrability performance, he adds.

Hmm, Tutt says increasing the sweep angle should correct the slightly too far aft C of G, Huh? Surely, moving the outer wings back 4 Deg would add aft C of G. Unless other changes like a radar installation counteract that adjustment in fwd C of G.

I don't think that photo shows the new wing design.

Interesting announcement anyhow. Looks like a cheaper platform for training and perhaps CAS. :)

[DD24.5C]

So let me get my head around this, the production aircraft has not flown, it has yet to be certified into the far inferior FAA Experimntal Category, they are potentially lead customer and they are to assume service delivery, should they win the competition, from 1 January 2020? Good luck!

Air-to-Air: Assuming this is training in support of Typhoon and Lightning with some form of Electronic Attack, Radar and DASS to enable representative adversary replication all the way to the merge then I'm not convinced, aerodynamically, that it will be up to the job. I'd probably include RAF ABM and RN FC training in here as well.

Air-to-Surface: Assuming this is the maritime domain then it's significantly less representative than a Hawk for a Red Air fast jet threat or simulated anti-ship or anti-radiation missile and no real improvement than a business jet for any electronic attack work in terms of performance.

Also, can somebody please tell me exactly what MOD contract HHA currently support with aircraft that are 50 years old? I did chuckle at the Air Clues article and am surprised the RAF Flight Safety team entertained them.

[DCThumb]

I think the key is 'part of' ASDOT.

Another part is the Tranche 1 Typhoons - presumably for the air-to-air?

[Tourist]

I get the impression that it is suitable for some of the hawk stuff and most/all of the Falcon stuff plus obvious ISR capabilities rather than trying to do the air to air or ship attack stuff

[Out Of Trim]

By 2020, hopefully we will have full on Stealth FAA F35B to do the Ship Attack stuff! :ok:

[pr00ne]

DCThumb,

'Another part is the Tranche 1 Typhoons - presumably for the air-to-air?"


The last SDSR allotted the Tranche 1 Typhoons to the 2 additional OPERATIONAL Typhoon AD squadrons.

[Stitchbitch]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-mod-outlines-scope-of-asdot-aggressor-p-427454/

More news..

[Maxibon]

ISTR that the advantage of this jet (having spoken to them at the last Farnborough) was a significant % of parts commonality with the Cessna Citation, which would make it popular with smaller air forces; where aren't there Cessna depots around the world? Added to that was the then cost was in the region of $12m which when compared against the F35 for example, allows for a higher jet/$ ratio. Quantity has a quality all of its own.

[Arclite01]

Yeah you can just see them sun bleached and rotting in the long grass in far flung places in 15 years time....................alongside their once Eastern European colleagues................. :E

Arc

[trap one]

Have to say the Indian "thin wing" hunter would probably be a better buy and more capable aircraft. IMHO

[Tourist]

Have to say the Indian "thin wing" hunter would probably be a better buy and more capable aircraft. IMHOYou hae not bothered to actually read what the aircraft is designed to do, have you trap?


Hunters have essentially zero capability in the role this aircraft is designed to do.

[Trim Stab]

Hmm, Tutt says increasing the sweep angle should correct the slightly too far aft C of G, Huh? Surely, moving the outer wings back 4 Deg would add aft C of G

No - because centre of lift would retreat more than C of G.

Forget the aesthetics anyway. Adding wing-sweep is not beneficial to the niche that this aircraft is seemingly aimed at - if you want easy handling (for moderate ability pilots), ISR loiter time, possibly light CAS - why do you need wing sweep?

[Always a Sapper]

What about the Hawk? In todays climate (brexit and all that ****) wouldn't we be better off buying British thereby helping our own industry?

[GlobalNav]

"What about the Hawk?"

Agreed, might as well use a real, and known airplane.

[Tourist]

Genuinely, have you guys actually taken 5mins to actually read about what the aircraft is for?

Hawk is not a solution to the challenge the Textron toy is designed to solve

[Davef68]

Adding to what Tourist is saying, 'We' won't be buying the aircraft, 'we' will be buying the capability from Qinetiq etc if they win the program. Someone else may propose Hawk for it.

[JustT]

Out of Trim @ post 10


Perhaps adding a swept wing will move lift aft thereby reducing the moment arm between Centre of Gravity and Centre of Lift and achieving the design intent.

[DD24.5C]

Anybody read as to who else may be competing given the variety of mission sets?

[Davef68]

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/farnborough-2016-cae-and-draken-international-ink-/


Also note the Thales report in Flight mentions
Once introduced, the ASDOT system will also draw on the use of military assets, such as BAE Systems Hawk jet trainers and some of the Royal Air Force’s Tranche 1 production-standard Eurofighter Typhoons.

[DD24.5C]

Thanks DaveF! So Draken have gotten some of the Kahu Skyhawks the Kiwis got rid of, that's not a bad capability for all the mission sets. Did I read correct in Flight that Draken's L-159s are providing aggressor duties at Nellis?

[RAFEngO74to09]

DD24.5C,

Yes - USAF 65 AS with the F-15C has been disbanded and Draken have been contracted on a trial basis with the A-4K initially.

Official Nellis AFB video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJdfA0tRr0U

Articles here:

http://www.drakenintl.com/news-2015-6.html

Why Is the Air Force Using Jet-Flying Mercenaries? | The National Interest Blog (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-air-force-using-jet-flying-mercenaries-14970)

http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/alumni-house/alumni-news/retirement-gig

Company Website: http://drakenintl.com/

[Wander00]

What is "The National Interest"? daily Wail on speed?

[LOMCEVAK]

DD24.5C,

The Hawk T1 is now 42 years old so what is your point about the age of a type? The ex-Swiss Hunter F58 airframes are very low life and upgrades keep old airframes going for many years. The F58 is capable of 550 KIAS+ at 50 ft ASL and a sustained IMN at 40,000ft of between 0.88 and ~0.96 depending upon external stores configuration and with a respectable sustained turn capability; the Hawk of any Mark has nowhere near this performance and nor does it have the internal space for additional systems. Other platforms with these capabilities cost considerably more to purchase and to operate. The devil is in the detail so beware of pre-conceived ideas!!!

With respect to HHA's contracts, their airframes are UK military registered and their operation is regulated by the MAA. If they did not have contracts that were in the interest of UK MoD they would not be able to operate the aircraft with such registration. And please tell us more about what made you chuckle about the Air Clues article.

JustT,

Sweeping the wing back does indeed move the aerodynamic centre (lift) aft but that is to increase the static margin (distance between the c.g and the aerodynamic centre) in order to increase the longitudinal static and manoeuvre stabilities. There is an interesting historical precedent for this - the Short Sunderland had the same done for the same reason (and the engine mounts were not modified so the thrust lines are angled outwards from the longitudinal fuselage datum).

Out Of Trim,

You are correct that sweeping the wings aft will move the overall mass distribution aft but that mass is a very small percentage of the whole whereas the lift acting at the aerodynamic centre essentially equals the AUW of the aircraft in 1g flight.

[BEagle]

Some aerodynamic fixes are often perplexing...

Student (to QFI with shiny new A2): "Sir, why does the F-14 have two fins?".
QFI (quick as a flash after recalling all that hard A2 preparation work): "To improve directional stability at high Mach No." - followed by nicely drawn multi-colour diagram of fin AoA and dCL/dα curve.
Student: "Ah, thank you sir, I understand now, sir. But sir, why does a Shackleton have two fins?"

:E

[Haraka]

Beags - from1971.
"Why have Westlands mounted the Lynx's engines behind the rotor mast?"
" To balance the 7cwt of lead in the nose of course".

[Spinflight.]

"Anybody read as to who else may be competing given the variety of mission sets?"

Only two other firm bids in the offing that I know of, it isn't exactly a mature market and one of them is effectively vapourware..

The Scorpion was tested, more than once, and laughed out of town. Everyone thinks a cheap jet like the Textron is a great idea, until they fly it. Hence the no orders situation.

Various potential players have been harassing Saab trying to get the older Gripens, though it's a no go as the Swedish government isn't playing ball. For odd reasons.

The Hunters mentioned are attractive from an operator point of view, though fail to simulate anything but a museum's corporate party event. Typhoons are obviously the main focus for DACT and there is a strange thought that an aggressor has to have some part of the envelope to play in. Better than the current Falcons I guess.

Discovery Air Defence, teamed with two companies who should know better, have the most crackpot scheme though. They'll buy surplus Israeli F-16 block 10s, as far as anyone can tell purely for the teen series wow bid factor. The fact that the OEM won't support them, nor the major parts thereof ( engine, radar), which means the CAA won't allow it didn't even dent their stride. There's a reason they are cheap. They'll go on the Canadian military register instead!

Yeah....

Draken's bid has firmed up, definitely not A-4s though, they've got their eyes on Belgium's Alpha Jets.

About 90% of the requirement doesn't need anything fast or pointy, so I wouldn't hold my breath on anything more agile than a target tug.

[Davef68]

"
Discovery Air Defence, teamed with two companies who should know better, have the most crackpot scheme though. They'll buy surplus Israeli F-16 block 10s, as far as anyone can tell purely for the teen series wow bid factor. The fact that the OEM won't support them, nor the major parts thereof ( engine, radar), which means the CAA won't allow it didn't even dent their stride. There's a reason they are cheap. They'll go on the Canadian military register instead!


Surely the CAA wouldn't have an input as they would operate on the UK Military register under MAA control?