Thales/QinetiQ Scorpion for ASDOT
 

Thales-QinetiQ Select Scorpion for UK Training Bid

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_conte...-1-730x449.jpg

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

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

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

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...

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

$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

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...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

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

http://www.scorpionjet.com/wp-conten...07/DSC2201.jpg

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?

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. :)

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.

I think the key is 'part of' ASDOT.

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

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

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

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.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ssor-p-427454/

More news..

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.

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

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

You 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.