I've been thinking this for a while. Air Force can't wait to get rid of A-10 fleet we all know that by now. This time, the possibility is more than ever likely. On the other end of this mess, army needs a dedicated CAS aircraft, regardless of inter-service politics. Is this Scorpion the right answer? If they can keep the cost down, who knows.
This is a cheap aircraft, but how many Excalibur rounds could you buy for the same price? Never mind the cost of running the squadron. How many ATACMS rounds? How does it compare cost wise to new AH or refurbing current AH? What is the cost of the air delivered ordinance against a round of artillery PGM?
Maverick costs $130,000 approx. Hellfire costs $60,000 which is about the same as one Excalibur round. The cost of one Scorpion could buy 4 to 6 modern self-propelled guns to fire the Excalibur rounds. Buying a $20 million aircraft to carry 6 to 8 missiles each costing as much as much as an artillery PGM round doesn't make much sense economically.
Further consider if you have a weapon with Excalibur's accuracy how many potential targets would there be per day? How far do ground forces advance? A battalion commander who could whistle up a 6in shell to always hit a target would count himself lucky and I bet he wouldn't much more than ten times per day. 6 to 8 rounds per salvo say.
Can't really argue with that, I think the 'extra' (runway pending) mobility just simply isn't worth this cost, if you can get 4-5 decent production run SP-ART with 40 round capacity that is 6.6x more shells than missiles per SP-ART which is 26-33x more over the battery. Sure they aren't guided ATGMs but every target isn't a tank, and when youy have 30 shells replacing every hellfire missile this becomes a bit moot.
Now if the platform was a lot cheaper like the AHRLAC, or it had some sort of unique ability like the endurance and sensor package of some of these drones (which helps alot in occupations) then sure maybe it is a different story. Or perhaps if it was like a full blown fighter-bomber which was capable of carrying many Brimstone/cluster munitions (sensor fused anti-tank bombs) etc..etc.. in a secondary role (kind of like a FB-111 or tornado) then that might be a different story. I would rather take a AH-64, or production new harrier carries a better weapons payload and is actually deployable (RUNWAYS).
For this price you could get a AH64, or half a F16 (which is a real fighter plane), if new harriers were for sale they would also be a much better option, not to mention there are commerically available ADS systems designed to defeat these ATGMS, India is getting LEDS-150s on their new T90s which can intercept 12 ATGMs, making the long term viability of a system that carries say 6-12 dubious when new T72s/90s go for 2-3M and I bet could shoot these down with their cannon if they fly in low enough. If these carry say 6 ATGMs then you would need more than 20 to destroy 10 T72s with ADS which go for about 2M ea. This is not economical!
AF is getting rid of A10 because its not flashy or high tech enough so why would you reckon they would be interested in a plane that is ultra low tech compared to A-10 ,compared to A10 scorpion is a toy RC plane with no gun ,no real survivability . i just do not see it happening.
Steve are you seriously comparing artillery to a plane.
This is more likely to be a modernized replacement for the A-37 Dragonfly that most South American and Central American Air forces Fly. It could be perfect for Smaller Airforces such as Afghanistan
Agreed the A-10 is a real bad ass. If the Air force really doesn't want them give them to the army. At 10 million a piece, how is it possible to beat a A-10 dollar for dollar anyway. man you cant even get capable foreign anti-air systems cheap enough to deal with that kind of pricing/firepower.
at a 6600 lb payload, compared to 55 lbs for a 155 shell, thats about 112 shells, or 18 rds per gun for a 6 gun battery.thats not to mention the crews and logistics for said battery and fuel as well, or the fact that guns cant perform reconassaince or spotting. the aircaft would be cheaper longterm.not to mention it's range (2400 miles ferry), which i dunno what that works out to be in combat, but i can bet its at least 400 miles.
It can loiter, and provide close air support in a variety of ways. Can use both precison and unguided munitons. Hell, it could drop half a dozen 100 lb Jdams.. has 6 hardpoints and a 20 millioin dollar jet isnt restructed to one munitions type, dunno where you guys got that from.if a super tucano is 13 mil, for 20 mil this isnt bad, with double the payload of the Super T.Do your homework, fellas.
I've been thinking this for a while. Air Force can't wait to get rid of A-10 fleet we all know that by now. This time, the possibility is more than ever likely. On the other end of this mess, army needs a dedicated CAS aircraft, regardless of inter-service politics. Is this Scorpion the right answer? If they can keep the cost down, who knows.
ReplyDeleteThis is a cheap aircraft, but how many Excalibur rounds could you buy for the same price? Never mind the cost of running the squadron. How many ATACMS rounds? How does it compare cost wise to new AH or refurbing current AH? What is the cost of the air delivered ordinance against a round of artillery PGM?
DeleteMaverick costs $130,000 approx. Hellfire costs $60,000 which is about the same as one Excalibur round. The cost of one Scorpion could buy 4 to 6 modern self-propelled guns to fire the Excalibur rounds. Buying a $20 million aircraft to carry 6 to 8 missiles each costing as much as much as an artillery PGM round doesn't make much sense economically.
DeleteFurther consider if you have a weapon with Excalibur's accuracy how many potential targets would there be per day? How far do ground forces advance? A battalion commander who could whistle up a 6in shell to always hit a target would count himself lucky and I bet he wouldn't much more than ten times per day. 6 to 8 rounds per salvo say.
Can't really argue with that, I think the 'extra' (runway pending) mobility just simply isn't worth this cost, if you can get 4-5 decent production run SP-ART with 40 round capacity that is 6.6x more shells than missiles per SP-ART which is 26-33x more over the battery. Sure they aren't guided ATGMs but every target isn't a tank, and when youy have 30 shells replacing every hellfire missile this becomes a bit moot.
DeleteNow if the platform was a lot cheaper like the AHRLAC, or it had some sort of unique ability like the endurance and sensor package of some of these drones (which helps alot in occupations) then sure maybe it is a different story. Or perhaps if it was like a full blown fighter-bomber which was capable of carrying many Brimstone/cluster munitions (sensor fused anti-tank bombs) etc..etc.. in a secondary role (kind of like a FB-111 or tornado) then that might be a different story. I would rather take a AH-64, or production new harrier carries a better weapons payload and is actually deployable (RUNWAYS).
For this price you could get a AH64, or half a F16 (which is a real fighter plane), if new harriers were for sale they would also be a much better option, not to mention there are commerically available ADS systems designed to defeat these ATGMS, India is getting LEDS-150s on their new T90s which can intercept 12 ATGMs, making the long term viability of a system that carries say 6-12 dubious when new T72s/90s go for 2-3M and I bet could shoot these down with their cannon if they fly in low enough. If these carry say 6 ATGMs then you would need more than 20 to destroy 10 T72s with ADS which go for about 2M ea. This is not economical!
AF is getting rid of A10 because its not flashy or high tech enough so why would you reckon they would be interested in a plane that is ultra low tech compared to A-10 ,compared to A10 scorpion is a toy RC plane with no gun ,no real survivability . i just do not see it happening.
ReplyDeleteSteve are you seriously comparing artillery to a plane.
This is more likely to be a modernized replacement for the A-37 Dragonfly that most South American and Central American Air forces Fly. It could be perfect for Smaller Airforces such as Afghanistan
ReplyDeleteAgreed the A-10 is a real bad ass. If the Air force really doesn't want them give them to the army. At 10 million a piece, how is it possible to beat a A-10 dollar for dollar anyway. man you cant even get capable foreign anti-air systems cheap enough to deal with that kind of pricing/firepower.
ReplyDeleteat a 6600 lb payload, compared to 55 lbs for a 155 shell, thats about 112 shells, or 18 rds per gun for a 6 gun battery.thats not to mention the crews and logistics for said battery and fuel as well, or the fact that guns cant perform reconassaince or spotting. the aircaft would be cheaper longterm.not to mention it's range (2400 miles ferry), which i dunno what that works out to be in combat, but i can bet its at least 400 miles.
ReplyDeleteIt can loiter, and provide close air support in a variety of ways. Can use both precison and unguided munitons. Hell, it could drop half a dozen 100 lb Jdams.. has 6 hardpoints and a 20 millioin dollar jet isnt restructed to one munitions type, dunno where you guys got that from.if a super tucano is 13 mil, for 20 mil this isnt bad, with double the payload of the Super T.Do your homework, fellas.
excuse me, i meant half a dozen 1000 lb Jdams
ReplyDelete