If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Not news: Yet another tactical jet fighter debuts. News: Costs one-eighth as much to operate as an F-16. Fark: It's from a company that makes golf carts and Cessnas, and absolutely nobody asked for it   (cnn.com) divider line 28
    More: Strange, F-16s, Air National Guard, jet fighters, Aviation Week  
•       •       •

8534 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Sep 2013 at 10:32 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-21 09:31:16 AM
5 votes:
So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have; and costs so much less than the F22 and F35 that Congress could buy twice as many of his planes as the amount of the other two that they ordered, give tax breaks to billionaires, fully fund Obamacare, expand spending on social welfare programs (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, Social Security, etc) and infrastructure upgrades, give more tax breaks to billionaires, and still have enough money left over to eliminate the deficit.

Any guesses as to how long until he gets killed in an airplane "accident?"
2013-09-21 08:39:11 AM
5 votes:
It's so cute when these small timers think they can just waltz into the Military Industrial Club and order a drink.
2013-09-21 09:10:10 AM
3 votes:
I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.
2013-09-21 01:02:27 PM
2 votes:
I'd want that plane if I were a billionaire with a pilots license.
2013-09-21 11:05:49 AM
2 votes:

Vodka Zombie: Umm... Doesn't Cessna make Cessnas?


Cessna is a subsidiary of Textron.
2013-09-21 09:20:24 AM
2 votes:
"We began development of the Scorpion in January 2012 with the objective to design, build and fly the world's most affordable tactical jet aircraft capable of performing lower-threat battlefield and homeland security missions," Textron Chairman and CEO Scott Donnelly said in a statement.

Makes sense for those applications. Wonder what the range is?
rka
2013-09-21 11:50:34 PM
1 votes:

Spaced Cowboy: Nah man, you see, we don't actualy have a sort of way to combat radar other than super expensive planes.


The problem with adding another platform is that you have to have the whole infrastructure behind it. Train more pilots for a new plane. Train new mechanics. An entirely new logistics program. Procurement cycles. Testing.

So yes, flying one cheap plane in the place of an expensive plane seems like a good idea. Until you realize that once you ramp up production, training and deployment you could have just flown the expensive plane you already had for about the same money using the already in place infrastructure for it. And the more expensive plane can already handle more missions, in more theatres of action, against a much wider threat spectrum and most likely can take more punishment (ie survive longer) to boot.

Actually buying the plane itself is but a small part of the equation.
2013-09-21 10:03:59 PM
1 votes:

eyeq360: But is it as good as this plane?
[www.flightglobal.com image 560x373]


You mean the plane with the Radio Shack avionics stack, and the totally non-functional cowl seal?
aviationintel.com
/snerk
2013-09-21 06:12:23 PM
1 votes:

Spaced Cowboy:

Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.


Plus it is a numbers game. What is better, a super advanced F-22 that can only be in one place at a time or ten of these which for ground support will be as effective but there are ten of them so they can cover a much greater area.

If you're on the ground and come under fire which would you prefer? A F-22 that can be there in thirty minutes, because it is the only one in the area, or one of these that is nearby and can be there in two minutes?
2013-09-21 06:05:13 PM
1 votes:
The military didn't ask for it. They asked for this and it's super neat-o.
img844.imageshack.us
2013-09-21 05:55:38 PM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
Super Tweet
2013-09-21 04:40:03 PM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: You do realize we have multiple ways of dealing with enemy radar and detection systems, right?  It's not all about the plane being flown over head.  Again, I don't think you quite understand how our military's combined forces doctrine works or the level of top secret power we have at our disposal.  This plane would have been fine.  We could have sent trainer planes into Iraq and been fine.  Possibly not 100% casualty free, but I don't think we would have been in a panic about losing air superiority, regardless of what we were flying.

This cheap plane would merely be a tool in our toolbelt.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It also happens to be a tool that won't send us another few billion into debt when we decide that syripakiranistan needs some of it's caves blowed the fark up.  Not really sure what's to dislike here, or what exactly you're arguing about.

I'm sure you're some kind of expert on our top secret power. But I suggest if you think this is a great plane, you go talk to some combat aviators and ask them how it'd do. Especially since the builder disagrees with your assessment of it.

WTF are you even talking about.  I highly suggest you read the things that are said to you before you just spout off like a fool.  While you're at it, google "strawman" and learn how not to use one for every argument you try to make.  Hint A: I never said I think it's a great plane.  That's as good a place as any to start your education.

So we're down to "it's another tool in our toolbelt."

And here I thought you said, Spaced Cowboy: Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

I guess I misunderstood and you meant IN ADDITION to? Or are the super-high-tech top-secret platforms just really cheap?


Read the part before the comma too, you illiterate dipshiat.  Complete sentences, how the fark do they work...

God damn, you're stupid.  I'm putting on a hazmat suit just in case that shiat is contagious.  Just to really help you out of your din of retardation and confusion, this is from my second post in this thread:  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  Stop playing FoxNews and trying to derive full meaning of an entire paragraph from a 3 word clip.

Your time on fark is going to be very unpleasant unless you can get a better grasp on this whole communication thing.  You seem to be really bad at this.
2013-09-21 03:38:02 PM
1 votes:

centrifugal bumblepuppy: Short memories?


The F-20 was much more comparable to an F-16.

TFA is about a subsonic plane with 3,000 lb bomb capacity

Tigershark was a Mach 2+ plane with an 8,000 lb bomb capacity.

/ Great aircraft, the Tigershark
2013-09-21 03:24:09 PM
1 votes:
semperfimac.net

Wouldn't be the first Cessna the Air Force has flown.
2013-09-21 03:21:14 PM
1 votes:
2013-09-21 02:36:06 PM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: So what you're saying is that we needed the high-tech planes to start with..


Correct. And after April 2003, we didn't need to be flying F-16s at a cost of $25,000.00/hour
2013-09-21 02:27:55 PM
1 votes:

Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.

Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.


So what you're saying is that we needed the high-tech planes to start with. Because these things would never have gotten to the targets to destroy the air defenses.
2013-09-21 02:23:40 PM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: Spaced Cowboy: Ricardo Klement: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have

Did you read the article? The thing is basically only useful when the enemy has a) no aircraft and b) no air defenses.

In other words, every country we've gone to war with over the last few decades.  Sounds perfect.  Next time we start feeling we need to go blow up random brown people in some goat farking cave, we can send these instead of tens of billions of dollars of state of the art military technology.

Even the maker would not say that Iraq had no air defenses. This thing wouldn't have made it out of Iraq in 2003, much less 1991. Nor would it have fared well in Libya nor in a hypothetical Syria scenario.


Iraq had air defense for all of what? 3 days?  After that, why fly the $25k / hr plane instead of the $3k / hr plane once you've destroyed everything that resembles AA technology of the country you are invading.  I don't think this plane is meant to replace every other option we have.  It's meant to fill in when we have a laughable advantage over some 3rd world piece of shiat country.  The only way we "lose" those wars is by draining billions of dollars fighting against hundred dollar toys.

We have air superiority within hours.  We invade countries for years.  Work it out.
2013-09-21 01:29:24 PM
1 votes:

HempHead: the V22 tilt rotor, a plane which is pretty much worthless. First plane the Marine Corp ever purchased with no armaments


It has the same kind of armament as the Sea Knight it's replacing.
2013-09-21 01:20:07 PM
1 votes:
To many of the commenters here:

Look, is this really so hard to figure out? You use the right tool for the job, and you try to have the right mix of tools in your toolbox.

If there's a niche this plane can fill better than an F-22 / F-35 or a drone, they should have a fair chance to make their case.
2013-09-21 12:10:54 PM
1 votes:

realmolo: That's actually pretty cool, but why use these instead of drones?

Hell, it's getting hard to justify the use of fighter aircraft, period, now that drones are so sophisticated.


For now, the human visual system still beats a grainy camera image with satellite delay. Operating a drone is supposedly like looking through a straw at the world below. Live humans can scan a much bigger area faster, particularly when flying low and fast, where the drone's narrow field-of-view would be stifling. Making a precision strike on a known target is one thing, but when you have to respond to a battlefield as it develops, it's hard to beat having a real person on the scene.
2013-09-21 11:38:26 AM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.


i.imgur.com

It doesn´t have any weapons though.

However, the above plane was one a Swedish guy exported to Biaffra during the Nigerian civil war. With rockets mounted on the wings, and flown by skilled pilots, they totally caught the Nigerian airforce by surprise, destroying several of sophisticated Mig fighters on the ground.

They continued service throughout the war (thus a picture of a surviving example).
2013-09-21 11:33:17 AM
1 votes:
No, the shape of the wings tell the whole story of FAIL!
2013-09-21 11:24:41 AM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: I'm not seeing it. This might sell overseas to tin pot dictators, but it seems to me that drones are a better bet for the future.


Good point; this sounds like a economy-class buggy whip.  But would they be allowed to sell them to tin-pot dictators?  The ones who have money tend to be enemies of the US.
2013-09-21 11:19:56 AM
1 votes:

flak attack: Vodka Zombie: Umm... Doesn't Cessna make Cessnas?

Cessna is a subsidiary of Textron.


It's like an onion, man. Layers upon layers!
2013-09-21 11:04:15 AM
1 votes:

Nabb1: King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have;

It's not "better than" the others, necessarily. It's suited for lighter missions that do not call for the capabilities of an F-16 or F-22. It's like, well, using a golf cart to get around the golf course instead of a Ferrari.


It probably has much better loiter time on-station with a weapons load than an F-16 or F-35. So from the perspective of an infantryman who just wants air support on-tap and doesn't care how sexy the pilot feels doing it, it's probably objectively quite a lot better to have in the sky. And a 3,000 lb payload is quite a number of Small Diameter Bombs or Hydra rockets, plus a small gun pod. In fact, that's more weight than A-10s typically carry externally in a combat zone (the A-10 can carry a lot more than 3,000lb, of course, but it impacts the maneuverability to the extent that they never carry anything close to their maximum load into battle).

Light attack jets like this are farking brilliant for cooperating with ground troops, as long as you've already got air superiority. And it's not like establishing air superiority is a problem for the US Air Force.

The main question is, is this a solution in need of a problem? A-10s are going to be flying for quite a while to come, and they can do the same job just as well if not better (being less vulnerable to ground fire), and drones are really effective at the overwatch mission since they don't have to deal with pilot fatigue during a long flight.
2013-09-21 10:51:44 AM
1 votes:
Nah we have to buy F35s because buying cost effective planes is socialism. See all that socialist money that could go to things like feeding people and healing the sick is more importantly spent blowing up afghans at 15k per fuel hour.

Call me when someone successfully does the world a favor and starts wasting people at the top of the military industrial prison complex.
2013-09-21 10:07:18 AM
1 votes:

King Something: So this guy has come up with a fighter jet that's as good as (or perhaps better than) most of the jets that the Navy and Air Force currently have;


It's not "better than" the others, necessarily. It's suited for lighter missions that do not call for the capabilities of an F-16 or F-22. It's like, well, using a golf cart to get around the golf course instead of a Ferrari.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report