Italy briefly flirted with the idea and even fitted out the 1930’s cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi with four launch tubes for UGM-27 Polaris and even started development of their own system called Alfa which is markedly similar to Polaris:

Giuseppe Garibaldi the Polaris launch tubes are aft of the Terrier launcher.

Polaris launch tubes

Alfa

Alfa in flight

I presume Alfa could of replaced Polaris on the Giuseppe Garibaldi but in the end the program was cancelled when Italy signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty on 2 May 1975.

Well I believe we are talking about fake memory chips, these will be made in the millions and bulk purchased by the system manufacturers.

Standard memory chips are made around the world, apparently these chips have fake serial numbers on them. They probably work exactly the same as the correct component but the issue is there won’t be a paper trail and they won’t of been tested to aerospace or industry standard. The system manufacturer will be required to use components that match military and aerospace standards, they might not of realised that these chips they purchased in bulk were fake if they had an incorrect serial number.

When I was doing electronics at university you could buy two chips that do exactly the same thing, difference was one was cheap whilst the other met aerospace or military testing standards. Using them in a circuit made utterly no difference in the end…

There was a press driven scandal recently in the British press about bulbs being used in radar consoles costing £10 each when the same one could be purchased from a DIY store for 70p. What the reporter neglected to say was the 70p one whilst performing the same would not of been tested to military standards and there will be no paper trail if there is a fault. With a paper trail you can identify if there is a batch production issue meaning lives can be saved by pulling all chips that come from the same batch!

I am sorry that you see it that way Tester07:

But I sense you are happier speaking in generalities, not specifics, so I shall leave you to being the local ‘experts’. I shall ‘wind my neck in’, as you suggested, and leave you to your uninformed banter.

You accuse us of speaking in generalities but have refused repeatedly to explain your reasoning behind the statements:

Quote:
the lesser functionality of the TMk2 vs the PC-21
followed by:
Quote:
You just have to know both of the aircraft well to understand it.

We are only asking how you come by that line of thinking, all you have given us is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tester07
But in terms of glass cockpits and synthetic training it is as good as it gets. This is not just my opinion, I have been told so by many customers.

And:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tester07
…I can assure you that the PC-21 has almost everything in your list and some additional functionality above and beyond that….

Every one of those statements ARE generalities, not specifics from somebody who hasn’t stated if he has particular insider expertise. I have told you I am not an expert…something I have never hid from this forum and told you I would welcome your expertise if you have such…instead you have stormed in made a statement about the jump from PC-21 to Hawk T.MK2 being a retrograde step that would cause functional problems for trainees and expect us all to just take your word for it. I don’t think any of us have any particular misplaced loyalty to the Hawk, actually most of the posters you have been dealing with in this thread have argued for a newer replacement making use of the latest technologies. On the other hand to suggest that the aircraft in its latest variation is somehow a retrograde step when it meets all the latest needs for new generation fighters when it comes to transition training deserves a bit of an explanation. Especially when you say:

I said the PC-21 had greater functionality and lesser performance than the Hawk. You don’t seem to understand this but it is not a contradictory statement.

I agree that I don’t understand! to everybody else here it appears to be a contradictory statement and we have all asked you to give some explanation! That’s nothing to do with being a Hawk fan!…(personally I have always had a thing for the L39 and the K8).

That you can’t see that I have been trying to help as have others by asking for clarification or at least a walk through your reasoning is rather pitiful…we welcome new members on this forum especially if they have relevant expertise…this was your chance to really engage with that and help a more informed debate. Anyhow if you feel your treatment from ESTABLISHED forum members are unfair take it up with the mods or find a new home.

Wide of the Mark…? Tester07 are you just here to pick a fight? If you are a pilot with the Swiss airforce then I would be very interested in what you have to say but that is not the issue! You made a statement stating the Hawk T MK 2 is less functional then the PC-21. This raised some eyebrows to say the least…you seem to be shifting to a cost argument now and are also stating that the PC-21 has some enhanced functionality when it comes to synthetic training modes in comparison the the Hawk T MK 2.

Now the cost argument is an interesting one, in the restricted mountainous airspace of Switzerland 360kts might not be a bad thing and workload will be suitably high for any trainee. On the other hand if you have more space you might well need a bit more speed to get through the syllabus in a realistic manner. Switzerland think they have found a rounded solution but to say it is right is a bit of a stretch. Are you saying the RAF and every other airforce that feels a jet based LIFT solution is required don’t know what they are talking about? How many pilots annually does Switzerland have to transition through the training program in comparison to the RAF or for that matter the Saudi Air force? PC-21, simulators and plenty of time in the twin seater Hornet might be realistic time wise for Switzerland especially as they have no global commitments and a minimal QRA requirement. You appear to be applying the Swiss model without considering that it might not fit other larger airforces.

Going back to the glass cockpit and synthetic training modes in the Hawk…you appear to have some inside knowledge you are so exercised on the matter. If you do why don’t you lay them out for us…I will (as I have before pointed out before) say that I am an armchair general and keyboard warrior. I don’t work in the defence industry (I train teachers in the education sector) and my knowledge is purely based on what is publicly available. What is publicly available in respect of the Hawk training system is well known. It has a glass cockpit which can simulate different modes and scenarios. Further from that when BAE Systems gets a customer there is a process of adaptation as well. The Hawk cockpit can be configured to suit the needs of the airforce and the major types they operate. For example the Australian Hawks have a cockpit with displays and controls that mimic the F/A-18 (a type Switzerland operates) whilst South Africa has theirs configured to allow easier transition to the Gripen. RAF Hawk T MK 2 are configured to support transition to the Typhoon and F35. This is what the RAF Valley website has to say about their new Hawk T MK 2:

The RAF Hawk T.Mk2, is the RAF’s new fast jet trainer designed to give students the cockpit environment and advanced avionics of front-line aircraft such as Typhoon and future generation military jets such as the F-35 Lightning II. Under a £450m contract, a total of 28 T.Mk2 aircraft were ordered by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD).

Hawk TMk2 Features

– A Typhoon-like cockpit layout

– Three, full colour, Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays, each controlled by ‘soft keys’, and each able to display the full range of navigation, sensor, weapons and systems data

– Synthetic radar and threat simulation

– Head-Up Display (HUD) featuring symbology compatible with front line combat aircraft types

– Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick (HOTAS) controls with moding and switching fully representative of front line combat aircraft types

– Inertial Navigation/Global Positioning System (IN/GPS) for enhanced navigation/ weapon aiming accuracy

– Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)

– Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS)

– Digital Moving Map (DMM)

– Autopilot

– Embedded weapons and sensor simulation allowing cost effective training to be carried out on systems and tactics used on 4th and 5th generation frontline aircraft.
Uprated Rolls Royce Adour engine producing 6,500, (1,500 more than the T.Mk1)

Collectively the sophisticated airframe designs, coupled with the advanced avionics have produced arguably the most superior jet training aircraft currently available. Once the full range of capabilities become operational, the student pilot will receive training that will encompass a full air-to-air environment, allowing them to perform advanced tactics which would have been unheard of in the T.Mk1.

The Hawk T MK 2 has not only synthetic training modes like sensor simulation but the ability to simulate whole war scenarios…actually that is something I know a bit about on a training side. The RAF has been data-linking aircraft like the T MK 2 to other fast jet types like the Typhoon, Tornado GR4 and ground based simulators allowing total war scenarios to be experimented with…does the Swiss training environment have this capability?

Actually the Pilatus website has this interesting nugget about the PC-21:

With air force budgets getting tighter, the all-new PC-21 provides a low-cost but highly effective training platform for pilots destined to fly jet fighters, without actually requiring them to fly jets until much later in the program. To do this, Pilatus expanded the design and performance envelope to take this single engine turboprop into an area that was previously the domain of jet aircraft.

So even the manufacturer of the PC-21 prefer to market it as complimenting rather then totally replacing the jet LIFT part of any program!

Looking at the sales blurb for the PC-21 I see nothing particularly beyond what BAE SYSTEMS offer with the Hawk these days. So if you do have insider knowledge let us in on it! But considering I have heard no complaints from Airforces who operate late model Hawks when it comes to the training system as a whole what you are saying does cause me to wrinkle my face up in confusion.

As I have said before I think the PC-21 is excellent and I do think it does solve problems with budget conscious airforces like the RAF but is the Swiss model right?…I am not so sure.

A great post, Fedders.

However, I would not want to take anything away from the PC-21 as a BASIC trainer, as it’s short (Turbo Firecracker influenced?) wing gives the aircraft jet-like handling at turboprop costs.

If I could have any aircraft as a private runaround (and bearing in mind my own piloting limitations) the PC-21 would be at the very top of my list.

Of course that is what interests me about the PC-21 Jack, it can in theory bridge the entire syllabus from BASIC, through to advanced and finally LIFT.

Switzerland have decided to do it but I think it is way too early to see if its a jump to far for their students. Presumably they intend to make much use of the latest simulators to make up for the lack of time on a jet prior to putting new pilots in F5, F18 and in the future Gripen.

The US and others have experimented with the concept over the decades and it is called a “Kinetic bombardment” system. Rather then a nuclear tipped warhead the missile is fitted with one or several tungsten cylinders. No HE is required as the kinetic effect of a lump of tungsten hitting the ground at Mach 10 is equivalent to 11.5 tons of TNT going off! For that matter using a concrete warhead would be fairly nasty for anybody at the receiving end!

A more recent name for the concept is the rather appropriate “Rods from God! The problem is aside from targeting the thing is anybody watching with early warning radar and satellites a “Kinetic bombardment” will look exactly like a strategic nuclear launch! This would more then likely kick off a nuclear retaliatory strike…

Looks like Brough lives on, that means work through to 2015 and the next SSDR! Maybe the government will see the logic in the 2015 SSDR to start the draw down of the Hawk T1/T1A in favour of some new build Hawks.