What this KPP demands is that the candidate jet must be able to stay at or above 6.5G for at least 15 seconds from whatever the instantaneous G they start with.

The ability to stay at or above 6.5 G is determined by both structural strength to sustain the G-loading and the engine’s ability to keep the jet at a constant speed while making the turn; jets rapidly bleed energy and speed while turning, and the engine must be able to compensate for this energy bleed to sustain the turn speed and the G. If the engine can’t, then the jet will drop below 6.5 G in less than 15 seconds and be disqualified.

Right so now you can’t peddle the myth that neither M-346 or Hawk T.2 are incapable of meeting that KPP you just state the KPP and how an aircraft can fail it. Progress I suppose.

Indeed, structural modifications and engine upgrades are required, while the T-50 doesn’t need them. A decisive cost and delivery time advantage in favor of the T-50.

Right something we all agree in respect of M-346 and Hawk T.2. I don’t agree that T-50 doesn’t need work.

T-50 MK.2(Aka F/A-50) already went through a complete airframe re-design overhaul to carry 5.6 tons of payload; it now carries 900 gallons of external fuel and a couple tons of bombs. Structural strength won’t be a problem.

It will still need work to meet the requirement.

Indeed. The T-50’s sole problem is Lockheed’s ill reputation in the US. This is what gives Boeing and Saab’s bids a chance.

More then that SlowMan in respect of T-50 SlowMan.

We haven’t seen Boeing’s bid yet and Saab have shown no interest in bidding a variant of the Gripen. Where is the evidence that Saab will? Or is it another thing you have made up!

I hate to do this Swerve and please don’t see this as taking sides but the French had a number of problems with CVF-FR beyond cost.

The story around it was rather murky but as I understand it the main sticking point was work share.

From what I understand from a bit of digging around the French navy were not happy about it because:

a) It was not a dedicated design.
b) It didn’t use their preferred gas turbine the LM2500.
c) Poor hydrodynamics due to the super-block construction method.
d) Low top speed due to the poor hydrodynamics meaning it being marginal for CATOBAR operations.

DCNS were not happy about it because:

a) Lack of control.
b) The build strategy.
c) Use of super-block construction when a build at Chantiers de l’Atlantique would allow a keel up construction which was cheaper, quicker and allowed for superior hydrodynamics.

The compromise being argued over was the sticking point beyond cost. As I understand it the UK offered:

a) Construction of a super-block for QE and PoW in France with finally assembly of the UK carriers in Rosyth.
b) Construction in the UK of a super-block for PA2 with finally assembly of PA2 in France.
c) Supply of sub systems including the gas turbines to France from the UK.

France wanted:

a) More super-block construction.
b) Assembly of at least one of the UK CVF in France and maybe an option for the entire class.

Whist France was prepared to compromise on the gas turbines the UK was not prepared to move production of QE or PoW to France but was prepared to concede a super-block. I am pretty certain if the UK had conceded final assembly of PoW to France there is a good chance the French would of gone for CVF-FR despite the compromises. In many way we have to thank Gordon Brown who was desperate to protect jobs in his constituency near Rosyth. If he hadn’t been chancellor then PM I think there is a good chance the treasury would of gone for it as there would of been cost savings by spreading the build over three ships.

Looking at what DCNS and STX are proposing recently you see a far more conservative design then CVF, the only thing I would observe is I think there is a good chance they will change their mind on EMALS as the US has no plans to continue with steam.

These two images show why Chantiers de l’Atlantique is better for large vessel construction then Rosyth:

Still stand by it. Also you will note that I HAVE changed from “mocking” (as you put it) CVF as a VSTOL/helo carrier, she should be quite adequate as that…as a CTOL ship….forget it…. The one thing I think it truely lacks is a well deck. They should seriously look at adding one to the PoW.
But you will notice that I DO NOT call people trolls just because they disagree with me, and I will not stoop to personal insults until they have been fired off at me first. I have noticed that certain posters here do like to get into “bullying” if their arguments are not accepted as the gospel truth. I do appreciate that you, jonesy, do not fall into that catagory.
The fact of the matter is that I do not accept swerve’s argument no matter how many times he states it, and I’m pretty sure he does not accept mine. So we are at an impasse. But I really dont see the need to get nasty about it.

No need for a well deck on PoW, the RN and RFA already operate five ships with that capability.

To add one to PoW would require a major redesign and I personally doubt the design can be adapted.

I don’t understand Arabic, but at 4:50 it does sound very much as though he’s saying “model”.

It would be interesting to hear a translation of the full video – maybe they aren’t claiming to have actually built & flown the real thing?

Understanding Arabic wouldn’t really help you as they would be speaking in Farsi.

Well so much for my thinking it might be similar to the YF-17 concept. It looks suspiciously like it has a painted Glass-fibre fuselage. Looking at it I think it might be flight capable. It is certainly small with no room for anything beyond a tiny ranging radar and I guess it probably isn’t even capable of that. My guess it is an aluminium structure with a glass-fibre outer fuselage powered by a J85. Performance would be little better then a Folland Gnat!

I would argue with the current upgrade going on the F-4D is the backbone of the fleet.

Well it should be noted that the Iranian F-4D are going through an overhaul and upgrade to bridge them to their planned OSD of 2025. The upgrade includes new Iranian avionics, GPS, FMS, MFD (of Chinese origin), HUD (of Chinese origin) and a Chinese pulse Doppler radar (more then likely the KLJ-7). This will allow carriage of the PL-12 missile among other things. Fairly comprehensive in all respects, the KLJ-7 has a similar performance to a late model AN/APG-66 apparently.

If the Iranians are launching a new fighter tomorrow I wonder if what has been put together for the Phantom upgrade would be used as a basis for the avionics suite in this new type.

The main issue as always is engines! They are in no position to make an advanced engine and they have limited options (try one) when it comes to importing an engine.

At best their industry can make significant parts for the J79 and TF30. They can probably make an entire J85 analogue but that is hardly adequate. The Russians won’t sell them any engines. That leaves China…WS10 production is soaked up for domestic needs, the WS13 hasn’t even been seen in a JF17 yet so that leaves legacy engines. The Guizhou Liyang WP-13F(C) Turbojet has a performance not that dissimilar to the J79. How about a twin engine WP-13 powered jet not dissimilar to the Northrop YF-17 with the option of going over to a WS-13 in the future.

Their indigenous F-5 developments have been getting closer in spirit to the YF-17.

I am not confused SlowMan, only angry that you are pulling the same tricks making up requirements to suit your desires!

The initial KPP released by the DOD and USAF define the general performance parameters. Any further refinement will only look at details of required features not change those base performance parameters. If they change the performance parameters laid out in that document then the whole contest will be protested and thrown out! Both Alenia and BAE Systems have decided they can adapt their designs to meet those KPP if the DOD or USAF move the goalposts then the contest will go the same way as the tanker procurement! The USAF and DOD have gone to industry with a set of performance parameters in what is effectively a legally binding document. If they change those parameters then they are breaking that agreement with industry to tender a design able to meet those parameters!

Look nobody here is doubting the T-50 is a frontrunner for this contest for many good reasons but your constant making up of requirements or twisting of the facts around how this process works or accusing others that they don’t understand it is tiresome and rather disruptive!

Your guess is as good as mine Deino! If it is true it could be another development of the F-5 albeit the report says it will be something different. So it could be something new, no doubt it would rely heavily on ideas lifted from other designs.