besides, talking about a sea gripen and “in what areas it would be less capable”… how about lesser payload, range, not to speak about the fact that it would be a navalised version to be developed, from an aircraft that still has to be developed, by a company having no experience in naval aircraft… don’t you think that UK wasted enough money on unkept promises with the F35 and doesn’t need to bet on another (even more stretched) one (and that includes even more so the “sea typhoon fantasy”)?

Well if some people believe Sea Gripen (which just like you say is not developed yet, still in drawing board, build with company that have no experience with carrier aircraft) is doable (some even adamant it can be alternative to Shornet and Naval Rafale), then why Sea Typhoon (which is in the same state with Sea Grippen, but design by a company that have previously albeit long time ago experience with naval aircraft) is a ‘fantasy’ 😀 😉 ?

Is this a reasonable assumption saying that the F-35C for Britain will be late than 2020 (when QE class will be operational ready) ? How long the wait ? Is it really a decade after 2020 ?

If that long, then just developed Navalised Typhoon. If SAAB can flouting Sea Grippen (which is not exist and need few years to developed), why BAe can’t provide Sea Typhoon in say 3-5 years. If the delay for F-35C is that long, then just scrap F-35C for RN, and get Sea Typhoon. After all this’s the best way for British Industry.

However I do believe the delay will only most likely few years. If that happen, leasing a sq or two of Super Hornet from USN stock, I believe can be arrange, considering the close relationship between USN and RN. Or I think there will be some F-18 C/D with couple thousand hours airframe life left that will only need few years refurbishment and can provide RN with interim relative cheap Air Asset.

Well those F-18 C/D (if no Shornet available fast) it’s better than this talk about getting RN with T-45 or (God Forbid) Sea Teja’s as interim fighter.

Unfortunately the government wont pay for development and buy it because there is no place in between the FA-50 and F-16 for it. So it is scraped but maybe KAI will do it for a customer but it is unlikely.

The only scenario that I think possible if the KF-X design team decided that their twin engine design is unaffordable and opted to developed singgle engine design of T-50 further as KF-X. Which btw, seems also has small chances.

From Jerusalem Posts : http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=254415

Seems the ROK says to Israel,” I have more budget than Italian now. You better buy our stuff if you want bigger deal for your own stuff, then the Italian can give you”.

Seems this two Trainers which are build on different philosophy, but will compete on similar marketing tactics ;).

You’ve missed something important about how a modern advanced trainer works. The cockpit enables the instructor to present the student with the same information he or she would get from a radar or other sensors, without the aircraft needing to have those sensors fitted. It’s just data. It can be artificially generated. Therefore, you don’t need all those combat avionics to have a training regime which mimics what you’ll get in a real fighter.

So you see, the M346 (or Yak-130, or current production Hawk) doesn’t need extra avionics to match what T-50 can do as a trainer.

The world has changed. The USAF knows this, & that’s why it’s no longer specifying a T-38 style aircraft for training, but is looking at (among others) M-346.

Swerve, I think from beginning I already said that T-50 is build on different training philosophy than Yak 130/M-346 is. That’s why T-50 designed from beginning with better avionics ( I always say better not best) to begin with.

You may not agree with better avionics/combat specs avionics on advance trainer, however I just said some AF will want that because on their Advance Training regime.

Yes I understand how the simulated avionics work on modern Trainers. However some Air force do that on their basic-intermediate trainers which’s mostly turboprop. I believe the RAAF Pilatus done that, which this trend followed in the region by TNI-AU KT-1, or SAF Pilatus. Those turboprop basic-intermediate trainers have avionics simulation packages that mimic what real combatant fighters can do. I believe the philosophy for basic-immediate training regime in most modern day AF is the same. That’s what USAF done also with T-6.

However on the Advance Trainers, the philosophy on the training regime I see show differentiation on some AF. Some AF use their Advance Trainer not only for last years/stages students but also for refreshment for their reserve/desk jobs fighters pilots to maintain their combat flying proficiency. From what I read on what USAF T-38 done so far, a good portion of T-38 flying hours is being given not just to the last stages students, but also to reserve fighter pilots. For that some AF need not and advance trainers that just capable to ‘mimic’ the situation of their real fighters, but they need an advance trainers that have capabilities (on flight performance and avionics) as closes possible with their real operational/front-line fighter capabilities.

I never said that T-50 will be the winner for T-X and I think none of us will now which final factor considerations from USAF decision makers. Again procurement costs from T-50 proved so far still on similar ball park with M-346. I believe fuel costs of T-50 will be higher than M-346 but not much so. Thus the costs factor for both Advance Trainers still much comparable.

It’s also too early to say M-346 will win the trainers market then T-50 since so far the score is still 2:2 with M-346 being taken by Italian and Singapore AF, while T-50 by South Korea and Indonesia. UAE as we now it still ‘hang’ the decisions, and what the Israel choose still in question.

Commercial political deal perhaps is one of the factor for decision, but I believe the biggest one is considerations which aircraft is more suitable to take over their existing advance training regime/philosophy. USAF use supersonic T-38. yes they can choose not to go with supersonic capabilities for T-X, but in my opinion still have similar chances to keep/maintain the supersonic capabilities on their advance training regime. Israel use ‘real’ fighter (A-4) as their advance trainers, then there’s also a good chances by Israel to get advance trainers that ‘have’ fighters capabilities on all aspect (including avionics) and not just that ‘mimic’ fighters capabilities. After all that’s why there is Advance Trainer but there is also LIFT + Advance Trainers. Both of them have place in the market, since there’s demand for both of them due to different philosophy on Advance Training regime from some AF.

Pity, I always wandering if the concept of Air Asia low fares no frill can gain foot hold on long haul inter continental flight.

ok so from what you said it should look like this

for combat
F-16, Su-27, Su-30, Super Tucano, future KFX

for training
KT-1, T-50

F-16 is stop gap until KF-X is ready. The Airforce actually wants SU-30 Mk2 as standard for their flankers, but opted to Su-27, since the prospect of getting more F-16 is questionable at the time. However when the US willing to give more F-16, then the latest batch of 6 ordered flankers is consists of all SU-30 Mk2.

It’s not a mystery of what they (TNI-AU) actually want. They want F-16 and F-15 E. However we can’t afford F-15 E and also even if we can afford them, we do not want to relied on one supplier anymore. So the next best thing is Su-30 Mk2. It’s more affordable and (domestically) it’s more politically acceptable (since it show TNI-AU will not depend on one supplier anymore).

KF-X is a chances that the administration grabs, since it will give opportunity for DI to involved with relatively advance Fighters development projects. After all, Indonesia can’t afford to go alone.

Although an old one, GE’s 32,000lb F110-GE-132 is available to power single-engined designs. It’s like IAI Kfir came out with the 1950’s-era J79 in the 1970’s when the F-16 came out with the latest F100 then.

It can, but so far KAI want’s thrust in the neighborhood of 40,000lb, well at least that what’s they said at the Seoul Airshow (which made it the latest position). PW F-100 or GE F-110 only made in the neighborhood of 30,000 lb+ (on single config). Thus if they (KAI) still stay on that specs on final design they need GE 414, EJ or Snecma on twin config.

Again with that specs only if the US willing to let F-35 engine (PW F-135) or its derivative available in the market or if ROK, Indonesia (and perhaps Turkey) willing to bankrolled and revive GE/RR F-136 (which made the whole KF-X project costs sky rocketed to unaffordable:D) then twin engine config is the only choice available.