Six EPWII and a Litening 3 with internal fuel only may not be a universally useful fit, but there have been plenty of real world occasions when it would have been quite useful enough, and some where it would have been exactly what the CAOC ordered. The radius of action in such a fit isn’t that bad, after all.

It might have been more impressive than Rafale (HARM is a true SEAD weapon, in a way that AASM Hammer is not) but because Spain did not replace all of its FJs with the Hornet, it’s not ‘Omnirole’ – a term that seems to be an artificial attempt to differentiate Rafale, when it’s marketing bol.locks that merely differentiates how the aircraft is procured (as a replacement for all other FJ types) rather than the capabilities of that aircraft.

Interesting. So if the definition of omni role is replacing all other types of tactical fast jet in a given air force’s inventory, Rafale isn’t omni role yet?

It hasn’t replaced (and can’t yet replace) all other tactical FJs – the MN still needs SuE for AM39, and the AdlA retains Mirage F1, Mirage 2000C, Mirage 2000N and will keep Mirage 2000D for many years to come.

give me an omnirole aircraft built to be omnirole from scratch other than the Rafale.

So an aircraft capable of carrying out the same roles, just as well, is not omni role if the original customer did not intend to use it to replace all other aircraft types – even if it’s just as capable (or more capable), and even if subsequent customers might use it as the sole fast jet in their inventory?

Or is the F-16 omni role in Norway (for example), but not in the UAE? The Hornet omni-role in Canada, but not in Switzerland?

Plenty of other aircraft have been designed to be swing role/multi role from scratch (not least the original ‘Heritage’ Hornet).

And Rafale was never intended to embrace all roles from its introduction to service – indeed the LF1 was an even more limited jet than the service entry standard Typhoon.

Replacing all other FJs and moving to a single-type FJ fleet is more about saving money and easing logistics than about capability per se.

So that means that Rafale isn’t Omni Role in India, and that F-35 will be omni role in Denmark and the Netherlands?

otherwise “omni-role” is a pure marketing gag.

Of course it is!

I’ve yet to find anyone who can cogently, intelligently explain how ‘Omni role’ is any different to ‘Swing role/multi-role’.

But it’s a very good marketing gag.

The Singaporeans are a good example of a professional air force, who make sensible, rational procurement decisions.

It is thus no surprise that they have selected the PC-21 as their basic trainer, but would not dream of using it for advanced training or LIFT.

Even within the Swiss Pilotenschule, you can find pilots who believe that the PC-21 is not an adequate Hawk replacement, and who believe that it will require changes to the ‘OCU’ syllabus, as, at the moment, the jump between PC-21 and F-5E or PC-21 and F/A-18 is too great, and trainee pilots arrive at the OCU stage inadequately prepared.

No-one is ‘upset’ that you should claim that the PC-21 has ‘greater functionality’ than the Hawk, only that you should make such a claim without offering any explanation of exactly what functionality you feel the PC-21 has, that the Hawk in its latest form lacks, and without justifying your sweeping generalisations.

I have spoken to a few customer and potential customer pilots who have flown the PC-21, and all rate it highly (most rating it ahead of the PC-9-based T-6), though some preferred the Macchi M-311 as a basic trainer. If the PC-21 was as far ahead as you claim, one would have expected a more widespread and even more enthusiastic reception.

Though some RAF CFS pilots liked the PC-21, my understanding was that the RAF recommendation for a new basic trainer for MFTS was the M-311, or failing that the T-6C.

Personally, I’m a huge fan of the PC-21 (as I was of the Turbo Firecracker), and believe that a high performance tandem-seat turboprop, with single-lever power controls, with jet-like handling, and jet-like handling vices, is the best possible military basic trainer. I’d post trainee pilots to such an aircraft after a very short but intensive elementary/primary/screening phase (of perhaps 20-40 hours duration), as it would sort out the men from the boys early, and at relatively low cost.

The PC-21 offers a remarkable facsimile of a modern fighter cockpit, too, though I haven’t seen the F-16-based demonstrator.

But I’ve flown low level at 360 kts, and it’s simply too slow to be challenging, or representative, and it allows even the less able student pilot to have spare capacity and to shine. That’s a C-130J kind of speed – if indeed the PC-21 can sustain it at low level, which it can’t being limited to about 320 kts (where it’s burning 250 kg/hr)!

I don’t believe that you need to tear around supersonically in advanced training, but 480 kts ought to be a minimum speed for low level Navexes. (The M-311 does 420 kts at low level, which is closer to the right ballpark). It’s not just about transit speed, it’s about realism and real workload.

You might be able to download chunks of the existing Advanced training syllabus to a PC-21, but that doesn’t make it capable of replacing existing advanced trainers, let alone LIFT aircraft.

Yes, but a) I don’t have the change request numbers, and b) it’s still accurate to describe P1E as being embodied in response to CP210, which is why Typhoon’s chief engineer used exactly that wording!