“UK took ECAT (modest UK design input)”

Though Jaguar looks like a Taon/Breguet 121, the UK design input was considerable, with the wing, flying controls and gust response systems all borrowing heavily from TSR2. Credit where credit is due.

And while the UK contribution made Jag the pre-eminent low level aircraft that it is, the superb French undercarriage was the foundation of the type’s rugged deployability.

While not as versatile as the F1, the Jaguar was (IMHO) streets ahead in terms of usefulness, and was far more deserving of development.

Jolanta,

You seem to have the unspoken assumption that in 20 years time it would be somehow embarrassing for the RAF to still be using the Hawk 128, because it will be so ‘old fashioned’ by then, whereas had the UK had the ‘wisdom’ to buy the T-50 or M-346, that would somehow not be the case.

I just don’t see it.

While you can point to the T-38 or the Hawk T1 as being ‘old fashioned’ today, and can give specific areas where their age inhibits their ability to deliver the syllabus, you can’t do the same for the Hawk 128.

The Hawk T1 is old fashioned. It’s still doing the job, but it lacks specific features that would make it a better trainer. You can compare it to specific more modern trainers and point to specific disadvantages and weaknesses. It doesn’t have a modern glass cockpit. It has no IFF and no radar and RWR emulator. You could upgrade the aircraft, but the airframes are old, and most have been re-winged and given new fuselages, and the aircraft are becoming increasingly costly to support. New buy makes more sense than an upgrade.

The T-50 does represent a real improvement over the T-38 (or Hawk T1). But its supersonic capability does not give it a meaningful edge over the latest Hawks, and does not make it a more modern aircraft.

The M-346 does represent a real improvement over the MB339C (or Hawk T1). But its marginal AoA advantage does not give it a meaningful edge over the latest Hawks, and does not make it a more modern aircraft.

The big differentiator between the Balliol and the Vampire T11 was that one had a jet engine, while the other was still piston-powered. A jet engine made the Vampire ‘modern’.

The big differentiator between the Vampire T11 and the Gnat was that one had a swept wing, while the other was still plank winged. A swept wing made the Gnat ‘modern’.

Today, the big differentiator is not about performance or marginal differences in agility, but about avionics and the cockpit environment.

The accusation that the Hawk 128 is somehow GENERATIONALLY behind the M-346 and T-50 is asinine. It’s utter nonsense. It’s based largely on nationalistic tosh.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

But it’s always been the intention that successive Tranches would have progressively lower UNIT flyaway costs.

I’d have to check, but I suspect that this is actually written into the formal heads of agreement signed at Turin.

This is counter-intuitive, but it may be logically explained.

1) R&D and support/infrastructure costs are ‘front loaded’, taking a bigger slice of the unit cost in early Tranches.

2) The first Tranche was smaller, so fixed costs were spread over fewer aircraft.

3) The industrial partners always expected to reduce production costs with improved production processes and technology, and as economies of scale and lower component costs kicked in.

4) The time taken to complete the production process always reduces as improvements are discovered. Typhoon has already benefited from this.

5) It was always expected that later Typhoons would make increased use of cheaper COTS components, or components developed for other programmes.

EXACTLY THE SAME PHENOMENON WILL BE EXPERIENCED ON RAFALE, unless follow on batches are uneconomically small, or unless production or the supply chain is ‘gapped’.

Vortex,

You could start off with 8 MMH/FH, for starters.

You could then look at the sfc and the low running and maintenance costs of the Adour.

Most of the relevant factors are more difficult to quantify without a full evaluation – but you’d want to look at handling characteristics, fidelity of the emulators, the nature of the MMI, etc.

You’d also want to look at the ability of the aircraft to stretch a pilot (you can do some of this by upping the workload) and to show up his failings and weaknesses to the instructor.

An aircraft with superb performance and a very wide envelope and viceless handling (like Typhoon, for example) would make a poor trainer, because it’s too easy to fly, and even the ham-fisted can look good in it.

These are the factors that the various air arms who have evaluated Hawk have looked at – and I can guarantee that simple ‘sticker price’ and AoA limits have not been viewed as significant by themselves.

European

I admire your loyalty to Aeritalia (as was), but you dramatically over-state the ‘generational difference’ between the Hawk and the M-346, when there is very little difference in the level of technology incorporated in the two types.

And don’t forget that the 346 is no more than a warmed over Yak-130.

Both aircraft have a 1553B/1760 based systems architecture, and both have modern glass cockpits, with IFF and emulators for radar and EW/RWR.

That’s not to say that both aircraft don’t have advantages – if you were likely to be flying a lot of long transits to training airspace, the greater endurance of the M-346 would be a boon, while the Hawk’s single proven powerplant is a huge advantage.

You might conclude that Hawk’s recent sales successes have been achieved because M-346 was still too immature, but this wasn’t the story we were getting when the 346’s success was being predicted by folk like you.

I don’t know when a Hawk version won’t be capable of meeting modern training requirements – but I suspect that when Hawk does look too old fashioned, so too will the -346 and T-50 – because none of them will incorporate adaptive wings, or morphing configurations, or whatever the breakthrough technology is that makes them obsolete.

Vortex,

You’ve asked about two specific parameters, twice.

Neither ‘sticker price’ nor max AoA are particularly relevant factors when it comes to assessing an aircraft’s suitability as a trainer.

When it comes to cost, costs of ownership and through life costs are much higher than the up-front price, so any air force customer worth his salt will be looking at overhaul costs and TBO, MMH/FH, specific fuel consumption, running costs per sortie, etc.

And when it comes to performance, there are a wide range of factors and parameters that need to be assessed to answer the fundamental question: – “Does this aircraft provide a realistic training environment for modern Fast Jet aircrew.”

Yes the Hawk is expensive to buy, up front. Yes other aircraft have better high Alpha capability. Yes its subsonic….

Congratulations, you’ve managed to isolate two (bleeding obvious) points where the Hawk may fall behind aircraft X or aircraft Y, while ignoring the many more relevant parameters which make Hawk a better trainer.

The T-50 is no more ‘modern’ or ‘new generation’ than the Hawk LIFT/100 series, and nor is the Yak-130/M-346.

Neither is any better suited to training pilots for Typhoon/F-35 than the latest generation Hawk.

So the T-50 is supersonic. So what?

So the M-346 has a modern cockpit. So has the Hawk.

You could build a better trainer, of course, but that trainer isn’t the M-346 or the T-50, and Hawk in its latest form is good enough.

Wilhelm,

The Hawk’s achilles heel is definitely its purchase price, though this is balanced by low operating costs and low costs of ownership.

When MiG first talked about reconfigurable flight control systems on the MiG-AT I was blown away by the idea – the ability to tailor handling characteristics to ape or match those of a particular frontline type seemed to be a compelling advantage to me, as a lay person, and as a PPL with some FJ experience.

But talking to flight training pros, it soon became clear that this was an impressive capability that was not actually needed, and that wouldn’t really be used. There would clearly be some impact in reducing conversion time to a frontline type, but the pure ‘type conversion’ element of most OCU courses is very brief anyway. A trainer that handles like a Hawk simply isn’t a problem.

It might be of more use in air forces which operate a single frontline FJ type, but as soon as you’re aiming to produce pilots for (say) Tornado, Phantom and Typhoon, then the logistics of changing the FCS (and the flight safety implications – what is a given flying instructor flying todday?) are problematic. And as the modern frontline types become easier to fly (as flying machines) there is some advantage in having an advanced trainer that stretches the student pilot, and that demands more skill and finesse than the frontline types. When the RAF transitioned from the Chipmunk to the Bulldog (an aircraft with much better performance) there was some concern that the Bulldog was too easy to fly, making it harder to sort the men from the boys and the sheep from the goats.

Perhaps we should bring back the Gnat! 😉

Yes the Hawk first flew more than 30 years ago, and yes the clockwork T.Mk 1 is a pretty archaic beast – though students from the swept up Hawks operated at NFTC don’t progress any faster through Typhoon conversion than the bods from 19 and 208 at Valley.

But an up-engined Hawk, with the latest wing dressing and a modern cockpit, jam-packed with glass, HOTAS and emulators is an excellent preparation for Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen/JSF/Teen-series, and is a better preparation for such aircraft than either the M346 or the T-50.

Hawk isn’t perfect, of course. You could design a better trainer tomorrow. But is one available now? Is one going to be available in three years? I don’t think so.

And even if you did develop a new advanced jet trainer, would it be sufficiently better than a Hawk to make development worthwhile? There will come a time when a new, all-composite aircraft with a more efficient and lean new generation engine will offer such advantages as to make development worthwhile, but while the world’s best air forces are beating a path to the Hawk’s door, I’d venture to suggest that that time has not yet arrived.

Jolanta,

But with respect, that’s nonsense!

The Hawk AJT isn’t an example of extreme conservatism, but of well judged and well-focused investment.

The Hawk AJT is a very far cry from the T.Mk 1/Srs 50/60, but the money and design effort has gone on those areas that make it a well sorted, well-suited trainer for modern FJ pilots, and not on a new airframe, which is unnecessary.

Big colour MFDs, HOTAS controls, radar emulation and the like make a real difference.

And does anyone really think that the T-50 or the M-346 represent the pinnacle of aerodynamic design, or that either of those aircraft are significantly more advanced than Hawk when it comes to their configuration.