JackonickoWilhelm,
Which point (they’re not arguments, they’re cold hard facts) do you dispute?
That Hawk isn’t still the best advanced trainer out there?
Ask the Indians, South Africans, Aussies, Canadians and, oh yes, the RAF.
That the Hawk LIFT/100 series doesn’t provide the kind of all-glass/HOTAS cockpit environment that is representrative of current and future frontline platforms, with decent radar/EW emulation?
Same answer.
That the Hawk isn’t capable of downloading current OCU-type training to a cheaper to operate type?
The Typhoon OCU thinks it will be. The South Africans do.
I assume that you’re challenging the contention that supersonic capability is irrlevant for an advanced trainer.
The USAF has a supersonic trainer, and uses that aircraft’s supersonic capability on just one single sortie – a sortie that has been dropped every time cost savings need to be made.
What training value has Supercruise got in the training environment? Things happen faster at supersonic speed, of course, but there are plenty of easy ways to increase a student’s workload.
When it comes to energy management and BFM, the Hawk is well respected as being suited to preparing pilots for Teen-series and fourth/fifth generation fighters. The bigger bore Hawks will sustain 9g nicely, and in some respects, it could be said that as long as it can perform realistic maneuvres, an aircraft with lower thrust to weight ratios will teach a pilot better than one with a very high T:W ratio.
Just as the Chipmunk was an excellent aerobatics trainer, because its lack of engine power meant that an aerobatics sequence had to be cleverly and carefully planned, so too a modest (but realistic) T:W ratio might provide a more accurate representation of fast jets AT THEIR USUAL OPERATIONAL WEIGHTS and might discourage the student from over relying on engine performance.
It’s interesting that the only modern supersonic trainers (Mako and T-50) have been aircraft originally designed as dual role light fighters/trainers – and in a frontline role, supersonic performance is of course relevant.
And the World’s major air forces have so far demonstrated their preference for more benign handling, lower operating costs, etc. rather than for supersonic performance.
That’s why the UAE’s decision, while surprising, hardly represents Hawk’s death knell.
If you were designing an advanced trainer on a clean sheet of paper, it’s hard to imagine what you’d provide that Hawk doesn’t already offer (or couldn’t offer, given the customer requirement). I’d try hard to design a cheaper jet than Hawk, and I’d look to providing better high alpha capability, but otherwise, it still looks compelling to me, and the cost of developing a marginally improved jet trainer would be high.
JackonickoTMor,
The A was not a lot better than the E, to be honest. It had an extra gun, and a retractable AAR probe, but otherwise……
In the post Cold War world, especially (but also for OOA ops during the Cold War) the Jaguar was a much more deployable, maintainable, and operable platform than the F1 or the M2K, and was a better LL attack platform.
The Jag always deserved to be developed further.
In France as in Britain, the Jag was never ‘fashionable’, and was always a bit ‘NIH’ (Not Invented Here) which meant that funding always flowed to other types more readily.
But in the UK, there was at least an export pressure to ‘maximise’ Jag, because we always wanted to sell Jags.
Our French partner never did, much preferring to sell all-French F1s or even tired IIIEs, 5s and 50s.
It was only because the British Jag S already had NAVWASS that it later got FIN1064, and the later RAF upgrades happened largely fortuitously – only because we needed additional TIALD capability in a real hurry, and could not accelerate Tornado TIALD, while Harrier had problems of its own. As a mature platform, Jag could get TIALD via UOR and STF/SEM, with DERA/DARA doing much of the work
JackonickoIn its current production guise (LIFT/127/128/129 etc) Hawk is:
Still the best advanced trainer out there, bar none.
Still perfectly capable of providing the kind of cockpit environment that is representrative of current and future frontline platforms.
Capable of downloading current OCU-type training to a cheaper to operate type.
Supersonic capability is irrlevant for an advanced trainer, and the UAE’s decision, while surprising, is hardly Hawk’s death knell.
JackonickoThe RAF’s Jags went ‘super modern’ during the Balkans campaign, when they picked up TIALD, IN/GPS, an AMLCD, and other goodies, and subsequently got IDM (which made them really well integrated), helmet sights and all of the other kit that made them more modern in capability terms than most F-16s.
But even during Desert Storm the RAF Jags were much better equipped than the AdlA jets, with Mk 10 ejection seats, 104 engines, a MUCH better RWR, FIN1064 nav attack system, IN/GPS, Have Quick radios, overwing ‘Winders.
But they were no more difficult to integrate into the ATO than the French jets, apart from Have Quick, of course, which I don’t think Les Bleus had.
JackonickoI do remember, indeed.
And I’ve flown the T2 and the T2A, neither of which seemed especially ‘cutting edge’ at the time (I’d looked in the F/A-18 ‘pit, and the F-16, and the then-new Tornado and they seemed to be where modern cockpits were at).
Even with the big moving map, the Jag seemed ‘ho hum’ from a cockpit design PoV – though performance (even with Adour 102s) and ruggedness were enough to excite someone used to the Chipmunk and Bulldog, and with some time in JP/Hawk.
But even by 1979 standards (when I first got my grubbies on a Brit Jag), Le Jaguar E and Jaguar A looked exceptionally old fashioned, and lacked some items that were routine on every other Jag, and whose absence on the French Jags was little short of disgraceful.
What’s really amazing is that the AdlA never upgraded the cockpits of their Jags, never went to a proper zero-zero seat, and stuck with the weedy Adour 102.
Yes, it was a great aircraft, but it could have been greater, really very easily.
JackonickoI’d forgotten what an old fashioned and primitive aircraft the French Jag was – even by comparison with a GR1/T2 (NAVWASS), let alone a GR1A/T2A (FIN 1064) or a GR3A/T4A.
It looks like the cockpit of a twin engined supersonic Hunter!
JackonickoWhen the Brits depolyed WAH-64Ds to Afghanistan we had something of a revelatory:
“Ah, OK, that’s why….”
moment.
Before Telic, even at Wattisham wondered why we’d spent quite so much money buying a non-standard version.
But since then, having seen RTM322 engined WAH-64Ds operate with Longbow and full pylons while stripped down, lightly loaded US and Dutch D models struggle, people get it.
Ordinary Ds could not have conducted the famous rescue mission mounted by the AAC Apaches.
“Most of the Ds have had their longbow radar removed and are operating as As” because they are too heavy for hot and high ops, not because we don’t need Longbow. There are plenty of targets for Hellfire, but even when rockets are the weapon of choice, Longbow gives useful NTISR capabilities.
JackonickoP1, you mean?
The aerobatic ones include:
Loads of gliders (Blanik and Pilatus B4 for aerobatics), Chipmunk, Supermunk, Bulldog, Tiger Moth, Stampe, Pitts, Yak-18, Tipsy Nipper, etc.
And I’ve flown aeros in the Hawk, Jag, etc. but not on my own, of course!
I’d love to try a Sukhoi 26 or one of the new Extras……
Mabie
A g suit does nothing to help with negative g. The inflatable collar sounds like a sex toy for Tory MPs…..
JackonickoGood question!
And it’s been a very long time since I pushed any significant negative g!
The thing is that the average pilot can function (and even function fairly well) under positive g, up to the point at which he blacks out (a level that will vary from person to person, dependant on a range of factors, including, but not limited to, build, height, fitness, experience, musculature, etc.).
Even as you grey out, you can still think, and you can still make relatively accurate control movements.
Moreover, you’re back up and good to go as soon as the g comes off.
Pull>grunt/strain to resist>pull a tad more>grey out>relax the back pressure and whoomph everything’s fine again!
There is some discomfort, and everything feels heavy (your hands on the stick and throttle, your head on your neck – especially if you have a helmet on) but it is nothing like that experienced under negative g, where even relatively modest sounding amounts – say -2 g – are EXTREMELY uncomfortable. You start to ‘red out’ (everything starts to look pink) and the smaller capillaries in your eyes start to burst. Your eyes hurt, your head feels tender, and even if you’re fairly resistant to air sickness, you’ll probably feel pretty queasy, too.
And after sustained negative g (during a Derry turn for example) you’ll feel a little bit off for some moments – or I always did.
Pilots generally avoid sustained negative g – it tends to be something you experience momentarily, during particular aerobatic manoeuvres. Nor does negative g help you to turn, as positive g does. If you bank to wings vertical and pull, the elevator is generating an ‘upward pitching’ moment that ‘complements’ the lift being produced by the wing, and tightens the turn. Pushing won’t result in such a tight turn.
JackonickoIt would still be a warmed over M2k.
Rafale gives Dassault a cutting edge, current generation platform, albeit one that has small flaws in some areas.
If money were available, Dassault would be better off fixing the minor problems with Rafale (to polish what is already a potential world beater) than to pour money into an ageing platform.
And perhaps the decision to drop out in Korea and Japan was over-hasty, and reflected an understandable frustration, when another course might have led to real export sales.
JackonickoDid the need for the basic configuration to form the basis of a carrier aircraft impose huge limitations and constraints on the Rafale?
Or did it impose useful disciplines, helping to force a particular and useful degree of focus?
It depends on your point of view, and the truth is probably that it imposed a little of both – bothersome limitations and useful design discipline.
But the constraints on overall weight, wingspan (once the decision was taken that wing folding was a no-no) and landing/approach performance and handling naturally affected the design, and a Rafale optimised for land based ops would or could have looked VERY different.
What is doesn’t mean is that Rafale is some sort of inferior fighter, fatally compromised by the carrier requirements which shaped it, any more than the Phantom or Hornet were. It might mean that certain capabilities are mildly compromised (the requirement for a particular view over the nose limited nose diameter and thus antenna size, and constrained the volume available in the nose, Kovy), just as others are mildly enhanced.
The most interesting limitation – on weight – was certainly useful in keeping cost down (weight = cost) and in helping Dassault to produce a potentially saleable and robust, exportable, swing role fighter. The company’s inability to sell the aircraft subsequently is baffling, and tragic, and (IMHO) has nothing to do with any compromises made in the interests of carrier capability.
JackonickoBear in mind that it’s DA5.
None of the DAs are part of the core programme now.
Is this a mod preparing it for a follow-on role – perhaps as the TVC testbed?
Or additional destabilisation to make up for the heavier AESA installation?
JackonickoTyphoon is a swing role tactical fighter, not a long range strike aircraft. Most Typhoon customers already have Tornados for the long range bomber role. It’s simply not designed to fulfill roles that would require three tanks and a shed-load of bombs and an LDP.
It’s not an F-15E, an A-10 or a Rafale.
For the roles that it does carry out, it has an embarrassment of pylons.
Criticising the Typhoon for not having a dedicated LDP stub pylon is like criticising Rafale for having an internal weapons bay, or for not having true low drag AAM carriage. Or criticising the A-10 because it can’t supercruise. They’re different aircraft, optimised for different roles.
I don’t think there was ever a plan for a dedicated LDP pylon – only for the LDP mounted on a pylon in the forward port MRAAM recess.
JackonickoOn another board, Low Observable observed that:
“The pain of it is that now – with CVF and JSF committed and locked together – the Govt now announces that it can’t afford JSF and Typhoon, and the UK gets JSF, which is slower, shorter-legged and less versatile.”
Typhoon is the aircraft the RAF needs now, and a three-tranche buy of 232 aircraft is the right number. (232 aircraft supports a 137 aircraft in service fleet, comprising seven squadrons, an OCU and an OEU).
The third Tranche is almost certainly going to replace the GR4, if it happens, since the perception now is that we no longer need seven Typhoon squadrons to replace three squadrons of Jaguars and six squadrons of F3s, despite the stream of ‘Bears’ testing the UK’s air defences and the obvious relevance of a deployable flexible offensive support aircraft.
The turbulence we are seeing now (via the Times and other newspaper reports) may indicate a real desire by the UK to scale back its Typhoon buy. Or it may be an inevitable consequence of the ongoing Tranche 3 negotiations. Now is the only time that the customer nations have a real opportunity to influence the ‘Ts and Cs’ of the Tranche 3 contract, and only by threatening withdrawal or reductions can they scare EF GmbH into giving them the best possible price. Much the same sort of stories emerged when the T2 production contract was being negotiated.
You may choose to take the Times article seriously. I don’t. I see it as a negotiating tactic.
JackonickoIf memory serves me correctly when the original release for the austere A-G came out it had something along the lines of “integrating the Litening pod until a more advanced solution can be found/developed”. Assuming one of the driving forces behind Litening was the fact that the Germans & the Spanish already use it….. whats the more advanced solution? Are they refering to integrating Sniper or ATFLIR again on the centre station or doing some engineering so they can fit a pod to a MRAAM station? Or was the original plan for the EF consortium to develop there own all singing all dancing LDP?
Knowing the bean counters I expect they’ll have to fight like hell to get the LDP moved from the centre station having paid for the integration once they won’t want to cough more money to move it a couple of metres!
1) The more advanced solution is planned to be a less austere integration of the same pod, with simultaneous multi target designation, for example. The Germans use Litening 2, not Litening 3, so it’s not just a commonality matter.
2) “doing some engineering so they can fit a pod to a MRAAM station” would NOT BE MORE ‘ADVANCED’. The centreline’s a better place for the LDP, not an ‘easier-but-inferior’ place
3) No-one is going to “fight like hell to get the LDP moved from the centre station” because they don’t want it somewhere else, it’s in the right place now.
Sign In
