It’s interesting that the T-38’s have dramatically higher service life numbers than F-5 models. No wing stores and less extreme flight really extend out the lives.

Chile is in a weak position, hence the favor of using diplomacy. Peru is unlikely to win a fair case, but the UN is imbalanced politically and Chile is unlikely to garner enough support. A Peru win in the courtroom is unfortunately a strong possibility.

So the french used their own aircraft to integrate the missile? Why not just wait for the program to be signed, and then integrate the missile when the time comes.

Because without a mou there is no expectation that Dassault will allow it. This is a mou solely concerned with weapons integration on Rafale and in no way implies the work has already been done. The agreement covers the nuasances of things like who pays for it, the procedure to do the work, the agreed timeframes to comply, etc.

The SA people are fed up with their corrupt leadership and ever since they aligned domestically with China on trade their economy has fizzled. Sounds familiar.

Anyone know if Brazil contracted PMP improvements in their engines? The T-38C uses a different model of J85, but saw anywhere from 10-22% performance boost by the end of the program. That would be a nice boost.

Not very many planes use aerogel liners. Ultralight, ultra-low density, superior insulation. Can be utilized as either mats or in chunks.

If you went single engine propeller design it may as well be conventional monoplane design since its so well understood by your pool of contractors. You’d use off the shelf technology engine, preferably a common core to what you already have in the service. Same would be said of the weapons involved, with at most a small change in delivery at most. You really don’t need a one-size fits all solution, rather you need it K-I-S-S. If you really need several thousand horsepower in a big blade VTOL solution you already have the blade technology for it figured on by the MV-22 team, you can focus on wrapping one engine with a conventional monoplane. Or you can figure out a tail sitter with a non-tilting motor and cut out most of the complications. Or you could be even more practical and relax your takeoff requirements altogether. Do you really need VTOL or STOL if you can fire a volley of shells or rockets that just need vectoring on target on the way down from the apex?

It just seems like you really should focus on targeting these days from the CAS platform and worry less about delivery except in the rarest of circumstances. If you need a flying gun, why does it need to be the GAU8? Can you use fletchettes delivered by rockets? Can you get by with a smaller caliber? Can a larger caliber with more precision and proximity fusing work for troop suppression and work double-time for strikes against larger targets like buildings and vehicles? Does it matter if the shell comes from an airplane or a tank? If you need a flying katyusha with 96 tubes filled with Seven types of smart bombs to simply fulfill standoff range with precision? Or can a ground spotter dial in his needs and the battle space planner use a more appropriate ground platform to fire from?

I think we have too much competition between services to fill all the roles. More focus should be on how to tie all the capabilities together and less on a new platform from which to deliver it.

AN/APG-67 used only 24 vols to operate…how much more you need for AESA.

It’s not the volts you worry about, it’s the joules. Twin J85’s do not have much capacity for the whole system. The AESA likely uses relatively similar power constraints, but likely has to be tighter control of the feed. Without a mechanical drive it may use less peak power and less prone to surges. The gains in performance should more than offset the price and that is the million dollar question.

I don’t think emitters are the weakness in an F-5, more like the opposite problem. The small size limits how much other equipment you can haul. No real capacity for a big eye IRST, nor for huge fuel reserves, nor for jamming, nor for sophisticated RWR, etc.