arquebusI personally think it was a mistake for the USAF to switch from a jet primary trainer to a turboprop primary trainer. The T-37 is still a viable training platform that would provide handling characteristics of a jet that a pilot has to learn. Making the jump from a turboprop straight to a pure LIFT jet like the T-50 is a mistake, whereas a jet like the Hawk can fill in for some of the primary jet training that cant be done in a turboprop.
Between the Hawk and the Goshawk, the Goshawk is the obvious choice as the wing has been significantly strengthened for carrier landings which should increase its airframe life. Much of the aerodynamic modifications of the Goshawk were incorporated back into the Hawk, so they are the same in that respect. They were originally planning to refit the Goshawk with a Garret turbofan engine but the costs of redesign was already running too high so they left off on doing that. I think it would be a lot easier now to just redesign the engine to fit the airframe than re-engineer the airframe to take a new engine should the Goshawk go through as a winner of the T-X.
arquebusI think you might be meaning the Super Tiger (as opposed to the Tiger) my friend?
Also I think you might be thinking of the F-102 Delta Dagger, as opposed to the F-106 Delta Dart, when it came to aerodynamic issues!
The Super Tiger was an F-11 Tiger fitted with a J-79. As I recall the airframe was not able to support the weight of the engine so a complete re-engineering of the airframe would have been required.
The F-106 was just a “fixed” F-102.
arquebusBOEING IS GOING TO WIN
Boeing is making a new design from a clean sheet to enter in the competition, they will win with any half decent design due to all the current emphasis on government spending to revive the economy because it is the only pure domestic entry, the rest are foriegn or joint domestic/foriegn.
arquebusI’ve wondered how the Draken would have stacked up against the F-104 and F-106A when it came to the high altitude intercept mission.
Im sure the Draken would have been much better than both. The F-106 I would imagine would handle just like the Mirage III and do nothing but create a lot of drag when trying to turn sharply. The fact that the intakes on the Draken count for a lot of frontal wing area would create turning leverage that most delta wing aircraft dont have as well as the rear/outer part of the wing providing good leverage. The F-104 would do nothing but pull large sweeping high speed turn.
arquebusI saw this video about a guy who bought an L-39 from Ukraine, at least he got away with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0tvPUQxl4c
So many of these jets will probably be wasted by sitting out in the elements
arquebusNow, that would have been amazing. I didn’t even know that they would still teach ADA or other “old” stuff 10 years ago.
My major achievement (in commercial programming) was programmnig an entire payroll system in assember. On top of, at least one of the programmes, was coded with a pascal program as comment. By removing just one “;”, it could be compiled by a pascal compiler and run. The only time I have ever done something like that, which took a (&*&) of a lot of time to do and was totally counterproductive.
And yes, I have also written OS’s (for PDP-11) and it even worked (!) and compilers. Maybe next upgrade for avionics software will be CICS or MQ series or Fortran. Algol could sneak in as well, it is only 50 years old. Surely not Adabas/Natural. too new then.
I am still amazed, really.
I thought the world had moved on. Sneaking out, weeping.
Ivan
For someone who has impressive experience in systems programming, I cant understand your disdain for Ada, no offense, but I really dont think you know what youre talking about when you decry Ada as obsolete. Ada was designed as a language for critical systems, systems that have zero tolerance for error (ie aircraft). The only reason that Ada is not used is because there are hardly any programmers trained to use it, so defense contractors end up using C and C++, both of which are highly dangerous, no error checking of any kind accept the weakest sort of type checking and they permit about anything the programmer can dream up. This permissiveness is fine for operating system programming (who cares if your PC crashes, right? :dev2: ), but only assembly is a more lax language. When C or C++ is used in critical systems, special subsets have to be used like MISRA C or JSF++, even then these subsets just eliminate only the most outrageous dangers that are beyond the programmers ability to control, these subsets still do not make C or C++ safe.
Furthermore, were talking about embedded programming, no operating systems but rather programming to bare metal. There is no API to speak of, no drivers, you are programming directly to I/O ports. You have to rely on the language itself to be robust because there is no OS to clean up for mistakes. Ada is the perfect language for this, its a crime to use C or C++ in its place for critical systems.
arquebusThe RAF for one diasgree with you
The Hawk first entered service with the RAF in 1976, both as an advanced flying-training aircraft and a weapons-training aircraft.
This is a point worth elaborating on, because although current primary and advanced jet trainer sales look bad, its important to point out that the modern jet training requirement doesnt really change in relation to changing technology. The Alpha Jet is Germany’s and Frances primary jet trainer, I dont ever see that changing, they will continue to use the Alpha Jet till the airframes reach the end of their lives, and then it wont surprise me one bit if sometime far in the future they build a Alpha Jet production line to produce replacements. Take Isreal as an example, I dont think the reason they havent replaced their Magisters is a question of money. Im sure they could get a good deal on the Goshawk or L-59 considering the US’s involvement with those jets but they continue to use the Magister by choice because aerodynamically the Magister has a lighter wing loading and a softer airfoil entry that allows them to train their pilots on more conventional aerodynamic handling characteristics. So even though it looks ridiculous to see them using such an ancient design, they wont stop using them till they absolutely have to. Isreal does use two A-4s for advanced lead-in training, I could see those getting replaced. The same situation with USAF trainers, Im sure they could replace the T-37 and the T-38 tomorrow, but newer trainers do not offer anything the T-37 or T-38 dont already do well. Trainers like the L-59 and Hawk’s handling are just too hot and dont do primary training as well as the T-37. The T-38, although a very light jet, has a higher landing speed than an F-16, its very good for lead-in training, so in some ways its a better option for more realistic training than what you would get with modern FBW lead-in trainers.
arquebusI really shouldnt respond as this discussion is being driven into the ground, but I cant let this point slip:
Also, your claim that the current production Hawk (a thoroughly modernized aircraft, with a new cockpit, wing, etc) is in the same class as the L-59 (designed in the Soviet era, built 1989-1996) & the Alpha Jet (out of production for 20 years). That would have been true of the original Hawk, but there are few if any parts from that in what’s built now.
The Hawk first few in 74, the Alpha Jet in 73, the L-59 in 86 but was really an upgrade of of the L-39 which first flew in 68. These jets are all of the same era and of the same aerodynamic and engine class. Modifications to the Hawk wing were minor, adding flaps and square wing tips.
arquebusswerve- The Hawk is a primary trainer, it is in the same class as the L-59 and Alpha Jet.
I will admit there is a market for advanced jet trainers, I over-stated my opposition to the idea. Overall the trainer market is doing really bad, no one is buy new primary or advanced jet trainers and are just keeping their very old jets running. The only jet trainers selling well are really cheap trainers like the K-8.
arquebusBasically, M-346 = Yak-130 and Yak-130 plus afterburners = L-15. Please correct me if I’m wrong here.
Top speed of the L-15 is Mach 1.4, top speed of the T-50 is Mach 1.4-1.5. In other words, basically the same.
So the main difference between the M-346 and the T-50 as a trainer is the Italians didn’t have a supersonic requirement.
Yes, Im in total agreement with what you say here. It was quite stupid to leave off afterburners from the M-346 which in every other way has the aerodynamic layout of a supersonic fighter. But even so, there is not much market for buying a jet like the T-50 or a M-346 with afterburners when for not much more money you can get a 2 seat Gripen will do the lead in advanced training plus have much fuller fighter capabilities as far as climb, range, maneuverability, etc. People here on this forum want to pass off the T-50 class of light fighters as the current generation F-5, but the cost of producing a current generation light fighter is just not cost effective compared to how cheap regular fighters like the F-16 and Gripen are.
arquebusswerve- I agree there is no further need for discussion as we totally disagree on the definition of what is an advanced trainer and the need for them, however I just want to clear up on some points you made:
T-50 & Chinese trainers were mentioned to demonstrate the existence of demand for advanced trainers – demand which you denied the existence of. The M-346, Hawk & T-50 are in direct competition, & air forces have decided they’re sufficiently comparable to shortlist them in the same competitions
The Hawk is not an advanced trainer, it is a primary trainer the same as the L-59 and MB-339, so trying to fluff up the figures for procurement of advanced trainers with Hawk sales is a desperate attempt at creating a false demand for something that does not exist. No one is buying the T-50 accept the country that makes them. So you cut out the Hawk and T-50 and what are you left with? Just Russia and Italy producing a niche trainer to keep there aerospace industry going that no one is buying but them.
arquebusswerve- I knew Id be opening a can of worms by responding to your post, this forum is notorious for its love of overpriced mini-fighters and will go to outrageous extremes to invent a military need for them…..you didnt disappoint on my expectations
Hmm. You seem to be very selective in the information you choose to use. The market for trainers in that category most certainly does exist: late-model Hawks were bought by Australia, South Africa, the UK, Bahrain & India before the M-346 was available, & M-346 is a direct competitor for similar requirements. It’s been selected in both the competitive evaluations (UAE & Singapore) completed since it became available to buy. The Russians are buying Yak-130 (same basic design), China is buying similar advanced trainers, the USA is looking at it for a T-38 replacement, S. Korea has bought T-50. No market?
Trying to justify the existence of the M-346 by saying its in the same class as the Hawk is laughable, the plane shape and airfoil cross section are nothing similar. The Hawk was designed as a subsonic trainer and its designers were quite surprised when they discovered it was able to go transonic in a shallow dive. And using the supersonic T-50 fighter to compare to the M-346 is even funnier. The T-50 was built simply because the Koreans wanted to acquire current fighter technology from America, so the Americans helped them build a low rated fighter same as they did for Taiwan with their Ching Kuo. You are quite desperate to make the M-346 look good by putting it in the same class as the T-50. Oh, and the US and China are going to buy advanced trainers, like that directly justifies the subsonic M-346, doesnt it.
And it cost $15 mn or so 10 years ago, & new-build would be at least $20mn now, which you reckon is too much for the bigger, faster, more modern M-346.
I doubt the L-159 costs over $15M, I agree the idea of turning into a fighter was stupid, as a trainer its cost would be much lower and would still fill the roll of point defence equal to that of the M-346….which you say is faster? Like what kind of speed advantage are we talking here, since this are both non-afterburning jets? That speed advantage would only be seen in a dive so its really meaningless. But hey, at least its bigger and more modern.
arquebusWhat if – Alenia Aermacchi built a single-seat light fighter M346?
Is there anyone out there who might buy it?
No there is not anyone who would buy it,
not as a trainer- The whole advanced trainer market simply does not exist, 2 seat versions of 4th and 5th generation make better advanced trainers than these mini-jets. The M346 only users are Italy and Singapore.
not as a fighter- Who is stupid enough to pay 20 million USD for a non-afterburning subsonic fighter when you can get a new Mirage 2000 for around the same price? If youre going to buy a subsonic fighter, you might as well buy a jet that is optimized for subsonic combat like straight wing jet trainers such as the Hawk, L-159 or MB-339.
not as a strike aircraft- Italy and Brazil were smart enough to use their AMX (very similar to the M346) as strike aircraft rather than a trainer or fighter. Its has specs that are almost identical to the A-4 Skyhawk, so one wonders why anyone would go to the expense of buying such an aircraft that does the same job as previoius generation jets.
arquebusLOL
The F-15’s maintenance record wasn’t much different from the Tomcat’s. Especially in the early days. Too much is made of the F-14’s maintenance when it’s pretty much comparable to all 70’s jets.
What structural weakness exactly are you talking about??? Tomcat’s were some of the strongest jets on the carrier, much more hardy than SHornets.
Well ignoring the problems they had using the TF30 engine, Ive heard that airframe maintenaince was very high for the F-14 and that they had a problem with structural cracks in the area around the wings. I just remember reading about this and hearing it from people (I grew up near Miramar NAS when it was a navy base) but I wouldnt know where to look up this information to back up what I say.
Indeed, F15s didn’t earn the nickname ‘hangar queen’ because they looked regal and were slinging out knighthoods.
Thats absurd, both the F-15 and F-16 revolutionized low part count airframe construction and new techniques in airframe design and construction. I dont know where to look up the figures, but Ive heard that both the F-15 and F-16 have some of the lowest maintenaince per hours of flight time and overall longest airframe life time of any jet of its generation.
arquebusAre you serious! F-4E, F-14! The best anyone could get at that time…
Iran aquired the F-14s in 76, the F-15 and F-16 had just entered service in 76 so it is doubtful the Iranians would have ordered jets that had not even entered service yet.
You think they’d be better off with Mirage F-1 or MiG-23 MS?:rolleyes:
Yes! I consider both the F-1 and Mig-23 to be superior to the F-4. The F-1 is still in frontline use in the French AF. The Mig-23 is renown for its acceleration. They are both still potent dogfighters. The F-14 was an outstanding jet for its time, but it has a structurally complex airframe that has been plagued with structural weaknesses and high maintenance. Even for a nation on good terms with the US, its a jet thats not worth having compared to the following generation of FBW jets.
Sign In
