a B-52 crash resulting from low level aerobatics

a news report about the crash

Why not some movies? Enjoy!

every single pilot is wearing an oxygen mask while flying 100 feet off the ground….why??

Except that supersonic aircraft are very poor at loitering surveillance, which is what Global Hawk and the U-2 are used for.

It would be totally unsuited for the role.

Then why is the U-2 favored over the Global Hawk when the Global Hawk has much better endurance? Why dont they just make a manned Global Hawk?

swerve- I could have guessed exactly how you were going to respond to my post. Yours and my perceived needs for what fighters and trainers should be are so different as to be completely opposite. Im going to state ~again~ where I stand and then I am going to leave this discussion, not to be rude and ignore your response, but I think we need to agree to disagree and not continue to belabor this discussion.

It isn’t “almost exactly identical to the Gripen”. Even with a similar T/W ratio, it has considerably lower top speed, which tells you a lot. It also has very different avionics.

Weve been through this before, the top speed does not “tell you a lot”, any more than the speed difference of the F-16 vs the F-18 or Rafale “tell you a lot”. The fact that you think a mach .2 difference in top speed makes it a different class of fighter does indeed tell me a lot.

This doesn’t make any sense at all. F-5E/F back into production after 25 years, with its 1950s engines, archaic controls, etc? Ridiculous idea. You’d have to redesign everything under the skin first, & ou then you’d have a new aircraft.

If you redesign everything under the skin first, you would end up with a T-50. So you imply that FBW and 4th gen airframe is required for an advanced trainer, something I disagree with. I dont think the USAF keeps holding on to all their T-38s because they are too cheap to replace them. The fact is that its an outstanding advanced trainer. It would be dangerous or stupid to mimic those flying characteristics in a FBW jet.

You’ve failed to understand how a modern FBW advanced trainer works. The flying characteristics are programmable. You can start off with it behaving ralatively tamely, for easy transition from a lower performance turboprop or whatever, then switch to high performance mode, where it will simulate the handling of a fighter. You can’t do that with an F-5F.

What you describe is something more applicable to dissimilar combat training (ie topgun). Using FBW to mimic aerodynamic characteristics is a very weak solution. I think youve failed to define the role of an advanced trainer. Your definition is that it is just exact copy of the fighter that the student will fly. I say that the handling of a 2 seat F-16 or Gripen is exactly the same as a T-50 and so the need does not exist for such an AF. The Russians have shown a need for such a trainer as handling characteristics and operating costs are a bit much for their frontline fighters. The Swedes for example do jet-only training on their intermediate trainer, they have no need for a basic or advanced trainer.

Where do you get your idea that it’s cheap to build? Do you have a breakdown of costs, at current prices, taking into account changes in relative costs between materials & labour? In general, trying to build copies of old aircraft comes up against problems with construction being labour intensive, putting up the cost.

Im simply estimating prices that existed when the F-16 and F-5E were both in production and for sale.

BTW, trainers have been filling combat roles for very many years. Strikemaster (souped-up armed Jet Provost), MB-326, MB-339, Alpha Jet, Hawk, L-29, L-39 – just about every jet trainer, & many propellor trainers, have been pressed into service in combat roles, either in their basic trainer form or a thoroughly adapted version. It’s not a new phenomenon caused by the high price of modern fighters.

youre right, its nothing new. The vast majority of fighters is service in the world are 2nd and 3rd gen fighters. Its clearly shown that 4th gen trainers or fighters are not a requirement for 21st century defense needs

The T-50 is a light fighter/attack aircraft only pretending to be a trainer. The Koreans wanted the T-50 to aquire 4th gen fighter building technology, not because they need advanced trainers, much for the same reason Taiwan wanted US help building the Ching Kuo. The US is not about to help countries build fighters equal to their front line fighters so the helped them build a mini-fighter. The specs of the T-50 is almost exactly identical to the Gripen, it would the the height of absurdity to use it as an advanced trainer when you can just use a 2-seat Gripen or F-16 or whatever. Its not an advanced trainer, it does not provide any handling characteristics that make it special as a trainer (like a Bae Hawk or T-38), it is identical to the fighter the student will move on to.

The Italians should have learned their lesson with the AMX that this type of subsonic fighter has no niche. In fact the AMX and M-346 are almost identical class of fighter, again too close to the handling characteristics of the fighter but lack any real capability as a pure fighter.

The cost of fighters is just too high nowadays for a government of a developing country to justify for its taxpayers. More and more trainers like the K-8 are fulfilling combat roles as the price of 4th gen fighters is just to high to justify buying. I predict the F-5E/F will get put back into production as it has very low manufacturing costs compared to modern airframes like the T-50, M-346, etc. And its a better advanced trainer has it has really hot handling characteristics more a tune to 3rd gen fighters with their higher wing loadings and fast landing speeds.

The kfir doesnt just have canards, it also has fins on the tip of the nose to achieve the same affect. The cheetah has a strake on the side of the fuselage below the cockpit. These are all feeble efforts to provide forward lift leverage ahead the CoL.

Economics is not an exact science, even though its build and very tangible and measurable things, what exactly fuels economic prosperity is open to debate and has been ever since it became a formal study. The debate over the boom and bust cycle goes back to the Austrian school of Economics and is best personified in the Keynes vs Hayek debate on governments control and involvement in economics.

More to the point on a collapse of the US economy, it is true that a lot of the US wealth is just a propped up facade in the markets. But it is also true that much of US wealth is built on real products sold worldwide in the tech, aviation and construction sectors. Even though we are all taught at a young age to save money and not waste it on frivolous spending, the sad fact of the matter is that frivolous borrowing and spending works. Thats how banks work, they lend money that does not exist, the money is spent, invested and eventually paid back in a never ending cycle. I say never ending because we live in world with out of control population growth, so there seems no end in sight to the recycling of wealth. The fact is that most wealthy and successful people are deeply in debt and intend to remain that way for their entire career, that is how wealth is generated, it is borrowed, invested then earned back, spent more, lent more….on and on.

It would be nice to see the rest of the world call the US on its smoke and mirrors game, but as government spending has bottomed out in certain EU countries, I dont see anyone taking the US to task in the near future.