“Is Sweden going to order some? Those Sk 60s are pretty old.”

The official word is that FMV/Flygvapnet would await the outcome of T-X and then decide for a SK60 replacement.

In other words if Boeing wins (which it did) then considering the SAAB content the likelihood of buying T-X is high. Although I imagine they would prefer a light attack/sidewinder capability.

\Dan

Guys dont be so fixated to specific size dimensions and stats like weight if you are gonna find a replacement engine. Air mass flow is the real limiting factor.

Nasa links
Mass Flow Rate
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mflow.html
General Thrust Equation
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thrsteq.html

Engine thrust is dictated by the Air Mass Flow. In reality this translates to the relation of inlet and outlet dimensions. For example consider the difference between F-5A and F-E. F-5E’s J85 had higher thrust but also required a larger airflow. The difference in requirement was not so large that the inlet redesigned was deemed sufficeint and the airframe could be (largly) left as is. However for the F-5G/F-20 the air mass flow was so large that not only the inlet but also the fuselage had to be redesigned. Airliners usually have their engines in a poded configuration outside the fuselage or wings which makes it relativly easy to replace/upgrade an engine.

There is little economic sense in investing a lot of money and time in redesigning and reengineering/modifying an old and used airframe. A drop in replacement makes more sense. But then your new engine has to have the same dimensions and air mass flow as your old engine. So whats the point in replacing an engine which is already optimised for your specific airframe?

That is why there are so very few fighter engine replacements around to talk about.

\Dan

Is it part of the canopy frame?

Thanks for the information Frank.

That explains why I was banned indefinetly and then a few days later reactivated. Good to hear you guys are on top of things anyway. 🙂

Regarding TF-X beeing “too small a programme to justify a thread”. I don’t think you realy do understand how important and what kind of impact this program realy is for Turkish defence industry. How much it ALREADY is affecting and will influence Turkish politics and industry in the future. It is at the same level, if not more, than the Gripen program was for Sweden. But I do agree with you about Bayar beeing a bit overenthusiastic. 🙂 Anyway time will tell how TF-X turns out.

//Dan

There are plenty of things you can do better with todays technology. IMO updateing the Harrier would be a waste of resources. I mean that same money would be better spent on a proper new aircraft instead.

I think that the updated Harrier would look close to the Superharrier:
From aerospaceweb.org
[ATTACH=CONFIG]252275[/ATTACH]

… Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries will most definitely win.

SNC/TAI’s Freedom Trainer offers more technology and is able to withstand more G’s than its competitors.

Wait till the prototype is complete in a few months time and pilots see the technology on board. SNC/TAI have set the bar up really high as newcomers.

What are you basing this statement on? At the moment it is still a paper plane, so what are you quoting? What is your source for the specifics that neither SNC or TAI has published?

Not a new invention though..

It has been examined as early as WWI. And a few more times during the years. Even though there are some reports that pilots liked it etc I haven’t realy analyzed why it didn’t develop. I’m guessing it realy has to do with safely landing/takeoff. Personally I can only imagine it’s not safe at all.

\Dan