TomcatViPCap 10 is a full aerobatics airframe too 😉
@Hallo: can’t open the links on my cellphone. Will hve a look latter. Thx!
TomcatViPA Hawk T3 with Composite fuselage, Aluminium Spar and composite skins, provision for redundant wiring routing, downsized EJ200 with cooler turbines and higher bypass ratio, fuselage plugged to decrease transo drag, shorter wingspan (no no stupid wingtip rails), wing fences out and variable stability to simulate high pitch rate (like the NASA F8), looks a bright idea 😉 But it’s not a Hawk anymore. And it’s a lot of work.
Seriously does someone can post AlphaJet and Hawk Tx manual that we can see the average speed and loading during training flight ?
Accident rate would be useful too 😉
TomcatViPFrankly that is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen written in a long time! The Hawk is very much still a relevant LIFT asset and many airforces plan to use it as such for decades to come. BAE Systems expect to keep the line open for many more years and further sells are expected. The Hawk is a massive sales success for BAE Systems and continues to win contracts, trying to sell it to the civilian market as you suggest would be ridiculous! People in the civilian market who fancy a fast jet type tend to go for types like the L29 or L39 second hand.
As a training system Hawk is proven and very modern, just because it isn’t supersonic or lacks stealth or post stall manoeuvrability is immaterial to its primary role. Heck even the USN and USMC plan to use the T-45C in the role for years to come!
Yes it is…as there is schools ard the world that don’t teach any mathematics, physics or even history…
Don’t take me wrong. Hawk is a fantastic aircraft for its time and there is no any aviation enthousiast that won’t like its perfect shapes. But it is an old platform that wld be even older in 30 years and has only a single engine. And tht is only the basis of any sound raisoning.
TomcatViPI’m sure Deino is referring to those self-proclaimed armchair “experts” (with american aircraft names as their usernames usually) who somehow know exactly the hows and whats of the J-20, but that would have absolutely no clue whatsoever of for instance what those numbers and letters in your image represent ( not that i have the slightest clue;) )
Dear Mack… To be polite, just forget abt me. Thx in advance.
TomcatViPOuch… got boxed.
I’ll delete the post. Take it as my own opinion only (and a wrong step on my posting history).
EDIT: post is now deleted.
TomcatViPNationalist ? I’m not Indian, and if you see my other post, you will now where I’m coming from. I put Sitara since, it can provide additional leverage for Rafale, which until now is not yet a done deal yet despite already winning the contest.
Redicoule my post if you like, but the fact is getting with Hawk, M-346, T-50 (which is superb trainer which my country already become the first export customer, that’s me being nationalistic), will not gain anything for Frech industrial leverage.
Buying Indian is more make sense than buying Chinese-Pakistan jet which would not bring anymore substantial leverage for French.
I agree with you on the T50 but it is a single eng with US tech. What would it looks like in 20/35 years (huge fuel-consumption, old tech, doubtful availability of spares parts, unavailability of licences to produce such spare pars etc…) ? For any trainer, I guess that France would need alt least to ctrl the engine and then the avionics.
Also, buying some Hawks and pretends in 2013 that it is a LIFT asset is just ridiculous (BAe wld do a better work converting the Hawk to a BJ and stop trying to sell it as a mil plane). But you can expect that once more Eu (Fr here) would turn its back to commune-sense (and the world) again.
TomcatViPUh no. That is absurdly stupid of a statement. TVC, if properly integrated only assists a pilot.
I promise you if the Rafale had TVC we would see the crowd around here talk about how great it is.
A competent TVC system, like on the RD-33 or on Sukhois, pays only a small penalty in weight and complexity. On the upside they get a much expanded low speed flight envelope, which is only good, not only in terms of A2A combat, but general flight performance. Then there is utility of TVC in assisting efficiency at supersonic speeds, as opposed to only using aerodynamic surfaces.
It’s not a “game” changer in most scenarios, but is clearly a positive.
Good post.
Tvc also increase your stealth perfs. The Pak-Fa wld be a beast on tht point (high beta using LevCon)
TomcatViPWhat a bomber such as the B-1B can do on the front line in (then turn around and do it again, and again) Skip to 1:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilo2wxk_KMA
And another that demonstrates the amazing accuaracy of its aiming systems
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY25-xPDUwU
Is this really an asset that should be scrapped? If America gets rid of them at least sell a couple to the RAF, please…
AFM hve produced good mission report abt Bone’use in the Afghan conflict. It worth a read.
TomcatViPYes saw it. A big splash.But you hve to admit that everything that is not British will fly like a brick in Topgear. 😉
But I do like the show (one of my favorite indeed).
TomcatViPwas it a raf exchange pilot in the f-22, I didn’t hear that before…anyway I’m sure the raffee pilot had a great time and is still recounting it to all and sunder
Sry Raf stand for Rafale and not RAF 😉
TomcatViPThe vid show mainly that The Raf pilot was flying way better than his opponent during this engagment.
He could hve flown a VW beetle that the result won’t hve been different.
Intersting tough at one moment it seems that the 22 break hard using his nozzle.
TomcatViPI’m not sure what you mean by Germany being disappointed by all the partnerships they have been involved in. They’re involved in the Tornado and are happy with that. They’re involved with the Typhoon and they’re also happy with that. To my knowledge both of those aircraft have met their expectations.
At the very least, I see the UK, Germany and Italy sticking together and co-developing another (manned) fighter – Typhoon replacement. I would say Spain would be involved too but I wouldn’t hazard a guess regarding their industrial participation, given their current situation.
Sry but I don’t want to enter in long polemics. Pls take my comment as it is.
TomcatViPSAAB’s concept of un-manned Gripen E makes alot more sense in this context… Since Rafale procurement doesn’t seem set to change,
it seems like it would be highly useful for the few highly trained cadre of Rafale pilots to be able to direct a few other unmanned Rafale for strike missions.other question: besides the exact number of pilots retained at the high training level, and what that training level will be, how does this interact with routine air policing?
will that be done by the highly trained pilots, and thus for short notice operations, a number of them will be retained for that task in all but the most dire of situations?
or will that be done by the lesser trained cadre, possibly not even using Rafale or Mirage 2000 for the air policing mission?
Of course… and the next things Iranians will show onTv is a hijacked 100m+ nuclear capable remotly piloted Rafale.
Sound good to you?
TomcatViPThe facts show it:
UK: 160 Typhoons (initial requirement 232). Also only 107 to be operational in 2020.
Germany: 140-ish Typhoons (initial requirement also 230)
Italy:96 Typhoons (initial requirement 121)
Spain: 73 Typhoons (initial requirements 87). Also only 54 planned in service
France: 180 Rafale (initial requirement 334)Sweden has come out stating it needs up to 60 JAS-39E/F to replace JAS-39A-D and has already gutted JAS-39A-D fleet from 204 delivered to 100-ish. For comparison a total of 329 Viggens were produced even without export.
Similar stories have occurred with procurement programs for NH-90, A-400M and Tigre/Tiger.
Developing a jet for a confirmed requirement of a mere 60-100 airframes is risky business in the 21st century, especially when competing against American designs ala F-35 which even with cutbacks will still be produced in hundreds, if not thousands.
This is why Europeans do joint programs – economies of scale.
No. Raf and Typhon hve mostly so far being in competition with F16 and 18 talking only abt western industry. Regarding pricing it’s hardly an econpmy of scale. Raf is a superb aircraft but you hve to look at it with a rational look.
IMOHO the single product policy that Dassault choose was a big mistake and the Raf pays the price now (ooops out of topic)
TomcatViPProblem with future European aircraft programs is small order quantities per customer. And these quantities are decreasing every year.
France developing a jet for a mere 150-200 airframes is too costly (i.e. look at Rafale). Sweden’s requirement is down to 50-60. Italy’s is down to 96. Etc etc.
Joint programs are the best way to achieving economies of scale and keep airframe acquisition costs at a reasonable level.
So far, facts tend to say it’s hardly true. But theoricaly you’re probably right;-)
Sign In
