Originally posted by troung
“Not the Mig-AT, T-50, Hawk, nothing.”Well the Hawk has sold very well, the T-50 is in testing and the MiG-AT…………..
Bae has managed to sell the Hawk to 3 members of its former empire: Australia, Canada and South Africa. I dont call that selling very well. Noone is showing interest in the T-50 and Im willing to make you a very large bet no customers will suddenly appear when it reaches production status. Same for mig-AT. Do you want to know why this is? As Dubya explained about africa:
And as countries’ militaries deteriorate they cease being an effective threat to other countries who are in the same boat.
For example countries such as Mozambique no longer operate fast jets because they can’t afford it and because neighbouring countries no longer operate any themselves. So arguably most thirds world countries don’t even need fast jets.
This reason also holds true for the decline in AF purchases world wide. Since their are no cheap options for 3rd world nations to buy new fighters, they continue to use old ineffective fighters like the mirage 3/5 or mig-21. If the F-5 were to come back on the market and under developed countrys started buy them in large quantity, I garantee you would start seeing the richer developed nations buying up the new generation advanced trainers to counter this.
Originally posted by Phil Foster
“RAF had a tandem-seat trainer version called Gnat T.1. There were 105 numbers of them. Cost of maintainin it was high, cockpit was cramped and cramped and poor visibility for instructor.”This is true. I think bigger pilots had to graduate on the Hunter. 🙂
Yes I think the Gnat would have to be enlarged somewhat, but overall is a very sound airframe layout. A private company like this:
http://www.avtechgroup.com/index.htm
makes a jet trainer for 2.2 million dollars. I think the Gnat holds the same potencial for development.
Originally posted by Dubya
I think the problem with many airforces is that in the past they were effectively subsidised by either the USSR or USA. So the philippines could operate dozens of F5’s and F-8’s or in the case of Syria, 100’s because the superpowers paid the bill.Now that this subsidization has stopped, these poorer countries are proving to be incapable of supporting militaries that were to large and unwieldy in the first place.
And as countries’ militaries deteriorate they cease being an effective threat to other countries who are in the same boat.
For example countries such as Mozambique no longer operate fast jets because they can’t afford it and because neighbouring countries no longer operate any themselves. So arguably most thirds world countries don’t even need fast jets.
I agree with you about Africa. But their are alot of countries in Latin America that desperately want to update their AFs. I think if Chile had the choice of buying 10 F-16s and 50 F-5s, they would choose the F-5s. And I even think the Philippeans would like to maintain some sort of level of air defence, and the F-5 would fit that bill just fine.
Originally posted by seahawk
Well you can always use the T-50 as an F-5 replacement. Or the IDF …
No you cant, thats the whole point of this thread. The cost of operating and maintaining a T-50 is much higher. A T-50 has more in common with a F-16 than it does with an F-5. It would be stupid to buy a T-50 as a low cost fighter when you can get a F-16 for a price not much higher. The only AFs that will buy a jet like the T-50 are large wealthy AFs that can afford the luxury of a high end Advanced trainer, but even none of them are buying it. USAF seems perfectly satisfied with the T-38, Isrealis arent going to budge from their magisters. Who else then? Noone
Phil- of the 3 examples you gave of Hawk customers:
– Britain is already a long time user of the Hawk
– The South Africa deal is too old to be a recent customer.
– That leaves India, just one recent customer.
A bunch of you guys are misreading question 2, it reads:
“From quite a few trainers, single-seat light combat aircraft were developed and flown. Name the original twin-seat design, and the single-seat variant of seven jet trainers.”
So 2 seat combat versions of a 2 seat trainer dont count like T-37 to A-37, nor do single seaters that became trainers such as the Gnat.
I first joined in fall of 2000 and the guys here were talking about how the forum got nuked and all the original posts were lost. So you may never find out about the original posts here. I will say the quality of posts here in late 2000 was very high. There were alot of active AF pilots and other industry experts. Now its just us armchair generals.
I first joined in fall of 2000 and the guys here were talking about how the forum got nuked and all the original posts were lost. So you may never find out about the original posts here. I will say the quality of posts here in late 2000 was very high. There were alot of active AF pilots and other industry experts. Now its just us armchair generals.
900 kelvin is 1160.33 farenheit. I imagine that is almost equal to the air temperature as it leaves the combution chamber.
Originally posted by Hand87_5
Are they the same?
No theyre not the same, take a look at the bridge. One has a through body bridge and the other Im guessing is a whammy set up.
Originally posted by Hand87_5
Are they the same?
No theyre not the same, take a look at the bridge. One has a through body bridge and the other Im guessing is a whammy set up.
Originally posted by seahawk
Perhaps in March in March/April with the nextgen ATI / NV chips, but I doubt it. Even 256 MB has not many advantages today. 512MB would be useless for gaming. (fpr those doing 3D rendering – maybe)
256mb hasnt many advantages? Wouldnt you call running a game at 1600 x 1200 res at 200 fps an advantage? Could you explain as Ive heard 256 mb cards really power out on graphic intensive games.
Originally posted by seahawk
Perhaps in March in March/April with the nextgen ATI / NV chips, but I doubt it. Even 256 MB has not many advantages today. 512MB would be useless for gaming. (fpr those doing 3D rendering – maybe)
256mb hasnt many advantages? Wouldnt you call running a game at 1600 x 1200 res at 200 fps an advantage? Could you explain as Ive heard 256 mb cards really power out on graphic intensive games.
Kabir- Here is a MP3 link of a guy in OZ who posts on another forum I frequent. I think he sounds good and he seems very freindly and eager to share his music.
http://micktaylormuzik.tripod.com/
Kabir- Here is a MP3 link of a guy in OZ who posts on another forum I frequent. I think he sounds good and he seems very freindly and eager to share his music.
http://micktaylormuzik.tripod.com/
Originally posted by RobAnt
Rowan’s BofB won’t run on XP. So I’ve got it, but never been able to get it to work. It is true, however, that although I do have an ME installed PC, I’ve never bothered to load it. My guess is it will work quite well on a lowish spec machine!
Im inclined to agree that it will run best on a low spec comp. I first ran it on a 800 mhz duron with onboard graphic memory and had no problem whatsoever. Now with my 1.6 mhz Athlon and 128 mb radeon 9000 it runs a bit quirky, but still not what I would call buggy.
Bradburger- Thanks for that Rowans BoB update site.