Someone already pointed out that Goshawks have limitations on hardpoints because of the wider track, longer legged main gear. However, it’s not a bad idea for training, and even now, BAe might still have the capability to make something like a single seat Hawk 200 with T-45 airbrake and a better gear for making room for hardpoints. Perhaps it could have a couple of pylons on top of the wing for small A2A weapons.

To me, this is the way UK should be thinking. We are not a super power any more, but we can afford to have some capability. UK need to think more of value.

I like the bits with aeroplanes flying around 😀

“massive economic benefits of JSF” lol
Technology wise they should go for Rafale. India selection was pretty clear about that. Why go for sea gripen that offer no commonality with any major country using a carrier and less capable than either Rafale or Typhoon ? A normal Gripen carry less, a sea Gripen would not make sense.

Anyway, the UK should have chosen Rafale 20 years ago…

” “massive economic benefits of JSF” I almost died reading this…”
Yes. Me too… nearly, but I can find no “LOL” about it. UK Gov, MOD procurement, and “The country’s broke” (andys), are too shameful. The problem is that JSF is too much like the banks…. it is too big to fail. I believe part of its huge budget is assigned to ‘showbusiness’ to deal with bad press. It has COST UK, in that time, effort, money, expertise, and future capability that could have been used developing something useful, has been lost on JSF.

Regarding commonality…. UK carriers had little before the F-35B was dropped. The carriers had no catapults or arrestors. UK never used to fear leading with new ideas. I see no problem with trying something like Sea Gripen, and getting back into making high value exports, rather than relying too much on financial ‘services’.

It might have made some sense to develop Eurofighter for carrier use, but “The country’s broke”.

Saudi Arabia is possible, when the Hawks need replacing. The UAE shortlisted the T-50 & M-346.

‘Best replacement for a Hawk is a new Hawk.

Hawk, M346, Yak130 and most trainers are not stealthy.

I guess it depends on your real needs, but I think a Hawk is still hard to beat in the jet trainer world. The M-346 has an astonishing climb rate, and ability to fly in a higher AoA regime, but is this necessary in a trainer? Is the huge cost of the two engines worth it? Other than that, what does it do more than the Hawk? The Yak has a slightly more sensible amount of power.

Turboprop trainers, synthetic simulated radar and weapons, and ground simulators are so good and less expensive nowadays, that the jet trainer has limited need, in my view, but I would rate the Hawk as the best for value.

Do AB910 or P7 currently fly with a IX nose profile?

As Mark12 indicated, three bladed props are in short supply, so it is most likely that only the propeller having 4 blades, and spinner profile are different.

The Mk.IX also has about 10.635″ longer nose, ‘cos its Merlin has a two stage supercharger. The stretch occurs between the back of the engine and Frame 5, the firewall.

Surely, pilot training is going to be a big factor in the whole system performance of the Swiss Air Force. If Gripen offers lower running costs then pilots can get better training for the same costs as in heavier twin engined aircraft. Lets wait and see what happens when Switzerland have been using Gripen for a year or two. I would not be surprised if they bough more Gripens later.