Plane would make a great future USAF trainer but would push US even deeper in dependance on LM . So Alenia M346 Master is probably a cheaper alternative.
The M-346 bid wasn't even competitive and didn't bother to show up at the USAF association conventions, etc; it was basically a Hawk vs T-50 contest until the entry of the Saab/Boeing.
With the entry of cheaper Saab/Boeing trainer, it becomes a Saab/Boeing vs T-50 contest.
What was the reason ,M-346 is way more advanced than Hawk and should also be cheaper than the bigger T50 , I was suprised that M-346 made it Israels tender.
The M-346 doesn't have the performance of T-50 and the lower cost of Hawk. It sits in between two and offers no compelling reason. Furthermore, the USAF T-X draft requirement requires a sustained 6 G turn which the current T-50 Mark II(aka F/A-50 airframe) can handle but the M-346 and the Hawk cannot, without major modifications. BAE's argument was that the USAF should keep using both Hawks and F-16Ds, using the money saved on Hawks to pay for the flights of the F-16D, while the USAF prefers a high performance trainer that could replace the F-16D in addition to the T-38 to reduce operating cost and shorten new pilot training.
Accordingly, the race has really narrowed down between the T-50 and the Boeing/Saab T-X. Boeing has the political advantage because of the argument that it needs the T-X contract to preserve its fighter jet industrial base, or Lockheed becomes a fighter jet monopoly. And that Boeing doesn't plan to ask Pentagon for development funding and will get the money from itself and the Swedish government instead makes Boeing/Saab bid strong.
According to the book «An illustraded guide to modern fighter combat» by Mike Spick , the Hawk can pull +9g and -3g.It can also pull +8g with full fuel and air to air weapons...the Hawk 200 is described as «being abble to pull 8g forever»
That's the instantaneous turn G figure, not the sustained turn G figure. For a high sustained turn G figure, you need a strong airframe in addition to a high thrust engine that could resupply the kinetic energy lost during the turn.
Of three, only the T-50 could have met the 6 G sustained turn rate(The F-35A's sustained G rating is only 4.6 G) without a modification and this is why the T-50 vendors thought they had the deal in the bag, until Boeing's announcement to enter the contest with an all new design and would undercut the T-50 pricing.
Oh, here is a comment from BAE on the Hawk's sustained G figure issue, confirming that the Hawk cannot compete on sustained G rating.
"If you score us on how much sustained g you can pull, we'll lose every time," he said. "But no-one can gold-plate their training any more. We've got a great product because it's designed as a trainer, rather than a light-attack aircraft with a secondary trainer function."
The 8g sustained was for the Hawk 200(a single seat combat version)...just saying that there is allready a version that have the performance...it doesnt look that hard to build a 2 seat version that can pull 6g...
The requirement isn't really 6.5G sustained. The KPPs include a requirement for the prospective aircraft to have an operational availability of no less than 64.7%. It must also be able to sustain 6.5Gs for no less than 15 seconds using no more than 15 degrees nose low attitude at 80% fuel weight between an altitude of 10,000 and 20,000 feet. Key system attributes (KSA) include the ability to attain a minimum of 7.5G and an onset rate of 3Gs per second.T-X to be able to attain at least a 12° per second instantaneous turn rate with a sustained turn rate of 9°. It should also be able to conduct angle-of-attack maneuvering at greater than the 20° angle-of-attack. It also needs to have enough fuel for visual range dogfighting and it needs to be able to make dry contacts with an aerial refueling tanker. Other KSAs for the T-X aircraft include having simulated radars, data-links, radar-warning receivers, situational awareness displays and a full glass-cockpit similar to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35. The T-X must also have the ability to simulate a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons including the AIM-120 and Small Diameter Bomb onboard.
Sustained G is a combination of power and aerodynamics not structural limits and M346 has a 5.6G sustained in level flight and near 1:1 power ratio without any afterburner ,so should be able to do it in a shallow dive ,for the illustration F35 can't make sustained 6G ,so i highly doubt Hawk can fulfill the above requrements .But s probably half the price of the next plane.
''F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to 5 sustained g's.
The T-X program's goal is to replace both T-38 AND F-16D trainer, not just T-38. In other word, the USAF is eying a trainer that accelerates and turns like an F-16, and this is why the T-50 vendors are trying to upgrade the engine to F414 in order to deliver that near F-16 level performance sought by the USAF.
If Boeing/Saab can bring in a "Gripen Lite", it could be a better proposition in the long run. Not only would it allow Boeing to stay in the fighter business, but it could see a very strong contender for the low-end of the global fighter market.
Indeed, the combined volume of USAF T-X + Swedish Airforce trainer replacement program + US air national guard fighter replacement program makes the Saab/Boeing bid viable, as they now have enough time to compete with a new design and has the economy of scale to justify self-funding plus Swedish government funding in the absence of US government development funding.
The USAF's reasoning behind the decision to go "off-the-shelf" was to avoid paying for development cost and to get a fixed definite pricing.
Should Boeing and Saab decide to turn its model to a son of F-5, they should do very well without a competition because Koreans are not interested in doing a competing F-50 model(a single seat version with F414 engine and AESA radar) in order to protect the KFX program.
F-35B Block 2B will not enter service with USMC until July 2016. No word on when Block 3F will be ready, but it surely won't be until 2020 at the earliest.
Plane would make a great future USAF trainer but would push US even deeper in dependance on LM . So Alenia M346 Master is probably a cheaper alternative.
ReplyDeleteThe M-346 bid wasn't even competitive and didn't bother to show up at the USAF association conventions, etc; it was basically a Hawk vs T-50 contest until the entry of the Saab/Boeing.
DeleteWith the entry of cheaper Saab/Boeing trainer, it becomes a Saab/Boeing vs T-50 contest.
What was the reason ,M-346 is way more advanced than Hawk and should also be cheaper than the bigger T50 , I was suprised that M-346 made it Israels tender.
DeleteMr.T
DeleteThe M-346 doesn't have the performance of T-50 and the lower cost of Hawk. It sits in between two and offers no compelling reason. Furthermore, the USAF T-X draft requirement requires a sustained 6 G turn which the current T-50 Mark II(aka F/A-50 airframe) can handle but the M-346 and the Hawk cannot, without major modifications. BAE's argument was that the USAF should keep using both Hawks and F-16Ds, using the money saved on Hawks to pay for the flights of the F-16D, while the USAF prefers a high performance trainer that could replace the F-16D in addition to the T-38 to reduce operating cost and shorten new pilot training.
Accordingly, the race has really narrowed down between the T-50 and the Boeing/Saab T-X. Boeing has the political advantage because of the argument that it needs the T-X contract to preserve its fighter jet industrial base, or Lockheed becomes a fighter jet monopoly. And that Boeing doesn't plan to ask Pentagon for development funding and will get the money from itself and the Swedish government instead makes Boeing/Saab bid strong.
According to the book «An illustraded guide to modern fighter combat» by Mike Spick , the Hawk can pull +9g and -3g.It can also pull +8g with full fuel and air to air weapons...the Hawk 200 is described as «being abble to pull 8g forever»
DeleteNuno Gomes
DeleteThat's the instantaneous turn G figure, not the sustained turn G figure. For a high sustained turn G figure, you need a strong airframe in addition to a high thrust engine that could resupply the kinetic energy lost during the turn.
Of three, only the T-50 could have met the 6 G sustained turn rate(The F-35A's sustained G rating is only 4.6 G) without a modification and this is why the T-50 vendors thought they had the deal in the bag, until Boeing's announcement to enter the contest with an all new design and would undercut the T-50 pricing.
Oh, here is a comment from BAE on the Hawk's sustained G figure issue, confirming that the Hawk cannot compete on sustained G rating.
Delete"If you score us on how much sustained g you can pull, we'll lose every time," he said. "But no-one can gold-plate their training any more. We've got a great product because it's designed as a trainer, rather than a light-attack aircraft with a secondary trainer function."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-systems-bullish-over-hawk-t-x-prospects-357226/
The 8g sustained was for the Hawk 200(a single seat combat version)...just saying that there is allready a version that have the performance...it doesnt look that hard to build a 2 seat version that can pull 6g...
DeleteThe requirement isn't really 6.5G sustained. The KPPs include a requirement for the prospective aircraft to have an operational availability of no less than 64.7%. It must also be able to sustain 6.5Gs for no less than 15 seconds using no more than 15 degrees nose low attitude at 80% fuel weight between an altitude of 10,000 and 20,000 feet. Key system attributes (KSA) include the ability to attain a minimum of 7.5G and an onset rate of 3Gs per second.T-X to be able to attain at least a 12° per second instantaneous turn rate with a sustained turn rate of 9°. It should also be able to conduct angle-of-attack maneuvering at greater than the 20° angle-of-attack. It also needs to have enough fuel for visual range dogfighting and it needs to be able to make dry contacts with an aerial refueling tanker. Other KSAs for the T-X aircraft include having simulated radars, data-links, radar-warning receivers, situational awareness displays and a full glass-cockpit similar to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35. The T-X must also have the ability to simulate a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons including the AIM-120 and Small Diameter Bomb onboard.
DeleteSustained G is a combination of power and aerodynamics not structural limits and M346 has a 5.6G sustained in level flight and near 1:1 power ratio without any afterburner ,so should be able to do it in a shallow dive ,for the illustration F35 can't make sustained 6G ,so i highly doubt Hawk can fulfill the above requrements .But s probably half the price of the next plane.
''F-35A was reduced from 5.3 sustained g's to 4.6 sustained g's. The F-35B had its sustained g's cut from five to 4.5 g's, while the US Navy variant had its turn performance truncated from 5.1 to 5 sustained g's.
Mr. T,
DeleteThe T-X program's goal is to replace both T-38 AND F-16D trainer, not just T-38. In other word, the USAF is eying a trainer that accelerates and turns like an F-16, and this is why the T-50 vendors are trying to upgrade the engine to F414 in order to deliver that near F-16 level performance sought by the USAF.
You cannot make M-346 and Hawk fly like an F-16.
If Boeing/Saab can bring in a "Gripen Lite", it could be a better proposition in the long run. Not only would it allow Boeing to stay in the fighter business, but it could see a very strong contender for the low-end of the global fighter market.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the combined volume of USAF T-X + Swedish Airforce trainer replacement program + US air national guard fighter replacement program makes the Saab/Boeing bid viable, as they now have enough time to compete with a new design and has the economy of scale to justify self-funding plus Swedish government funding in the absence of US government development funding.
DeleteThe USAF's reasoning behind the decision to go "off-the-shelf" was to avoid paying for development cost and to get a fixed definite pricing.
Should Boeing and Saab decide to turn its model to a son of F-5, they should do very well without a competition because Koreans are not interested in doing a competing F-50 model(a single seat version with F414 engine and AESA radar) in order to protect the KFX program.
LOL, more F-35 delays due to software problems.
ReplyDeleteF-35B Block 2B will not enter service with USMC until July 2016. No word on when Block 3F will be ready, but it surely won't be until 2020 at the earliest.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-lockheed-fighter-idUSBREA0M1L920140123
A draft and ZERO word for the USMC does not make for official policy :)
DeleteIn the mean time....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ktrs.com/news/local-news/item/13012-boeing-super-hornet-line-gets-a-bone-from-congress
thankfully, the USN didn't even ask for the Pork spending :)
DeleteThe F/A-50 & T-50B can be used as an LIFT and CONUS home defense. Freeing up the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 for overseas work.
ReplyDelete