>https://www.forcesnews.com/services/raf/raf-get-hawk-replacement-fast-jet-training-after-half-century-service
The brits are finally replacing their Hawks. Which jet do you think will replace it?

>hawk2
AH

>>63932946 (OP)
If we don't get M346s we're retarded. If we don't also use the opportunity to bin the Red Arrows then we're completely retarded.

Trainer thread.

>>63932946 (OP)
>Which jet do you think will replace it?
Knowing how cash strapped and pathetic UK procurement is?
Probably a Sopwith Camel

>>63932946 (OP)
I thought they were eyeing the Boeing-Saab T-7, but they recently dropped it due to delays.

>>63932946 (OP)
The M-346 and the Aeralis proposal are the only real possibilities.
>>63933108
>bin the Red Arrows
Kill yourself

>>63933108
>If we don't also use the opportunity to bin the Red Arrows then we're completely retarded.

>>63932946 (OP)
KAI T-50A is the only option left. Especially since its only actual rival is out already. >>63933203
>inb4 m346
Immensely inferior in performance and 2 engines for a trainer jet is a massive waste.

>>63933108
Whenever RAF cost cutting is raised Bin The Reds is top of the list.
I'm cool with bringing the Yellow Jacks back.
Bit of paint and Robert is your Mothers brother.

>>63933332
Congrats, everything you said is wrong. Twin engines are a big plus in trainers and all other fighters for safety.

>>63933332
>ignores how the requirements literally state no afterburning engines due to cost.

>designed as of 2020 with NATO standards
>fully digital cockpit and controls
>3D printing and EBAM construction with latest
>supersonic

Unironically this is the best stuff in the trainer market right now.

>>63933526
>turkshit
>literal knockoff of the T-7 with some T-50 sprinkles
>garmin civvie avionics
Nice joke

>>63933547
It's equipped with Turkish made avionics, MFDs and HUD actually. All in NATO standard

Use the F-35As with a brilliant red paint job to bring an extra level of terror. All air-displays will be performed with US B61-12 gravity bomb welded to aircraft and armed.

>>63932946 (OP)
It'll be a M346 and everyone in this thread knows it.

>>63933561
>It's equipped with Turkish made avionics
And that's supposed to be a selling point?

>>63933526
>>63933332
>>63933203
>>63933108
>>63933570
Stop deluding yourselves. There is zero chances the next RAF trainer wont be british. It will be the Aeralis, even if it's going to take a while.

>>63932946 (OP)
>https://theaviationist.com/2025/07/02/raf-competition-replace-hawk-t1-t2/
another article that further hints that it's going to be aeralis.

>>63933586
Yes, it won't come with a backdoor or a political leash.

Spain already ordered 24 of these for F-5BM replacement

>>63933624
>Spain already ordered
MoU isn't a done deal.

>>63933466
>Twin engines are a big plus in trainers
Only in third world countries that is Italy.
>>63933474
F404-GE-102D has no afterburner.

>>63933526
Turkey would've been nice if Erdogan wasn't in charge of the country.

>>63933332
>Trainer Aircraft
>with none of the advantages a trainer has because it was designed as a Temu F-16

>>63933608
The M-346 that Austria just bought will have the new cockpit.

>>63933678
>the mudslime roach calls others third world
Lmao
>>63933624
Yeah, just to offload their A400M

>>63933757
Roaches are still mad they can't make a single functioning Benelli knockoff even after the patent expired.

>>63933592
There was a time when the display team would be a front line fighter squadron.
There are sufficient F35Bs in the far east right now to do a diamond loop like these guys did.

>>63933777

>>63933757
Explain why all the new trainers coming out are all single engine then.

>>63932946 (OP)
>SuperTomcat canceled to fund F-22
>A-12 canceled to fund F-35
>A-6 and S-3 retired early for budget shifts to the other three services
>Don't want the F-35, have to buy a gonzo expensive naval version with like 10% compatability to the A model because Congress and God Hate You
>Don't want the Super Bug, forced to buy it because Congress and other retards think its just a legacy hornet upgrade (it's not)
>Forced to retire the excellent TA-4 as part of a shady deal between the DOD and BAE and so you get stuck with the shittiest trainer in the entire military, for the by far most demanding undergrad syllabus
>The FA-XX gets canceled so more funding can be allocated to the F-47, as its unfair the USAF only have 5, 5th gen+ airframes
You are here
>Now the bongs are retiring thier shitty land based trainer you were forced to land on aircraft carriers for initial CQ after someone welded a tailhook and AOA indicator on it, and you still have to fly it because your trainer replacement budget was also canceled and given to the USAF

At this point NAVAIR should just say fuck off, we all quit

>>63933825
>you were forced to land on aircraft carriers
T45 is to Hawk as FA2 is to GR1
There were a hell of a lot of changes to make Hawks seaworthy.

We'd be stupid not to get the same trainer the other Tempest/GCAP partners are getting, but >>63933592 is likely right. Parliament will piss and shit about it the same way we're pretty much forced to buy AW149 to replace Puma, but don't want to

Outside chance for that Turkish trainer jet as well since we're selling them Eurofighters, and turkshit is cheap

>>63933821
cutting maintenance costs.

>>63933332
>>63933526
I disagree.
While both the T50 and Hujet might have higher max speed compared to the M-346 of mach 1.12 and will most likely , where the M-346 and its FA version excel is in actually being the best phase 4 LIFT trainer for future frontline pilots.

The M-346 thanks to its full suite of training systems like the ETTS allows students to simulate a shitload of scenarios like: BFM, ACM, BVR, multiple engagements, interceptions, etc while showing everything in the jet systems and HMCS via augmented reality. It's basically like playing DCS while you're flying. It goes from simulating an entire IR and vis spectrum TGP imagery without the need to actually mount one (which you still can together with EW/RECCE and other pods)

The ETTS integrates into the Ground-Based Training System (GBTS) and the LVC which allows the integration of a real airplane undergoing a training sortie with a “virtual” airplane operated by a pilot in a ground-based simulator. This drastically reduces operational costs. Simultaneously, the instructor can closely monitor the training activities from the Real Time Monitoring Station (RTMS), injecting updated threats into the scenario and acting as a Tactical Controller to support the pilots.

There is a reason why the pilots of more than 12 countries like the US, UK, Sweden, France, Japan etc have sent their pilots at our international pilot school here in Italy (and then some became M-346 customers like Israel, Greece, Poland, Qatar, Austria etc.)
What a trainer that will train future 5th gen pilot needs isn't being able to go supersonic and that's it. It needs to be able to simulate all the functionality of a 4th+ and 5th gen fighter so that the "pilot pipeline" doesn't get clogged like it's happening in the US right now.

Both the Hurjet and the T50 don't have any of these features. Only the Boeing T-7 is "rumored" to want to integrate LVC technologies but we all know the state of the project.

Also, the M-346 is already certified to operate as an aggressor and DACT for frontline pilots since TLP 2016 for all Nato Red Flag exercises so this is another plus.
>>63933878
>We'd be stupid not to get the same trainer the other Tempest/GCAP partners are getting
I hope that's the case. Japan is looking to build their own version based on the M-346 (T-X) but their actual first flight is probably at least a decade away so they might buy some M-346s as a stopgap.

>>63933843
Lol I've flown that exact bird in the painting.
>T-45 isn't a Hawk
For sure, I was exaggerating. But the main point is that it is an utterly shit aircraft for any kind of CQ, much less your initial. Even if you drop the data from the studs and only use the IPs, it has the worse boarding rate and Paddles score of of any tailhook AC. Its not exactly a maintenance nightmare but the EC breaks all the time in weird ways. I was doing FCLPs and the IP wanted to squeeze in a few more touch and goes before wx dropped below mins and it literally started hailing *inside the cockpit* spraying like dipping dots through all the vents. The APU breaks a lot too and it has a very severe ejection sequence that is more dangerous than any other AC we operate besides the old Harrier, which was similar (and I guess also british)

Retiring a pretty much ideal trainer like the TA-4 for this abomination was just unnecessary and retarded. Its too most distinct handling characteristics are unusually sluggish and imprecise throttle response, absolutely dogshit rudder authority and a resultant tendency to immediately and severely nose drift at high alpha. Not exactly what you want in an trainer for tailhook/strike pipeline

>>63933992
I forgot to mention that the instructor can also tune the flight envelope of the jet via the FBW to have the M-346 mimick the future frontline fighter that the student is going to fly. This can also be used to limit roll rates, G limits etc for very new trainee pilots.
I'll never get tired of shilling for the M-346.

>>63933607
that article says the 345 is also being evaluated in the UK right now

>>63933992
>international pilot school here in Italy
We're building one here in Greece as well modeled after that together with Israel with the T-6 Texans and the M-346 as the trainers.

>>63934002
Are you happy about receiving the T-7?

Maybe they can just get in on the Japanese A-t trainer program.

>>63934247
the raf has an urgent need tho. the japs have only that mockup and they haven't allocated the budget for a prototype for at least the next 5 years

>>63933592
>aeralis
they look like if someone asked a random guy to draw the italian trainer from memory

>>63933992
>50+ trainees per year
outdated, it's 80+ now that Sweden signed to train their pilots here for the next 10 years.
>>63934308
kek

>>63934156
AFAIK that isn't set in stone for the Navy yet. I don't know a lot about the T-7 other than it's yet another USAF hand me down not designed for Naval needs from the ground up. I can bitch about that for hours but it's not interesting.

The more interesting thing is why CNATRA has been slow rolling the T-45 replacement. Big argument in NAVAIR right now about if the whole UPT syllabus should be redone, like changes not seen since AOCS went away, or whenever that was (1970s?) that CQ was a mandatory check flight at the end of primary for everyone regardless of pipeline and made it a FAG/E2/COD only thing.

Basically Magic Carpet has gotten really, really good. So now there is a big debate about whether all UPT CQ flights are removed, and Basically half the tailhook pipeline (intermediate) gets moved to the Rags. Which would push navy UPT to be a lot more similar to USAF UFT, getting wings of gold in a year and a half or so instead of 3+ for strike guys as it's set up currently.
The other issue is CVN availability. It's a pretty big redass to get the TRAWING class schedules (every 2 weeks) synched up with ships movement, especially for super high op tempo assets like the CVN. So when Truman gets extended for 6 months if you were supposed to CQ on Truman next week, you're going to be sitting around Kingsville or Merdian for months just waiting for another hull to be available. It's been a growing problem since we retired the Lexington.

Can't they just use simulators? Building expensive jets just as trainers seems pretty dumb these days given computers VR etc.

>>63934360
All modern air forces do. The M-346 has an entire training program centered around both the simulator on the ground and augmemted reality in the air.
Simulators have been a part of pilot training with a huge success for years.

>>63934358
Of all the contender for the USN which do you think would be the best choice?
>AFAIK that isn't set in stone
I've heard differently, an ex pilot I know says it's basically already set in stone after the USAF chose the t7 and the navy 6th gen got scrapped.

>>63933992
>higher max speed compared to the M-346 of mach 1.12 and will most likely
And will most likely perform better as light fighters* forgot to finish the sentence

>>63933108
>bin the Red Arrows

>>63933565
>If the F35 crashes it nukes the crowd
Based as fuck, I would watch that show.

>>63934360
The reason Sweden is training pilots in the UK is because of the large number of trainer sim pods sitting there ready.
The UK likes to overbuild training facilities as a hedge for real war, and often rents out the spare capacity.

>>63934637
>https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/12/07/in-nordic-first-sweden-to-send-fighter-pilots-for-training-in-italy/
>sweden pilots in italy
>and in the UK
Do they not train any of them in Sweden?

>>63933879
Thank you for reconfirming my point.

>>63934744
Maintenance costs ≠ total costs. Per flight hour the M-346 is still 20-30% cheaper to operate than a jet with a F404. Seeing how single engine jets like the T-45 were plagued by birdstrikes the benefits of a twin engine setup are always worth the extra maintenance costs, especially for trainers.

>>63933992
>Both the Hurjet and the T50 don't have any of these features.
T-50A already has an internal simulator duh.
https://lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/T-50A/T-50A_ProductCard.pdf
Also, everything else you mentioned isn't unique at all. KAI itself is known for its simulators and has already earned $950 million so far.
https://www.zonajakarta.com/internasional/67315267054/korea-selatan-genjot-ekspor-simulator-canggih-seiring-banyak-negara-yang-pakai-pesawat-produknya-indonesia-pakai-jet-t-50i?page=2
>In simulator exports, KAI has earned 1.3 trillion won.

>>63934787
You're confusing ground simulators with in plane "live" simulators.

>>63933273
I'm in two minds, it's cool to have a display team show up at big national events and around the world.
But at the same time the rest of the military is cut and underfunded to fuck and its a lot of money spent on something that won't win any wars.

>>63934786
>Maintenance costs ≠ total costs.
Maintenance cost is still a cost, Anon. Who do you think inspects and maintains the engines?
>Per flight hour the M-346 is still 20-30% cheaper to operate than a jet with a F404.
Yes, I'm sure a twin engine design will consume less fuel than a single engine.

>>63934787
Not to mention the fact that the M-346 can merge both ground simulators with the internal simulators of flying jets. I don't doubt that it's going to be copied into other trainers in the future, but as of today the only trainer which has implemented both of them is the M-346.

>>63934794
>ground simulators
Wrong. When I say embedded it's literally "embedded" in the aircraft. It's not a new concept at all.

>>63933565
Typhoons would be cooler

>>63934807
>Yes, I'm sure a twin engine design will consume less fuel than a single engine
Yes. If you're comparing it to a trainer with an afterburning f404.

>>63934808
>Not to mention the fact that the M-346 can merge both ground simulators with the internal simulators of flying jets.
It's the shit every single air force is doing right now.
>I don't doubt that it's going to be copied into other trainers in the future
And what makes you think that way?

>>63934815
>an afterburning f404
Why are you keep bringing up this narrative when an afterburner is clearly an option?

>>63934812
They should start flying these on air patrols near Russia to get max seething about Anglo Saxons

>>63934811
For trainers it is a new concept (around early 2000s) pioneered by the M-346 with its integration of both ETTS and GBTS. Other fighters like the typhoon etc already had it before.
>>63934822
Because the option offered and always showed for those trainers is always with the afterburner. Hell the non afterburning version would make zero sense.

>>63934832
>we did it first so you must not have it
Sorry it already happened.
>muh afterburner
Anon, do you realize that you can literally turn on and off an afterburner?

>>63934818
>It's the shit every single air force is doing right now
Nope. You're still confusing having normal ground simulators with the LVC approach to mergin both systems.
>And what makes you think that way?
Because both Boeing and Lockheed are doing it? And it's being implemented even in naval ship training.

>>63934842
>You're still confusing having normal ground simulators with the LVC approach to mergin both systems.
Proof?
>Because both Boeing and Lockheed are doing it?
So it seems with T-50A, who's primary contractors is LM.
>And it's being implemented even in naval ship training.
Good for you.

>>63934842
>You're still confusing having normal ground simulators
Yeah, I'm sure the PR team at Lockheed was too lazy to make a separate section about ground sim...oh well..

>>63934841
>we did it first so you must not have it
Never said that. We were the first to implement it in a trainer, it was a success and of course other people are going to follow suit. It's normal.
>turn on and off afterburner
The complexity and maintance costs of the 2 are compeltely different.
>buy for premium engine
>just don't use it
Yeah.
>>63934849
>Proof?
Your posts, if you understood what I wrote you wouldn't be posting like that.
>So it seems with T-50A, who's primary contractors is LM
See?

>>63934863
Yeah, now show me every single air force in the world that has a system set up for that for their actual pilot pipeline. Protip, it's only those with a M-346 currently as the US is still relying on T-38s and that T-50 for the USN bid is still in development, unlike the M-346 that has already sold that GBTS as a package since 2013.

>>63933143
>Probably a Sopwith Camel
I know you're trying a put-down here but it would unironically be cool to see some biplane acrobatic teams in air forces

>>63934864
>We were the first to implement it in a trainer, it was a success and of course other people are going to follow suit. It's normal.
Then why are you so stubborn to admit that you're not the only one doing it? Really makes you think...
>The complexity and maintance costs of the 2 are compeltely different.
? The maintenance of 2 is cheaper than just one engine? Is that what you're trying to imply here?
>>just don't use it
Anon, most of the times when even real fighter jets are on a mission they rarely turn on the afterburners.
>See?
Literally from the company brochure. Also, it's one of the requirements for the air force.

>>63934879
>Then why are you so stubborn to admit that you're not the only one doing it
I'm not, you claimed that everyone in the world is doing it, while in reality we're the only ones who have fully implemented it. Now both the T-7 and the T-50A for the USN bid are developing it, but it's not something present on current T-7 nor on current T50s operated by any air force.
>maintenance
Maintenance of 2 f124 engines in this case is slightly higher than a non afterburning F404, and lower than an afterburning F404. Fuel consumption is significantly less for the twin f124 compared to both versions of the F404. Overall, the m346 is 20-30% cheaper to fly than a jet like the current T50. This doesn't include just fuel costs
>see?
I meant thatyou literally reinforced my point.

>>63934910
>Fuel consumption is significantly less for the twin f124 compared to both versions of the F404.
ChatGPT seems to agree with you on that.

>Now both the T-7 and the T-50A for the USN bid are developing it, but it's not something present on current T-7 nor on current T50s operated by any air force.
You know the winner of T-X was announced back in 2018. The only reason why it still hasn't been introduced yet is because Boeing is doing its usual shits.
>Maintenance of 2 f124 engines in this case is slightly higher than a non afterburning F404, and lower than an afterburning F404.
Oh really? May I see the data proving that please?
>Fuel consumption is significantly less for the twin f124 compared to both versions of the F404. Overall, the m346 is 20-30% cheaper to fly than a jet like the current T50. This doesn't include just fuel costs
Again, all talks, no proof. It's all tiresome, Anon.
>I meant thatyou literally reinforced my point.
What makes you think that way?

>>63934825
Nato countries already do.

>>63934825
Regular intercepts. No ELINT flight goes un-challenged.

>>63934926
>muh AI told me so, so it must me true!
Gee willikers who would have thought

>>63934926
F404 fuel consumption:
>Military thrust: 0.81 lb/(lbf⋅h) (23 g/(kN⋅s))
>Full afterburner: 1.74 lb/(lbf⋅h) (49 g/(kN⋅s))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F404
F124 fuel consumption:
>0.81 lb/(lbf⋅h) (23 g/(kN⋅s))[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell/ITEC_F124

Hallucination isn't good for your health.

>>63934933
>You know the winner of T-X was announced back in 2018. The only reason why it still hasn't been introduced yet is because Boeing is doing its usual shits.
And? How does that refute my point?
>muh source
https://jet-engine.net/miltfspec.htm
Feel free to check.

>>63934969
>And? How does that refute my point?
You really think LM who's competing with Boeing didn't equip its aircraft with internal sims?
>https://jet-engine.net/miltfspec.htm
>>63934964

>>63934964
Which is higher, 0.81 or 1.74? Or are you going to ignore the higher maintenance costs and pull the "just don't go afterburner" again?

>>63934977
>You really think LM who's competing with Boeing didn't equip its aircraft with internal sims?
Jesus Christ do you slits for eyes impede you from reading? I literally stated that the T-50A, the version for the USN bid is the one is having the ET developed and put into. The CURRENT T-50s around the world DON'T HAVE IT.

>>63934872
>Yeah, now show me every single air force in the world that has a system set up for that for their actual pilot pipeline. Protip, it's only those with a M-346 currently as the US is still relying on T-38s and that T-50 for the USN bid is still in development, unlike the M-346 that has already sold that GBTS as a package since 2013.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2024-02-12-Lockheed-Martin-and-Red-6-Announce-Augmented-Reality-Integration-Progress-for-TF-50#assets_all
>ORLANDO, Fla., Feb. 12, 2024 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Red 6 today announced a recently completed a groundbreaking effort to integrate the latest Red 6 augmented reality (AR) training technology with a TF-50 simulator. This phase-one milestone facilitates broader evaluation of AR applications and accelerates their integration into the TF-50 aircraft design – all in support of increasing pilot readiness with the least amount of flight hours.

>“This milestone demonstrates Lockheed Martin’s commitment to meeting customer needs and advancing 21st Century Security solutions through purposeful digital investments and strategic partnerships,” said OJ Sanchez, vice president and general manager, Integrated Fighter Group at Lockheed Martin. “Technology integration such as this ensures that with the TF-50, pilots have the right tools to enable faster, more efficient training for fourth and fifth generation fighter missions and beyond.”

>>63934991
Both aircraft have the same fuel consumption in a dry thrust mode. Stop pushing your stupid afterburner nonsense. It's not even funny anymore.

>>63935005
>future implementation and possible retrofitting
Thank you for proving my point once again.
>>63935013
>ignore the afterburner costs in an afterburner equipped plane
At this point you should just take a break.

>>63935002
>I literally stated that the T-50A, the version for the USN bid is the one is having the ET developed and put into.
T-50A is an air force model. TF-50N is the word you're looking for, dumb pastanigger. And it's already fully featured. >>63935005

>>63935027
>he doesn't understand how afterburner works
Nigga are you braindead or what? Military jets don't normally turn of afterburners unless it's absolutely necessary. How ignorant are you supposed to believe that F404 can't fly without wet thrusts?

>>63934077
The M-345 is using QinetiQ's facilities to do extreme environmental qualification tests for Leonardo. It's unrelated to the RAF Hawk replacement at this time

>>63935031
How many countries have adopted the TF-50N with a full GBTS system, you yellow faced gook?
In our case it's 7. With 12+ countries coming to train at our flight school.

>>63935039
Are you seriously thinking that a country that adopts a jet with an afterburner will not use it? You really chose a weird hill to die on.

>>63935039
>Military jets don't normally turn of afterburners unless it's absolutely necessary.
Like during takeoff?

>>63935056
>I have more market share so it means I'm superior to everyone!
Yeah, sure. That's how Nokia monopolized smartphone market... oh wait...
>muh gook
Aren't you supposed to be asleep?

>>63935060
>Are you seriously thinking that a country that adopts a jet with an afterburner will not use it?
I'm just saying that afterburners are not turned on all the time, but I guess it's too hard for you to understand.
Also
>what is supercruising
>>63935066
>hey watch my funny looking pic from an absolutely different aircraft
Yeah, I'm sure this totally proves that T-50 can't fly without an afterburner!

>>63934812
They are also amazingly loud as fuck in comparison, it's not even comparable, a typhoon dumping sound into the crowd is about 5x louder in my core than a red arrow.

>>63934669
They do, they just send them to other countries for their training too.

>>63935074
You've kept me up with your retarded
>the whole world uses ETTS and GBTS
>ignore how it's being developed for a current bid and it's not present on the t50s of any air force
>ignore that afterburners do cost more
And I don't even know why you're so hung up of those fucking afterburners, as my point is still that even if the twin F124 costed more (they don't) they would be better simply due to the safety and redundancy in case of a bird strike or engine failure.
>>63935089
Anon, everyone knows you don't have an afterburner on all the time, but can you please stop with the slimy behaviour and admit that an engine with an afterburner will drive up the operating costs? Or are you srill going to try and claim they will never use it?

>>63935089
>T-50 can't fly without an afterburner!
I'm sure they can, but during takeoff they seem to like using it.

>>63935106
>everyone knows you don't have an afterburner on all the time
Oh really? I thought you're having a hard time understanding how it works.
>a-actually fuel consumption doesn't matter and afterburners are expensive
Again, you're still not presenting any sources. Also, fuel consumption matters for trainers. >>63934964

>>63935115
>it's glowing so it must be an afterburner!
Anon, do you know where the afterburner is attached on a jet engine?

>>63935129
>i-ignore the flames!
Jesus Christ. Do YOU know how it works?

>>63935134
That's not a FLAME, that's just exhaust gas coming out of a combustion chamber.
And this is the afterburner.

>>63935154
Reheat and fire look very different. Guess what this is.

>>63935124
Sure, if we pretend they will NEVER use the afterburner then the total fuel consumption is lower with a single F404 engine. And as I said since the beginning, the tradeoff is that when a bird strike happens you say goodnight. Are are you now gonna claim the t50 is impervious to bird strikes?
>>63935154
You don't get flames within the exhaust nozzle unless your N1 is at least inside the afterburner gate. Afterburner is a gradient, it's not fully on the moment you bypass the gate. And if you look closely at the image you can easily see the flames shootin out, the direct sunlight makes them harder to see.

>gook vs wop the thread

>>63935182
>if I keep pretending it's true then one day it will be true
Keep wishing. Nobody uses afterburners in normal use. You're just getting uppity because your shitty Yak-130 knock off has been exposed for having a much worse fuel efficiency and thrust than F404.

>>63935196
And Türkiye is going to win since it's better than both

>>63935208
Pretty much everything uses re-heat if they want to be supersonic except newer fighters and Concorde. Super-cruise is for folk that don't need to have their war face on to get somewhere quickly.

>>63935208
>shitty Yak-130 knock off
Lmao. Rich coming from a scaled down F16. But hey, asians can only copy.
>worse fuel efficiency
Congrats, the only selling point of the T-50 is consuming a little less fuel lmao.

>>63935196
I place my money on the wop, at least their small arms and ships are good.

>>63935244
If is,s going to be italian then it'll probably be a DaVinci whatever to tie in with Westland.

>>63935244
I like their shotguns but the bereta 92 grip is just too huge

>>63932946 (OP)
Those little planes always gave me fanjet energry

>>63935208
>Nobody uses afterburners in normal use.
Afterburners are used every time an afterburner capable jet is operated. The bare minimum is during take off.
>An afterburner (or reheat in British English) is an additional combustion component used on some jet engines, mostly those on military supersonic aircraft. Its purpose is to increase thrust, usually for supersonic flight, takeoff, and combat. The afterburning process injects additional fuel into a combustor ("burner") in the jet pipe behind (i.e., "after") the turbine, "reheating" the exhaust gas. Afterburning significantly increases thrust as an alternative to using a bigger engine with its added weight penalty, but at the cost of increased fuel consumption (decreased fuel efficiency)
Wikipedia

>>63935244
I put my money on the italian jet just because the Japanese have basically announced a copy of it. Japan has an history of adopting only the best fighters like the F16 which they improved into the F-2 and the F15 into the F-15J

>>63935346
Glorious nippon

>>63935074
>have more market share so it means I'm superior to everyone!
Yes

>>63933203
Delays and costs.

>>63934455
I've been out for 6 years and haven't really been following it honestly. I think I'd prefer if we dusted off the old STREETFIGHTER white paper from like 2010 that looked at a ground up reset of UPT/UFT with a much bigger push on simulation. The Sim schedule is by far the biggest source if delays in training for all the pipelines beside strike, and even in strike its the biggest a out half the time, competing with CVN availability for CQ. There are only a handful of sims and they are like the perfect example of shittily run contractor operations put in place 30 years ago, thats the biggest place for growth potential in my opinion. I also felt going through as one of the last T34C guys was actually pretty useful for developing airmanship, doing primary in this good handling but absolute fossil of an aircraft avionics wise to the T-45. It sort of made primary more focused on what its supposed to be, basic stick and rudder and actual wrinkle brain no GPS navigation compared to the later T-6. One man's opinion.

>>63934935
>>63934943
I meant with the Union Jack livery painted on them, I'm aware they are already there

>>63932946 (OP)
FA-50

>>63935089
>what is supercruising
Something a trainer doesn't have

>>63933526
FA-50 knockoff.

>>63932946 (OP)
They'll cuck out and buy the Red Hawk even though Americans don't even use them

In reality they should buy the M-346 but will probably end up with the T-50 because Korean line must go up and you cannot beat complete deliveries in 18-24 months

>>63935318
>Afterburners are used every time an afterburner capable jet is operated
Why are you lying?
>Wikipedia
There's not a single word matching what you said.
>Its purpose is to increase thrust, usually for supersonic flight, takeoff, and combat.
You can literally remove the afterburner and the engine itself will work perfectly fine but at what cost?

>>63935233
>hurr durr it's not yak
>we just bought the rights and blueprints that's all
Yeah, it's literally a Russian design.
>scaled down F16
Is this supposed to be an insult? I mean KAI has been promoting it as a perfect trainer for F-16 pilots since the cockpit of two aircraft are almost identical and requires minimum time for transitioning.
>Congrats, the only selling point of the T-50 is consuming a little less fuel lmao.
>fuel consumption is important so m-346 is better
>no, now that it's been confirmed inferior let's just gloss it over
Holy cope. Pastas are truly insufferable, aren't they?

>>63937197
can you not understand English?
use every time ≠ used constantly

>>63937206
>completely ignores how Aermacchi literally built both the yak-130 and the M-346 from a non flying early concept.
Your attempts at ragebaiting fall short of the actual evidence.
>muh source?
Here you go: M-346 Biografia di un aereo by Marco Sotgiu, T-33A MB-326 MB-339 M-346 in Italian service by Franco Storario, Coccarde Tricolori Special edition number 9, M-346 by RN Publishing, M-346 Flying Dreams by Pendragon Edizioni, Aeronautica e Difesa n° 225, 270, 416, Yak-130 Advanced Trainer/Light Combat Aircraft by Hugh Harkins, OKB Yakovlev: A History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft. Of course for the actual specifications from both aircraft I took them from the respective companies websites, Leonardo and Yakovlev.
>fuel consumption is important so m-346 is better
nah, learn to read. My point always was that having 2 engines is better than one, and that the MAINTENANCE costs of an afterburning engine are higher compared to a dry exhaust engine. You've been constantly moving the goalpost just because you're mad.
>KAI has been promoting it as a perfect trainer for F-16 pilots
I don't doubt it, but we're in the age of 5th generation fighters like the F-35. The F-16 while great is old. The M-346 is already certified by Lockheed to be used as LIFT for the F-35 even for american pilots. And it's already being used for this by Israel, Italy, Poland and Japan.

>>63937111
Starmer already said that no matter who we choose we will produce them here under license.

>>63937454
>The M-346 is already certified by Lockheed to be used as LIFT for the F-35
>https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/training-simulation/usaf-certifies-polish-m-346-training-system-for-f-16-and-f-35-pilots/
Here is the preemptive source.

>>63937454
>And it's already being used for this by Israel, Italy, Poland and Japan.
>japan
nope

>>63937489
>https://www.aviacionline.com/japanese-military-pilots-to-be-trained-in-italy
>https://trafficnews.jp/post/553433/3
>https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/japan-to-send-pilots-to-italian-flight-training-school
>https://www.leonardo.com/en/press-release-detail/-/detail/26-10-2021-international-flight-training-school-technical-arrangement-signed-for-the-training-of-japanese-military-pilots-in-italy
>https://www.blogbeforeflight.net/2021/10/italy-international-flight-training-school-japanese-military-pilots.html
yep

>>63934247
what is interesting is that according to the guy at the booth during DSEI the dimensions being of the same scale as the F-2 model beside it was correct. Hinting they want to make it slightly bigger than a F-16. Most likely it will not just be a trainer but also a drone hunting platform.

>>63937206
>we just bought the rights and blueprints that's all
Where does it say that?

>>63933570
If they're smart.

>>63935388
Based and only true 5th gen pilled. (Beside the F-22)

>>63937528
Yep, advanced jet trainer, drone hunter, air cop.

Save the F-35s and GCAP fighters for when china comes knocking

>>63933996
Based camo. Aggressor squadrons always have the best liveries

>>63937454
Based

>>63933108
If you're a brit you wouldn't be the first whom I've heard complain about the red arrows, why is that? Aerobatic teams are based as fuck and a symbol of national unity in every country. It makes no sense to disband them. If it's a cost thing cut the salary of some paki/poo politician

>>63933203
> eyeing the Boeing-Saab T-7,
LMAO even

>>63942702
Don't underestimate the US soft power. Japan will chose the T-7. Mark my words

>>63933992
the latest Block 20 version of the FA-50 ordered by Poland and Malaysia is better than the previous version as it had newer capabilities and can be considered as a "mini-MRCA" with AESA radar and AIM-120 capabilities which put them on par with F-35 and older aircraft like Gripen, Rafale, F-18F Superhornet and F-15EX. The FA-50 capability is as good as a Multi Role Combat Aircraft, a bigger and more expensive fighter jet. The RMAF FA-50 has completely changed the equation in the region and will be the most advanced aircraft in region.

>>63933203
nobody is "eyeing" the next Boeing fuckup. The T-7 was chosen to keep them solvent after the almost cornering level of market reach Locksneed got with the F-35. Same with the CGI F-47 that will never be made on time and will never suit the USN needs (yet they will force it on them as well)

>>63933332
>2 engines for a trainer jet is a massive waste.
The best display team and Air Force in Asia begs to differ. Twin engines are always better, especially when operating near water and migratory birds.

>>63939726
Why not just make the m-346 or the future T-X a drone controlled by the GCAP?

>>63943110
Because they still want a jet trainer for their human pilots?

Besides turning a manned platform into an unmanned platform is retarded when Japan/Italy/UK are working on dedicated unmanned platforms to operate alongside GCAP.

>>63943110
Too expensive. Drones need to be cheap. And you would need to redesign it. Leonardo is using the M-346 as a mothership for drone wingmen testings in place of the GCAP, but once the GCAP is ready it will take upnthat role. From what I heard the "loyal wingmen" that will aid the GCAP are wanted to be able to deploy other drones/LT loitering munitions creating a yo dawg situation.

>>63933608
Lmao. Your picture shows just how obviously turkey copied the FA-50.

>>63935056
NTA, but you sure are loud for someone who only has two points to sell.
>muh training program
>b-b-buh afterburners
If countries are buying trainers without the training program then thats indicative of the market.
Its a global trend that countries want their trainers to be light fighter/attackers, something that your goomba country is also trying to capitalize on. So an afterburner is almost always desired. The brits are being exceedingly more retarded than usual with that clause.

Lets not mince words, you’re just salty that your trainer has a huge uphill battle ahead and so in true /k/ fashion, you sperg out at your competitors. The japs didnt pick your trainer and there is a huge possibility that the brits wont either (either choosing their own or quite possibly choosing the jap one due to tempest). And because of the roaches, the eu market will be more and more split, taking market share away from you goombas. The FA-50 has the seanigs on lockdown.
Not looking good for the m345. Maybe put a spaghetti oven in the cockpit? Really makes up for the lack of supersonic capabilities.

>>63942699
i think acrobatic teams are neat and all but if you're on a budget i'm pretty sure a display team falls pretty squarely under "things that are nice to have" and not "things we need"

>>63946124
The only one here salty here is you who went on a goalpost moving crusade after being proven wrong.
>countries are buying trainers without that training program
Latests sales prove otherwise, if a country has a 5th gen fighter they want such programs. And even those who don't are starting to buy it (Austria)
>japan and UK didn't choose it
Weird cause they haven't yet decided and the jap trainer is decades from being a reality while the RAF needs their new training by 2030 due to aiframe issues in the T2
>m345
Jesus.

Hell, my point has always been since my first post that I believed the M-346 was currently the most suited trainer for the RAF replacement bid due to both having 10+ years of experience in already fielding a trainer with both GBTS, LVC and ETTS capabilities (together with other proprietary training solutions like true tgp simulation and being made by an european parnter in NATO with already plenty of facilities in the UK) all the other competitors either are stuck in development hell like the T-7 or are still in the process of integrating part of those technologies like the tf-50. I even admitted in my first post that I believed that if a country wanted more of a light fighter then both the hurjet and the FA-50 would've had an edge against the M-346 due to it being subsonic (even if the m-346 beat the T-50 in the bids for Israel, Singapore and the UAE)
Even after all of this you preferred to go on a tirade about how afterburning engines were totally less expensive than dry exhaust ones, I even told you that my point was that the overall maintenance costs were the one 20-30% lower in their entirery than competitors and that even if it was somehow more expensive for a trainer operating near water the twin engines are a must for safety.
Had you said "nah, I believe that once the t-50 has actually integrated the ETTS and GBST then it will be a better trainer" then I would've accepted it.

>>63946624
>even if the m-346 beat the T-50 in the bids for Israel, Singapore and the UAE
And Colombia as well but they might reconsider and buy the gripen

>>63946073
if anything they copied the T-7

>>63946624
>And even those who don't are starting to buy it (Austria)
Some reporters in our TV are so dumb they reffered the m346 we bought as a stealth aircraft.

>>63946624
>>63946814
I told you, I'm not that anon. Or are you a tourist and don't know common 4chan terms?
And even if I was, why do you continue to lie?
>Latest sales prove otherwise
Last time the FA-50 and M346 went head to head was in Malaysia where the FA-50 won. Not to mention that Poland is a M346 user but then decided to go with the FA-50 so you could very much argue that that's another direct head to head that the M346 lost. The two jets weren't going head to head in Austria.
>Israel & Singapore
Yes, sure the M346 won then but if you can't see how the early 2010's might as well be a different era than what the world is now then you're just retarded.
>UAE
Wtf? Did the spaghetti sauce go to your brain? m346 contract was cancelled a long time ago.
>Colombia
Looking into the future, are we? And if your lazy retort is that the m346 is "ahead" or some gay shit like that then I can easily counter with how the FA-50 is much further ahead comparatively in Peru.

But of course you're making shit up and twisting the truth because the fact of the matter is that despite all of the M346's advantages (which you continue to repeat like a broken record), the fact of the matter is that RECENT exports are not in the M346's favor. Like I said, turkey is splitting the European market. Korea is the clear winner in SEA. South America is still undetermined. This proves that whatever advantages the m346 has is either not enough of an advantage or simply irrelevant. Coming up with fanfics about the japs is just the icing on top.

>>63947568
>Not to mention that Poland is a M346 user but then decided to go with the FA-50
Yeah, and like they explained (L’Europa si arma (28 febbraio 2024) presadiret) they went with it because the FA variant of the M-346 was already queued till 2029 to fullfill the Nigerian, Turkmeni and future Austrian orders and they only cared about having something fast even if they got criticized for not buying european (and they got a deal with the tank aquirement).
>Looking into the future, are we?
I put UAE, Colombia to get a ruse out of you, I know it was disingenuous. my bad. But I still believe that for UK procurement the maturity of the M346 ITS is an advantage compared to platforms that have yet to be integrated.
>But of course you're making shit up and twisting the truth
Such as? Everything I said is backed by evidence which I posted.
>the fact of the matter is that RECENT exports are not in the M346's favor.
Like what? The latest sales in fucking SEA where it's obvious another SEA country has the upper hand? or Spain signing a MOU with Turkey to offload their A400M even when a report from one of their top university literally stated the M-346 was the best choice for Spain? This was a political move (https://www.cud.upct.es/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/S%C3%A1nchez-Lozano_and_Naranjo_ASOC_2020.pdf)
>fanfics about the japs
How is saying that we have a good shot at them a fanfic? We're GCAP partners, they've been training here, their T-X project looks almost exactly like the M-346 and we proposed an exchange agreement for our trainers for the their P1s.
>This proves that whatever advantages the m346 has is either not enough of an advantage or simply irrelevant
That depends on the competition. for the USN? we're in last place. For the UK and Japan? We're most likely ahead of the competition for now.
Remember that you and the other anon are having a meltdown over me saying that I disagree to 2 other anons who both said the only option on the planet is their planes.

>>63947526
>Some reporters in our TV are so dumb they reffered the m346 we bought as a stealth aircraft.
journos often just skim surface level info. The M-346 has a RCS lowering kit in the FA variant. It's still nowhere close to being considered stealth obviously.

>>63947807
>Poland
And since when is delivery time not a factor? And what does it say when the m346 can't keep up with the FA-50 production which has basically double the exports?
While you are busy sucking your own dick at exports to fucking niggeria, the fact that italian production is not great flies right above your head
>"I know it was disingenuous"
>"Everything I said is backed by evidence which I posted"
Real question: are you retarded?
Not to mention, how many times do I have to say that I'm not that anon. My only posts on this thread are >>63946124 and >>63947568
My posts have consistently been about export records (which favor the FA-50) which proves that whatever rant you come up with is simply irrelevant because the results just aren't there.
>The latest sales in fucking SEA where it's obvious another SEA country has the upper hand
Pastanigger education moment
>japs
It's a fanfic because with no evidence whatsoever you had a schizo vision about how the japs are going to announce the purchase of the m346 right after announcing that they're making their own trainer.
>We're most likely ahead of the competition for now
Why not try literacy, goomba? The article in question very much focuses on the brit domestic jet. The kicker at the end is that they want this to be a jobs program. I think that I'll listen more to the literal decision makers for the tender rather than some blabbering wop.

>>63947922
>the fact that italian production is not great flies right above your head
Did I ever say it wasn't?
>japs
The japs have published multiple articlesnsaying their T-4s are in desperate need of a successor, their new trainer concept won't be here for at the very least 10 years. If you don't see how they will either be forced to keep training their pilots abroad or buy a trainer in the meantime, I can't make you understand it.
>article
I know, but if you had followed Aeralis for the past few years you would understand why they will never deliver in time even if Dassault accepts their proposal for a joint development.
Real question: are you retarded?
No but YOU are considering you try to frame 2 I said things out of context. Everything I said about the M-346 is factually correct and backed by evidence. While future bids and not yet approved purchases aren't that relevant it doesn't change the fact that the M-346 often beat the T/FA-50 in various competitions, curiously you're ignoring the academic paper which I posted that literally proves my points. Is that the reason why you have shifted to ad hominem insults?

>>63947922
Btw
>how many times do I have to say that I'm not that anon
>ignores that I literally said "you and that other anon"

>>63947922
>how the japs are going to announce the purchase of the m346
Never said that. I literally said "they might buy some M-346s as a stopgap." ( >>63933996 )

>>63947971
You're a flip-flopper. Plain and simple. You ignore your big contradiction of being disingenuous while "backing everything with evidence" because you're just wildly inconsistent.
So you admit that italian production is crap and that if someone were to order jets right now that they wouldn't get them for quite a while? Gee golly gosh, I wonder if that would have any correlation to the brits and japs who you say wants jets soon.
They are developing their own jets because ordering from italy is so slow that they might as well just wait for their own production.
So if anything, your fanfic supports the FA-50 more than the M346 because the FA-50 is known for its delivery time. Either they need them now and so the FA-50 is the only choice or it comes down to politics which will always favor domestic industries. There is no place for the italians in either scenario. Sorry, goomba. Try and write a more realistic fanfic next time, k?
>M-346 often beat the T/FA-50 in various competitions
Not completely false but you completely ignore that the m346's success mostly came from tenders early on, which I have already established were basically a different era. Geopolitics is drastically different now. The bigger fact is that in recent years the FA-50 has beaten the M346 and rather consistently at that. Try and brush off the Malaysia tender all you want with your dogshit geography.
>ignoring the academic paper
Must I tell you yet again that I'm not that anon? You never cited an academic paper at me because it has no relevance to our discussion.
But even taking that into account, perhaps an academic thinks that the italian training program has merit. And maybe it does. But if that selling point does not lead to sales then clearly it's not worth the autistic laser focus that you're displaying right now.
>ad hominem insults
Either grow a thicker skin or fuck off to your safe space, faggot. Export records are empirical. Your widdle hurt feelings are not.

>>63948143
>You're a flip-flopper. Plain and simple
No, you just can't read.
> your fanfic supports the FA-50 more than the M346 because the FA-50 is known for its delivery time.
Not really, considering delivery time is just ONE of the various aspects evaluated (like the scientific paper shows) when choosing a trainer. With Poland they needed something immediately (yet still no glimpse of the block20 fa50s, so much for delivery speed and their current FA50 can't even employ AA armaments due to a lack of integration).
Not to mention that for both the USN, and JP bid they would produce them on license in their country if it was chosen, and the UK could do the same depending on how many they trainers they are actually looking at buying. But even if they didn't do so we still can deliver them on time like we did with Israel delivering 30 within 2 years. Perfectly within the timeline of the RAF.
>early bids don't count!
>You never cited an academic paper at me because it has no relevance to our discussion
Doing the ostrich move huh? Lmao

>>63948143
>But if that selling point does not lead to sales then clearly it's not worth the autistic laser focus that you're displaying right now.
I'll never apologize for my autistic laser focus

>>63948143
>So if anything, your fanfic supports the FA-50 more than the M346 because the FA-50 is known for its delivery time
>https://alert5.com/2024/10/15/fa-50pl-delivery-delays-raise-concerns-in-poland/
The delivery of 36 FA-50PLs has been delayed to mid 2027. The ability of using anti air missiles will come after that. same with the integration of the RTX's Phantom Strike AESA Radar. It's been a clusterfuck after clusterfuck.
>academics thinks that the italian training program has merit
That paper focuses only on the aircraft performance itself, no mention of any training programs.

>>63942779
Not really the best. The Black Knights are better and they use F-16s. Not to mention the Royal Saudi Hawks and Al Fursan which use Hawks and MB-339s, respectively.

>>63951090
Nvidia makes radars now?

>>63951301
>Not really the best. The Black Knights are better
LMAO. Watch their performances, they are the most precise team.

>>63951301
PAF is the best in the world.

>>63951325
I watched a Blue Impulse performance and then a Black Knights one and I still prefer the Black Knights.
>>63951332
Can't tell if Paki or Philippine.

>>63951365
Preference is subjective. Blue impulse superiority is objective.

>>63951693
I still disagree with you over the superiority aspect.

>>63946238
Aerobatic teams provide soft diplomacy and soft power projection. They also offer international prestige and national pride - all good mental states ahead of kinetic conflict.
>Look at how good our fighter pilots are -you really wouldn't want to try and match them in combat would you? Besides, they're all *British(plc)* / *[insert your country here]* trained - if you want, you can train your pilots to be as good as ours ;)

>>63952193
>British(plc)
What does that mean?

>>63952217
Plc -private, limited company

>>63935233
You should add that the russians still haven't fixed their shitty air intakes. An Issue present on most of their shitty jets

>>63933624
Spain signed a MOU, which isn't a done deal in exchange to get rid of their A400M. They offered those same A400 to SK for the T-50, which you literally ripped off 1:1.

>>63933526
>turkshit
>good
pick only one

>>63947837
>1M2 RCS
lol, stealthier than a SU-57.