>>64214891
>The MB-346 also ain’t supersonic yet doesn’t look anything like the Hawk.
Maybe because the M-346 (there is no B in M-346, Bazzocchi has been dead for a good while) is a twin engine, quadruplex FBW advanced jet trainer/LCA developed almost 40 years after the Hawk, for a different purpose and enviroment?
>As mentioned before no modern jet even when subsonic looks like the Hawk
No modern fighter looks like the Bf 109 as well, does that mean it was a shit design?
>sales don’t mean much when there is no alternative to it and as soon as it did
What are the L-39, T-38, MB-326 etc which all competed roughly in the same years?
>why does the AERALIS clearly take inspiration from the Hawk
For the same reason the M-346 vstab looks like the Eurofighter's and Tornado's. When you have engineers that have worked on a project they will bring their expertise and what they have learned in their future projects as well.
Not to mention that Aeralis still hasn't shown a real serious mockup for their next trainer, so speculating on a bunch of CGI images is just disingenuous.
>aerodynamics being outdated and dogshit
They are outdated, yes. Dogshit? That's just your opinion, as they worked perfectly fine for the Hawk.
>Also as a matter of fact the MB-346 could easily be supersonic with altercations to the wings and engines.
The M-346 can already go supersonic to 1.15 Mach in a slight dive, the only thing they would need to change are are the engines as the air intake, internal dimensions etc are already 30% oversized precisely because they too future expansions in mind. The wings were remodelled to blend into the fuselage for improved span loading and reinforced to already be able to go past mach 1.6 easily without any change to their structure. The current mach 1.15 Vne is due to them having tested the plane to that speed.
Now to get back on topic, do you even have any concrete example of what is wrong with the Hawk design/aerodynamics?
