the Korean Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin A/T-50 Golden Eagle is the only all-new F-5 replacement flying today. the most comprehensive article on the web detailing the characteristics and development history of this new generation lightweight fighter:

Golden shot

The Golden Eagle is initially being developed for the South Korean air force as an advanced pilot trainer (APT) called the T-50 and a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT) called the A-50. The air force plans to later use the A-50 for close-air-support (CAS) missions.

KAI is confident it will also eventually sell the aircraft to the air force as an F-50 fighter. Exports of all variants are already being pursued and are needed for KAI to meet its lofty goal of becoming a top 10 aerospace exporter.

KAI and partner Lockheed Martin are jointly marketing the aircraft worldwide and hope to start export deliveries in late 2006, but a launch deal does not appear to be imminent.

Tough market

Sceptics believe KAI will have a hard time competing against more established trainer manufacturers such as Aermacchi and BAE Systems. Selling a South Korean product, especially outside Asia, could be tough given that the country is a newcomer to the military aircraft export market.

But KAI says it is ready to become a global player, given its experience with licence-building Lockheed Martin F-16s and manufacturing its KT-1 primary trainer. Potential export customers are closely monitoring the air force's flight-test programme and KAI is confident they will adopt its high-end trainer for a multitude of missions once the T-50 proves its worth.

Development of the T-50 began in 1992 as the KTX-2. From the beginning, KAI predecessor company Samsung Aerospace targeted the high-end trainer market, believing there would be demand for a modern supersonic aircraft that could help air forces bridge the gap between outdated subsonic trainers and state-of-the-art fighters.

"When we started conceptual development, we started from the [Northrop] F-5," says Sachon aircraft development centre director Sung Sub Jang. "We compared 36 configurations and selected one."

KAI's goal was to offer the air force a replacement for its ageing advanced trainer fleet. South Korea uses BAE Systems Hawks, Northrop T-38s and F-5Bs for the APT and LIFT missions. But the air force believes this fleet fails to provide students with sufficient skills, forcing it to use a tactical wing to complete the training syllabus.

As a result, the T-50 was developed with a glass cockpit and digital fly-by-wire flight controls to mirror a fighter. By acquiring the T-50, the air force hopes to accelerate the learning curve, minimise transition time to fighters, reduce training costs and free tactical assets.

At the same time a single-seat fighter was also considered in the initial design phase. Therefore, three versions have always been planned - the T-50A for APT; the T-50B, later called the A-50, for LIFT and CAS; and the T-50C, now known as the F-50. While the concept of the F-50 is a decade old, this variant has not yet been sold and a conceptual design and feasibility study was only completed last year.

"We designed the A-50 first and then the T-50 because the A-50 is more critical," Jang says. The final design was selected at the end of 1994 and the preliminary design review was completed in August 1999.

Speed and climb

The Golden Eagle is designed for a maximum speed of Mach 1.5, with a ceiling of 55,000ft (16,800m) and a maximum range of up to 1,850km (1,000nm). It can take off in 345m (1,130ft) at a gross weight of up to 13,500kg (29,700lb) and climb at 39,600ft/min (200m/s). The aircraft can land in 2,320ft of runway in a crosswindof up to 25kt (45km/h).

KAI says the aircraft could have been built to fly at M1.7, but it opted for a lower-speed wing design to improve the aircraft's handling qualities.

The T-50's control surfaces are composite, but otherwise the aircraft is manufactured from aluminium alloy with some titanium used where required. KAI considered composite landing gear doors and speed brakes but decided to stick with aluminium alloy for these components as well.

"For composites, you need more budget," says Jang. "We didn't think it was appropriate for this programme. If we badly need weight savings for a derivative, or even for flight operations, we can change."

Design highlights include a variable-camber wing, a blended wing-fuselage and horizontal and vertical control surfaces that are sized for fighter-like performance.

KAI opted for a single engine configuration to keep life-cycle costs down. Jang says a twin-engined configuration would have been 10% bigger and cost 30% more.

Proven powerplant

South Korea also decided against developing an indigenous engine and opted for the General Electric F404-102. The F404 was chosen because it is a proven powerplant, with over 10 million flight hours on nine aircraft types, and offered full-authority digital engine control (FADEC). The engine provides 17,700lb of thrust (79kN) at a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.91 and a bypass ratio of 0.27.

Jang says KAI is open to later modifying the T-50 design to accommodate a second engine at the request of a customer. "Twin engine is something we can consider later," he says.

The fuel system includes seven internal tanks, five in the fuselage and two in the wings, providing 2,655 litres (700USgal) or 2,220kg of capacity. Three 570 litre external fuel tanks can also be carried.

Hamilton Sundstrand is supplying an auxiliary power system capable of supporting self-starts both on the ground and in the air. Engine airstarts will be cleared for up to 20,000ft. Hamilton Sundstrand has also integrated a thermal battery and auxiliary power unit generator to provide emergency power.

Lockheed Martin assumed the lead role in developing and integrating the fighter-like digital fly-by-wire flight control system. This features a digital flight control computer, an air data system with three integrated multifunction probes and integrated active stick technology that allows an instructor to override student inputs. Like a fighter, the cockpit gives pilots a wide field of view through a head-up display as well as hands on throttle and stick controls.

KAI and Lockheed Martin aimed to incorporate the most modern commercial off-the-shelf equipment in selecting avionics vendors. Lockheed Martin took the lead in selecting the computers and displays, while KAI selected most of the other equipment.

BAE was chosen to supply the integrated mission display computer; APX-118 identification friend or foe with interface to a traffic collision avoidance system; wide field-of-view head-up display; colour cockpit television system; and integrated up-front control.

Honeywell was selected to provide the colour multifunction displays; H-764G embedded global positioning/inertial navigation system; and HG9550 radar altimeter. Rockwell Collins is supplying the VIR-130A integrated VOR/instrument landing system and ARN-153V advanced digital tactical aid to navigation.

Data transfer

The UK's Smiths Aerospace is providing the advanced data transfer equipment and airborne video solid-state recorder. Raytheon is supplying the ARC-232 VHF radios, Sanmina-SCI the intercom system and Dynamic Controls the stores management system.

The avionics architecture is designed to be fully integrated, common to fighters and expandable. Equipment can easily be swapped to meet export customer requirements.

KAI has intentionally left room for growth, realising a more advanced fighter variant could be on the cards. In the future, South Korea also aims to indigenously develop and manufacture some of the cockpit equipment as part of an attempt to bolster its fledgling avionics industry.

The flight control system is triple redundant, meaning the T-50 can endure up to two system failures and complete the mission. But the air force policy is to continue missions following a single failure but return to base if there is a double failure.

"Technically, quadruple is safer, but nowadays technology is better, so triple is safe enough," says T-50 research engineer Sangdawn Kim.

The stall speed is 105kt. But the aircraft cannot be conventionally stalled because of an angle of attack (AoA) limiter. The limiter prevents students from exceeding a 25° AoA, although an AoA as high as 33° can be sustained while maintaining stable flight. There is also an anti-spin system, providing yet another layer of protection against a stall.

The T-50's mishap rate is intended to be no more than one per 100,000 flight hours. The ejection seat, supplied by Martin Baker, can be used at up to 600kt.

The aircraft is designed to have a service life of 10,000h. The estimated mean time between failures is 6.43h and 5.14 maintenance man hours will be required per flight hour. Design mean time to repair is 1.46h and the average engine installation time is one hour. The T-50 can be turned around in just under 20min.

The aircraft has a smart system to inform the operator when maintenance is required. As a result, periodic depot maintenance does not have to be scheduled, KAI says.

Tandem seats

Inside, tandem seats can accommodate students and instructors weighing between 53kg and 99kg each. An onboard oxygen generating system is available and the cockpit is cooled by an environmental control system featuring a 12kW-capacity air-bearing turbine.

Most of the T-50's major structures are being manufactured locally, although the landing gear is being sourced from Messier Dowty. KAI's Sachon plant has a dedicated component manufacturing building, which is in charge of fabricating several T-50 parts, including the vertical fin; forward, centre and aft fuselage; engine doors; speed brakes; vertical fin leading edges; cockpit panels; fuel tanks; canopy; and horizontal stabiliser.

Another plant in Changwon, east of Sachon, is manufacturing the wing box, leading-edge seals and flaps, wing flaperons and wing fuselage fairings. Changwon was also chosen last year to produce the T-50 wing, which originally was going to be supplied by Lockheed Martin.

Sachon's flight sciences building is home to the T-50's avionics, flight control and aerodynamics teams. It houses over 150 employees, plus a handling-qualities simulator and avionics hot bench. Every flight-test sortie is rehearsed here before it is executed. Final assembly takes place in building 1 at Sachon, where KF-16s, Boeing F-15K wings and Boeing AH-64 Apache fuselages are also assembled.

Missile launches

Initial operational capability is set for 2005 and full operational capability in 2011. Initial combat readiness was achieved last September and full combat readiness will be completed in 2006. South Korea's Defence Quality Assurance Agency (DQAA) is in charge of certifying the T-50 and deeming it combat ready.

The DQAA's initial combat readiness decision led to the award of an initial production contract late last year for 25 aircraft. A contract for an additional 69 aircraft is expected to be awarded after full combat readiness is achieved.

The initial 25 aircraft will all be T-50s for APT. The remaining 69 aircraft include another 25 T-50s and 44 A-50s. Half the A-50s will be used for LIFT, replacing F-5Bs from 2008. The other half will be used for CAS, replacing Cessna A-37s from 2011.

Equipment added to the A-50 variant only includes an internal 20mm gun, training stores carriage and a multimode radar. Lockheed Martin is supplying an upgraded version of its APG-67 radar. General Dynamics is making the gun.

The A-50 has a total 4,540kg store capability across seven stations. Air-to-air weapons planned include the AIM-9 missile. Air-to-ground weapons include the AGM-65, CBU-58 cluster bomb, laser-guided GBU-12, LAU-3/68/88/117/131, MAU-12/50, Mk20/82/83/84 dumb bombs, and SUU-20 gun pod. KAI is also offering an electronic warfare option for the A-50. The air force initially decided not to take this option but is again reviewing the requirement for its CAS A-50s.

The A-50 will enhance the air force's CAS capability because the A-37 does not have radar or GPS and can only carry 225kg of bombs. "The A-37 is not a capable aircraft," Jang says. "But the air force is seeing we may need more equipment in the A-50 if we're serious about close air-support."

The air force is considering adding a self-protection capability to the A-50. KAI is offering a radar warning receiver, countermeasures dispenser and onboard inert-gas generation system. A reconnaissance pod is another option, although this is not being considered by South Korea because the air force has instead opted to install pods on F-16s.

"When we started the development programme they [the air force] didn't believe what we could achieve so they didn't consider the details. Now the customer realises this is a serious aircraft they can use for serious missions," says Jang.

Last year KAI completed a conceptual design and feasibility study on the proposed single-seat F-50 and concluded only minor modifications would be needed beyond the A-50. KAI also concluded that several more advanced weapon systems can easily be incorporated, including AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles for air-to-air and AGM-158 JASSM, AGM-84H SLAM-ER, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-84 Harpoon and Popeye for air-to-ground. "It's simple," Jang says. "We don't change the engine. We don't change the landing gear. We're just upgrading the radar and cockpit."

Beyond visual range

The APG-67 on the F-50 would have beyond visual-range capability, compared with within visual-range capability on the A-50. A third colour multi-function display (CMFD) will also be installed, compared with two on the T-50 and A-50. KAI plans to change the seat height and canopy to give the pilot rear-view visibility. The removal of a seat also provides extra weight for fuel and weapons. In addition to missiles, the F-50 will be able to accommodate electronic countermeasures, reconnaissance pods, external fuel tanks, rockets, gun pods and guided weapons. A refuelling probe will be an option.

KAI hopes initially to sell the F-50 as a replacement for the South Korean air force's fleet of over 100 F-5s. Jang estimates the F-50 will be 10 times more effective in combat missions than the F-5, and even the A-50 offers a fivefold improvement.

"Our air force has ageing aircraft that will need replacing," Jang says. "But there is no alternative. We think this is the only alternative when you consider cost versus capability. This is probably good enough performance to replace some old F-16s too. This will be almost as capable as an F-16."

All three variants of the T-50 will enjoy 85% parts commonality with the F-16. The two aircraft have the same wing span and the T-50's volume is only about 10% less.

Performance-wise, the T-50 can reach 30,000ft in 102.2s, compared with 81.4s for the F-16. KAI claims other advanced trainers take between 190s and 500s to reach this altitude.

The T-50 and F-16 have a similar cockpit, including the radar, side stick, throttle and autopilot. Externally, the two aircraft use the same amount of composite materials.

KAI believes its experience manufacturing 140 F-16s over the last decade gives it ample experience to build its own trainer and fighter. At the height of KAI's F-16 programme, 500 of its employees, including 450 production mechanics, were assigned to the F-16 line.

"The manufacturing philosophy is very similar," says Lockheed Martin T-50 programme director Charles Smith, who has since retired and been replaced by former deputy programme director Gary Keith. "The manufacturer know-how is directly applicable to any fighter aircraft."

KAI's Kim adds: "The F-16 is our competitor. The F-5 is obsolete." But for now KAI is not trying to trying to sell the T-50 against the F-16. Instead the KAI-Lockheed Martin joint international marketing team is mainly pitching the proposed F-50 variant as a replacement for F-5s and McDonnell Douglas F-4s for air forces worldwide.

By combining the F-50 with the T-50 and A-50, a swing-role aircraft is being offered to potential operators, providing a mix of training, fighter and attack capabilities. Such an aircraft could especially be a cost-effective option for militaries that do not have the budget to purchase more advanced fighters.

"The [2,600-aircraft] F-5 replacement market is very interesting," says Lockheed Martin's T-50 international senior marketing director Robie Notestine. "Our market analysis shows we can probably capture that market with the F-50. The A-50 will make a nice attack aircraft. The F-50 will make things real interesting."

KAI wants to begin developing the F-50 this year because 600 of its engineers are wrapping up development work on the T-50/A-50 and a new project is required to keep them occupied. "We have engineers in design we need to utilise. We need theF-50 or any export derivative, the T-50X or T-50Y," Jang says.

The T-50X and T-50Y are potential variants for Israel and the USA. KAI has also proposed a T-50U to the United Arab Emirates. An export variant of the T-50 would add a third CMFD and customer specific equipment.

Most of the potential export customers use embedded or virtual training, so they will not need the radars and guns required by the Korean air force, which prefers hardware-based training. KAI is also open to making special workshare arrangements for export customers.

KAI is confident it can outsell the competition because most of its competitors, including the Aermacchi M346 and the Hawk, are subsonic and have "outdated" cockpits. KAI sees the biggest threat coming from the new supersonic EADS Mako, but believes the T-50 entering into service several years earlier will give it an advantage. All the competing aircraft cost about $20 million apiece.

KAI plans to begin offering prospective customers and their test pilots T-50 demonstration flights later this year. But none of the prospective customers are expected to select a new-generation trainer until at least next year.

KAI and Lockheed Martin are now focusing mainly on the Middle East and, to a lesser extent, Asia and Europe. A potential export to the USA is at least a decade away because the US Air Force is upgrading its fleet of T-38s and a replacement will not be required until about 2015. "At some point we think it's an excellent replacement for T-38s," says Smith.

BRENDAN SOBIE / SACHON, SOUTH KOREA

DATE:17/02/04
SOURCE:Flight International

http://www.airlinebusiness.aero/Articles/2...olden+shot.html

the costs of acquiring and operating fighter aircraft imposes a near-onerous burden on military budgets worldwide. a balance must be struck between the imperatives of national defense and the demands of fiscal and social responsibility.

blablabla…sa madaling salita, fighter planes are expensive:

interestingly:

if the sources quoted are to be believed, Sweden was ready to sell 20+ Gripens to the PAF at a unit price of $30 million. but as the Jane’s analyst explained, that figure was likely based on an overly simple estimate omitting significant items specified by the contract. so the mid-1990s Gripen offer to the PAF might have been closer to the $50 million-plus per plane actually paid by South Africa.

regardless, the fact remains: fighter planes are expensive.

…or mebbe not:

as usual, the ever-entrepreneurial Israelis have also gotten into the act:

second-hand F-16s and Mirages going at under $10 million apiece. take your pick between state-of-the-art American, European (MLU) or Israeli electronics.

but off-limits to the PAF since its chief just labeled these planes “obsolete”.

a possible solution: less expensive but almost as capable light fighters such as the F-50. either an all lightweight fleet, or a high-low mix of lights seeded with a limited number of heavyweights for demanding missions.

more later… :crawling:

Why not a new design of F50? a delta wing with a canard like the Jas39, EF and rafale. It can be done since there is a version of F16 with delta wing although it never take off beyond the experimental stage.

Guys what is the advantage of delta wing fighter over the conventional wing? which is better?

as far as i know,

delta wings = speedier, fuel efficient at high speeds, less maneuverability
conventional wings = good lift even at slow speeds, smaller turning radius


from wikipedia.....

Swept wings are wings that are bent back at some angle, instead of sticking straight out from the fuselage.

Forward-swept wings are high performance wings that are bent forward, the reverse of a traditional swept wing. Forward swept wings are also used in some two seat gliders.

Elliptical wings (technically wings with an elliptical lift distribution) are theoretically optimum for efficiency at subsonic speeds.

Delta wings have reasonable performance at subsonic and supersonic speeds and are good at high angles of attack.

Waveriders are efficient supersonic wings that take advantage of shock waves.

Rogallo wings are two hollow half-cones of fabric, one of the simplest wings to construct.

Swing-wings (or variable geometry wings) are able to move in flight to give the benefits of dihedral and delta wing. Although they were originally proposed by German aerodynamicists during the 1940s, they are currently only found on some military aircraft such as the Grumman F-14, Panavia Tornado, General Dynamics F-111, B-1 Lancer, Tupolev Tu-160, MiG-23 and Sukhoi Su-24.

Ring wings are optimally loaded closed lifting surfaces with higher aerodynamic efficiency than planar wings having the same aspect-ratios. Other non planar wing systems display an aerodynamic efficiency intermediate between ring wings and planar wings.

The advantage of the Gripen against the T20.

With the AT50 bringing up the lead, what if we were able to bag the rights on the L159? It is worth a look into if we are able to get away developing a supersonic fighter variant.

One thing i noticed with the L159 is that if you match that against a more agile plane like the F16, Su30 .... or even a Hawk, i believe the L159 will lose in that dogfight.

My limited view tells me that it is not as manueverable as the Hawk or F16.

These planes can outmaneuver the L159 and fire their heat-seeking AIM9 or riddle this less agile plane with 20mm guns.

Emphasizing that will get the AT50 taking the pick.

If we are considering "developing a supersonic fighter variant" plus the factor on maneuverability and weapons load, the AT50 is the better option.

The L159 is still a good strike aircraft (for our COIN) and this will be a good option to augment our primary air defense fighter fleet, when the budget aint that big.

The L159 can serve as a low-cost MRF for other countries not confronted by big bullies and modernized military foes like what we have here.

If we get that right to build the L159 to augment our fleet, but not to serve as our primary MRF, then it is not a bad idea.

A great strategy is to build it here and sell it for export.

For a really future-proof indigenous plane, the AT50 or S211 or the German plane present a better choice.

Though, it's just how I see it and it is just based on my very limited understanding on the technical aspect.

A start to make our own, and if we made it, we can maintain it, develop it since technology was transferred to us. What many of us are ranting, "Why not make our own?" and at present the L159 is offering such opportunity.

another source of income or means to have money to buy other things we need such as....I want this, I want that...blah blah blah.

Better than just buying those that are requiring other support things and the great problem of how to maintain what we've bought.

Well, if the US or Aero won't allow us to export those Made-In-RP L159s, it will still be in our benefit since servicing them won't be as difficult since the factories would be located here.

High subsonics like the L159 still have a place in the aerial battlefield aside from pounding ground. They can be used for taking out helicopters and low-flying attack aircraft.

For COIN, it's more cost effective if we leave it to props unless the tangos have SAMs.

The Golden Eagle is meant for duelling with other fighters.

the article states KAI/Lockheed Martin’s being open to design changes. for example:

one rumour is that EADS is requesting that other engines be offered as an option, such as the EJ200 of the Typhoon and the M88 of the Rafale, both in the F404 weight class. of course the customer must pay for design changes and for that we need $$$.

delta wings: every wing shape brings its own set of advantages and disadvantages. a delta wing performs better at high speed but performs poorly at low speeds, so the main drawback is inefficiency, because the ideal operating speed of a delta wing fighter and its normal operating speed do not match.

but the Gripen minimizes this problem by using a close-coupled canard delta layout, the “canards” or moving foreplanes installed on the air intakes improve performance at low or subsonic speeds while the relatively small area of its delta wing and its carefully-planned fuselage location reduces drag and so improves aerodynamic efficiency overall.

but the F-16’s design is no slouch either, the F-16 is actually an aft tailed cropped delta wing layout. where the Gripen uses movable canards, the F-16 uses strakes:

because the aerodynamic characteristics of the Gripen and the F-16 are so similar, any comparison will have to be decided by other factors such as the engine, electronics, short takeoff and landing capability, internal fuel capacity and external (weapons) load.

because the A/T/F-50 is similar to the F-16 and because the A/T/F-50’s and the Gripen’s engine (GE F404-family), short takeoff and landing capability (345 m/707 m vs. 400 m/500 m), internal fuel capacity (2205 kg vs. 2270 kg) and external load (4540 kg A-50 vs, 4200 kg JAS 39A/5300 kg JAS 39C) are very close if not identical, that leaves electronics as the deciding factor.

.

Sir Flipzi, I may not know much about planes but a trainer plane like the L159 vs a real combat aircraft like the F16, Su30? mis-match yata yun? parang jeep vs bus nag head on?

:exactly:

But as how the thread is going, it seems that some or we are now trying to forget that factor.

The L159 have missiles too, BTW.

Getting a trainer to match against a real hardcore fighter like the SU30 is a fatal strategy.

Nonetheless, the L159 is an excellent COIN, Coastal Patrol and as an augmenting force for our primary MRF fleet. :thumb: :thumb:

I believe the L159 has a good standing on that level.

to bring up the F-50 in particular to true multirole fighter standards, consider the following enhancements:

1. radar – Italian and Israeli radars have been mentioned but the best commercially-available radar is probably the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-80 "Agile Beam Radar" with AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array), installed on the Lockheed Martin F-16E/F Block 60 MRFs supplied to the United Arab Emirates. because Lockheed Martin has already fitted this piece of kit on an F-16 and because the F-50’s fuselage is based on the F-16, the APG-80 will likely be compatible with the F-50.

2. infrared search and track system – ala Russian superfighters such as the MiG-29. again, Lockheed Martin has installed a similar product (Northrop Grumman AN/ASQ-28 IFTS Internal FLIR and Targeting System) on its F-16E/F Block 60 so this is probably compatible for reasons already given. this is superior to the Russian IRST since the IFTS is not only usable against air targets, it can also be used for ground attack, saving the weight, drag and expense of adding an external IR targeting/laser designation pod such as the Israeli Litening II. an alternative would be the Saab IR-OTIS planned for the Gripen, not as versatile as the IFTS but smaller and lighter and thus easier to install.

3. helmet-mounted designation system/high off-boresight missile – “one look, one kill” systems consisting of an HMDS and a HOBS missile such as the Python 5 are mandatory in modern air combat, the Israelis have installed these on F-16s, F-15s, F-5s and even MiG-21s so there is unlikely to be a compatibility challenge here.

4. tactical datalinks – one of the pioneering capabilities of the Gripen in particular and the Swedish concept of air defense in general is the use of advanced information-sharing networks as an effective force multiplier. in exercises against foreign air forces, Gripens and Viggens have “defeated” numerically-superior formations of fighter jets because of this advantage: the location and characteristics of a target detected by an individual Gripen’s or Argus AEW aircraft’s radar is rapidly passed on to the other Gripens, ships or even ground units connected to the secure StriC network, allowing an equally rapid, coordinated and efficient response.

StriC is so good that, in order to launch BVR AMRAAMs, only one Gripen in a formation needs to turn on its radar, whatever it “sees” also being seen by its radar-silent buddies. even better, if an Argus AEW (mini-AWACS) is available, the whole Gripen formation can receive targeting data while remaining radar-silent, removing the risk of prematurely betraying their position. thus the first sign an intruder would detect of the Flygvapnet’s presence is a flock of fire-and-forget missiles closing-in on his position, the Gripens by then being far away, having turned out of range of retaliatory missile attacks immediately after unleashing their own weapons.

fortunately, the A-50 already possesses tactical datalinks so this modification would apply more to the Air Force concerned in general. more important than simply acquiring the necessary equipment is a change in doctrines or overall philosophy of waging war to take full advantage of this technology. fortunately again, the basic T-50 already possesses advanced Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI), which allows pilots and ground controllers to practice against a simulated battlefield, complete with virtual or computer-generated enemy aircraft, ships and SAM positions, removing the need for an actual bombing range such as Crow Valley, a far safer method of realistic training particularly in confined and crowded airspace such as ours.

this sharing of simulated targets can serve as the starting point for introducing a local counterpart to the Swedish concept of air defense. instead of obtaining Gripens, we can adapt StriC to our own F-50s, (future) radar stations and Fokker MPAs (or Fokker AEWs) so they can go after real targets. this is possible because StriC itself is made up of commercially-available components: everything runs on ordinary PCs, StriC is basically just software, and no one here should doubt the ability of world-class Filipino programmers. one well-planned step at a time of course.

5. conformal fuel tanks – on the other hand, the primary weakness of the Gripen is its limited range, no thanks to its limited internal fuel capacity. because the A/T/F-50 apparently shares the latter characteristic, it would be safe to assume that the range and combat radius of this lightweight fighter similarly suffers against a heavier adversary. to solve this problem, we again look to its “big brother”: the F-16E/F Block 60s for the UAE, the Israeli F-16I Sufa and the Greek F-16 C/D Block 52s (the machine drawn in 3D in my sig below) are examples of in-service F-16s fitted with range-extending CFTs. since the A/T/F-50 is based on the airframe of the F-16, again it should not be overly difficult to design and install compatible CFTs for the Golden Eagle.

this solution would also partly solve the Gripen’s other weakness, which is shared by the Golden Eagle: limited weapons-carrying ability, because both possess only seven hardpoints in total on which to hang missiles and bombs. without CFTs, three of those hardpoints would need to be fitted with external tanks for long-distance missions, leaving only four hardpoints for weapons. when you consider that wingtip launch rails are counted among this remaining four, that leaves only two effective hardpoints for lightweight bombs, antiship missiles or BVRAAMs – kindly remember that we’re referring to the outboard pair of underwing stations here, the inboard pair being “wet” or piped for fuel and thus reserved for external tanks should CFTs be unavailable.

compare this to the basic Su-27 with its ten hardpoints and generous internal fuel capacity, and the disadvantage is obvious. thus CFTs free up at least two hardpoints for carrying heavier bombs and missiles like the 800+ kg AGM-84 Harpoon, without CFTs a Gripen-sized aircraft can only perform coastal antishipping strikes or short-duration missions over the Spratlys with small short-range antiship missiles like AGM-65 Maverick, a risky proposition against an enemy frigate armed with medium-range Shtil SAMs.

so a fleet of Gripen-sized fighters should be equipped with CFTs, else a mixed fleet of lightweights and heavyweights should be considered if demanding missions are to be performed effectively.

6. low observable/stealth technology – though the F-16 on which it is based boasts one of the lower radar cross sections of any MRF (an advantage exploited numerous times by the wandering Israeli AF), the A/T/F-50 like its brother is not a true stealth platform. but again commercially-available components offer a possible solution:

because LOAN is a retrofit compatible with the F-16 and existing fighters, there should be no problem installing it onto a future F-50 version of the Golden Eagle to improve its survivability against IR missiles and IR-based sensors.

note that everything listed here is an actual product, commercially-available, fielded on in-service aircraft or at least tested on the latter experimentally. none involves extensive and therefore backbreakingly expensive design changes to the airframe, yet each provides a useful improvement in the aircraft’s ability to perform its mission and in some cases mitigates a real weakness in its basic design.

any other possible as in realistic solutions?

regarding license production, the article also states that KAI/Lockheed Martin offers something better:

F-50 buyers can benefit from the 2,600 aircraft F-5 replacement market by engaging in “workshare arrangements” or local production of certain components such as the wings, fuselage assemblies, etc. for export (ala Airbus), instead of simple license production for domestic use without the possibility of income through exports. so if the Philippines gets in on the action early, later F-50 buyers might receive Golden Eagles with wings proudly made-in-the-Philippines.

that would benefit not only a prospective local aviation industry but also our existing manufacturing base, with a lesser investment since no one is talking about designing and (perhaps more challenging) marketing a whole aircraft from scratch, we simply ride on KAI/Lockheed Martin’s sales efforts to obtain exports. of course expertise gained in manufacturing fighter aircraft components could easily be translated to components for civilian aircraft or even automobiles and ships since it involves the handling and crafting of universally-utilized materials such as aluminum and composites.

an enlightening piece:

Fighter Tactics

According to one source, US Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets from the Balkans theater recently engaged in mock combat with Israeli Air Force fighters. The Hornets were armed with AIM-9s, and the Israeli fighters carried Python 3 and Python 4 missiles and Elbit DASH helmet sights. IDR's source describes the results as "more than ugly", the Israelis prevailing in 220 out of 240 engagements.

There are lessons to be learned from this engagement and other tests which have shown similar results. One is that modern HMDs and SRAAMs are essential. A second lesson is that WVR combat is extremely dangerous and will become more so. "We'll see less dogfighting once we get the ability to engage targets 90 off the nose," says Shaw. "Somebody's going to get a shot, and if the missile is lethal you're going to get hit." Even the recent history of engagements suggests that the 'furball' of fighter combat, with multiple engagements spread across miles of sky, is on its way out. "We don't see a history of high-g maneuvering in recent engagements," says one industry analyst. "It's fun to practice but unwise to pursue."

A third lesson is that WVR is an equalizer. "An F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22," comments a former navy fighter pilot, now a civilian program manager. "In visual combat, everybody dies at the same rate," says RAND's Lambeth. Indeed, he says that a larger fighter like the F-22 may be at a disadvantage. In the early 1980s force-on-force exercises at the navy's Top Gun fighter school, F-14s were routinely seen and shot down by smaller F-5s flown by the navy's Aggressor units. An F-22 which slows down to enter a WVR combat also gives up the advantage of supersonic maneuverability.

Target recognition

Rules of engagement (ROEs) set the conditions under which an unseen target can be attacked. They vary from situation to situation, under political constraints, but a basic principle is that the target should be 'declared' by multiple independent channels. This, in part, explains why F-15s claimed the overwhelming majority of air- to-air kills in Desert Storm. The F-15 was equipped with modern identification friend-or-foe (IFF) equipment and had a non- cooperative target recognition (NCTR) mode in its radar. The latter used jet engine modulation (JEM) processing to detect a characteristic beat in the radar return, associated with the target's spinning compressor blades, and is effective over a limited range of aspect angles. F/A-18s had similar NCTR but no equivalent IFF and F-14s had IFF but no NCTR, so they could not shoot without clearance from Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). (Similarly, recent export-model F-16s have a Northrop Grumman IFF which is superior to that fitted to most USAF aircraft.)

Newer radar NCTR techniques are classified but are believed to involve very precise range measurements. If the target's orientation is known, the distribution of the signature over very small range bins can yield a range profile which is characteristic of a certain aircraft type. BAE Systems says that the Typhoon's Captor radar has an NCTR mode based on "target adaptive waveforms". The Typhoon's EuroFIRST PIRATE (Passive InfraRed Airborne Tracking Equipment) operates as both an IR search and track system and as a long-range imager, permitting an equivalent VID beyond unaided visual range.

Increasingly, too, modern fighters such as the F-22 feature passive electronic receiver systems which are much more accurate in bearing than the simpler radar warning receiver (RWR) systems on today's fighters. If a hostile fighter uses its radar, these new systems can correlate the signal with a passive radar return, confirming that it is hostile.

Better radar performance also helps dominate the BVR battle. Dassault has noted that the Thales RBE2 electronically scanned radar on Rafale has a "track here while scan there" capability; for example, it can continue to track targets while searching another part of the sky. The Typhoon's mechanically scanned Captor radar always works in track-while-scan mode, because its performance is such that its search capability is ample when it is tracking known targets. 'Data adaptive scanning' technology allows the radar to refine its tracking of priority targets without wasted movements.

With better data from the radar, and a good chance to identify the threat BVR, the friendly fighters have both more time and more information to make decisions, sorting targets and committing forces - that is, assigning friendly aircraft and missiles to each target. This is what the US calls "information dominance"; the hostiles are still trying to sort out their targets, but there are already missiles in the air towards them.

Of the new generation of fighters, the F-22 and Typhoon will probably be in the best situation to avoid any return shots from the enemy. F-22 pilot Metz calls this 'cranking' - pulling a supersonic turn after firing a missile, forcing a hostile missile to maneuver with rapidly increasing line-of-sight rates. "Cranking after the shot always reduces the enemy's effective missile range, but a supercruise crank places the F-22 way outside an adversary's maximum range, even if it could detect the F-22," says Metz. Most fighters are relatively limited in their ability to maneuver at supersonic speed, but the F-22 (with a large wing area and immense thrust) and the highly unstable Typhoon are specifically designed to do so.

The datalink advantage

But the single biggest tactical advantage, particularly in the BVR fight, is a simple information-technology device: a datalink. At one level, a datalink is a harder-to-jam substitute for voice radio; but at another, it makes a group of aircraft appear almost telepathic.

Beyond any serious doubt, the Swedish Air Force (AF) has more experience with the operational use of datalinks than any other service in the world. Because of its proximity to the Soviet Union, the Swedish AF recognized that it was vulnerable to communications jamming, and initially adopted ground-to-air links for the J35 Draken in 1963-65. The system was so secret that it was cunningly disguised in the cockpit and could never be mentioned on voice transmissions. The first 'fighter link', including aircraft-to- aircraft two-way transmission, was also deployed secretly, aboard the JA 37 Viggen in the early 1980s. The system deployed aboard the Gripen builds on this experience.

The Tactical Information Datalink System (TIDLS) can connect up to four aircraft in a full two-way link. It has a range of 500km and is highly resistant to jamming. Its basic modes include the ability to display the position, bearing and speed of all four aircraft in a formation on a tactical information system, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons state. The Swedish AF has already proven some of the advantages of the link, including the ability to spread the formation over a much wider area.

A basic use of the datalink is 'silent attack'. An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar.

But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish AF calls 'samverkan', or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: "Communication is possible without explaining everything."

"Radar-samverkan," the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation. The target's signals will often identify it as well.

The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks; even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.

Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

Anti-jamming techniques

In ECM applications, one fighter can search while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.

The 14 two-seaters in the third and final Gripen batch are different from the JAS 39B trainer. The JAS 39D will be a dedicated information warfare platform with a redesigned rear cockpit. The flight controls are removed and replaced by large-format displays. The JAS 39D will host different levels of backseaters, including a dedicated radar operator who can control all the radar sensors within a group. The overarching mission is to achieve information dominance; that is, to ensure that friendly assets have the best information possible while destroying or jamming the enemy's information resources.

BILL SWEETMAN

http://babriet.tripod.com/articles/art_fightertactics.htm, http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/ne...10529_1_n.shtml

WVR maybe obselete now, but, what if both rival fighters use stealth technology?

An F22 may find it hard to engage a target beyond visual range an aircraft with similar stealth and advance ECM technology.

Because both fighters are stealth, thus they would be unable to fire their BVR missile against each other. When that happens the two rival fighters would be forced to shoot each other within visual range (WVR) using missiles such as AIM9X versus phyton5 or IrisT, or even cannon fire!


This is just a theory guys! :thumb:

Come to think of it, WVR was how the NVAF was able to bag more kills than the Americans in the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese fielded MiG17s and a few MiG21s. The Americans depended on the missiles of their F4 Phantomss, early variants of which, carried no guns. The MiG17s were transonics (high subsonics) that were much more agile than F4s.

This is just a follow up, a BVR missile is mostly radar guided, so how can an aircraft with stealth technology engage an aircraft with similar stealth technology, when both fighters could not detect each other with radar? Thefore their only option is to fight within visual range.

the article isn’t saying Within-Visual Range air combat is obsolete. the reality is that one aspect of the scenario (missile technology) has overtaken another (fighter aircraft design). no existing fighter can outrun or outmaneuver a High-Off-Boresight missile such as the Python 5 because the present generation of fighters were designed to defeat other fighters, not missiles. stealth reduces vulnerability to a missile’s sensors so it’s the first step towards designing a missile-beating fighter. new generation countermeasures offer another solution, thus another possible F-50P (“F-50 for Philippines”) feature:

7. directed infrared countermeasures – TADIRCM is a miniature turret mounted on an aircraft’s fuselage which shoots laser beams at the sensitive seeker heads of incoming AAMs and SAMs, akin to a 21st century robotic version of gunners manning MG turrets on WW2 bombers.



Chase plane view of TADIRCM at work. Note the missiles' dive trajectory effected shortly after jamming.

this is planned to be a “low profile, low drag, low weight” system compatible with fighter jets, transport planes and helicopters so presumably a version can be tailored for the F-50P. a rival product in the same category is the Nemesis DIRCM.

another alternative might be the latest generation of decoy flares (so-called “kinematic flares”), but my view is that WVR missile sensors particularly imaging infrared are becoming so advanced that “hard kill” solutions might soon become the only truly effective protection remaining.

a few pics of the first production T-50:



http://www.koreaaero.com/english/cyber/photo01.php?t_code=10



http://www.airforce.mil.kr/aer00/board/Boa...rd_id=56&seq=45

http://www.flightinternational.co.uk/asset...spx?ItemID=9695

http://www.redherring.com/Temp/Articles/20...0-article_b.JPG

HUGE photo at http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/10614.jpg

ECM countermeasures and now even laser to defeat a missile are so advance, Then the only alternative for the opposing fighters is to shoot each other with cannon or guns. This would signal the return of the real dogfight ala world war I and II

interestingly, the chinese are using these on tanks to defeat laser-guided anti-tank weapons.... dunno if they are using it on airborne platforms.....

the russians were also reportedly doing cutting-edge research on super-sensitive magnetic-field detectors to find stealth aircraft.... sort of like the magnetic anomaly detectors used to find subs, but in an aerial setting and much more sensitive...... coz no matter how stealthy a plane is, its still using a substantial amount of metal....

It would mean that highly maneuverable and agile fighters even LCAs stand a chance. After all, the only way we can engage such aircraft, given what fighters we might get by 2011, would be up close and personal.Our fighter pilots of the next generation will still be ones who rely on eyesight and depth perception to bag kills much like the pursuit pilots we had in WW2. So that means, avionics won't be as important unless it be Missile nerfers.

Just my Two Cents.

Stealth is only a part or solution of the more complex jigzaw puzzle on how to survive in modern air combat situation.

Those ECM,ECCM,Radar Cross Section,Radar Jammer,Radar Detection Range, Shape of the Aircraft,Decoys and flares will contribute a major impact on the survival and effectivity of an aircraft in hostile air environment.

How to survive in this modern air to air combat depends on the competency of aircrew on how they UTILIZE effectively their missiles platform(aircraft). Dogfight is already a history.

Nowadays, who see first and made the first shot plays a major role in survival. That's why most BVR missiles today are injected with comprehensive Electronic Jamming device to increase the killing effect in Long distance engagement.

Peace to all.

Fellows,


Based on this, the PAF will be compelled to look into the concept of getting a JAS39, F/A/T-50, F18 mix for our Air Defense.

The trend in complex electronics & communications systems is driving air forces to consider getting planes equipped with this or upgrading the planes with it.

I beg to differ, Edwin. I think that technology is making dog fighting a real possibility. With new technology and innovations allowing for improved defenses from both heat-seeking and radar-guided AAM's, one can be forced into a dog fight unwillingly. Besides, what are you gonna do if you run out of stores (Makes combat persistence a huge factor for an outnumbered force; worth considering when window shopping)?

Perhaps we can reconsider this....

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f20.htm

Northrop F-20 "Tigershark"
Northrop developed the F-20 "Tigershark" as an improved version of the F-5E intended for foreign military sales (FMS). The aircraft first flew on 30 August 1982 and compiled an impressive performance, reliability and weapons delivery record. During its flight test program, the F-20 fired the AIM-7 "Sparrow" and AIM-9 "Sidewinder" air-to-air missiles, AGM-65 "Maverick" air-to-ground missile, 2.75" folding fin aerial rockets (FFAR), dropped MK82 bombs, and fired rounds from a 30mm gun pod in addition to the two internal M-39 20mm cannon.

The F-20 was never considered for USAF service and the US Navy decided to buy F-16s for its aggressor aircraft program. These two facts essentially doomed the F-20 FMS program. Although the test program demonstrated the potential of the F-20, countries tended to buy the F-16, in part, because it was used by the USAF and USN (and the F-20 was not).

TYPE
F-20
Number built/Converted
3
Remarks
Development of the F-5E for export

SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 26 ft. 8 in.
Length: 47 ft. 4 in.
Height: 13 ft. 10 in.
Weight: 28,000 lbs. max. takeoff
Armament: Two M39 20mm cannon and provisions for up to 9,000 lbs. of external stores
Engine: One General Electric F404-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
Crew: One
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: Mach 2+
Range: 1,880 nautical miles (max. ferry range)
Service Ceiling: approximately 55,000 ft.

Yak-130 combat trainer at LIMA 2005
19:45 | 13/ 12/ 2005

LANGKAWI, Malaysia. (RIA Novosti's Mikhail Tsyganov.) The Yak-130 (Mitten) combat trainer has become one of the hits of the Russian exposition at the regional LIMA-2005 International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition, held on Langkawi Island, Kedah, Malaysia.

It can be used to train pilots as well as carry out combat tasks in conflicts of limited intensity. Its great flight characteristics have been shown off during flight demonstrations.

"We saw that the airplane had generated a serious interest not only from Malaysians, but also from other countries of the region, including Indonesia," Nikolai Dimidyuk, director-at-large for Rosoboronexport, told RIA Novosti.

"Remarkably, after military commanders had seen Yak-130, it became very popular among technical specialists," he added.

"At present, the fleets of advanced pilot trainers are rapidly becoming outdated both in Russia and worldwide," the airplane's chief designer Konstantin Popovich said.

He believes that his creation won the tender announced by the Russian Armed Forces, firstly, because it can make all the maneuvers of existing fighter jets in the transonic regime, thus training pilots for fourth and fifth generation jets.

"It is very important that the plane's totally digital flight control system can be reprogrammed, which makes it easier to retrain a pilot to fly another type of jet," he added.

Other innovations of the Yak-130 include: adjustments for autonomous use at remote airfields, an onboard oxygen generator and a fast-action pneumatic system, Popovich said.

"It is one of the few, if not the only, airplanes that is 100% Russian, which means that it was created in the post-Soviet period, without using any old Soviet developments," he pointed out.

Having examined the plane, Commander-in-Chief of the Malaysian Royal Air Force General Nik Ismail Nik Mohamed said, "Unfortunately, I have not had the chance to fly it, but the specifications I have read are excellent."

"A great machine!" exclaimed Nasaruddin Albaiti from the Malaysian Defense Ministry, when leaving the aircraft. He immediately got practical, "How much?"

The YAK 130 was a joint programme with Aermacchi so maybe we should consider the M 346 and deal with the Italians and get a better deal? barter our underwears again?


M-346 ADVANCED FIGHTER TRAINER, ITALY

The M-346 is an advanced and lead-in fighter trainer being developed by Aermacchi SpA (Italy). The aircraft is a development of the YAK/AEM-130, a joint programme with Yakolev Design Bureau (Russia) and Sokol Manufacturing Plant (Russia). In July 2000, Aermacchi announced that it would cancel the joint project and develop the aircraft alone, as the M-346. The M-346 prototype completed its first flight in July 2004. The second prototype made its maiden flight in May 2005. Series production is planned to begin in late 2007 with deliveries to start in 2009.

In January 2005, the Greek Ministry of Defence signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to become a partner in the programme.

The M-346 provides combat pilot training for front line fighters with high angle-of-attack capability. The aerodynamic design of the M-346 uses vortex lift to provide manoeuvrability and controllability at very high angle-of-attack using a Fly- By-Wire control system.

The YAK/AEM-130 has flown in prototype form since 1996. As the Yak-130, the aircraft was selected in March 2002 as the Russian AF's next generation combat trainer.

WEAPONS

Armaments are carried on nine external store stations, six of which are underwing, equipped with 1,000lb class ejector release units, and two wingtip stations for air-to-air missiles. The under-fuselage station carries avionics pods or a 300-litre conformal fuel tank. The system data presentation and control functions of the stores management system use any one of the multifunction displays in both cockpits. Hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls are used to select the weapons. Weapon aiming is controlled by the central main processor, aiming data being presented to the pilots through the Head Up Display (HUD) or the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD).

The weapons carried include: MK82 500 lb and MK83 1000 lb free fall or retarded bombs; Rocket launchers; AIM-9 Sidewinder short range air-to-air missiles; Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles; MBDA (formerly Alenia) Marte MK-2A anti-ship missiles. The external hard points can also carry the Vinten VICON-601 reconnaissance pod, laser designator pod, radar warning receiver pod and Elettronica ELT-55 electronic countermeasures pod.

For fighter trainer role, self-protection system functions and simulated tactical scenario threats are presented and monitored on the multifunction displays. For operational roles, the aircraft is fitted with a radar warning receiver, chaff and flares dispensers, and active electronic countermeasures.

COCKPIT

The cockpit is representative of the latest-generation combat aircraft, and each crew position is equipped with raster/stroke type Head Up Display (HUD), full-colour liquid crystal multifunction displays (three in each cockpit), Helmet-Mounted Display with threat simulation capability, Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible instrumentation and Hands On Throttle And Stick (HOTAS) controls.

The cockpits can be fitted with MK16 ejection seats from Martin Baker of Uxbridge, UK or the K-93 zero zero ejection seats from Zvezda of Russia.

The cockpits can be fitted with MK16 ejection seats from Martin Baker of Uxbridge, UK.

AVIONICS

The avionics architecture is based on a dual-redundant MIL-STD-1553B digital data bus which has capacity for additional systems. The communication suite includes a VHF/UHF transceiver and an IFF transponder. The navigation suite includes a laser gyro inertial navigation system with an embedded GPS receiver, and a tactical air navigation (TACAN) and VHF omnidirectional radio ranging (VOR/IIS/MB).

The Flight Control System (FCS) is a full authority digital fly-by-wire quadruple-redundant system, which includes four BAE Systems Italia flight control computers. The FCS provides the aircraft with controllability up to angles of attack (AoA) of 35 degrees and higher, g-limitation, stall and spin prevention, and maximum angle of attack (AoA) limitation. It can be adapted to various degrees of automation and autopilot modes with reversionary modes featuring automatic selection for use in case of damage or failures.

ENGINES

Povazke Strojarne L.M. was to be the supplier of the two DV-2S twin-shaft turbofan engines for the YAK/AEM-130. For the M-346, these are replaced with two Honeywell/ITEC F124-GA-200 turbofan engines, produced with Fiat Avio. There is also a closed-circuit self-contained aerobatics lubrication system and dual channel Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC).

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak/

It would be better to restart and update the Cali. Considering the F-5A engine is still being used in the Gulfstream jets or let's update it with something better. Avionics and controls may be sourced from the non-flyable F-5s. As for weapons, we can already make rocket and gun pods. That should be enough for the present for COIN missions. Better investment of our resources too.

As it is, even now the Cali has a potential market in the civilian sector. Where its STOL capability makes it a sought-for item among sports plane enthusiasts.

That's an excellent way to get our SRDP going high speed.
:specool:

:exactly:
Less hassle coz we dont need to ink a new deal with another foreign developer. We have the rights already.

:exactly:
Now, we are realizing more reasons to get the Cali project going!

.

I remember a few weeks ago I saw on CNN a propeller powered aircraft, with sleek design resembling a fighter jet, what is amazing is that the propeller and engine is at the back of the plane not in the front. The plane is light, agile, small and very fast. The designer/manufacturer predicts that the new plane would be the next "Formula I" this time in the sky!

I like the idea of Cityhunter in reviving the calipinto. If we can't acquire it for our air force, then we should build a few prototype sell or rented it to rich spoiled guys longing for the ultimate toys for the big boys. Encourage these rich big boys including foreigners, europeans, and americans preferably to form a club or organization similar to formula I, then 'let the race begins". It would be an amazing sight to see light sports jets racing, and doing acrobatic, maneuver in the sky.

The Philippines should market the calipinto as the new ferrari in the sky.

One of the reasons why US defense contractors are successful is because the US govt supported them.

That same concept will get the Cali project reaching success as well.

If we can arm it to carry rocket tubes, guns, drop bombs and even cameras for recon or surveillance then it will do the job for our COIN requirements.

We dont need to get a 5th-generation plane just to have something that will carry rocket tubes anyway.

The money gained from providing our military with a COIN aircraft type of the Cali will be used to enhance the capability of the plane, which will in turn allow the Cali developer to market the plane to foreign buyers.

The support provided by the military to the Cali project is NOT A WASTE OF MONEY but an GOOD INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE rather.

When the Cali hits the world market, it will create more jobs and bring in more taxes for the govt.

For the military, relying on locally-built LCA will save them a lot of money. Plus there'll be no hassles about following restrictions on the use of the plane set by foreign developers.

I agree with you, that our AirForce or PADC should start with Cali Pinto combat jet aircraft as a low-cost COIN/light attack aircraft. The samples of Cali Pinto jets that we had were powered by the same jet engine as F5 (J85). This will speed up the Cali to transonic speed.

I believe there are 2 versions that our PAF had in their hangar...Armed-version and basic trainer. Armed version had 6 underwing hardpoints for weapons such as gunpod, 2.75 inch rocket launchers and bombs...

No special electronics (sophisticated) needed to fire those weapons since its not guided..just switch-on to activate one of the hardpoints and fire...

We can further developed the CAli for maritime patrol as well...just imagine a CAli armed with 2-50cal gun pods, 4- 2.75 inch rocket launcher tubes (5 rockets per tube). No need to armed it with a bomb coz it wont get near an armed vessel (it will be shot down for sure).

Had an article on how Lewis Shaw developed its privately-owned Super Pinto by re-engineering the aircraft. Replacing the old engine with a J85 and replaced its avionics with a modern one....

If you want an article about his Super Pinto....just searched for Super Pinto Lewis Shaw on Yahoo or in Warbirds website...its in PDF Format.

^ aside from the Cali Pinto, i think the PAF should also venture into resurrecting the Defiant project of the late Captain Panfilo Villaruel. the Defiant can be developed into a potent primary trainer and light attack aircraft and, in my honest opinion, a possible replacement for the SF-260TPs of the Air Force.

back to the Cali Pinto, we could possibly develop a maritime strike variant of it but i disagree with the idea of having it do maritime patrol missions. maritime patrol missions require high endurance, meaning traveling long distances and being airborne for a long period of time. aircraft such as the CN-235, C-212 Aviocar, M-28 Skytruck, Fokker 50 and the venerable P-3 Orion have the much needed endurance (aside from the possible firepower, of course) to conduct maritime patrol missions, which is something that the Cali Pinto, for very obvious reasons, lack.

however, the Cali Pinto is the perfect aircraft to be developed into the next-generation basic and advanced jet trainer and LCA for the PAF. the Cali Pinto could take over the role of the S-211s and eliminate the need of acquiring very expensive Hawk 100s for advanced jet training and LIFT missions. a ground attack and maritime strike variant of the Cali Pinto could be developed for use of the PAF's 15th Strike Wing. :thumb:

The F5 flies at Mach 1.2, so the Cali can run beyond transonic, but i guess the frame is limiting the Cali from flying that fast.

It's good to know that the engine is similar to the F5. That means, maintaining it will be so easy, technically.

Great! :specool:

You see? WE ALREADY HAVE THE BLUEPRINTS FOR BOTH THE TRAINER AND THE LCA. :armywink:

All we need to do is put the project back on tract! We can even upgrade its avionics.

:exactly:

It still cant perform as the P3 or an F18 or a C130 but it can be made to carry DROP TANKS, which will allow it to fly longer. If this is really possible for the Cali then it can be a good piece for maritime patrol.

The Cali developer can take a hint from that or work with that developer to see if they can do the same upgrade here.

:exactly:

We can use it to augment our dwindling SF260 fleet.

It will even allow us to tap the export market once the performance of the Defiant is proven laudable.

You are right about that. What we can do is enable it to carry Drop Tanks to improve range.

:exactly: ... aside from the savings that the AFP will realize, that will get us into exporting the Cali, which will in turn provide more jobs and bring in more taxes to the govt.

It is really possible. We just have to find a way to enable it to carry drop tanks.... OR MAKE IT HANDLE AIRBORNE REFUELING. A lot of Maritime Strike Fighter jets do that. So why not just follow that concept?

your conjectures are always entertaining, City Hunter, however I rarely find them informative. if you really intend to “convince” politicians, investors, what-have-you to buy into your plans, you should rely less on your (unsupported) claims and more on real analysis of real information. for example:

right away we learn that the original Pinto lost to the Cessna T-37 in a 1950s USAF contest to select a jet trainer. the article hints that the Pinto lost to the T-37 because the Pinto only had one engine whereas the T-37 had two of the same model, implying that the Pinto with its original engine was underpowered. the latter prognosis is borne out by the fact that the most significant change between plain Pinto and Super Pinto is the installation of a new engine, the far more powerful J85 also used in the supersonic F-5A. the result is the tripling of engine power or thrust (930 lbs. on Pinto vs. 2,850 lbs. on Super Pinto), an “extraordinary” increase indeed.

problem solved, right? err, no.

you did note from the first excerpt that the Super Pinto’s fuel capacity is 196 US gallons, right? so the J85 engine burns “80-100 gallons an hour at cruise”, logically this figure would increase significantly when the aircraft is moving at higher than cruise speed, e.g. when it’s accelerating for a strafing run, or when the plane is heavily-loaded with bombs or rockets, or when it’s attempting takeoff, an analysis borne out by the article (“500 gallons at takeoff power”). so we immediately see that while the Super Pinto can stay aloft “less than 2 hours under optimum conditions”, that number is considerably reduced by any sort of aggressive flying, like, say, the kind of flying used in COIN operations?

of course the obvious solution would be to use DROP TANKS to enable the Super Pinto to lug more fuel and so stay airborne longer. of course it should be equally obvious that attaching DROP TANKS to one of the plane’s hardpoints takes away one or more hardpoints that could have been used for weapons instead. so you do get to fly longer with DROP TANKS but then you get to accomplish less of your mission.

of course we can say, “so what? there’s nothing like the Super Pinto for COIN missions.”

err, no: you do remember the aircraft it lost to in that USAF trainer contest, right?

one J85 engine/196 US gallon fuel capacity/550 mph maximum/400 mph cruise speed vs. two J85 engines/507 US gallon fuel capacity (internal fuel only)/525 mph/489 mph cruise speed. it’s clear why the A-37B was chosen by the USAF and several other air forces, while the Super Pinto was only chosen to be a pet project of the Marcos-era Philippine Air Force. no match.

now, it wouldn’t be fair to leave-out that other J85-powered warbird, wouldn’t it?

in the final analysis, a statement from the first article says it all about the prospects and perhaps even the merits of the Super Pinto: “too little, too late.”



USAF Pave COIN entry American Jet Industries T-610 Super Pinto, http://www.eichhorn.ws/html/body_t610_super_pinto.htm

edit: almost missed this:

let's see: "potential market in the civilian sector", "sports plane enthusiasts", "one of the world's ultimate aerial sports-cars"....err, City Hunter, ever heard of AVIATION PRODUCT LIABILITY lawsuits?

a fellow who attended this October’s Seoul Air Show posted the following pics of A-50 weapons and sensors on the WAFF board:

T-50 mock-up with weapons and sensors

A-50 weapons and sensors

the Selex Vixen 500E active electronically scanned array radar satisfies the requirement for a radar upgrade over the 1980s vintage, F-20-installed APG-67 of the original spec A-50, while Derby and AMRAAM gives the A-50+ a BVR capability. The USAF-proven SNIPER XR Advanced Targeting Pod takes care of precision guided munitions and night attack capability, although an internal FLIR sensor like IR-OTIS remains useful. it seems the prospective “F-50P” won’t be requiring that many “upgrades” when it finally arrives (for an illustration of the F-50, see the background image on the “Vixen 500E” link.)

in the meantime, the improved weapons and sensors fitted to the A-50 increases its credibility as a lightweight fighter in its own right: the fact is, the PAF can only afford to acquire a limited number of airframes so might as well hit two birds with one stone with the A-50, a platform which can perform both the LIFT and frontline fighter/attack roles, as opposed to buying, operating and maintaining separate fleets of aircraft to fulfill the two missions.

HUGE pics:

T-50 CUTAWAY

T-50 COCKPIT