PPRuNe Forums - Red Arrows Replacement............

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Viking (Post 11994350)

I will first state that I think the M346 is a beautiful aircraft and a great training jet. If the UK had looked for other options in the early 2000’s then the 346 would have been a very strong contender. But that was over 20 years ago already.

In reality though it is currently just a prettier, more manoeuvrable Hawk but with much less internal fuel. So much so that when we did BFM against it they were RTB’ing while we had half our fuel left.

Its avionics and capabilities are basically the same as a T2 as well.

My scepticism of Leonardo also relates to the fact that they have hitherto only produced small orders and their production rate is not super fast.

If we are to look at a new training jet it needs to be one that will remain relevant through to the end of the manned fighter era.

T50 is epic (basically an F16) but probably a little over egged in terms of trainer capability.

T7 seems to be the obvious option and with BAE now onboard seems like a political no brainer. That’s not to say its own delays are not a concern.

The L-39 and PC21 fall into the cheaper, more basic options. Of the two of those I’d recommend the PC21. Not least because you could ditch the Grob 120 and Texan and just have one type from EFT to OCU.

That would not be implausible but would certainly upset the veterans of Pprune!

BV

It’s true, Venegono has never been ran at full track capacity through the life of the programme thus far. However, the ability to double output seen to date is feasible so shouldn’t be too much of a concern.

The new Block 20 variant is 5th Gen baseline with new systems throughout and growth potential built in for when the ethereal GCAP needs emerge, Italy owns the training DLOD. Add this to a new generation synthetics that will accompany, it’ll be a generation ahead of T-7A.

Fuel is interesting, despite only 4,420lbs internal, adding a c1,115lbs centreline to 346 negates without any perceptible degradation in kinematics. Now contrast this to the T-7A with 4,500lbs internal, no wet wing nor ability to carry externals. T-50 again isn’t an issue with 4,850lbs internal and a centreline of c1,005lbs without degradation. So IFR recovery state at Valley with a diversion of say Cardiff or Leeming which would you want?

As for BAE, given forward losses on T-7A, it won’t be the USAF price. What margin will both Boeing and BAE add, then ask how much will the sustainment cost which has no real world data to inform be? Talks of U.K. bespoke synthetics also just screams risk and further cost growth. Don’t be surprised if they try and bespoke the avionics too around Medulla.

I wouldn’t underestimate both Leonardo and KAI to come up with a compelling and better value solution with regard a U.K. final assembly and through-life on-shoring.

Both PC-21 and L39 Skyfox with the F-35 offset enhancements would be compelling if energy and kinematics aren’t a threshold requirement. Both will see folk straight to the F-35 FTU. Sadly, I think optics and their airships would be allergic to such a cost effective approach.

PC-21 for all phases, why not? Equally Texan for IPT (EFT) and UPT (BFT) before a new jet works too. Like many things, there isn’t a right or wrong answer, just depends on where you want to load cost, time, and performance within the pipeline.

However, I still come back to where will the funding come from? Given all the priorities within the SDR and it being known we can afford about one third, will replacing Hawk even make it above the line? My money is on Hawk to 2040 with continued use of 🇶🇦 🇮🇹 and 🇺🇸 for outsourcing ad infinitum.