KAI T-50 Golden Eagle for RMAF

Hmmm... the last few posts got no mention of the T50... suda lari tajuk daaa....

Originally posted by escortburuk at 5-7-2007 12:59 PM
Want cheap 2nd tier fighters? Why not consider the JF-17 Thunder which is said to cost around USD 15 - 20 million a piece which is very cheap compared to other fighters in its class. It is compat ...

Nahhh, gua tak mauk JF17 lah...  It is said that its' capability is comparable to F16A/B ONLY!!!  Of course it'll be a good replacement for Hawk/F5E, but I think our potential enemies' progress should be better than that, therefore the need of better platform.  Remember once we get a platform, it'll be there for the next 2-3 decades...

PS.  The capability of JF17 should be near to T50 (just to bring it back to topic ), but are we satisfy with such level?

[ Last edited by  jebat987 at 5-7-2007 01:15 PM ]

Originally posted by gekko at 5-7-2007 12:36 PM
Nobody gives you the source code. Its an Intellectual property.

But what I do know is that if you want to have some new exotic weapons that was invented at the later stage, you need to upgrade ...

By saying source code, it doesn't mean the ADA/C/Pascal/C#/Smalltalk program lines that is written to run the fire control system.  It could litterally means a master arm lock code or activation code or whatever code, 4D numbers, 6/49 numbers...  used to aim, arm, launch, self destruct the weapon...
Dr. M is not a computer science guy, and I just use the words said by him.

Just to bring this 'back to topic', do you think US/Korea will give us the 'code' (not source code to confuse any IT guy here) to 'fire at will' all the weapons mounted on the T50?

johngage

Originally posted by jebat987 at 5-7-2007 11:43 AM purchas


I never thought of a replacement for Hawk.  In fact, Gripen is never meant to replace Hawk, as our Hawk is nothing but an expensive LIFT, and some more, a single seat LIFT in the case of 208. ...

I'm sorry Jebat987 but this is what you wrote:

Malaysia never need a modern F-5E replacement.  Malaysia needs replacement for Hawk. Why bother to add just another type of aircraft into the service?  And it's not going to be cheap.  If that's the case, I'll want a hi-lo mix of SU-30MKM and Gripen!!!!!  Use MB-339 as trainer.  Dump the rest, including F-18D.

But Jebat987, if we are going to buy the Gripen, we might as well buy more SU-30MKM's because the Gripen is actually about the same price or even more expensive. Don't you see that we will be back to square one again, we will not be able to buy it in any real quantity that would make a diifference. Essentially what we are actually looking for is a LOW COST aircraft to back up our SU-30MKM's. Something which will give the RMAF quantity and value for money.

Want cheap 2nd tier fighters? Why not consider the JF-17 Thunder which is said to cost around USD 15 - 20 million a piece which is very cheap compared to other fighters in its class. It is compatible with western armaments (the Pakistani version), it flies supersonic and could be customized according to our needs (just like the Sukhoi 30 MKM). I think it is an excellent replacement for Hawk and the F5E

That's was what I thought as well esortburuk. The only problem is that according to the Chinese forum members on Defence Forum, China is no longer interested in developing this fighter any further. They are more interested in developing the Chengdu J-10 which is more expensive. So we are essentially buying a design which will not have any more new developments. Furthermore, they have been many delays and technical problems with this aircraft, including control problems, problems with the avionics/engines, not disimilar to what the Indians have experienced with their LCA project. Its the logistics and support side which I worry about. In the case of the T-50 because the engine is the same as our FA-18D's GE F404, I don't think that spare parts will be a problem.

tin

Errr, I don't think so.  I think the Hornet has an ordnance load of around 5 tonnes, where as the Gripen hauls around 4.5 tonnes.  But with the Supergripen (proposal), I think the MTOW reaches 19 tonnes, which is in the range as Mig29M (20t), and F16block 60 (23t)

hmmm... interesting points there. according to specification that I nicked from Wikipedia, JAS 39 Gripen can carry 5.2 tons of ordnance. F/A-18 Hornet on the other hand can carry 6.5 tons of ordnance. A difference of 1.3 tons. A small difference, one  might say, but still considering 1,000 pound bomb is actually 453kg, the hornet can carry two more of these bombs (or two more Harpoon).  

another point to be taken into consideration is how many pylons a fighter has because no matter how heavy the load a fighter can carry, it can only carry what its pylons can accommodate. Gripen has 2 wingtip pylons, 4 general purpose pylons and 1 central line pylon for external tank or recon pod. Hornets have 2 wingtip pylon, 6 general purpose pylons and 2-3 additional pylons under its belly that can be use to mount external tanks, pods or more bombs.  

Not in the case of MB339C/D, since its' cockpit instrument is fully adaptable to most, if not all of the current day fighter.  Heck, even the PC-21 bought by rsaf has the capability, since it also has 'glass cockpit'.

Actually, I was not talking about glass cockpit. But the gap in terms of performance and design mentality. But generally, the performance of the aircraft. The MB 339 was designed in the 1960s-70s, so its performance mimics the needs and the overall performance of fighters from that era. Although the design of the MKM existed from the late 1970s, huge improvements added in the 1990s has enhance its performance by leaps and bounds. I give you an example, the TVC enhances the MKM抯 maneuverability. But how can you train the pilot to get ready for the effect of the G load using MB 339. Again, you抣l need advance trainer aircraft for that. I won抰 go for T-50. I would prefer the M-346 and its Russian twin.

Why you might asked?  Well, it抯 the latest trainer available and as it is designed by Sukhoi (with inputs and modifications from Aermacchi) it incorporates Russian design philosophy and mentality. Why is it important, well, its like driving an AT car while usually you are driving MT cars. You might find your feet searching for the clutch J

Originally posted by johngage at 5-7-2007 09:18 PM

I'm sorry Jebat987 but this is what you wrote:

Malaysia never need a modern F-5E replacement.  Malaysia needs replacement for Hawk. Why bother to add just another type of aircraft into the service?  And it's not going to be cheap.  If that's the case, I'll want a hi-lo mix of SU-30MKM and Gripen!!!!!  Use MB-339 as trainer.  Dump the rest, including F-18D.

But Jebat987, if we are going to buy the Gripen, we might as well buy more SU-30MKM's because the Gripen is actually about the same price or even more expensive. Don't you see that we will be back to square one again, we will not be able to buy it in any real quantity that would make a diifference. Essentially what we are actually looking for is a LOW COST aircraft to back up our SU-30MKM's. Something which will give the RMAF quantity and value for money.

Ouch, you miss it AGAIN...  What I said about Gripen, is to serve as a lower tier fighter of RMAF and it's written there about the hi-lo mix. Where as the above highlited by you, guess, the replacement in my mind is the MB339!!!!  Don't read on the surface only.  Read between the lines.

Originally posted by tin at 6-7-2007 09:58 AM

hmmm... interesting points there. according to specification that I nicked from Wikipedia, JAS 39 Gripen can carry 5.2 tons of ordnance. F/A-18 Hornet on the other hand can carry 6.5 tons of ordnance. A difference of 1.3 tons. A small difference, one  might say, but still considering 1,000 pound bomb is actually 453kg, the hornet can carry two more of these bombs (or two more Harpoon).  

Maximum payload is one thing, and it might not be useful to have a maximum payload with a 100km radius...  That's the problem with the F18, which is never considered as a heavy mud mover.  Same thing applies for the Gripen.  I don't know how much radius either of this would have when they're loaded to their max.  But my take is it'd certainly be not too useful.  Guess when the CAP, CAS mission loaded with max load, at the same time allows you to fly with 'only' a , eg, 200km is not doing your air base too good.

From fas:
F-18C/D
Combat radius, interdiction, hi-lo-lo-hi, 390 nm (no mention of payload type, but my guess would be 2 wing tanks, 2 AIM9, 2 x 1000lbs or 4x500lbs, don't know about AIM-7 and belly tank.)

another point to be taken into consideration is how many pylons a fighter has because no matter how heavy the load a fighter can carry, it can only carry what its pylons can accommodate. Gripen has 2 wingtip pylons, 4 general purpose pylons and 1 central line pylon for external tank or recon pod. Hornets have 2 wingtip pylon, 6 general purpose pylons and 2-3 additional pylons under its belly that can be use to mount external tanks, pods or more bombs.

There are 2 more under fuselage pylon on the Gripen that you missed out.  I think, if I'm not mistaken, those are for EW/sensor suits.  The config that you give on the Hornet is applicable to the 'Super' one.  3 wing pylong, with serious problem, and when carrying heavy ordnace the inner most station needs to be 'tilted' slightly to avoid collition with other ordnance in the middle station.  For F-18D, it pretty much evens out with the Gripen.

Actually, I was not talking about glass cockpit. But the gap in terms of performance and design mentality. But generally, the performance of the aircraft. The MB 339 was designed in the 1960s-70s, so its performance mimics the needs and the overall performance of fighters from that era. Although the design of the MKM existed from the late 1970s, huge improvements added in the 1990s has enhance its performance by leaps and bounds. I give you an example, the TVC enhances the MKM抯 maneuverability. But how can you train the pilot to get ready for the effect of the G load using MB 339. Again, you抣l need advance trainer aircraft for that. I won抰 go for T-50. I would prefer the M-346 and its Russian twin.

The thing is, MB339 serves all the requirements from basic JT to AJT.  The likes of T50 and M346 are so more towards an AJT cum light fighter, and of course commanded a much higher price tag. And we have experience in using something similar with not too good a service record.  The name is Hawk. We are talking about practicality and affordability (the most important part for RMAF!)

Why you might asked?  Well, it抯 the latest trainer available and as it is designed by Sukhoi (with inputs and modifications from Aermacchi) it incorporates Russian design philosophy and mentality. Why is it important, well, its like driving an AT car while usually you are driving MT cars. You might find your feet searching for the clutch J

If according to your proposal, an RMAF fighter pilot flies in this sequence : Bulldog -> PC7 -> MB339 -> AM346-> MKM
Which is similar to what we're having now : Bulldog -> PC7 -> MB339A(!) -> Hawk -> F-18/Mig
We can certainly cut the hawk in the middle by having a much more capable version of MB339C.  We don't need to have an F-1 driver to run through so many F-2000, F-3000,F-3, Formula Nippon, before stepping in to an F-1.
I think in order to progress from JT/AJT to the real deal, we need a conversion trainer ala F16B.  Does the MKM have this feature, or does the cockpit software allow us to change its' mode to that?

Hi Tin:
   This is the only info about Gripen's combat radius after some digging.

From http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/sweden/saab/jas_39/gripen.htm
Performance: Maximum level speed 'clean' Mach 2.0 at high altitude, Mach 1.15 at low level; Maximum rate of climb at sea level classified; Time to 33,000 ft (10,000 m) 2 mins; Service ceiling classified; Ferry range 1,619 nm (1,864 mls, 3,000 km) with drop tanks, Combat radius for interception 486 nm (559 mls, 900 km) at high altitude with typical stores load and external fuel, for air-to-surface 648 nm (746 mls, 1200 km) in hi-lo-hi mission with with typical stores load and external fuel, or 405 nm (466 mls, 750 km) all low altitude with typical stores load and external fuel.

However, it didn't mention about what 'typical stores' are. I guess it's somewhat similar, with 2x1000lbs, 2x wing tanks, 2 AAM.

johngage

Originally posted by jebat987 at 6-7-2007 11:22 AM



Ouch, you miss it AGAIN...  What I said about Gripen, is to serve as a lower tier fighter of RMAF and it's written there about the hi-lo mix. Where as the above highlited by you, guess, the ...

I like the Gripen, in fact I was surprised that the RMAF did not purchase it instead of the SU-30MKM. But as I pointed out in my previous post. Its not cheap at $67 million. Its actually more expensive than the SU-30MKM, $55 million. That means even if we purchase it, the quantities will be small which will not address the RMAF's main problem which is lack of numbers. Both the F/A-18F and the SU-30MKM are very capable aircraft but I think we need a fighter in the F-5E class (i.e. cheap to buy, so we can buy in large numbers, and cheap to operate). The only new fighter in that class is the JF-17/FC1 or the T-50. Because of the problems that the FC 1 seems to be experiencing, the T-50 seems to be the obvious choice. Bearing in mind that the T-50 uses the same engine as our F/A-18D, maintenance will also be easy, since we already have the spare-parts supply for our F/A-18D's. Best of all is the price, $25-30 million, in comparison with the Gripen $67 million.

mentosonline

MKM is a high-tier heavy jet.
Gripen is an F-16 class jet.

But I like the Gripen best because you can land it on a highway, get it refueled and rearmed by a five man team on a truck, in ten minutes, and get back into the air to sortie again.

johngage

Originally posted by mentosonline at 6-7-2007 02:04 PM
MKM is a high-tier heavy jet.
Gripen is an F-16 class jet.

But I like the Gripen best because you can land it on a highway, get it refueled and rearmed by a five man team on a truck, in ten m ...

I know, I know. That's the reason I thought RMAF should have gone for the Gripen instead of the SU-30MKM. I have got nothing against the MKM. I just worry that operating such a 'heavy' fighter is going to be very expensive on the RMAF's limited budget. I would have not have purchased either the FA-18 or the SU-30MKM. If you look at the Gripen, it packs a lot of punch for such a small aircraft (AMRAAM/Meteor/ASRAAM...etc), logistics very simple, and for those who think that Gripen lacks the range of the SU-30MKM, the Batch II has CFT for even greater range. I just think its a really good platform for the price and relatively cheap to operate. But unfortunately I am not in charge of procurements...

mentosonline

Performance wise though, the gripen sucks.
Even with CFT the range is short and weapon payload is quite small.
Especially with CFT the maneoverability is degraded.

johngage

Originally posted by mentosonline at 6-7-2007 03:21 PM
Performance wise though, the gripen sucks.
Even with CFT the range is short and weapon payload is quite small.
Especially with CFT the maneoverability is degraded.

In comparison to what? You can't compare the Gripen to a heavy aircraft like the F-15 or SU-30. Those airframes are absolutely enormous, and you can pack in as much jet-fuel, electronics, and weapons as you want. The Gripen is a SINGLE engine fighter !!! You should be comparing it to India's LCA, or China/Pakistan's FC-1/JF-17, or Mirage 2000. That's the about the same size as the Gripen. Yes, there are drag penalties when you use CFT's but its not as bad you might think. Its actually external fuel tanks which cause the most drag. I'll try to find some figures for you regarding the drag penalty. I have got one link here regarding a UAE F-16 in which the Test Pilot said the CFT has only 12% of the drag of an external fuel tank. In other words, acceptable. The CFT's are also designed for the full F-16 flight envelope, 9G's, maximim AOA, and roll rate. I am sure the Saab/BAE Systems have already carried out tests before fiitting it to the Batch II Gripens.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/F-16-CFT.htm

awangmamat

But why would you want to compare the Gripen to these aircrafts?  The RMAF doesn't fly these aircrafts.  We fly the Su-30MKM.  

Su-30MKM has high operating cost?  So?  There is no such thing as a perfect aircraft.  That applies to the Gripen as well.  You must start with Malaysia's defence requirements and balance the pros and cons of each aircraft.

Defence of airbases?  Well, why shouldn't the Su-30MKM be tasked for this role?  It's a working asset ... it's not a sports car to kept in its hanger to be admired.

Why add to our logistics and training cost by introducing a less capable aircraft to the Su-30MKM?  Our defence is more about the sea and the air.  The Su-30MKM's "enormous airframe" suits the needs of our geography and potential points of conflicts prefectly.  The single-engined Gripen doesn't ... even with the add-ons.

johngage

quote]Originally posted by awangmamat at 7-7-2007 03:42 PM
But why would you want to compare the Gripen to these aircrafts?  The RMAF doesn't fly these aircrafts.  We fly the Su-30MKM.  

Su-30MKM has high operating cost?  So?  There is no such thing a ... [/quote]

I was actually responding to a post written by mentosonline and before that jebat987. i did not bring up the subject of the Gripen, it was jebat987. I was originally talking about the T-50. There is nothing wrong with the SU-30MKM, but one of the things that we lack in the RMAF is quantity of aircraft. The SU-30MKM/FA-18F are not cheap to purchase. I was questioning whether the government will provide the RMAF with the money to buy enough SU-30MKM/FA-18F to make a real difference, in other words NOT 8, 10, or 12 airframes but orders of 36-40+ aircraft. The F-15E has superior abilities to the F-16. The SU-30MKI has superior abilities to the MiG-29. The F-15I has superior abilities to the F-16I. So why does the USAF, the InAF and the IAF bother buying other aircraft? Why doesn't the US/Israel equip all their squadrons with F-15's? Why does India bother with the MiG-29's since they already have the SU-30MKI?

All these airforces have budgets HUGELY in excess to what the RMAF is allocated, so why don't they equip all their squadrons with these heavy and sophisticated aircraft? The answer is COST. Its too expensive for an entire airforce to be equipped with heavy aircraft. That's why airforces who operate F-15/SU-30 class ALWAYS have a second tier fighter. Singapore has a budget several times larger than Malaysia, why aren't they replacing all their F-16's with F-15's? Again, the answer is COST.

I have considered Malaysia's defence needs and in my opinion we should use the SU-30MKM's for what it is designed for, in other words missions over our big EEZ and maritime interests, where the SU-30MKM will be operating very far from friendly airbases. But it is not economical to defend Peninsular Malaysia with such heavy fighters since they will be operating close to their own airbases (Kuantan & Butterworth) and the SU-30MKM's large range will be unnecessary. The SU-30MKM is designed for air superiority missions. In other words to enter enemy territory in the face of SAM's and destroy enemy fighters on their home ground. What the RMAF lacks are simple point defence fighters.

That's why I think we need a lighter and cheaper fighter for Peninsular Malaysia. The F/A-18F's would be ideal but there are not cheap, selling at $95 million apiece. The MiG-29's are very maintenance intensive and expensive to operate. That's why I suggested a F-5E class aircraft, the T-50. Second hand F/A-18's would also do the job but more SU-30MKM's would be overkill. SU-30MKM for Gong Kedak and 1 squadron for Labuan. But at least 2 squadrons of LIFT, or even better 4, are needed to provide airdefence for Kuantan/Butterworth.

[ Last edited by  johngage at 7-7-2007 04:29 PM ]

awangmamat

I see.

In that case, I think I would agree with Mat_Toro on the Yak-130.  Since cost is such an overriding factor we should look at one platform that can take our pilots from basic jet training all the way to conversion to the Su-30MKM ... as well as having the ability to serve as a secondary combat platform to our MRCA fleet.

Here is some interesting reading from Yakolev's website ( http://www.yak.ru/ENG/FIRM/art_switch.php?art=4 ):

... Several countries - Russia's traditional partners in arms trade - are keen on the aircraft. For instance, talks are underway with and presentations have been held in India, Algeria, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and several African states. Yakovlev and Sukhoi have reached agreement that the Yak-130 will be offered as part of the package order to buyers of Sukhoi's warplanes. The Yak-130's components have been heavily commonised with those of the aircraft of the Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 families.

However, practice proves that every specific order leads to fitting the aircraft with avionics preferred by the customer's air force. Yakovlev is prepared for this. The Yak-130's avionics suite meets MIL-STD-1553 standard, hence there is no problem with fitting the plane with new avionics. In so doing, the avionics suite is not rebuilt, but adapted to the customer's requirements, because all systems meet the same standard ...

awangmamat

Originally posted by johngage at 7-7-2007 04:25 PM
But at least 2 squadrons of LIFT, or even better 4, ...

I agree with you on this.  Pilots heading to the MRCA fleet must have accumulated 1,500 hours of flight experience first.  At 200-250 hours per year (someone correct me if I am wrong) that works out to them spending something like 6-8 years somewhere.

mentosonline

Yeah I agree too.
The problem with the RMAF is not because it has so many different types of aircraft from different origins.
Rather, the problem is that RMAF has a bit of this and a bit of that, and they end up adding up to a rojak.

HangPC2

Korean Aerospace Industries T-50/A-50 Golden Eagle ''Lead-in Fighter Trainer (LIFT)''

T-50













A-50









http://www.koreaaero.com/

http://www.koreaaero.com/english/main/main.php

mentosonline

OOO.

That's some pretty nice pics there.