| Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| M-346 advanced jet trainer | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 24 2007, 08:24 AM (5,821 Views) | |
| icefrog | Mar 8 2012, 06:27 PM Post #41 |
Senior Member
  ![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Let's not perpetuate wrong data in this forum. The M-346 is not cheap!! After 2 foreign contracts, we should all know by now what is the unit cost and total cost/package. In both cases it is expensive for an unarmed subsonic plane. |
 | |
 |
 
|
| asianobserve | Mar 8 2012, 06:35 PM Post #42 |
|
Member
|
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Israel...-Scandal-05105/ "Trainer Jets for Israel: From the Skyhawk, to the Master Feb 19, 2012 12:55 EST xxx Candidates to replace the aircraft reportedly included converted IAF early-model F-16Bs, Boeing’s license-produced T-45TS Goshawk used by the US Navy, Finmeccanica’s M346 variant of the Yak-130, and Korea’s supersonic T-50. xxx South Korea’s supersonic T-50 family offers the best aerodynamic performance of the 2 planes, and existing weapons integration gives it the ability to operate as an “F-16 Lite” beyond its training role. Israeli firms have made inroads into the Korean market with their UAVs and radars, and a wide variety of further orders beckon. A TA-50 order could have represented the next step for both countries, including Israeli cooperation toward a TA-50 with even broader light attack capabilities. Even without that, a T-50 buy would create the most capable military option for the IAF, while solving a problem for South Korea. An improved TA-50 trainer & light fighter would have the potential for significant ripple effects in the global arms market, and align Israel with their close supplier Lockheed Martin. That high potential upside would have come with a corresponding cost, however, as this would be Israel’s most expensive option. xxx ”[Israeli MoD] director general Uri Shani made the decision to buy the M-346, and that Minister of Defense Ehud Barak still has to approve it…. The Air Force found that the M-346 cost less, and a defense official said that it better meets the Air Force’s needs. The defense establishment said that the officials responsible for the deal were well aware of Italy’s shaky economic conditions, and that measures for dealing with this have already been coordinated with the Ministry of Finance to prepare a package of guarantees for reciprocal procurements.” With respect to those “reciprocal procurements”, Italy is rumored to have pledged to buy IAI’s CAEW 550 AEW&C jets, and to jointly develop a new reconnaissance satellite with Israel. The IAF adds its own comments: “I flew the Korean plane and it’s a lot like the F-16. In that aspect it has many advantages, seeing as it is easy to get used to the plane and… [move] directly to the F-16…. The Italian plane is a combination. It integrates the F-16, the F-15 and the Eurofighter. It’s a dual-engine aircraft while the Korean plane has one engine, which is an important security aspect, but has less experience than the Korean aircraft…. the conclusion that in spite of the lack of experience, the Italian plane…. already looks on to the F-35 and can be compatible with training for it. It prepares us better for the future…. We’re planning on adapting the plane to our needs, as well as adding Israeli systems that the cadets can get to know and practice on before they are acquainted with operational combat planes”. xxx" Please read materials first before you start fiddling your computer keys. Also tame your finger from clicking that awful "thumbs down" button, especially if your objections have no basis. |
|
|
|
| icefrog | Mar 8 2012, 07:11 PM Post #43 |
|
Senior Member
|
That's nice. This leads me to researching the data of the M-346 using the same source you used. This is what came out: M-346 Fuel Capacity = 2,490.79 llitres Fuel Economy = 0.72 km per litre .72 km x 2,490.79 litres = 1,733.05 km Does not correspond to what is being stated of 1,981 km. 248 km difference is significant. http://www.aircraftcompare.com/helicopter-...%20M-346%20/346 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| asianobserve | Mar 8 2012, 07:14 PM Post #44 |
|
Member
|
Bakit "thumbs down" icefrog nagsisinungaling ba ang Flightglobal? |
|
|
|
| icefrog | Mar 8 2012, 07:33 PM Post #45 |
|
Senior Member
|
#1 First of all the link you gave is not even flightglobal #2 They are just reporting and quoting what the Israeli MOD is saying. #3 Any statements made but not backed-up by raw data or actual evaluation tests not made public should be regarded as being very subjective rather than objective #4 Israel has their share of corruption and scandal. Last scandal being the "maintenance scandal" for the Skyhawks w/c the M-346 would be replacing. It's even in your link. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| asianobserve | Mar 8 2012, 08:02 PM Post #46 |
|
Member
|
And would you care to share with us your "raw data," one that I expect has better math than what the Israelis have...? The article was quoted from Defense Industry Daily. |
|
|
|
| icefrog | Mar 8 2012, 08:43 PM Post #47 |
|
Senior Member
|
The data is already available on this very thread. Back-read. If you want more you can always google and research on the specific fuel consumption of each engines being used. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| asianobserve | Mar 8 2012, 09:14 PM Post #48 |
|
Member
|
I haven't seen your data. I have seen though a lot of your T-50 cover-ups. Anyway, since you mentioned about fuel efficiency, it's strange for such an ardent defense enthusiast to claim that a subsonic jet with non-afterburning engines (M-346) has better mileage than a supersonic jet with afterburning engines (T-50)... |
|
|
|
| Shorty_1972 | Mar 8 2012, 09:17 PM Post #49 |
Member
|
@icefrog The thing that got me checking for the range estimates for the TA-50 and M-346 is the assumption in the other forum that the M-346 has a 50% range advantage over the T-50 and that the GEagle won't be able to conduct missions in the KIG. Apparently that's not the case. I prefer the GEagle for the PAF because it's the superior LCA platform (Heck, the M-346 LCA exists on paper only) and was glad to verify that it does not have "short legs". |
| "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." | |
|
|
|
| icefrog | Mar 8 2012, 09:44 PM Post #50 |
|
Senior Member
|
It was on the premise of the misinterpreted range. One member there is claiming the int. fuel of the M-346 is 2,590km or something and then unfairly comparing it to the T-50's published 1,851 km range. Of course it will have a longer combat radius. But we all know that the 2,590 range he gave is wrong. The data directly from Alenia says it's only 1,981km (clean) and goes up to 2,722 (w/ 3 ext. tanks). And now you did a research that basically says as well that the fuel economy of each one is practically the same and even the 1,981 km standard range is doubtful after computing the int. fuel carrying capacity and it's 0.72 km/liter fuel economy will not even reach 1,800 km. The T-50 is not 'short-legged' like they are claiming and afterburner is only used on 'as needed' basis only and with 2-3 ext. fuel tanks that afterburner will last more than just a few minutes. What they must ask themselves is what good will an unarmed plane (M-346) do in the KIG anyway? We also now know that fuel economy is practically the same. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · World Weapon Systems and Platforms · Next Topic » |
8:08 AM May 19