Thumpalumpacus
Major
I didn't realize the timeline played out that far. Thanks for the info.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Timings. The earliest the FA-50s could realistically enter service would be 2024. Remember that they have to be built, trained for, be introduced to service etc before the MiG-29s would be able to be released. I can't see the Poles giving up a capability , even the MiGs, without a replacement first secured and in/entering service. If anything, a batch of additional F-16s would be more likely to trigger a Polish MiG transfer than the FA-50s.
Go Boeing!The T-7 is still a couple of years away from initial service and the USAf is at the front of the queue.
Re the light fighter idea, there has been some thinking:
View attachment 679571
Isnt i so if there are paying clients the proces will get a kick on the behind? For me that is the american way. When money is on the table all bets are off and magic happens. Specially when you guys like the clients.Timings. The earliest the FA-50s could realistically enter service would be 2024. Remember that they have to be built, trained for, be introduced to service etc before the MiG-29s would be able to be released. I can't see the Poles giving up a capability , even the MiGs, without a replacement first secured and in/entering service. If anything, a batch of additional F-16s would be more likely to trigger a Polish MiG transfer than the FA-50s.
Stalin wanted territory from the Japanese before hostilities ceased,just like Eastern Europe. Everything done by Stalin was for his benefit only.
Well they have benefitted from a lot of US & EU involvement as well as a fair amount of copying/reverse engineering (and not always licensed).My understanding is that the South Korean armaments are ~equal in quality and ability to the equivalent US & EU produced equipment
Imagine the fork in the road of history had the US replied positively to Ho Chi Minh.The US sadly created an enemy with North Vietnam…
I don't want this to go political, but my brother, a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran (fought in the A Shau Valley during the TeT offensive, 101AB) made a profound confession to me years ago - "we fought the wrong enemy."Imagine the fork in the road of history had the US replied positively to Ho Chi Minh.
Letter from Ho Chi Minh to President Harry Truman Asking for Intervention, February 28, 1946 | State Historical Society of Iowa
Transcript of Ho Chi Minh's Letter to U.S. President Harry Trumaniowaculture.gov
Nothing like a common enemy (China) to bring everyone together.I think things might be looking up now between the U.S. and Vietnam.
And, as much as it's heading into political areas: 6 months ago when the decision would have been being made, Korea was a whole lot more politically stable.I think one reason why they might have went with the FA-50 was because the production line is active and the aircraft has seen combat (The Philippines have used theirs against communist insurgents).
I'm aware. My office is just above the assembly line.
Should of bought the T-7.
I am sure it will have a light fighter variant similar to the T-38/F-5.
I think one reason why they might have went with the FA-50 was because the production line is active and the aircraft has seen combat (The Philippines have used theirs against communist insurgents).
T-7 line has started. Its downstairs wear the 15 is.
The T-7 is still a couple of years away from initial service and the USAf is at the front of the queue.
Re the light fighter idea, there has been some thinking:
View attachment 679571
Well aware - but at the same time if a marketer can convince a potential customer that they can deliver the goods, you'll see a lightweight fighter version of this aircraft suddenly appear. Knowing Boeing, it would not surprise me if they have already have a plan in place to produce a lightweight fighter based on the T-7 - when a party shows interest!Then, you should be aware that there is NO light fighter version of the T-7, nor is there an official USAF program to develop one... just some PR work by Boeing to try to get some USAF interest in that direction.
I'd be very surprised if Boeing hadn't 'future-proofed' the aircraft and designed it with growth in mind.Knowing Boeing, it would not surprise me if they have already have a plan in place to produce a lightweight fighter based on the T-7.
I was speaking to the gentleman in the first two quotes... the one who works for Boeing and said that Poland should have bought Boeing's trainer instead of SK's light fighter when they wanted was a combat aircraft, not a trainer.Well aware - but at the same time if a marketer can convince a potential customer that they can deliver the goods, you'll see a lightweight fighter version of this aircraft suddenly appear. Knowing Boeing, it would not surprise me if they have already have a plan in place to produce a lightweight fighter based on the T-7 - when a party shows interest!
With all that said, compare the two aircraft - The FA-50 seems a bit more "robust" than the T-7.