had Japan made the change earlier 5th gen with export might have been valuable ya J-20 would be flying and the air force would have to eat a few but there is the whole you made money from it angle. Japan has one weakness though which might be export of strike packages for there aircraft as they have not really invested in ground attack by aircraft all that much to my knowledge unless there is black paper stuff they keep hidden away.
what majorly changed? I hear Italy and Japan where moving onto technology testing on flying labs.
One thing I find funny is the small chance there is some aircraft engineer watching everyone argue about 5th gen and 6th gen fighters laughing because they know the truth.
The UK’s scaled functional demonstrator is nearly complete and due roll out next year
3 Likes
that will be nice to see still its a long way to the full prototype or preproduction. 6th gen is going to be strange but China did light a fire under the rear of a lot of countries to get something flying. Still the question of what 6th gen is very foggy.
FCAD is said to feature a weapons bay and test and launch weapons so I mean technically could come to wt as a stealth fighter for U.K, Japan and Italy
FCAD is the name of the tech demonstrator
3 Likes
Would be funny if it becomes its own thing but it would be funny to see a mini me version.
So I was trying to figure out which CA-27 from Indonesia was the alleged Mk.31 to maybe find more detail, like if it was maybe converted to Mk.32 standard (so it would be identical in game), but I found out that it seems to be a complete mistake. Indonesia never had a Mk.31 at all, all of there airframes were built as Mk.32
Full list
Mk.32s are A94-943 to 991 and 351 to 372, while Mk.31s would be 901 to 942 only.
A94-352 - Mk.32 (crashed on delivery)
A94-361 / F-8601 - Mk.32
A94-366 / F-8602 - Mk.32
A94-368 / F-8603 - Mk.32
A94-945 / F-8604 - Mk.32
A94-949 / F-8605 - Mk.32
A94-952 / F-8606 - Mk.32
A94-957 / F-8607 - Mk.32
A94-963 / F-8608 - Mk.32
A94-968 / F-8609 - Mk.32
A94-969 / F-8610 - Mk.32
A94-971 / F-8611 - Mk.32
A94-972 / F-8612 - Mk.32
A94-975 / F-8613 - Mk.32
A94-980 / F-8614 - Mk.32
A94-988 / F-8615 - Mk.32
A94-990 / F-8616 - Mk.32
A94-955 / F-8617 - Mk.32
A94-370 / F-8618 - Mk.32
A94-369 / F-8619 - Mk.32
A94-978 / F-8620 - Mk.32
A94-979 / F-8621 - Mk.32
A94-353 / F-8622 - Mk.32
A94-987 / F-8623 - Mk.32
So with that Indonesia can only get one variant of CA-27, the Mk.32
3 Likes
Now I wonder under which flag CA-27 will fly if they actually come to Japan TT.
On one hand, Indonesia is the second largest user, but on the other Malaysia already have established sub-TT line so it’s easier to implement. So, I think it’s the later.
2 Likes
That’s a good question honestly. I was expecting to see both with a Mk.32 for Malaysia and Mk.31 for Indonesia, but sadly the Indonesian Mk.31 never actually existed and they also only had Mk.32
Indonesia could get it alongside a proper Indonesian aircraft line, the subtree was officially confirmed almost a year ago and the fourth line in the air tree was kept free for a long time, so it’s not unlikely it could be here soon especially now after the Leopard 2RI (and two additional vehicles that were planned too, but delayed for not being ready) was added last update. The Indonesian CA-27 is also more unique because they integrated 80mm Oerlikon rockets to them while the Malaysian one is unmodified.
But at the same time Indonesia also has other aircraft that fit around the (likely 9.0) BR of the CA-27, things like the Hawk 53, Lim-5, Lim-6Bis and so on. Meanwhile the closest Malaysia have are the MB-339AM that’s comparable to the 7.7 MB-326K and would probably be ~8.0, or the A-4PTM that with AIM-9J and AGM-65A capabilities would be comparable to the 9.7 A-4N Ayit, on top of just not having a lot of different aircraft to add in the first place. So from an individual nation standpoint, Malaysia does need it more.
I guess all we can do is wait and see. Maybe they even make one squadron and the other techtree for example, or simply give the Indonesian one (for the unique rockets) the Malaysian camo so both can be there.
5 Likes
could also just do both, one as a standard TT the other as premium or something
For 9.0 I think the Hawk 53 is still a better option since its a bit more unique than the others, and would sit at around the same BR
we also have quite literally tons of alternatives as well, so its not like we need to have the F-86 for us
3 Likes
What if we change the current F-16AJ to Indonesian early F-16A? 🙏🙏🙏
→
IIRC, same engine, same radar, just change the armament to remove AIM-7, AIM-9L, but give AIM-9P-4/P-5
F-16AJ is bound for the path of R2Y2 anyway, so might as well :v 👐👐
Wait The Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) F8F Bearcat to rank III ~ IV, and indonesian aircraft piston engine
4 Likes
Low-vis shark mouth, that’s interesting
RE: M346
Article is correct, 12x M346FA Block 20
9 Likes
I don’t know if I’ve posted about this on the forum before, but the Malaysian Hawk 208 is VERY promising. All the Hawks we have now have the Adour engine with ~2390kgf thrust; that one has an Avon with ~4600kgf, pretty much twice the thrust.
That, plus the good RWR, radar, and well-rounded weapons have quickly made it one of my most anticipated aircraft.
Actually what is the source that Hawk 208 uses Avon engine? I can only find it from the OG suggestion post.
If I have to guess the only difference with the 209 would be AIM-9L and modeled air-refueling probe.
I’m assuming the suggestion post is correct. If the suggestion was wrong, and it also used an Adour it would be very disappointing.
It’s an Adour not a Avon.
It’s not really plausible for the Avon to get fitted in the first place. The Avon ended production in '74, the Hawk 200s first flight was in '86, over a decade later, with deliveries not beginning until the 90s. The Avon is physically bigger too.
Good chance the later models got the Mk.951 bringing thrust up to 29kN though.
1 Like
💔
That’s… something, I guess. Nothing like the 45kN of the Avon though…
My quest for a superbly well-rounded subsonic continues.