M-346 vs T-50 for PAF 18 May 2012

1

ALENIA AERMACCHI M-346

versus

KAI T-50

in the

SURFACE ATTACK AIRCRAFT (SAA)

and

LEAD-IN FIGHTER TRAINER roles (LIFT)

for the Philippine Air Forces

2

INTRODUCING THE M-346 ARMED VARIANT

The M-346 has been studied since the conceptual design phase to perform the Combat role, in addition to the Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) role, aimed to provide a Multirole Light Combat Aircraft very capable to perform Operational roles like:

• CAS (Close Air Support)

• COIN (COunter INsurgency)

• Anti-ship

• Air defence

Among the characteristics which make the armed M-346 an effective combat platform are:

� survivability characteristics as part of the aircraft basic design

� remarkable performance (speed, manoeuvre) also in fully armed configuration and

also in the event of losing one engine due to enemy action

� large fuel capacity for enhanced combat radius of action and combat persistence

� the structure designed to carry up three tons of various weapons and stores

� up to nine store stations

� the aerodynamic configuration taking into account the integration of a wide range of

external stores

� space provision for the installation of a multi-mode radar.

The M-346 armed variant, even in maximum loaded condition, still maintains a high thrust/weight ratio – not far from the values of frontline multirole fighters similarly fully armed – and a moderate wing loading, both of which contribute to its excellent overall performance and manoeuvrability/agility.

Even with one engine inoperative, the M-346 is still capable of a remarkable speed and manoeuvrability then providing excellent survivability over the battlefield.

The large internal fuel capacity, complemented by up to three 630 lt external tanks (increasing the total fuel capacity by 75%) and a quickly removable air-to-air refuelling probe, provides for a long combat radius and/or patrol endurance, taking advantage also from the M-346 non-afterburning engines low fuel consumption.

The Store Management System data presentation and control functions use any one of the three Multi Function Displays (MFD) in each cockpit for maximum flexibility and redundancy. Hands On Throttle And Stick (HOTAS) controls provide weapon system functions selection. Weapon aiming function is provided by the central main processor, while aiming data are presented to the pilots through the Head-Up Display (HUD) and, optionally, through the Helmet Mounted Display (HMD).

The nine stores carriage pylons are equipped with pneumatic ejector release units to reduce maintenance and increase safety with respect to the older pyrotechnic ones.

3

Sensors – The M-346 has space provision for the installation of a multi-mode radar and can carry a targeting pod for the detection and tracking of both aerial and surface targets.

Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS) – In addition to the survivability provided by design in the M-346 (two non-afterburning/low infrared emission engines, totally duplicated main systems and power sources, quadruple FCS computers and sensors, re-configurable Flight Control System in the event of battle damage, multi-path airframe structure etc) the aircraft can be fitted with a number of dedicated survivability enhancement equipment: Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), Chaff & Flare Dispensers (CFD) and active Electronic CounterMeasures (ECM) pod.

M-346 MAIN DESIGN CHRACTERISTICS

The M-346 is characterised by an advanced aerodynamic design coupled with a quadruplex digital Fly-By-Wire (FBW) Flight Control System (FCS). This solution allows the achievement of superior manoeuvring performance and flying qualities, including flying at high angle of attack (up to about 30 degree) under full control, and ensures carefree handling throughout the entire wide M-346 flight envelope. These qualities contribute to the aircraft remarkable combat performance and survivability over the battlefield.

The FCS makes also possible to select different degrees of piloting difficulty improving the aircraft capability when used in the LIFT role.

Such performance level and flying qualities, together with latest technology Mission Management suite and Man-Machine Interface, makes the M-346, without the need of any additional system, an affordable, yet very capable, Surface Attack Aircraft while, as a LIFT, the M-346 is truly representative of the new generation combat aircraft such as the F-16 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The aircraft could be also equipped with in-flight refuelling probe to extend the combat radius when used in operational roles. The in-flight refuelling system is a provision of the standard aircraft configuration.

Powered by two American Honeywell F124-GA-200 turbofan engines, the Alenia Aermacchi aircraft features a very high thrust-to-weight ratio which is almost double of the former generation armed LIFT aircraft. Such a high thrust-to-weight ratio, coupled with the advanced aerodynamics design, contribute to grant to the M-346 its superior combat performance.

Twin-engine versus single-engine formula

The twin-engine solution selected for the M-346, like other key design choices in the concept development of the aircraft, is the result of the long and comprehensive trade-off studies performed by Alenia Aermacchi to arrive to the final M-346 configuration.

Looking to the eternal debate between the single and twin-engine aircraft sustainers, some of the considerations done during the Alenia Aermacchi conceptual study phase are here below listed.

4

1. First of all due consideration should be given to the survivability over the battlefield. A twin-engine aircraft, in particular with the high thrust/weight ratio of the M-346 also with only one engine running, has much superior capability to survive in combat and to return to base in the event of damage due to enemy action.

2. Furthermore, when used as a LIFT type a much higher utilisation rate is typical, also to maintain the “airmanship” qualities of the fully qualified combat pilots. Hence the aircraft can be estimated in peacetime to fly yearly two to three times as much as a pure combat type, with the consequence of a much higher risk of aircraft loss due to technical reasons if a single-engine type is used. It is simply to understand that the attrition rate due to technical reasons is definitely lower for a twin-engine aircraft versus a single-engine one.

3. The above elements must be added to the further requirement of all new generation military aircraft to have more and more power, both hydraulic and electric, requested to operate the on-board systems. Furthermore such hydraulic and electric power needs to be provided from adequately redundant, totally independent and physically separated for adequate survivability, power generating systems, which are essential for the aircraft safety, especially for a FBW aircraft.

Also in terms of generic aircraft cost there is the recurring idea that a twin-engine aircraft costs more than a comparable single-engine. However this point must be evaluated on a broader basis and in terms of overall Life-Cycle Cost, in particular for a supersonic type.

In particular it is worth noting that:

a) The cost of one engine of adequate thrust is comparable to the cost of two engines providing about the same overall installed thrust. This consideration is even more correct for the highly complex supersonic engine, which needs to be equipped with an afterburner and the necessary variable geometry exhaust nozzle, that, in addition to the very high acquisition cost, impacts also negatively on the powerplant reliability, maintenance needs and operational cost due to the much higher fuel consumption and inspection tasks;

b) The mandatory requirements for a very reliable EPU (Emergency Power Unit) and complete duplication of different systems in a single-engine FBW aircraft makes such systems more complex, with the consequence of a higher acquisition price and more additional maintenance costs. A twin-engine aircraft has built-in the complete duplication of systems (in particular electric generators and hydraulic pumps), independently connected to each of the two engines. Due to such configuration there are no potential single point failure for the systems providing Return-To-Base (RTB) capabilities, finally enhancing the aircraft survivability and safety.

The attrition rate, due to technical causes, of a single-engine aircraft is higher (about four time as much!) than for a twin-engine type of similar class/technology level as stated by the official USAF statistics for the F-16 and F-15 which are powered by the same engine.

See subsequent dedicate paragraph for the advantage of the twin-engine versus single-engine type aircraft in the combat role.

5

ALENIA AERMACCHI M-346 versus KAI T-50

Transonic versus Supersonic solution Many trade-off studies have been performed worldwide to evaluate the pros and cons of the various solutions available for combat and LIFT aircraft, with particular attention to the single-engine versus twin-engine configurations and supersonic versus subsonic/transonic design.

Surely it is essential for a latest generation Combat and LIFT aircraft to provide manoeuvre capability significantly higher than that of the current generation aircraft in the same class, specifically in the high subsonic flight regime.

However it is also necessary to provide an adequate “operational and training persistence” before the need to return to the base because of a low fuel state.

This is a particularly weak point for a supersonic aircraft, due to its need to use afterburning to achieve the required manoeuvre performance. As a consequence being the T-50 a supersonic aircraft it has only about 1/3 of the effective useful working time available to the “dry”-engined M-346, with the consequence of the need to fly more missions to reach the same operational effectiveness.

Safety M-346 features a twin-engine layout and totally duplicated and separated hydraulic and electric generation, offering much higher safety.

Consideration about the Operational Role The typical operational roles suitable to light combat aircraft types are:

� Surface Attack,

� Close Air Support (CAS)

� Anti-Ship

� Air Defence

It is important at this point to remark that, in heavily armed configuration typical for the Surface Attack and Anti-Ship roles, the supersonic performance of the T-50 is totally lost due to the very high aerodynamic drag, while the need to fully use the engine in afterburning mode, to provide the aircraft with the necessary manoeuvre performance, significantly increase the aircraft infrared signature and its vulnerability to the antiaircraft missiles.

In addition also the endurance will suffer significantly, due to the very high fuel consumption which can be considered triple than the dry engine aircraft. This too degrades the combat value of a supersonic type in the Surface Attack and CAS role, which typically require significant flight endurance and loitering capability to extend the coverage time in which the friendly forces can be supported.

6

When looking to both aircraft in armed configuration and related weight, the M-346 has similar Thrust/Weight ratio of the T-50 using full afterburning and a remarkable 40% better value when the more practical “dry” thrust is used by the latter aircraft. If also the wing loading is considered, the fully armed T-50 has a penalising value of over 30% higher. Both these parameters are indicatives of the still excellent acceleration and manoeuvre potential of the fully armed M-346 versus the T-50 which, at this time, suffers significantly from its design tailored to the supersonic flight regime in clean configuration.

The above considerations acquire even more importance if the aircraft is planned to be used for the surface attack role against ships. In this case, for example, if the action takes place in area with numerous islands, such as the Philippines scenario, it is tactically rewarding to fly a high speed subsonic profile at low level using the islands to mask the attack.

In this case the M-346 with “dry” powerplant offers much better endurance and combat radius also at high speed, with still superior manoeuvre potential with respect to the T-50, which needs to use the afterburning to provide the same level of manoeuvre performance.

A further advantage when operating over the sea is offered by the twin-engine configuration in terms of safety in the event of an engine failure, both due to technical problem or enemy action.

� Thrust / Weight Ratio

� Wing Loading

Value of Energy

7

TYPICAL OPERATIONAL MISSIONS

ALENIA AERMACCHI M-346

for the Surface Attack Aircraft program of the

Philippine Air Force

Air-Surface (Anti-Ship) Mission

8

OPERATIONAL MISSIONS

� Stores Management System (SMS):

• Fully integrated with Avionics system

• Mil-Std-1760 Stores interface

� Nine Store stations for up to 3000 kg external loads

� Pneumatic Ejection Release Unit - Cold gas activated (low maintenance and high safety)

� Firing platform stability enhanced by Fly-by-Wire FCS

WING PYLONS CAPABILITY

100 250 500 600 600 600 500 250 100 kg

220 550 1100 1325 1325 1325 1100 550 220 lb

• Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles - SRAAM (AIM-9 / IRIS-T class)

• Air-to-Surface Missiles (Maverick class)

• Anti-Ship (Marte class)

• Free-fall bombs (up to 1000 lb)

• Laser-Guided Bombs - LGB (up to 1000 lb)

• Rocket Launchers (70 mm - 2.75” - 7 & 19 tubes)

• Gun pod (12.7 mm & 20 mm)

• Nav/Attack pod

• ECM pod

• Recce pod

• Fuel tanks (3 x 630 lt each)

9

Typical Missions Profiles:

• Ground Attack mission with bombs, A/G missiles & gun pod (+ self-defence SRAAMs)

• Anti-ship mission with Marte missiles (+ self-defence SRAAMs)

• CAS/COIN mission with LGBs, rockets launchers, FLIR pod (+ self-defence SRAAMs)

• Reconnaissance mission with RECCE pod

• Intercept mission with two SRAAM and gun pod

All mission profiles are calculated with the following assumptions:

� Atmosphere: ISA+10°C

� Fuel reserve at landing: 30 min loiter at 5,000 ft (~20% internal fuel)

10

Ground Attack Mission

Stores: 2 SRAAM + 3 Mk-82 bombs + 2 Tanks

HI-LO-LO-HI Profile (ISA+10°C):

� Radius of Action: 285 nm – 30nm RUN-IN/OUT

� Ramp Weight: 10,155 kg

� Max SL Speed: 525 kTAS

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M

Cruise - 35kft / 0.68M

Descent

5 min at SL

Max Rating

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating

Run-IN 30nm, SL

Max Rating

RoA: 285 nm

In-Flight Mission Time: 90 min

Run-OUT 30nm, SL

Max RatingClimb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M


Descent

5 min at SL

Max Rating

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating

Run-IN 30nm, SL

Max Rating

RoA: 285 nm


Run-OUT 30nm, SL

Max Rating

SRAAM Missile

Mk-82 FUEL Tank

SRAAM Missile FUEL

Tank

Mk-82

Mk-82

11

Ground Attack Mission

Stores: 2 SRAAM + 6 Mk-82 bombs + Gun pod

HI-LO-HI Profile (ISA+10°C):

� Radius of Action: 160 nm



SRAAM Missile

Mk-82 SRAAM Missile

Mk-82 Mk-82 Mk-82 Mk-82 Mk-82

Gun

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M


Descent

5 min at SL

Max Rating

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating

RoA: 160 nm


Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M


Descent

5 min at SL

Max Rating

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating

RoA: 160 nm


12

Air-Surface (Anti-Ship) Mission

Stores: 2 SRAAM + 2 Marte A/ship ASMs + 2 Tanks

HI-MID-HI Profile (ISA+10°C):




SRAAM Missile

SRAAM Missile MARTE FUEL

Tank FUEL Tank

MARTE

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M


Descent 3 min at 15kft

Max Rating

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating

RoA: 410 nm


Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M


Descent 3 min at 15kft

Max Rating

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating

RoA: 410 nm


13

CAS/COIN Mission

Stores: 2 SRAAM + 2 GBU-12 LGBs + 2 LAU-131 RLs

+ 2 Tanks + FLIR Pod

HI-MID-LO-HI Profile (ISA+10°C):




SRAAM Missile

GBU-12

LGB FUEL Tank

FLIR

FUEL Tank

SRAAM Missile GBU-12

LGB

LAU-131 Rockets LAU-131

Rockets

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M

Cruise

35kft / 0.67M

Descent

3 min at SLMax Rating

(Rockets)

Takeoff

Landing

30 min Loiterat 25kft, at 160nm

Climb,

Max rating

RoA: 160 nm


3 min at 10kftMax Rating

(LGB)Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.68M

Cruise

35kft / 0.67M

Descent

3 min at SLMax Rating

(Rockets)

Takeoff

Landing

30 min Loiterat 25kft, at 160nm

Climb,

Max rating

RoA: 160 nm


3 min at 10kftMax Rating

(LGB)

14

RECCE Mission

Stores: 2 Tanks + RECCE Pod

RECONNAISSANCE Profile (ISA+10°C):



� Max Level Speed at altitude: 0.86 Mach

FUEL Tank

RECCE Pod

FUEL Tank

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.70M


Descent

Takeoff

Landing

RoA: 570 nm


10 min at 35Kft

0.80M

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.70M


Descent

Takeoff

Landing

RoA: 570 nm


10 min at 35Kft

0.80M

15

Intercept Mission

Stores: 2 IRIS-T + Gun pod

Slow Movers Intercept Profile (ISA+10°C):



� Intercept Speed at altitude: 0.90 Mach

SRAAM Missile

SRAAM Missile

Gun

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.72M


Descent

Identification / Escort

10 min, 10kft, 0.50M

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating

RoA: 195 nm, time 23 min

In-Flight Mission Time: 70 minEscort: 55nm

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.72M


Descent


10 min, 10kft, 0.50M

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating



16

Intercept Mission

Stores: 2 IRIS-T + 2 Tanks + Gun pod

Slow Movers Intercept Profile (ISA+10°C):



� Intercept Speed at altitude: 0.85 Mach

SRAAM Missile

SRAAM Missile

Gun

FUEL Tank

FUEL Tank

Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.72M


Descent


10 min, 10kft, 0.50M

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating



Climb,

Max rating

RTB - 40kft, 0.72M


Descent


10 min, 10kft, 0.50M

Takeoff

Landing

Descent

Climb,

Max rating



17

M-346 vs T-50

MISSION PERFORMANCE

COMPARISON

18

• Armed aircraft, 1 pilot

• 2 x IR missiles + Gun

• Cruise to patrol area (50nm from airbase)

• Patrol at 30000 ft

• Run to intercept at 70nm from patrol area

• 5 min combat

• Cruise back to airbase

• 10% fuel reserve at landing

Combat Air Patrol Mission Profile

(Surveillance and Intercept)

Supersonic: A/B ON at takeoff (20s) and during combat (120s)

Anti-Ship Mission Profile

• Armed aircraft, 1 pilot

• 2 x IR missiles + 2 x A/Ship Missiles + + Gun + 2 x External Tanks

• Cruise to area

• 30 NM Run-In/Out

• 2 min attack



Supersonic : A/B ON at takeoff (20s) and during attack (60s)

19

Air-to-Ground: Radius of Action

• Armed Aircraft, 1 pilot

• 2 x IR missile + 6 x Mk-82 + Ventral Tank

• Cruise to area

• 30 NM Run-In/Out

• 6 min attack



Supersonic: A/B ON at takeoff (20s) and during attacks (60s)

CAS: Patrol Time on Area at 100nm

Supersonic: A/B ON at takeoff (20s) and during attacks (60s)

• Armed Aircraft, 1 pilot

• 2 x IR missile + 4 x A/G Missiles + Ventral Tank

• Cruise to Patrol Area (100nm)

• Patrol at 25000 ft

• Run-In at 20nm from patrol area

• 8 min attack at 5,000 ft



20

M-346 vs T-50

COMPARISON TABLE

21

Name of Equipment

M-346

T-50

Defense Equipment Supplier Name, Country of Origin and Defense Equipment Supplier Website

Alenia Aermacchi

Italy

Korea Aerospace Industries

South Korea

Picture

Other Countries Using the Equipment

(at least two other countries plus country of origin)

Italy (first two aircraft already delivered),

Singapore (production launched), UAE (selected), Israel (selected)

South Korea, Indonesia (not yet in service)

Dimension and Weight

Length: 11.49 m

Wingspan: 9.27 m

Height: 4.91 m

Empty weight: 5,250 kg

Max takeoff weight: 10,200 kg

Length: 12.98 m

Wingspan: 9.17 m

Height: 4.78 m

Empty weight: 6,450 kg

Max takeoff weight: 13,500 kg

Equipment Operating Specification

Crew: 2

Maximum speed: Mach 1.2

Range: 2,000 km / 2,740 km (external tanks)

Service ceiling: 13,720 m

Thrust/weight: 0.78

Max g limit: -3 g / +8 g

Crew: 2

Maximum speed: Mach 1.3

Range: 1,851 km / 2,500 (external tanks)

Service ceiling: 16,760 m

Thrust/weight: 0.6 (dry thrust), 0.91 (max a.b.)

Max g limit: -3 g / +8 g

Combat equipment

12.7 and 20mm cannon gun-pods

AIM-9, IRIS-T, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, Marte anti-ship missile, 19 tubes 2.75” Rocket Launchers, Laser Guided Bombs, Mk 82, 83 bombs

1 x 20mm cannon

AIM-9, AGM-65 Maverick missiles

Mk 82, 83 bombs

Endurance specification

2 h 45 min / 4 h (external tanks)

Onboard Sensor equipment Space provision for Radar, Nav-attack pod, ECM pod

Helmet-Mounted Display/Sight

Onboard communications and C4I system specifications

Two V/UHF Transceiver, VOR/ILS/MB, TACAN, IFF, Radar Altimeter, Digital Moving Map, IN/GPS, Ground Proximity Warning System,

22

HOTAS, Voice Command

Combat Equipment Catastrophic Failure in the last 5 years

N/A

M-346 vs T-50 for PAF 18 May 2012

Documents

close air support

sl max rating

flight mission time

max sl speed

high thrust weight ratio

ground attack missionstores

max rating cruise

ship air defence