Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
in the SURFACE ATTACK AIRCRAFT (SAA) and LEAD-IN FIGHTER TRAINER roles (LIFT)
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.
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.
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 singleengine type aircraft in the combat role. 4
Safety
M-346 features a twin-engine layout and totally duplicated and separated hydraulic and electric generation, offering much higher safety.
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.
Value of Energy
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 100 220 250 550 500 1100 600 1325 600 1325 600 1325 500 1100 250 550 100 220 kg 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)
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)
Cruise - 35kft / 0.68M Descent Descent Landing Takeoff Climb, Max rating
Run-OUT 30nm, SL Max Rating 5 min at SL Max Rating Run-IN 30nm, SL Max Rating
10
Cruise - 30kft / 0.65M Descent Descent Landing Takeoff Climb, Max rating
11
Climb, Max rating Cruise - 35kft / 0.67M Descent Descent Climb, Max rating 3 min at 15kft Max Rating
Landing Takeoff
12
CAS/COIN Mission
Stores: 2 SRAAM + 2 GBU-12 LGBs + 2 LAU-131 RLs + 2 Tanks + FLIR Pod HI-MID-LO-HI Profile (ISA+10C):
Radius of Action: Ramp Weight: Max SL Speed: 160 nm 10,300 kg 500 kTAS
SRAAM Missile LAU-131 Rockets GBU-12 FUEL LGB Tank FLIR FUEL Tank LAU-131 SRAAM GBU-12 Rockets Missile LGB
30 min Loiter at 25kft, at 160nm Cruise 35kft / 0.67M Descent Climb, Max rating 3 min at 10kft Max Rating (LGB)
Landing Takeoff
13
RECCE Mission
Stores: 2 Tanks + RECCE Pod RECONNAISSANCE Profile (ISA+10 C):
Radius of Action: Ramp Weight: 570 nm 9,170 kg
FUEL Tank RECCE Pod FUEL Tank
Landing Takeoff
14
Intercept Mission
Stores: 2 IRIS-T + Gun pod Slow Movers Intercept Profile (ISA+10 C):
Radius of Action: Ramp Weight: 250 nm 8,130 kg
SRAAM Missile Gun SRAAM Missile
Climb, Max rating Cruise - 35kft / 0.90M Descent Descent Climb, Max rating Identification / Escort 10 min, 10kft, 0.50M
Landing Takeoff
Escort: 55nm
15
Intercept Mission
Stores: 2 IRIS-T + 2 Tanks + Gun pod Slow Movers Intercept Profile (ISA+10 C):
Radius of Action: Ramp Weight: 390 nm 9,410 kg
SRAAM Missile FUEL Tank Gun FUEL Tank SRAAM Missile
Climb, Max rating Cruise - 35kft / 0.85M Descent Descent Climb, Max rating Identification / Escort 10 min, 10kft, 0.50M
Landing Takeoff
RoA: 335 nm, time 41 min In-Flight Mission Time: 110 min
Escort: 55nm
16
17
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
Cruise to area 30 NM Run-In/Out 2 min attack Cruise back to airbase 10% fuel reserve at landing
18
Cruise to Patrol Area (100nm) Patrol at 25000 ft Run-In at 20nm from patrol area 8 min attack at 5,000 ft Cruise back to airbase 10% fuel reserve at landing
19
20
Name of Equipment
Defense Equipment Supplier Name, Country of Origin and Defense Equipment Supplier Website Alenia Aermacchi Italy
M-346
T-50
Korea Aerospace Industries South Korea
Picture
Other Countries Using the Equipment (at least two other countries plus country of origin) Dimension and Weight
Italy (first two aircraft already delivered), Singapore (production launched), (selected), Israel (selected)
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
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 1 x 20mm cannon AIM-9, AGM-65 Maverick missiles Mk 82, 83 bombs
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 2 h 45 min / 4 h (external tanks) Space provision for Radar, Nav-attack pod, ECM pod Helmet-Mounted Display/Sight Two V/UHF Transceiver, VOR/ILS/MB, TACAN, IFF, Radar Altimeter, Digital Moving Map, IN/GPS, Ground Proximity Warning System,
21
HOTAS, Voice Command Combat Equipment Catastrophic Failure in the last 5 years N/A
22