Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:31, 25 November 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project. Military history: Aviation / Asian / Korean / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Asian military history task force Korean military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Calling a black spade a kettle?

Why do we call this plane a trainer? It has full-blown radar and the same type of single jet engine is found in the swedish Jas-39 Gripen fighter jet, the airframe size is also similar. The use of afterburner makes it a high-cost airplane, which is against any trainer use logic. This plane either makes no sense or it is actually a light fighter-bomber with a trainer excuse! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We call it what the manufacturer(s) and customers designate it. The main version is intended for training. Some trainer aircraft carry weapons for practice and there's an attack version (A-50) too. It uses the F/A-18's F404 engine. The Gripen's RM12 engine is a derivative of the F404. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Fnlayson. the T-50 is what is called a "Lead-In FighterTrainer" (LIFT), and is intended to mimic high-performance fighters without the higher cost of aircraft like the F-16. THe F404 eninge is comparatively economical, though even I thought it was probably too big an engine for the role. However, the A-50 variant is intended to be a lower-cost fighter, so it does make sense. Alos, the T-50 is designed to be a replaces ment for the T-38, as both are supersonic. Remember that the F-5 is a minumu-change variant of the T-38, but that didn't make the T-38 any less of a trainer. Most advanced trainers nowadays are high subsonic, like the Hawk and Alpha Jet. The EADS Mako/HEAT is also supersonic, and it uses the F414, a more powerful derivitive of the F404. - BillCJ (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with previous posts. You cannot take a 4.5th generation fighter with Mach 2 capability and compare it to a trainer with limited combat capabilities. There have been a lot of supersonic trainers lately. The T-50 may have a lot of potential as a cheap alernative to dedicated fighter planes, but it's not in the same class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmarle (talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't completely concur with the points raised in the above posts anymore, as it has been more than two years since the points have been made, with a lot of developmental changes in the aircraft on the way, of which we've been better informed about since then. We were informed about what radar FA-50 is going to use, and we know better now of what A-50 is eventually going to equip as its weapons. Transformation of A-50 (previous designation) to FA-50 (new designation) will include BVR capability that is augmented by a modern radar which is even used as interim upgrades for F-16.

If you disagree with the contradictions I've made, point out what exactly the 'limited combat capabilities' of T-50's variants are, bring here credible evidences that oppose the official claims made by KAI about A-50's potential to be more than cheap alternative to dedicated fighter planes, and how those limited combat capabilities make the T-50 variants incomparable to all variants of Gripen, which you claim are '4.5th' generation fighters. the South African air force refers to Gripen A/B as 'air defense fighters' with no true 4th-generation multirole capability yet, and only Gripen C/D as 4th generation fighters. Give your best accounts of how 'they are not in the same class'.

Furthermore, do not underestimate the ability of South Korea to produce aircraft that's more than a cheap alternative to dedicated fighter planes, compared to India, China, or Sweden. Two decades of South Korean experience in producing various core components of KF-16 and F-15K, as well as T-50 and its variants' prototypes, were extensive and well accumulated. Do not be so quick to assume that KAI is lying when it claims it would transform T-50 into a capable fighter aircraft with weapons such as AMRAAM, Popeye, JDAM, electronic warfare pods, and advanced targeting pods, quite comparable to aircraft of those three aforementioned countries, just because it's the first dedicated jet aircraft being produced by Korea. Desagwan (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I called the Gripen a 4.5th generation fighter because that is how it is listed here on Misplaced Pages. Incidentally, being multirole has nothing to do with being 4th or 4.5th generation. I would also ask you kindly not to put words in my mouth. I never said that KAI was lying. For that matter I never even mentioned any countries.

On the T-50 page only the original T-50 2-seater is described in any detail. The version that might be compared with a dedicated fighter plane is the FA-50 which is only mentioned as being in developement. If you have an update on that, please add it to the page. As to performance differences, I think a 30 percent increase in top-speed is rather significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmarle (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Gripen NG is not the only aircraft of the Gripen family. It doesn't even compose the majority, and it is not the standard of the Gripen family.

I have a separate suggestion: You should make a separate article for the Gripen NG, if you already have enough information to put in there. Mig-29K and Mig-35 have separate pages too from the Mig-29. It can help clearly distinguish Gripen NG from the original Gripens.

The weapons growth capability of A-50, the previous model to FA-50, is mentioned here:

http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/13/88/chongchol74/folder/250/img_250_6146_5?1218544616.jpg

It's already included as inline citations in the page. I assumed you already read it.

See the pictures in this link also: http://blog.naver.com/5thsun?Redirect=Log&logNo=130071452690

The EL/M-2032 radar that KAI decided to use as the base of FA-50's radar is the same radar that equip Block 52+ variants of the F-16 series. It allows integration with BVR weapons (Sparrow, AMRAAM, Popeeye, SLAM-ER) and precision-guided munitions such as JDAM and laser-guided bombs. KAI is already done modifying the airframe to accommodate the new radar, as shown in the first picture, and in the second picture you can observe the subsequent increase in weapon selection from the baseline A-50 on the right to the new FA-50 on the left. The models' suggestion of FA-50's eventual capability is in alignment with what was already suggested on that illustration of weapons growth capability of A-50.

Nothing makes Gripen any less capable if it's compared to the FA-50. It doesn't even describe which one is necessarily better or worse. I'm just linking other articles to T-50 article to introduce T-50 as both trainer and multirole fighter family. Among the lightest multirole fighters, we have Gripen (not just the NG, but the whole Gripen family), Tejas, and J-17, and also the F-16, F-2, and F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, which are already linked in the 'Related Development' section. At the same time, T-50 is also introduced to many of the trainers in the market. Desagwan (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Introducing the T-50 family

I contend that, after more than a decade of continuous development and eight years of flight, variants of T-50 slowly began to include multirole supersonic fighters with BVR engagement capability. It would be a misconception if the better augmented A-50 and FA-50 are still compared only to trainers just because they are on the same article as the trainer T-50. There's also the issue of not all Gripen variants being uniformly better than all T-50 variants. Gripen B, for example, still lack a full-fledged 4th-generation multirole capablity until they are modified to Gripen D (source: http://www.af.mil.za/equip/aircraft/Gripen.htm). I don't know what exact characteristics would make A-50 incomparable to Gripen B, and FA-50 incomparable to Gripen D, in roles and capability. Someone could better educate me on this issue, but my preliminary suggestion for now is that, we include both trainers and multirole fighters on the list of comparable aircraft of T-50. That way people can know that T-50 family of aircraft can be compared to both trainers and multirole fighters, according to major variants. Exclusive fighters such as Gripen are already compared only to true fighters in their respective articles, so people would understand the difference between T-50 and other fighters like Gripen, in terms of the niches they occupy, when they read the articles (T-50 niche is for both trainers and fighters, Gripen for fighters).

I'll repeat my opinion for further clarity; there's no doubt that one variant of T-50 is primarily a trainer. But there's another variant that's a multirole fighter also. So I suggest we connect aircraft of both types from the T-50 article, to better introduce the whole family.Desagwan (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the FA-50 multi-role fighter, I think we are all just waiting for a mock-up or a flight test before any tackles the section further. Also its In my opinion that once the FA-50 project is closer to completion that the aircraft have a completely separate page. Semi-Lobster (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll link FA-50 to T-50 until it gets a separate article. Prototypes of FA-50 had already flown many years before known as the A-50, redesignated as TA-50, and there's already a cited diagram in the article made by KAI that shows what a fully augmented A-50 can carry. A-50 might have BVR capabilities to train pilots on BVR combat (although not as full-fledged as FA-50), and once again, not all variants of some fighters like Gripen are truly multirole capable either; multirole capability depends on variants of those fighters also, just like T-50. Desagwan (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

T-50B is the light attack version?

http://www.brahmand.com/news/S-Korea-deploys-armed-variant-of-T-50-jet-trainer/6688/3/13.html The new aircraft, called T-50B, has been designed “to carry out a lead-in fighter training mission and light attack roles,” the Yonhap news agency reported.

What gives? Hcobb (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Images as references

Recently User:Desagwan has been adding a great number of sources. Normally, more sources are helpful, but this has been problematic addition. Many of the additional references come from seemingly inappropriate sources such as blogs, which are to by typically avoided like the plague. Secondly, some sources don't even seem to provide evidence for the statement they've been placed next to, making their addition bewildering and pointless. Random external images that aren't acting as evidence for a statement do not belong in the citations section, if they are to be added they belong in an External Images template (See AgustaWestland Apache for example). Thirdly, regardless of the belief that an addition is 'correct', this does not justify breaking the WP:3RR rule, editors do not just continually revert the edits of multiple other editors on an issue; if this is felt so strongly it is taken to a talkpage for dialogue. Please communicate on this issue of why the image is appropriate where it has been placed. Kyteto (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be misleading to evaluate the credibility of what supportive evidence images provide for information by the blog nature of the site; observe and analyze the images themselves. I could upload the images on imageshack instead and the verifiability of the pictures taken during ADEX 2011 or other aerospace exhibitions wouldn't have made a difference. The 70th T-50 is a fully operational TA-50 aircraft (as indicated by all the flight instruments that should only be present in an operational aircraft, as opposed to a mock-up, even including a HUD cover that says 'remove before flight') and TA-50 are designated from tail numbers 61 to 82, making the aircraft with tail number 70 the 10th TA-50.

Additionally, the images that I myself commit time and effort to diligently appraise the value of before posting are anything but thoughtless random additions; they are purposeful devices of information verification some of which may not have been reported to the press in a written manner, but may still be worth the mention in the article for a legitimate set of reasons (proving that two squadron of TA-50 among planned four are operational as of , for example). Desagwan (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you cant use images as references it is considered original research and they are not always reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can, to some degree. I used tail numbers long time ago (by posting all the pictures of the aircraft with different tail numbers) to prove exactly how many UH/HH-60P existed in ROK armed forces, example. This debate may spur me to post the pictures of all aircraft with tail numbers 61-70 again. Desagwan (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty that I'm having with the image can be expressed in this line: "TA-50 are designated from tail numbers 61 to 82, making the aircraft with tail number 70 the 10th TA-50". While you may know that information, and thus can put that image into a context, that information is not presented to the reader by the image, it is just a random plane with a tail number of no explicit significance without outside information from other sources E.G. the information that tail nos. 61-70 are TA-50s. That is the information that should be being cited to here; while an image can be used to verify the existence of an aircraft with that tail number, for example, it isn't evidence that there is a batch of ten TA-50s, thus why is it places as 'evidence' of such an occurence of 10 TA-50s by the position of its placement? It isn't outwardly providing support for the statement, thus it shouldn't be linked there. An External Images box, like the AgustaWestland Apache article's usage, is more conventional for a "hey I've got an image of the TA-50 mentioned here" type placement. Kyteto (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There are no pictures yet for tail numbers 66, 68, and 69(how many times do you see specific pics of 34th, 67th, and 156th Typhoon, really?), but if I post the pictures of tail numbers 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, and 70, it can at least be used to prove there are at least seven aircraft in ROKAF, right? Desagwan (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really, no, as we can't tell if they are TA-50s, T-50s, F-50s or any other variant from the external pictures.

You can easily tell them apart from their different camouflage paint, if the many years of observation that aircraft numbered 1-50 are T-50 and 51-60 are T-50B (thus aircraft with later numbers being TA-50 or FA-50) still remain unconvincing.

That's the problem, where are these batch divisions coming from? They're not given to the reader, he has zero context for putting these images in. It'd be simpler just to cite the source stating these batch divisions, ala the conventional sourcing manner. There's no mention or detail on the finer points of the camouflage in the article either, personal observations just can't stand as objective evidence in this environment - It's the equivilient to the "I'm right and I say so - no proof needed" logic that we specifically built policies for. Kyteto (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Then we simply need to describe that the camouflage of T-50 and T-50B are supposed to be white-and-red or black-and-red. And it's easy to know that the currently existing grey-schemed aircraft are TA-50, not FA-50, because there's already a source that says delivery of production model FA-50 won't begin until 2013.

I'll go write the description for T-50 and T-50's paint schemes. It is quite surprising how such an easily observed characteristic never got mentioned despite the age of this article and the length of time T-50 has been in service.

And it doesn't prove that there is only ten of them in existence if you were to collect pictures of all 10, as there could be other hypothetical aircraft that were simply missed.

We can address that easily by using the 'at least' prefix. 'At least ten TA-50 are in service as of ', etc.

The problem is, that smacks of WP:Recentism: We're writing/editing an encyclopedia, not a running commentry. And I don't see it as good practice to adapt sloppy improvised sources, then watering down the writing to correspond. And the argument is redundent when the informaton could be cited properly without resorting to images to begin with. Kyteto (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some degree of recentism is inevitable when detailing the service history of an aircraft which takes substantial time to individually produce. Many incidents of such recentism have been excused in a vast number of aircraft articles due to their usefulness in informing readers the progress of an aircraft's long-lasting production program.

Traditionally, to prove that 10 TA-10s have been ordered by X, we link to a written source saying exactly how many have been ordered, that's what refs are meant for: Statements of Proof, the origins of information claimed in the article; not associated drip-drabs of related content such as an image of a unit. Kyteto (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be impossible for some aircraft like LIFT or CSAR helicopters such as HH-60P because they may be considered so minor in strategic value that information pertaining to them may not surface up until too much time has lapsed since the aircraft's induction. Tradition is some times meant to give way to improvisation for more useful scientific benefit. Desagwan (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"until too much time has lapsed" There is no rush to cite things properly, we have time to wait for the work to be done properly. More to the point, if information can't be properly cited, it is removed. Jamming extra information and OR'ing it is completely wrong. We can't just craft Original Research on the basis of anybody-who-comes-along's say-so, otherwise the whole concept of WP:V goes in the bin and this encyclopedia might as well be printed on dirty toilet paper. Improvisation, AKA OR is forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy. You can do it if you want to, just not on this site. Kyteto (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We can verify the existence of individual aircraft with their live pictures in flight or showing operational flight instruments, complete with identification number. And as I've proposed above, some recentism is inevitable when detailing the program history of an aircraft which takes a substantial time to complete. Desagwan (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Korean military history articles
• Korean military history task force articles
• C-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• C-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class Korea-related articles
• Mid-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles