>>30344958

It doesn't even have a gun.

The Alenia m-346 is better.

>>30344986
Are they even really relevant today?

>>30345099

For that type of aircraft?

Yes.

>>30345099
For an ordinary aircraft, not really.

For a poorfag aircraft, probably.

>>30345086
FA-50 is simply the best aircraft in cheep fighter/ air patrol role. As training aircraft I have no idea.

>>30345589
Could be a trainer, better than the T-34s we have currently. The problem would be its relatively big size. From here, it seems as big but shorter than a F-18.

>>30345086

For long duration surveillance mission? Nope. It's not designed to be a advanced trainer aircraft as it's primary mission, it's long endurance COIN aircraft.

Alenia on other hand is advanced trainer with underdeveloped light ground attack capability,

Literally apples and oranges comparison.

Some plane that kinda looks like fighter isn't necessarily a fighter.

>>30344958
I think it looks adorable

>>30344958

> Zimbabwean air force
> two vultures trained to drop rocks on people


Fucking savages.

>>30345589
>FA-50 is simply the best aircraft in cheep fighter/ air patrol role.

Sure it's cheaper than Gripen or F-16, but way less capable.

>As training aircraft I have no idea.

It's bit expensive to run for a trainer.

The potential problem with T/TA/FA-50 is the fact that it has almost decent fighter and potentially too good trainer versions that share common maintenance and logistics. That might be a problem for many clients. Select T-50 as trainer... politicians will force air force to reduce budget for proper high performance fighters or in worst case select FA-50 as primary fighter.

Safer to buy BAE Hawk or Alenia M346 as trainers due to that, even if those have worse performance in secondary light attack role.

>>30344958
Give it a single central tailplane instead of twin tails and I'll buy one when it goes on sale.