Talk:Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master

Mach 1.2 is 1092 km/h ?

Really? On what planet is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.42.91 (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Slovak acquision of Yak 130 mentioned in article

The article contradicts itself by stating that M346 Master will be offered to NATO countries while Yak 130 will be offered to, aside from others, Slovakia, while Slovakia is a member of NATO. Furthermore, the used source is outdated, therefor can hardly be considered accurate and given higher relevance above the current situation - i.e. a Slovak membership of NATO. Additionally, current international relations even forbids said acquisition because of sanctions imposed on the military industry of Russian Federation while the internal politics are focused on phasing out all Soviet and Russian made equipment in favor of NATO manufactured pieces to increase interoperability within NATO among others, see The government document called "The white book on the Defense of Slovak Republic" https://www.mosr.sk/bielakniha/ . However, while in the future the current political situation can change, the NATO membership and the current acquisition plans which are already in motion, see the ongoing talks of Slovak officials with Aero Vodochody on possible acquision of L39NG as a replacement for legacy L39 http://www.armadninoviny.cz/l-39ng-pro-zeme-visegradske-skupiny-a-svedska3f.html will highly likely remain the same for a long time and for this reason referring to extremely outdated source (by 13 years) in this article is misleading. Martin4x4 (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That was the deal made at the time (2002) between Aermacchi and Yakovlev. If you have a reliable source stating that the deal has since been changed or updated, then please present it. Otherwise, all we can do is try to clarify that this was in 2002. Also, the statement is about sales territories, and shouldn't be taken as tmply that there was any actual proposed acquisitions at the time. It was just about which company had the rights to sell to which countries. - BilCat (talk)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Okay, this one has been open for awhile. The concerns in the oppose !votes are noted, but in general, the support votes make more reasonable arguments, while the opposes tend to site WP:TOOSOON (which would generally be grounds to merge, or at least not split), and the Yak-130 is mentioned as an example in two of them - which evolved into an entirely seperate, different aircraft and is thus WP:OTHERSTUFFy. The balance is thin, but there's enough here to tilt to the merge side of things. If (which may or may not be a very big if!) the T-100 wins, then a re-split can be considered, but until then... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that Leonardo DRS T-100 Integrated Training System be merged into Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. I think that the content in the T-100 article can easily be explained in the context of M-346, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the former will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. If the T-100 is chosen for T-X, then a dedicated page would be warranted. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - makes sense. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - If the T-100 is chosen, then a new article with the US designation would be justified, but not till then.--Petebutt (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - as Petebutt says can be split out if it gets ordered, note for whoever does the merge the "T-100 Intergrated Training System" is more than just the aircraft it is the whole training package including training aids and flight simulators. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I appreciate your comments. I think the T-100 deserves it's own page, though, because it's a different aircraft and training system. It has different avionics, a different cockpit, and the training system is made by a different company. Information about the training system is ongoing and developing. - Aviator500 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose –I think the information on the T-100 page would clutter the M-346 Master page. The T-100 is a different, more advanced aircraft, and there’s ample and continuing information about it. - MMonte (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: There is not enough content and notable details (~3 paragraphs now) here to warrant a separate article at this time. It is better covered in the M-346 Master article. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too early, if the T-100 wins the bid it will have a lot more information coming in, if not we can merge it then. The Yak-130 is a separate page too.Jurryaany (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support It seems premature to create/have this now, the main article can suffice until there's a selection in my opinion Kyteto (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support a M346 variant, just a T-X bid for now.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support It is better covered in the M-346 Master article. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Too early to call, if the T-100 wins the USAF's competition we're looking at significant changes to this system, similar to how the Yak-130 has a separate article.Jurryaany (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.