I understand the costs perfectly well which is my point the golden eagle is a brand new aircraft and more technologically advanced than anything else the PAF have at the moment it would not just be a step change in capability but in the resources needed to keep it in the air the idea behind the A4 was straight forward it is a much simpler plane can carry a range of affordable weapon systems allows getting to grips with fast jet technology and Affordable modern avionic suites I'm not saying the political will isn't there to make the Golden eagle happen I'm just worried the PAF will run out of money and they will sit in a hangar unused for lack spares/ training as for the hawk 200 it is a proven airframe again with a multi role ability OK may not be super sonic in level flight but does it have to be the PAF are not seeking a strategic aircraft just something that could help enforce its territorial integrity.
By ones arguments, it is manifest that the costs are not understood, "perfectly well..."
If one looks at some of the various LIFT competitions held in the last few years, it should be noted that the Golden Eagle has competed against Hawk 100-series LIF and other, comparable designs. In terms of programme costs, the Golden Eagle has been competitive with the Hawk (~US$30 mil. v. ~£18 mil.) while offering supersonic vs. high subsonic performance. With the T/A-50 featuring a version of the EL/M-2032 radar allowing a secondary fighter/attack role, a T/A-50 can perform the functions of both a Hawk 100 series LIFT and a Hawk 200 series lightweight, subsonic fighter. At both approximately the same cost (or slightly less) and for a prolonged period of time (Golden Eagles were apparently designed with a 10,000 flight hour service life...) and also self-diagnostic features were included to reduce maintenance costs.
In other words, the KAI T/A/F-50 Golden Eagle series of trainers/fighters was designed to be affordable, both initially and ongoing, but also capable designs. It is certainly possible that KAI could have had design issues, but since the aircraft has already had the first production models get rolled out, it would likely already have been mentioned.
As for the other notion, about operating A-4 Skyhawks... Even if the PAF were given Skyhawks as a gift... How much would it cost the PAF setup the required infrastructure to enable sustained operations of a jet which entered production nearly six decades ago, and ceased production over three decades ago? The PAF would need to setup the facilities, expertise and parts stockpile (or fabrication) from scratch. With newer aircraft which are still in production or just recently ceased production, parts are significantly easier to come by. If a spar or strut on a Skyhawk should need replacement, either one would need to be fabricated, or the required part would need to be found in a boneyard somewhere, then inspected to ensure it was without defect and safe to use. Existing A-4 operators have had time for them to build up their own respective spare parts stockpiles, as well as the expertise to know what is most likely needed and when.
The PAF would need to develop that all on their own. As Colay alluded to, if one were to go out and purchase a new (to them at least) vehicle for regular use, which would make more economical a brand new or nearly new used vehicle, or a late 70's model car which has been out of production since the end of the 70's?
-Cheers
