Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Korea's KF-X: News & Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Thx for tho Info

    The catapult system for the missiles is strikingly similar to the LM design.

    So, we probably have a shallow arrangement for A2A and a bulges one (belly pack?) for A2G. Do I understand right ?
    Well it's early too tell. This drawing of C-103 internal weapons bay design, has been circulated for some time on Korean and Indonesian media and forum. For me, this just show, the design team has reserved internal bay on design, but how to move on this still to early to tell.

    The design show LM influenced, wich seems related to ROK choices for F-35. Some in forums speculated (or claimed heard but can not be validated from design team), that they think only shallow internal bay design can be put to C-103, since more bulges one (which can acomodated A to G weapons) is more complicated to adopt with initial C-103 design.

    The initial design mock up (from KDN sources) for C-103, did not put internal weapon bay. However looking on the mock up, probably the shallow internal bay can be adopted. Then again, at this time, anything still can be speculated.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by ananda; 4th August 2014, 06:40.

    Comment


      #22
      Ananda, what is the Indonesian AF's view on the single-engine vs twin-engine debate for the KF-X? With 20% of the budget to be footed by Indonesia, I think that they may have a big say in what is eventually the final config of the KF-X..also, have any work share arrangements been made so far on this project? What parts will be manufactured in Indonesia and what about technology transfers?

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by BlackArcher View Post
        Ananda, what is the Indonesian AF's view on the single-engine vs twin-engine debate for the KF-X? With 20% of the budget to be footed by Indonesia, I think that they may have a big say in what is eventually the final config of the KF-X..also, have any work share arrangements been made so far on this project? What parts will be manufactured in Indonesia and what about technology transfers?
        I have post before in this forum before...both AF (ROKAF and TNI-AU) seems in the agreement for twin engine. However the Industry (Especially KAI and from what I heard also some team from IAe) seems inclined to single engine due to their cautions on over budget for twin engine. Do remembered single engine design come later on from KAI and not from the official design team (which KAI and IAe also heavily represented), as further alternative studies. Then again both AF seems will get the last says.

        KAI and IAe already talking on work sharing, where for development stages there will be 5 prototypes where KAI responsible for assembling 4 and IAe 1. At least that's what I heard from local media. Seems the agreement so far more on development stages (those 5 prototypes). More agreement will be talked later on after the development stages.

        Add:
        The way I see, there is also one other factor that can be more influential. How big tech support the tech partner (more and more inclined to LM) going to support. The design team conclusion from 1st stage (design development) from what I heard already pressed that they need matured Fighters manufacture as design partner on development stages. Some speculation says that the design team prepared cannard design if they got Euro Partner and other design if they get US partner. Whether it's true or not, it show this project need Tech Partner, which can influence the final development.

        Final design still has to get approval though from both ROK and Indonesian parliament, although Indonesian one will take cue from what ROK decide. In such, as like politicians all over the world, parliaments can still be swayed. Although at this moment seems the twin engine (C103) design seems got the favorite.
        Last edited by ananda; 4th August 2014, 08:41.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by ananda View Post
          I have post before in this forum before...both AF (ROKAF and TNI-AU) seems in the agreement for twin engine. However the Industry (Especially KAI and from what I heard also some team from IAe) seems inclined to single engine due to their cautions on over budget for twin engine. Do remembered single engine design come later on from KAI and not from the official design team (which KAI and IAe also heavily represented), as further alternative studies. Then again both AF seems will get the last says.

          KAI and IAe already talking on work sharing, where for development stages there will be 5 prototypes where KAI responsible for assembling 4 and IAe 1. At least that's what I heard from local media. Seems the agreement so far more on development stages (those 5 prototypes). More agreement will be talked later on after the development stages.

          Add:
          The way I see, there is also one other factor that can be more influential. How big tech support the tech partner (more and more inclined to LM) going to support. The design team conclusion from 1st stage (design development) from what I heard already pressed that they need matured Fighters manufacture as design partner on development stages. Some speculation says that the design team prepared cannard design if they got Euro Partner and other design if they get US partner. Whether it's true or not, it show this project need Tech Partner, which can influence the final development.

          Final design still has to get approval though from both ROK and Indonesian parliament, although Indonesian one will take cue from what ROK decide. In such, as like politicians all over the world, parliaments can still be swayed. Although at this moment seems the twin engine (C103) design seems got the favorite.
          thanks for the reply.

          And what numbers of KF-X in service is the TNI-AU looking at?

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by BlackArcher View Post
            thanks for the reply.

            And what numbers of KF-X in service is the TNI-AU looking at?
            TNI-AU looking for initial demand of 50, while ROKAF, I believe between 120-150. For TNI-AU, they aimed initialy to used this project as replacement for 2 sq of Hawk 200/100 and 1 sq of F-5E/F. However seems looking on condition of TNI-AU F-5, it's questionable they can be keep maintained operationally until 2020+ where those KFX projected to be ready.

            Same thing with ROKAF that plan to used this as replacement for F-4 and F-5, but considering some of ROKAF F-5 from what I read on ROK media and forum, also questionable whether can waited until KFX ready. Thus I believe on both AF, the F-5 will be replaced by some F-16, which in turn later on be replaced by KFX.

            Somehow I see that the planner on both AF also aimed this project to replaced not just F-4, F-5 and Hawk 200, but also in the end all F-16. Those F-35 that ROKAF going to procured, will not be replacement for F-16 or F-15K, but more on something new. Just like the planner in TNI-AU from what I heard also not aimed this project as replacement for Flanker family.
            Last edited by ananda; 4th August 2014, 10:51.

            Comment


              #26
              Rolls Royce intensifies their campaign for EJ200 toward Korean manufacturing the engine in conjunction for KFX program.

              http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/vie...=10067&num=759

              This website also provide more updated information on KFX program, including the cutaway Internal Bay design that I've posted before and other I posted below. For my understanding, ussualy their information more accurate on the development progress compared to others on line sources.
              Attached Files

              Comment


                #27
                Since everyone is posting their wishes for KF-X...
                I would like to see the engines spread a little farther apart, add 3D thrust vectoring, eliminate the tails, incorporate a large delta wing with 6 trailing edge control surfaces and a couple or four outboard spoilers.

                Doing so would provide a larger weapons bay between the engines, dramatically reduce side sector RCS, provide ample internal volume for fuel and provide maneuver performance as good as any Gen 4 jet.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by djcross View Post
                  Since everyone is posting their wishes for KF-X...
                  I would like to see the engines spread a little farther apart, add 3D thrust vectoring, eliminate the tails, incorporate a large delta wing with 6 trailing edge control surfaces and a couple or four outboard spoilers.

                  Doing so would provide a larger weapons bay between the engines, dramatically reduce side sector RCS, provide ample internal volume for fuel and provide maneuver performance as good as any Gen 4 jet.
                  removing the tail might be too ambitious for the Koreans..and 3D TVC would mean having to fund the Eurojet option till completion (although Eurojet may claim its as good as ready), since no real TVC option exists for the F-414 as yet. even with the current config, maneuvering performance may not be any worse than existing 4th gen jets..

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by ananda View Post
                    Rolls Royce intensifies their campaign for EJ200 toward Korean manufacturing the engine in conjunction for KFX program.

                    http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/vie...=10067&num=759

                    This website also provide more updated information on KFX program, including the cutaway Internal Bay design that I've posted before and other I posted below. For my understanding, ussualy their information more accurate on the development progress compared to others on line sources.
                    These missiles appear to be AIM-120A with the non-clipped fins. A mistake I assume because why would they bother? What does it say at the top of the weapon bay cutaway, are these bays supposed to house Mk84 bombs?
                    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
                    Yngwie Malmsteen

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by eagle View Post
                      These missiles appear to be AIM-120A with the non-clipped fins. A mistake I assume because why would they bother? What does it say at the top of the weapon bay cutaway, are these bays supposed to house Mk84 bombs?
                      http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/vie...pn=2&num=74395

                      I'll give you the link to more cutaways. Like I said before, this cutaways already circulated for sometime (from last year), when the design team finish their first stage work. Still this is very early, and the design team already put on their recomendation the need for mature fighters manufacturer as tech partner. I believe that's why ROK FX III also put conditions on the winner for tech involvement for KFX.

                      One of the cutaway did put capability for MK-84 in the bay. Again, this is preliminary design, but seems the design team already reserved that capabilities. The second stage (development stages) I think will determine viability of internal bay that can be incorporated based on prototype performances. From what I read so far, the plan 5 prototypes will not yet incorporate internal bays, but already provide space for that.. Will see if this is going to change.
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                        #31
                        Most interesting, thanks!
                        How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
                        Yngwie Malmsteen

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Internalized smart weapons logically assumes targeting and navigation pod integration. I see neither.

                          They should be working on integration of standoff munitions like Griffin, SDB, or whatnot. Mk84 is disappointing.
                          Go Huskers!

                          Comment


                            #33
                            Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                            Internalized smart weapons logically assumes targeting and navigation pod integration. I see neither.

                            They should be working on integration of standoff munitions like Griffin, SDB, or whatnot. Mk84 is disappointing.
                            http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/vie...pn=2&num=74395

                            Thankfully this is also all fan made. So no need to be disappointed.

                            Comment


                              #34
                              It looks like the fans want F100's by the raw size comparison to F-35A and F-22A.

                              I could see a single bay for 4 each, AIM-9X/AIM-132 and/or AIM-120, and support for perhaps a pair of semi-recessed AIM-120. CWB for another weapon and spare fuel on each side. So we're talking maybe another pair of AAM's under each wing for a maximum internal/external load out of 12 AAM, more than anyone would ask.

                              I realize that the Koreans are producing F110's. It would seem natural to license produce an advanced F414, considering the close ties with GE. (Silly me still thinks they need twin F125's and to severely downscale everything to make the project affordable.) It would lend itself to obtaining help with AIM-9X/AIM-120 integration. They'll also want to develop it to use the future JAGM, JSM, SDB II, Griffin II, etc. It would probably force them to buy an OTS American AESA and ECCM suite, rather than allow them to develop their own.

                              If the Europeans win the battle for the engines I could see MBDA step in and try to peddle AIM-132, MICA, SPEAR, Brimstone and Meteor. It would probably force them to buy an OTS European AESA and ECCM suite, too.

                              Korea isn't just designing this for China. They also have to build this to deal with a newly aggressive Japan, the Russians, and any other potential threat against their sea routes.
                              Last edited by MadRat; 6th August 2014, 08:19.
                              Go Huskers!

                              Comment


                                #35
                                eurojet is nice, but flakey. look at the eurofighter program and promises all around about its potential but implementation taking forever.
                                best korea stick to american

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  It's probably on grounds of raw cost. F100 is far cheaper than EJ200, F414, F110, M88, and slightly even less than F404.
                                  Go Huskers!

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by MadRat View Post
                                    If the Europeans win the battle for the engines I could see MBDA step in and try to peddle AIM-132, MICA, SPEAR, Brimstone and Meteor. It would probably force them to buy an OTS European AESA and ECCM suite, too.
                                    Why? Engine and weapons and avionics suppliers are not the same companies. Saab already freely mixes and matches engine and avionic suppliers from a host of countries and companies.

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by Y-20 Bacon View Post
                                      eurojet is nice, but flakey. look at the eurofighter program and promises all around about its potential but implementation taking forever.
                                      best korea stick to american
                                      The proposed developments for EJ200 (EJ220/230) are in the same place as F414 EPE and M88-9t: "give us the money and we will make it happen."
                                      Last edited by Rii; 2nd September 2014, 14:27.

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        There is no doubt all three are expensive. F414EPE has the best chance for volume, therefore best projected cost. In reality the EJ200 doesn't have many future orders left whereas F414 is set for a decade more.

                                        But for one F414EPE you could just have F100-PW-229EEP with change to spare. Or F110-GE-132 with a little less left over. The latter two families of engines have more users yet. There are many more parts in the supply chain. And Korea has experience with both.
                                        Last edited by MadRat; 1st September 2014, 15:55.
                                        Go Huskers!

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          F-414, EJ200, and M-88 being choose as alternatives for twin engine design. F-100 or F-110 being discussed by KAI for single engine design. Using F-100 or F-110 for double engine will increase the size outside the initial parameter of the design which come out on the 1st stage.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X