Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 215

Thread: Korea's KF-X: News & Discussion

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449

    Korea's KF-X: News & Discussion

    (Creating this thread because existing KF-X discussion is highly fragmented.)

    Korean media is reporting that the twin-engine C-103 design has been endorsed in a high-level meeting of Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, chaired by the Minister of Defense. Bids are expected to be solicited in the coming weeks, with development beginning in earnest by the end of the year.

    Defense News
    “The JCS formed a task force to review the costs, requirements and development schedules for the KF-X over the eight months,” JCS spokesman Eom Hyo-sik said. “As a result, the task force reached a decision that a twin-engine aircraft is a right choice as it meets future operational needs and can help catch up with neighboring countries’ aircraft development trends.

    Given the potential development period for a twin-engine jet, the spokesman said, the KF-X jet’s initial operating capability is to be scheduled for 2025, a two-year delay from the original goal.
    So we're probably looking at an aircraft developing between 41,000lb (2xEJ200) and 52,000lb (2xF414EPE) maximum thrust.

    On the supposed economic and technical rationale for a twin-engine design, I repost the following from an earlier thread:

    The only way I can make sense of the claim that a twin-engine design has better long-term economic feasibility is if ROKAF is thinking ahead to replacing its F-15s also. If KF-X is a single-engine project powered by e.g. F110/232 then using it as the basis of an F-15 replacement is out of the question and this will require another clean-sheet project perhaps even overlapping with KF-X. A twin-engine design in the class of e.g. Typhoon could more readily be scaled up in future, particularly if this is anticipated from the very beginning. Such an evolution could also map onto the otherwise curious notion of internal stores carriage arriving only with KF-X v2.0.
    I do wonder about the choice of Lockheed Martin as foreign partner when it comes to building what amounts to direct competitor to LM's own F-35.

    Also, I wonder if Japan's recent ATD-X rollout had anything to do with the decision in favour of the more ambitious twin-engine design.
    Last edited by Rii; 23rd July 2014 at 03:39.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    2 Engines is a very wise choice. Going into the future versions weight creep would mean that a larger single engine would pretty much enslave the aircraft to US F-35 propulsion developments. Staying with a twin engine design, allows them to evaluate multiple engine sources and pick the best growth path suited for their needs.

    I do wonder about the choice of Lockheed Martin as foreign partner when it comes to building what amounts to direct competitor to LM's own F-35.
    Design for the jet is in the early phases and its going to take many many years for the Jet to reach IOC. The F-35 has a considerably financial backing from the current customer base, and given that it will be the backbone of the US fleet, constant investments in the program are quite secure. With that backdrop I really do not see this particular aircraft threaten the JSF in the future in terms of the program's bottom line anymore than say a fighter that was developed by Korea independent of Lockheed involvement.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 23rd July 2014 at 01:17.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    I do wonder about the choice of Lockheed Martin as foreign partner when it comes to building what amounts to direct competitor to LM's own F-35.
    To me it is entirely pointless building something that would compete with F-35 whether it were done alone or in association with LM or any other OEM. Much more sensible would be to spend the funds on another project or not spend them at all.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    To me it is entirely pointless building something that would compete with F-35 whether it were done alone or in association with LM or any other OEM. Much more sensible would be to spend the funds on another project or not spend them at all.
    Just as F-35 was designed around the United States' unique requirements, KF-X is evidently being designed first-and-foremost around Korea's requirements with export a secondary consideration, and this could well be a wise decision: the export market ain't what it used to be, and most of it will have been gobbled up by F-35 or Gripen E before KF-X could take the stage regardless of configuration.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    Just as F-35 was designed around the United States' unique requirements, KF-X is evidently being designed first-and-foremost around Korea's requirements with export a secondary consideration, and this could well be a wise decision: the export market ain't what it used to be, and most of it will have been gobbled up by F-35 or Gripen E before KF-X could take the stage regardless of configuration.
    My comment that I found it pointless building something that would compete with F-35 was not based on export prospects being limited or non-existent (although I think that would almost certainly be the case). I simply do not see the point in re-inventing a wheel that has already been invented by LM. Not only would would KF-X be inferior to F-35, development costs would be very large - perhaps $20 billion to $30 billion. What would be the point of spending so much on KF-X when F-35 would probably do almost everything K-FX could do at a much lower cost?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    The point is to build your own aircraft for both economic and strategic reasons, obviously. And whilst initial versions of KF-X will be inferior to F-35, there's no reason why it couldn't ultimately evolve into a superior platform. I doubt that the Koreans are going to settle for the sluggish performance and uninspiring agility of F-35. As mentioned previously, I suspect ROKAF is thinking long-term with this project to an era of operating a largely indigenous air force centred around KF-X and its descendants. In the long run, there's no reason why they couldn't build their own next-gen engine for it too in partnership with Rolls Royce, GE, etc.
    Last edited by Rii; 28th July 2014 at 08:01.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    My comment that I found it pointless building something that would compete with F-35 was not based on export prospects being limited or non-existent (although I think that would almost certainly be the case). I simply do not see the point in re-inventing a wheel that has already been invented by LM. Not only would would KF-X be inferior to F-35, development costs would be very large - perhaps $20 billion to $30 billion. What would be the point of spending so much on KF-X when F-35 would probably do almost everything K-FX could do at a much lower cost?
    Spitfire, your estimates on the development cost for the KF-X exceeds various agency's estimates by a factor of 2.

    LM itself estimated that a twin-engined KF-X would cost about $10 billion to develop. The Korea Institute for Defense Analysis estimated a twin-engined KF-X to cost $8.3 billion to develop and a single engined KF-X to cost $6.54 billion to develop.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    Aviation Week- SoKo Joint Chiefs want 2 engines for KF-X

    The South Korean armed forces have quashed an attempt by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) to reduce the cost and technical challenge of the proposed KF-X fighter, with the joint chiefs of staff determining that the indigenous aircraft must have two engines.

    The decision raises the stakes for KF-X, the earliest prospective fighter program for Western engine and system suppliers. With a twin-engine design, the program will be ambitious and hard to launch rather than something modest with a more assured future.

    South Korea’s air force is already hedging its bets by studying the possibility of importing its next batch of fighters, judging that the KF-X is not likely to go into full-scale development, according to an air force officer quoted by the Segye newspaper in May (AW&ST June 2, p. 29).

    ..

    But the estimate for the twin-engine aircraft is higher than the 6.5 trillion won that the finance ministry has agreed to and lower than Lockheed Martin’s estimate of more than 10 trillion won. This means that the finance ministry, never a fan of the KF-X, may oppose development. It is reluctant to pay more, says the Naeil newspaper. Finance ministry opposition to the 8.5 trillion won program may persuade enough members of parliament not to fund a 2015 launch of full-scale development, which program managers are seeking.

    On the other hand, parliament is strongly influenced by its committees. The defense committee under its former chairman opposed KF-X development; now that he has left, it may recommend going ahead with the aircraft. In September, the finance ministry will propose a national budget for the parliament to decide by December.

    Meanwhile, the DAPA must conclude negotiations with Indonesia and Lockheed Martin and then choose the prime contractor, which will almost certainly be KAI, since it has experience in combat aircraft development.

    Indonesia paid for 20% of pre-development costs and is expected to take the same share of full development. A further 20% is to be borne by industry, including Lockheed Martin, which agreed to support the KF-X in return for South Korea last year choosing the F-35A in the F-X Phase 3 fighter competition. Technology transfer will form part of, maybe most of, Lockheed Martin’s contribution.

    ...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    Spitfire, your estimates on the development cost for the KF-X exceeds various agency's estimates by a factor of 2.

    LM itself estimated that a twin-engined KF-X would cost about $10 billion to develop. The Korea Institute for Defense Analysis estimated a twin-engined KF-X to cost $8.3 billion to develop and a single engined KF-X to cost $6.54 billion to develop.
    Well looking at the past performance of a multitude of national agencies (nevermind Lockheed Martin!) in predicting development costs for weapon systems i would say that spit might have estimated a very belivable numbers...

    I'll get me coat

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716


    latest image of the twin-engined KF-X..looks far too much like a twin-engined F-35.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    994
    Intakes are different as well. Plus the initial generation won't have weapon bays, which guarantees different layount, probably a visibly slimmer plane. Then we're bound to see a quite redesigned plane for the next step with the internal weapon bays, but who knows when that will come, probably post 2030.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,259
    It's not a twin engined 35. Simply clever solutions make the design converges toward it.

    Glad that it seems they have kept the upper surface simple.

    I think they got cornered by the available power of a single engined design. If you want to pack all ( internal offensive Weapon bay, fuel for interdiction etc..) in a single design, the weight factor is limiting your options.

    A generic airframe with an adaptable mission pack, that's what they could have gone with (like Japan for example). That way, the design will have remained light enough probably.

    Regarding the inlets, it would be interesting to see their own solution. Or wld it be LM?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post


    latest image of the twin-engined KF-X..looks far too much like a twin-engined F-35.
    Looks like the J-31 !
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,989
    Too similar to J-31 but just IMHO.

    Go Huskers!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    The most interesting thing about the KF-X is the use of detachable CWB instead of internal bay. This might make sense if the KF-X is significantly smaller than the J-31, I wonder if they will keep it when it grows big enough to accommodate a bay in the belly.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,259
    Didn't knew abt that. Do you have a link that can provide more info ?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Didn't knew abt that. Do you have a link that can provide more info ?
    Not sure how official this is:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	%u002525B9%25AB%25C0%25E5_4.jpg 
Views:	474 
Size:	258.8 KB 
ID:	230761

    http://rewreward.blogspot.com/2012/0...phics-kfx.html
    pb::

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole View Post
    0% official.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    476
    The C-103 design of KF-X, which seems going to be finalised still going for internal bay. Whether the first batch already equiped with this, it's still being discussed.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,259
    Quote Originally Posted by ananda View Post
    The C-103 design of KF-X, which seems going to be finalised still going for internal bay. Whether the first batch already equiped with this, it's still being discussed.
    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 ?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    476
    Quote 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 Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KFX C103-1.png 
Views:	246 
Size:	130.9 KB 
ID:	230780   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KFX C103-2.jpeg 
Views:	243 
Size:	63.8 KB 
ID:	230781  
    Last edited by ananda; 4th August 2014 at 06:40.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    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?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    476
    Quote 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 at 08:41.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote 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?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    476
    Quote 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 at 10:51.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    476
    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 Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	q4br.jpeg 
Views:	360 
Size:	203.8 KB 
ID:	230795   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2058574_20140801103749.jpeg 
Views:	231 
Size:	47.4 KB 
ID:	230796  

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,287
    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.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote 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..

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote 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

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    476
    Quote 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 Images Attached Images  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES