Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

as below

F-16.net Sponsor

more pics

more pics

My thoughts:

-The cross section of the KFX appears much smaller, thus your internal payload and fuel capacity would be limited compared to the F-35.
-I'm a skeptic of the two engine concept for this size aircraft. If you can get the same power from a single engine, you can reduce alot of weight. Also, I dont know if you'll have much room for anything more than an AMRAAM internally due to the real estate of the two engines.
-The clean lines from the F-22 are superb, but it benefits from its large size, smaller bays, smaller gear. The F-35 is more compact, thus you end up with fairings around many internal features. You can't simply shrink the fuselage of the F-22.

I believe the Koreans have rescinded certain internal carriage requirements.

Since it's for the Koreans a long unrefueled range may not be a high priority.

The drawings look like fan art rather than anything serious. I mean, how could you build a VLO aircraft and then not use internal carriage? Rescinding the internal carriage requirement is a way of pressuring LM on price etc by letting EF and SH into the contest. I can't really see much advantage of what they have there over the Silent Eagle and I can't see much advantage if any of SE over the EF. If the aircraft is real, it looks like a glorified SE with internal carriage for AAM and SDB and external for regular bombs.

Is there any way to take an F100 or F110 and superdupercharge it rather than using what appears to be 2 F414 type engines?

shingen wrote:

The drawings look like fan art rather than anything serious. I mean, how could you build a VLO aircraft and then not use internal carriage? Rescinding the internal carriage requirement is a way of pressuring LM on price etc by letting EF and SH into the contest.

I think they 'reduced' the internal requirements, not eliminated them. A F-35 can carry 2 x 2000 lb bombs, but this bird is probably limited to 2x500 lb bombs instead.

shingen wrote:

Is there any way to take an F100 or F110 and superdupercharge it rather than using what appears to be 2 F414 type engines?

Yes, the PW F119 or the GE YF120 engine. The F110-132 is used on the F-16 Block 60 aircraft but I don't think they upgraded the intakes from the baseline 'big mouth' Block 40/50 jets.

The F119 engine is very expensive, if it was available for export at all. The F414 EDE is available, relatively cheap (A prroduction F414 engine is around $4m each) and high performance. The KAI F/A-50 is slated to use a single F414 engine. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet uses the F414 engine in the fleet, and the F/A-18 for Brazil would likely get the F414-EDE engine.

For instance, a F135 engine wont be fitted to a F-22 upgrade, as it is not optimized for supersonic flight. It uses a larger fan for increased thrust. The F-22 engine bay wont accommodate a significantly larger fan either.

That_Engine_Guy might have more information or corrections.

shingen wrote:

how could you build a VLO aircraft and then not use internal carriage?

Minimal-signature weapons, like JSOW, JASSM, Storm Shadow, and NSM/JSM.

delvo wrote:

shingen wrote:

how could you build a VLO aircraft and then not use internal carriage?

Minimal-signature weapons, like JSOW, JASSM, Storm Shadow, and NSM/JSM.

That may not work very well. Radar reflections off of the LO weapons may reflect off of the otherwise LO airframe and right back to the enemy, making the rcs of the combination much larger than the sum of the the two.

Before anything else, can we please have a reference to be sure this is a real aircraft? Or perhaps its one of many configurations being looked at by the Koreans?

delvo wrote:

shingen wrote:

how could you build a VLO aircraft and then not use internal carriage?

Minimal-signature weapons, like JSOW, JASSM, Storm Shadow, and NSM/JSM.

You'd still have problems with drag if you're making every large weapon be external. Those right angles formed by all of those pylons are bound to cause some pretty nasty and undesired interaction between boundary layers which will cause negative pressure gradients from forward to aft ends of the airframe...just like every aircraft that doesn't store its uber heavy weapons internally.

Is there confirmation that the internal carry requirement has been reduced? With two smaller engines and without the F-35's requirement (because of the B model) to have the engine not that far from the center of gravity they can put the engines further back in the tail leaving more room for fuel and weapons.

Is there an unrefueled range requirement for it?

firstimpulse wrote:

Before anything else, can we please have a reference to be sure this is a real aircraft? Or perhaps its one of many configurations being looked at by the Koreans?

The C100 concept has all the hallmarks Lockheed Martin design or at least influence. My suspicion is this represents a flip-flop on design requirements. Other countries have successfully demonstrated F-5/YF-17 type aircraft, notably Iranian F-5 derivative jets now in production/service. It would be logical to push the C100 (Light 5th Gen, T-50 derivative) first, and then the C200 (Heavy 5th Gen, F-22 type) afterwards.

The Japanese F-2 is an example of a jet that tried to bridge the gap between light fighter and interceptor. Ordering only 90 jets was not exactly a vote of confidence, even though it had the ability with upgrades to be a great 4.5 Gen fighter design.

The C-100 shown here is a PS blend of F-22 and F-35. The wings are pulled from the F-35, just without the roundels and the intakes are straight from the F-22. I used to draw hybrids of the F-15 and F-16 back in the day too. Now they do it in photoshop.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

KFX C100 V.S. F-35