Page 1 of 9

F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 02:35
by eagleowl
Just wanted to upload some images from a good source: https://blog.naver.com/jhst3103

0zvGXs0 - Imgur.png

bNaLlFV - Imgur.png

bvrD4qf - Imgur.png

StDEvvS - Imgur.png


Edit: Attempt number 3

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 03:11
by spazsinbad
I can see the blog but cannot see the images linked here. What have you done? Have you 'hot linked' the images to here? Otherwise copy to download images to then upload them here or something - difficult for me to say as I'm only guessing.

Then say what you wanted to say - otherwise you say nothing. Is this what you mean to say? I have no clue - only guessing.

TITLE IMAGE below from a BLOG in a language I do not comprehend: https://blog.naver.com/jhst3103

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 03:44
by eagleowl
spazsinbad wrote:I can see the blog but cannot see the images linked here. What have you done? Have you 'hot linked' the images to here? Otherwise copy to download images to then upload them here or something - difficult for me to say as I'm only guessing.

Then say what you wanted to say - otherwise you say nothing. Is this what you mean to say? I have no clue - only guessing.

TITLE IMAGE below from a BLOG in a language I do not comprehend: https://blog.naver.com/jhst3103


Hmm, I can see the images on my screen. I'll reupload them.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 04:58
by spazsinbad
HOT LINKING images mostly does not work these days (that means using image tags. Yes you can see the images because (I'm guessing) you have logged into the blog and see the images which are then in your browser cache. So these same images you link can be seen by you because your browser looks at your browser cache. HOWEVER.... we cannot see the images because we have not logged into the blog & those images are not in our browser caches. OK? Clear your cache.

Thanks - I see you have UPLOADED the images to F-16.net. These days that will be always the best strategy - otherwise....

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 06:42
by steve2267
What is "KF-X"? ETA: OK, so I take it that "KF-X" is the "new" fighter being developed by Korea for the ROK Air Force and Indonesian Air Force. Wiki says 120 units for ROK, and 50 for Indonesia, but "total" production over 250. Dunno where the other 80 come from. Spreading development costs across 170-250 units would seem to guarantee a high flyway cost. Or I should say, it will be difficult to recoup development costs across only 170-250 units.

Only 12,000lb of gas? Range is going to suffer. And with two engines? Two engines are generally not goint to be as fuel efficient as one larger (i.e. F-135) engine. Not clear on how the SPFE of the F-414 compares to the F-135, but I doubt two EJ2000's are anywhere near as fuel efficient as an F-135. Range is going to really suffer.

Allegedly same size as F-35. But only 24,450 - 24,500lb empty weight? Because why? Because the weight fairy says so? Because someone waived their magic weight wand? Because it is only 5g capable and they saved the weight because they don't require 9g capability? ETA: I suppose if there is no internal weapons bays... you might save structural weight. if they are just trying for Gen 4.5 (no stealth), then maybe that empty weight is feasible. Seems unrealisitically light, though.

My response: yawn...

But if ROK wants to build it to give their aerospace industry something to do... who am I to say no? Just don't be using US Foreign Aid to finance your aero industry is all I have to say about that.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 07:18
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 08:33
by gta4
I think it is impossible to downsize the weight below 13000 kg.

Proof:

Even without internal weapon bay, a fighterjet with similar size still weights at least 11000kg (Mig-29). The addition of internal weapon bay adds at least 2000 kg.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 11:12
by eagleowl
steve2267 wrote:What is "KF-X"? ETA: OK, so I take it that "KF-X" is the "new" fighter being developed by Korea for the ROK Air Force and Indonesian Air Force. Wiki says 120 units for ROK, and 50 for Indonesia, but "total" production over 250. Dunno where the other 80 come from. Spreading development costs across 170-250 units would seem to guarantee a high flyway cost. Or I should say, it will be difficult to recoup development costs across only 170-250 units.


250 basically future production for the needs of the ROKAF and Indonesian Air Forces

steve2267 wrote:Only 12,000lb of gas? Range is going to suffer. And with two engines? Two engines are generally not goint to be as fuel efficient as one larger (i.e. F-135) engine. Not clear on how the SPFE of the F-414 compares to the F-135, but I doubt two EJ2000's are anywhere near as fuel efficient as an F-135. Range is going to really suffer.


Should have comparable legs to a Eurofighter or Rafale shouldn't it? Those 2 don't operate 'clean' with no tanks because they aren't stealth so I acknowledge it's inferior to the F-35A as a long range strike aircraft but I don't think the 'stealth' configuration range of the KF-X would be operationally unusable. In fact the ROKAF wanted something well exceeding the KF-16 but nothing like the F-15K, it's more the Indonesian Air Force that wants the endurance to patrol their vast airspace.

steve2267 wrote:Allegedly same size as F-35. But only 24,450 - 24,500lb empty weight? Because why? Because the weight fairy says so? Because someone waived their magic weight wand? Because it is only 5g capable and they saved the weight because they don't require 9g capability? ETA: I suppose if there is no internal weapons bays... you might save structural weight. if they are just trying for Gen 4.5 (no stealth), then maybe that empty weight is feasible. Seems unrealisitically light, though.


Seems comparable in size and thus weight to a Eurofighter? Maybe it's optimistic but not unrealistic, surely? The F-35A carries far more internal fuel and has has far larger IWBs.

steve2267 wrote:My response: yawn...

But if ROK wants to build it to give their aerospace industry something to do... who am I to say no? Just don't be using US Foreign Aid to finance your aero industry is all I have to say about that.


If the Korean Aerospace industry pulls off something approaching a Eurofighter/Rafale/MiG-35 in performance is it really a 'yawn'? And what comes under the umbrella of 'US Foreign Aid'

gta4 wrote:I think it is impossible to downsize the weight below 13000 kg.

Proof:

Even without internal weapon bay, a fighterjet with similar size still weights at least 11000kg (Mig-29). The addition of internal weapon bay adds at least 2000 kg.


Working forwards from the MiG-29 seems to be difficult, but the F-35 is 13,000kg. If you could make it smaller so it carried less fuel and had IWBs that only were big enough for 4 AAMs, would it be impossible to save around 1,500kg in weight?

spazsinbad wrote:First Image: https://imgur.com/jPP7V9h
&
Second Image: https://imgur.com/3tTTJTx


Those are really old images. The AESA hardware is being supplied by Hanwha Systems, are most definitely GaN, and should have an output of around 15W per TRM. I'm not sure how technologically advanced/unadvanced that is.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 13:31
by gta4
Working forwards from the MiG-29 seems to be difficult, but the F-35 is 13,000kg. If you could make it smaller so it carried less fuel and had IWBs that only were big enough for 4 AAMs, would it be impossible to save around 1,500kg in weight?


With the level of US technology (in structural design), it is possible to save around 500kg weight.

Otherwise, with the level of tech of other countries, 13000kg is the least possible number you can get, because Mig-29 has very few internal fuel and very small fuselage. 11000kg is the smallest possible number you could begin with. adding a weapon bay, no matter how small it is, will add around 2000 kg due to retraction mechanism.

Note that the difference in structural design capability among different countries. Technically, carrier based fighters (like F/A-18C) should be heavier than land based fighters (like Mig-29), but in fact F/A-18C is slightly lighter than Mig-29.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 13:55
by zero-one
Judging by the data given on wing area, T/W ratio and other parameters
the C104 model looks like what an F-35 optimized more for A-A would look like. The T/W ratio is particularly high, although I don't think it will be useful since the 50% fuel will be just around 5000 lbs.


But then again, thats the same ball park as the Rafale and Typhoon's, Fuel loads might be enough for point defense missions and not necessarily for long endurance CAP missions.

the F-35 leaves little to be desired in the strike department, but many countries (like Japan) have long wanted for a taylor made A-A 5th gen like the Raptor.


S.Korea might be looking at China as the threat cause theres just no way that N.Korean Mig-21s are the intended targets of these fighters although they will undoubtedly make it look that way as to not antagonize China.
China is very weary of the growing tensions in its borders and have repeatedly tried to impede the capabilities of it's potential adversaries.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2018, 16:14
by hythelday
@f-16.netlovesme/wewuz

Whatever they are paying you, tell them they spend too much.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 00:54
by madrat
Of course China is the opponent of concern for South Korea.

China has literally held half the country hostage over the communist ideologies.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2018, 17:09
by nutshell
To say the 104 is an AA optimized F35 is a far stretch as of now.

Unless it really is meant to.carry little fuel and little ordnance.

Also, i'd be surprised if 2xf414 would net a higher acceleration than the f135

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 04:36
by eagleowl
Here is the C108 update, mainly for documentation purposes. All credit goes to the source: https://blog.naver.com/jhst3103/221302387737
1.png

1345.png

그림2.png

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2018, 06:19
by SpudmanWP
Go to the F-35 parent thread and "Mark Forums Read".
viewforum.php?f=65