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

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2018, 13:33
by vilters
Guys,
even the good old US of A signed the International standard of Units.

The International units are : Meters and Kg.

ft and lbs are obsolete units.

We did , at least in this part of the world, manage to arrive in 2018.

Quote :
Back in 1875 The US signed the Metre Convention, which basically committed the country to use the metric system. In return, French scientists sent two platinum-iridium cylinders that weigh 1kg to the US in 1889 (known by their designations K4 and K20 from a set of 40 identical objects that were produced and sent around the world). So even though everything you see and buy in the US is usually reported in pounds, all weights are traceable back to the K20 kilogram (by applying a conversion factor to get to pounds).

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 22:21
by rheonomic
Yeah no one in the US aerospace industry uses that crap...

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2018, 09:33
by eagleowl
The KF-X program has finished it's PDR and is starting EMD.
Here are images from the official press-release: http://www.dapa.go.kr/dapa/na/ntt/selec ... menuId=678

1530236710.png

1530236710 (1).png

Comparison, images not in correct scale:
1530250601.jpg

1530242929.jpg

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2018, 15:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
So a mini-F22 with F-35 wings but it is too small for internal fuel or weapons.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2018, 16:16
by krorvik
rheonomic wrote:Yeah no one in the US aerospace industry uses that crap...


Using a system with sane conversion math makes you look primitive. One must never be consistent, so the enemy has a harder time groking your stuff.

:devil:

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2018, 16:40
by southernphantom
That's a very interesting design. The small size and lack of internal bays makes it look like low cost is a priority - I could see KF-X becoming a real problem for the Gripen and other warmed-over 4th-gen airframes if the Koreans can get it to market quickly and affordably. If only loaded with conformal AMRAAMs, it would have a serious RCS advantage over 4th-gen aircraft.

Also interesting that they seem to be choosing external targeting pods rather than an internal system. There also looks to be an IRST dome in front of the canopy.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 00:20
by eagleowl
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So a mini-F22 with F-35 wings but it is too small for internal fuel or weapons.

It's the same size (roughly) as a Eurofighter or Super Hornet. And officials have told the press there is internal volume for an IWB in the future. And there is active development by KAI with aerodynamic analysis of IWB doors opening and weapons separation for an IWB that can hold 4 AMM in Air-to-Air and 2AMM and 4 GBU-39 in A-G.
southernphantom wrote:That's a very interesting design. The small size and lack of internal bays makes it look like low cost is a priority - I could see KF-X becoming a real problem for the Gripen and other warmed-over 4th-gen airframes if the Koreans can get it to market quickly and affordably. If only loaded with conformal AMRAAMs, it would have a serious RCS advantage over 4th-gen aircraft.

Also interesting that they seem to be choosing external targeting pods rather than an internal system. There also looks to be an IRST dome in front of the canopy.

I would say the lack of full 5th Gen-ness is not because of a need to make it low cost but just a consequence of reducing development risk, cost, and time. Don`t want to be overly ambitious. (Looking at you India and Turkey)

And the reasoning for external EOTGP (The Sniper Pod looking one) and Navigation Pod (Looks like an AN/AAQ-13) is simple. You don`t need them for Air to Air missions, having them external means you can remove them and get increased performance. On Air to Ground missions you put them on and your loadout includes large external weapons so stealth doesn`t matter.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 03:43
by count_to_10
I’m not seeing how this would be a significant improvement over the super hornet.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 04:11
by lbk000
eagleowl wrote:And the reasoning for external EOTGP (The Sniper Pod looking one) and Navigation Pod (Looks like an AN/AAQ-13) is simple. You don`t need them for Air to Air missions, having them external means you can remove them and get increased performance. On Air to Ground missions you put them on and your loadout includes large external weapons so stealth doesn`t matter.


Yet stealth matters for SEAD/DEAD, in my opinion even more so than for A2A, not only because of its difficulty, but also because it's the more relevant threat these days across the board. As IADS become more and more integrated and inclusive, the concept that the aerial threat is more dangerous than ground based (or even that they should be regarded as separate threats) becomes ever more an anachronistic idea.

To me KF-X is very much a second-line aircraft. KF-X primarily seems to be defensive in nature, as its sensor/stealth package will be insufficient to allow it penetrative power into future integrated air defenses, at least without an enabler like the F-35.
Ultimately, it doesn't warrant comparison to the F-35 because it's not in the same class at all. Lacking the F-35's sensor capabilities, KF-X will be a shooter, but not the shot-caller.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 04:54
by southernphantom
lbk000 wrote:
eagleowl wrote:And the reasoning for external EOTGP (The Sniper Pod looking one) and Navigation Pod (Looks like an AN/AAQ-13) is simple. You don`t need them for Air to Air missions, having them external means you can remove them and get increased performance. On Air to Ground missions you put them on and your loadout includes large external weapons so stealth doesn`t matter.


Yet stealth matters for SEAD/DEAD, in my opinion even more so than for A2A, not only because of its difficulty, but also because it's the more relevant threat these days across the board. As IADS become more and more integrated and inclusive, the concept that the aerial threat is more dangerous than ground based (or even that they should be regarded as separate threats) becomes ever more an anachronistic idea.

To me KF-X is very much a second-line aircraft. KF-X primarily seems to be defensive in nature, as its sensor/stealth package will be insufficient to allow it penetrative power into future integrated air defenses, at least without an enabler like the F-35.
Ultimately, it doesn't warrant comparison to the F-35 because it's not in the same class at all. Lacking the F-35's sensor capabilities, KF-X will be a shooter, but not the shot-caller.


Wholly agreed on all points. It's a Gripen-killer, and in no way comparable to the F-35 for offensive operations. Of course, it should be looked at as part of a combat structure (RoKAF) including F-35s. It doesn't need excellent sensors to work with F-35s.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 12:10
by zero-one
I remember early estimates for the F-35A's empty weight was supposed to be around the 24,000 pound region as well. But if they can manage to stick as close as possible to these empty weight estimates then this bird might actually rival the Raptor in Airshow performance.

I say Airshow because this thing will carry pods and possibly weapons too in combat configuration. It looks like EFTs are also likely. So realistically this thing may be more on par with the Advanced SuperHornet's performance, a snappy high alpha platform with near F-16 like E-M. Impressive for Korea and Indonesia who are now just scratching the surface of the Indigenous Fighter world.

Unlike the US, Korea doesn't need to worry about range as much as all their potential adversaries are literally next door, the 2 F414 engines can also be dialed down a bit as both of them to only need to produce 43k lbs instead of the 44k they currently produce on the Rhino.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 14:08
by madrat
Everyone has to worry about range. More fuel means more high performance endurance and potentially more heat dumpload, both important aspects of stealth.

They must have abandoned CFTs which would have integrated the A2G sensor/nav pods into them. So much for this being the Korean angle on the F-15SE...

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2018, 01:28
by eagleowl
lbk000 wrote:
eagleowl wrote:And the reasoning for external EOTGP (The Sniper Pod looking one) and Navigation Pod (Looks like an AN/AAQ-13) is simple. You don`t need them for Air to Air missions, having them external means you can remove them and get increased performance. On Air to Ground missions you put them on and your loadout includes large external weapons so stealth doesn`t matter.


Yet stealth matters for SEAD/DEAD, in my opinion even more so than for A2A, not only because of its difficulty, but also because it's the more relevant threat these days across the board. As IADS become more and more integrated and inclusive, the concept that the aerial threat is more dangerous than ground based (or even that they should be regarded as separate threats) becomes ever more an anachronistic idea.

To me KF-X is very much a second-line aircraft. KF-X primarily seems to be defensive in nature, as its sensor/stealth package will be insufficient to allow it penetrative power into future integrated air defenses, at least without an enabler like the F-35.
Ultimately, it doesn't warrant comparison to the F-35 because it's not in the same class at all. Lacking the F-35's sensor capabilities, KF-X will be a shooter, but not the shot-caller.


I think the ROKAF`s thinking is that the KF-X will operate in conjunction with the F-35 for sure.
The ROKAF will probably have a Low-Mid-High mix in the future of FA-50/UCAV<F-16V/KF-X<F-15K/F-35, with the KF-X`s deficiencies in the A-G/SEAD/DEAD arena being helped by the F-35 and a future `loyal wingman` UCAV that is in the very early stages of development.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2018, 13:03
by mixelflick
Meh. I'd just buy more F-35's...

This thing reminds me of the SH: It's a compromise. They also don't seem to be able to make their mind up: IWB or external carriage? Yes, you can have both. But doing so increases weight, complexity and de-facto, cost. Either build something that's better than the F-35 or don't do it at all.

But I'm an all or nothing type guy :)

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 11:32
by Dragon029
mixelflick wrote:Meh. I'd just buy more F-35's...

This thing reminds me of the SH: It's a compromise. They also don't seem to be able to make their mind up: IWB or external carriage? Yes, you can have both. But doing so increases weight, complexity and de-facto, cost. Either build something that's better than the F-35 or don't do it at all.

But I'm an all or nothing type guy :)


They're doing conformal weapons on Block 1, internal weapons on Block 2. Why? Possibly because they don't fully want to lock in the weapon bay geometry yet, or possibly because there are internal systems that are somewhat MOTS components that they believe they can shrink in size to produce better bays (eg, new engine accessory drives, a new APU / IPP analogue, redesigned power and hydraulic systems, etc.

I do think it's a messy way of doing things, but it's not my money they're spending and I'm interested to see whether it's financially realistic for them to make such dramatic changes from Block 1 to 2.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 13:58
by mixelflick
South Korea has a long, rich history in buying more modern versions of US jets. Their F-15K's are some of the most modern anywhere, for example. Buying the F-35 would be far preferable to developing this "quasi F-35" IMO. I get it - everyone wants an indigenous fighter program "just in case". That case however (the US refusing to sell S. Korea our jets) is pretty far fetched IMO. Too far fetched to warrant the $ spent on this thing.

If I were S. Korea I'd be developing custom E/W gear and weapons like the Israeli's. The Lavi was a good study in why sometimes, it's just better to buy American vs. try to develop something yourself (that wasn't much more capable than the F-16). You can add Japan and their F-2 to that list...

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 16:43
by usnvo
mixelflick wrote:South Korea has a long, rich history in buying more modern versions of US jets. Their F-15K's are some of the most modern anywhere, for example. Buying the F-35 would be far preferable to developing this "quasi F-35" IMO. I get it - everyone wants an indigenous fighter program "just in case". That case however (the US refusing to sell S. Korea our jets) is pretty far fetched IMO. Too far fetched to warrant the $ spent on this thing.

If I were S. Korea I'd be developing custom E/W gear and weapons like the Israeli's. The Lavi was a good study in why sometimes, it's just better to buy American vs. try to develop something yourself (that wasn't much more capable than the F-16). You can add Japan and their F-2 to that list...


I don't think the Koreans see the KF-X as a "just in case" aircraft. I would guess they are doing it much more as a show of national pride. It says, "We are as good as anyone else and stand equal to other nations" since very few nations can make their own combat jets and two that do are China and Japan. Efficiency and Price doesn't matter. The Koreans (collectively, not always individually) have a massive chip on their shoulder (long history of domination by other nations plus something about the Japanese trying to destroy their history and culture really sticks in their craw). So even though they can't make the engines, lavishly copied the exterior of the F-35, and wanted the US to basically give them everything that makes the F-35 the F-35, they are going to press on with the project. Because it is not just a defense program, it is basically national therapy. Basically the same reason Turkey is making their own indigenous fighter as well.

Just my $0.02 theory.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 13:39
by zero-one
The reason could also be...Well the F-35 is basically the best fighter for every mission, except for air to air, bettered only by the Raptor in that mission.


not everyone needs a Top tier SEAD/DEAD/CAS/Interdiction aircraft with great range. Some people would love to have an aircraft, 70% of the F-35's capabilities, If it can be cheaper Like an F-15SE or F/A-18 ASH. The US won't build it because it will divert resources away from the JSF program.

Well that opens the door for S.Korea, Not everyone can afford the F-35, maybe they can buy it but operating and maintenance cost is another story.

With the F-35's data sharing capabilities, they can also have a force structured around ~50 F-35s and supported by 150 Pseudo F-35s (a.k.a. KF-X)

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 14:21
by steve2267
Korea may be trying to retain or increase its industrial capacity for designing and building tactical combat aircraft.

The F-35 is so far ahead of everything else, that if other countries don't try to catch up, their industry will be relegated to 2nd class military / industrial enterprises.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 15:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote: If it can be cheaper Like an F-15SE or F/A-18 ASH.

And F/A-18E cost M$70 in 2017 and an F-15K cost M$100 in 2006. How do you see more advanced versions of either of these being cheaper than an F-35A which is already at M$95 and dropping year over year.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 15:35
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And F/A-18E cost M$70 in 2017 and an F-15K cost M$100 in 2006. How do you see more advanced versions of either of these being cheaper than an F-35A which is already at M$95 and dropping year over year.


Well Kuwait got them Rhinos cheaper at $53M
https://defence-blog.com/aviation/kuwai ... craft.html

Remember these birds were created with American requirements as the basis. The emphasis on range is greater, top tier SEAD capability is a requirement.

S.Korea won't necessarily have those exact requirements. What if They want an F-35 with just the air - air capabilities, make it a point defense fighter, slash the SEAD capabilities by half, slash the strike capabilities by half.

I think thats well within S.Korea's technical capabilities, making the cost justifiable is the only problem.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 15:54
by SpudmanWP
You can't base the plane's price on a single contract to a single mfg, even if it's the prime. What about the engines, GFE, pylons, pods, tanks, etc?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 15:56
by steve2267
zero-one wrote:Well Kuwait got them Rhinos cheaper at $53M
https://defence-blog.com/aviation/kuwai ... craft.html

Remember these birds were created with American requirements as the basis. The emphasis on range is greater, top tier SEAD capability is a requirement.

S.Korea won't necessarily have those exact requirements. What if They want an F-35 with just the air - air capabilities, make it a point defense fighter, slash the SEAD capabilities by half, slash the strike capabilities by half.

I think thats well within S.Korea's technical capabilities, making the cost justifiable is the only problem.


I have to disagree with this point. Of course, while we internet rabble rousers have no idea what Korea's requirements are, I have to ask from which air force do they need such an air-to-air capability? Does NORK truly possess that large and dangerous a tactical combat aircraft threat? While I suppose the KF-X could be designed to repel / shoot down the awesome NORK air force, relying on F-35's, F-16's, and maybe F-15K's for strike interdiction & CAS, I will argue its the other way around: use F-15K's and F-35's for any necessary air-to-air operations, and utilize the KF-X as a networked shooter / bomb dropper leveraging the F-35's ISR and COMMs capability.

Since the F-35's sensors are so good, and sensor fusion works so well, and MADL transmits so much data... why not build a KF-X without a radar? If they could implement a MADL-compatible system, then could the KF-X receive all its required targeting information from F-35s? That might save a good amount of money in development costs.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 16:13
by zero-one
All I'm saying is, the F-35 is top tier in everything.
Do you have a cheaper, less capable version lying around?

Cause the Chinese have, its called the J-31. And if they can make it cheap. It may sell.

a Pseudo F-35 won't be as capable, We'll sit here rolling our eyes on the lack of DAS,
crude sensor fusion,
700 T/R module AESA,
350 NM combat radius,
11,000 pound payload

but if they can make it cheap and rely on the fact that they have real F-35's that can provide all the S.A. thy can ask for, countries like Singapore, India, Taiwan, the Philippines may be interested.

The west has no low end 5th gen fighter right now, so Korea, India, Turkey and others may want to fill that niche.
The real challenge is to make it cheap

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 16:18
by zero-one
steve2267 wrote: I have to ask from which air force do they need such an air-to-air capability?

China,
You'll need numbers to play around with the PLAAF.

F-35's can make F-15s and F-16s much better
just imagine what a force of F-35s supported by Pseudo F-35's can do?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 13:30
by collimatrix
zero-one wrote:All I'm saying is, the F-35 is top tier in everything.

The west has no low end 5th gen fighter right now, so Korea, India, Turkey and others may want to fill that niche.
The real challenge is to make it cheap


Not sure they'll succeed. India can't do anything right when it comes to military procurement, they're automatically out of the race. Just look at their service rifle. Or their tank. Or their submarine. Or their self-propelled howitzer. The problem is that all Indian defense development is consolidated under a big, state-run organization that literally cannot do anything correctly.

Turkey and Korea at least know which end the pitot tube goes on, but I'm not sure their design approach will yield a low-end counterpart to the F-35. Both designs have, thus far, been twin-engine. Twin engine does have some advantages, but I'm pretty sure that kilonewtons per dollar is not one of them. TF-X is envisioned to re-use a lot of Typhoon components, which should save development costs. But, so far as I am aware, the 'phoon has not proven an easy or cheap plane to maintain. Certainly the Luftwaffe's abysmal readiness rate would suggest that. Long term costs of an aircraft rapidly overshadow the initial purchase costs, and the F-35 is designed with ease of maintenance and low long term costs in mind. On top of that, Lockmart has somehow brought the cost of a new F-35 below that of the eurocanards.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2018, 13:44
by icemaverick
Economies of scale also come into play. Turkey, South Korea, India and Japan won’t be committed to thousands of aircraft for their own use and the competition on the export market is stiff. They’ll only be able to produce relatively small numbers of indigenous 5th gens and that will drive up costs. These countries’ best bet would be to form a consortium so that they could ensure that a decent number of jets will be built. Of course, the politics of such an endeavor are a whole new can of worms....

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 01:53
by Corsair1963
icemaverick wrote:Economies of scale also come into play. Turkey, South Korea, India and Japan won’t be committed to thousands of aircraft for their own use and the competition on the export market is stiff. They’ll only be able to produce relatively small numbers of indigenous 5th gens and that will drive up costs. These countries’ best bet would be to form a consortium so that they could ensure that a decent number of jets will be built. Of course, the politics of such an endeavor are a whole new can of worms....



Not to split hairs but Japan is not developing a 5th Generation Fighter..........


Yet, I agree with your remarks in general.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 02:54
by weasel1962
Well, I wonder what everyone else calls the F-3 stealth fighter program then. Probably the Japanese designation 第5世代.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 03:20
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Well, I wonder what everyone else calls the F-3 stealth fighter program then. Probably the Japanese designation 第5世代.




Japan stopped flight testing the X-2 (formerly ATD-X) and isn't going to develop the F-3.........(old news)

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 04:21
by weasel1962
Didn't know 48 hours or less is now considered old news.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ghter-jet/

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 05:39
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Didn't know 48 hours or less is now considered old news.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... ghter-jet/



Story is "wrong"...what is being discuss is US Companies joining Japan to develop a future "6th Generation Fighter Program". Which, is at the very early stages. Regardless, what that story says the "F-3" is "DEAD". Yet, feel free to believe "popular mechanics".

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 05:47
by Corsair1963
Japan backs out of plan to develop fighter jet on its own

Japan is moving to scrap plans to domestically develop a new advanced fighter jet due to staggering costs and anticipated engineering pitfalls.

The Defense Ministry initially had three possible alternatives for the fighter jet that would replace the F-2 fighter-attacker that will be gradually mothballed from around 2030.

But with China and Russia showing greater military assertiveness in the region, Defense Ministry officials faced the key task of replacing the F-2 with a fighter with more advanced capabilities.

The ministry decided its options were to fully develop the next-generation fighter jet domestically, develop it jointly with other nations, or extend the life of the F-2 through various modifications.

It initially leaned toward domestic development as it was deemed to "be important in maintaining Japan's fighter jet technology," according to a high-ranking defense official.

There were expectations that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. would play a leading role in developing the fighter jet. This was before a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries ran into difficulties developing the Mitsubishi Regional Jet passenger aircraft for commercial production.

Finance Ministry officials eventually urged caution, citing the huge costs that domestic development would entail.

The government began to realize that domestic development of the next-generation fighter jet carried enormous risks.

Against that background, the Defense Ministry will not seek funding for domestic development of a next-generation fighter jet when requests are compiled this summer for the fiscal 2019 budget, sources said.

Tokyo is expected to sound out Washington as early as this week on the prospects of joint development of the next-generation fighter jet.

A decision on how to proceed will likely be formally made between fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2023 as that is the period covered by the Mid-Term Defense Program that will be put together before the end of the year
.
It is still possible that Japan will place additional orders with the United States for the advanced stealth F-35A fighter jet manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. as the replacement for the F-2.

The government has already decided to purchase 42 stealth fighters to replace the F-4.

In light of pressure being applied by the Trump administration on allies to "Buy American," government officials may also decide to acquire the F-35A as the successor aircraft for the F-2.

The ASDF now has around 200 F-15 fighter jets, 50 F-4s and 90 F-2s. One F-35A fighter jet has been delivered.

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201803050037.html

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 06:16
by weasel1962
2 days later, guess what...

https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/japan-d ... r-program/

Japan Denies Scrapping 5th Generation Stealth Fighter Program

Japan’s Ministry of Defense distanced itself from reports that it is no longer pursuing an indigenous stealth fighter jet.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 07:08
by weasel1962

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 08:17
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:I see someone is in a different planet again.

April 22, 2018 - Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa ... SKBN1HR0MM

April 23, 2018 - Flight
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-447911/

July 10, 2018 - Defence connect
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... e-heats-up

July 6, 2018 - Japan Times
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/ ... urces-say/

Mar 6, 2018 - Jane's
http://www.janes.com/article/78362/japa ... -an-option



The F-3 (based on the X-2) as we know it is dead and you can post as many sources as you want and it won't change that.

F3X2.jpg



Yet, when Japan rolls out a prototype of the F-3 come see me.....I will happily concede. (but it won't happen) :wink:

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 10:22
by weasel1962
Japan is not developing a 5th Generation Fighter


Yup, noted the F-3 project doesn't exist only in the corsair world. No amount of fact will change that.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2018, 18:07
by southernphantom
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:I see someone is in a different planet again.

April 22, 2018 - Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa ... SKBN1HR0MM

April 23, 2018 - Flight
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-447911/

July 10, 2018 - Defence connect
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... e-heats-up

July 6, 2018 - Japan Times
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/ ... urces-say/

Mar 6, 2018 - Jane's
http://www.janes.com/article/78362/japa ... -an-option



The F-3 (based on the X-2) as we know it is dead and you can post as many sources as you want and it won't change that.

F3X2.jpg



Yet, when Japan rolls out a prototype of the F-3 come see me.....I will happily concede. (but it won't happen) :wink:


Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring something does not magically make it not exist, despite what you seem intent on believing.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2018, 14:11
by mixelflick
I don't see the F-3 or whatever its called happening. You would think they learned their lesson on the F-2, but maybe not. It's going to cost a boatload of $ to re-invent the stealth wheel, and they'll likely wind up with something closer in capability to an up-engined F-35 than an F-22.

The best solution here is obvious: Keep buying more F-35's.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2018, 18:54
by talkitron
Most of us here agree that spending lots of money on R&D to develop a peer to the F-35 does not build war fighting capacity, compared to buying F-35s off the shelf. Japan's decision about whether to develop a fighter is more about domestic industry than anything.

I personally think Japan and the UK would be a good next gen fighter dream team. Both seem to have good aerospace sectors. On the other hand, it might be hard for one country to let the other be the lead on the project.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2018, 22:04
by usnvo
talkitron wrote:I personally think Japan and the UK would be a good next gen fighter dream team. Both seem to have good aerospace sectors. On the other hand, it might be hard for one country to let the other be the lead on the project.


By that logic, merging Nash and Hudson into AMC was a brilliant decision. Much like AMC, while both of those countries have capable aerospace sectors, their market share is so low as to make the development of a truly competitive aircraft ruinously expensive. The simple fact is, that if you want to develop a competitive 6th Generation Fighter (note that the KF-X and TF-X programs are more 4+/5th Gen"ish" F-16 replacement projects more about national pride than capability or cost) you have to do it with nations that will buy more than a few hundred maximum. There is really only one country that fits that description.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 15:54
by vilters
Psst: You forgot that F-104's were doing aileron rolls around SR-71 at 72;000 ft.
Ok, with a slightly upgraded J-79 but they went high AND FAST.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 17:59
by steve2267
vilters wrote:Psst: You forgot that F-104's were doing aileron rolls around SR-71 at 72;000 ft.
Ok, with a slightly upgraded J-79 but they went high AND FAST.


Hmmmm... I recall the accident in which an F-104 appeared to roll around and into an XB-70, but am pretty sure the accident did not occur at 72,000ft.

For sure the F-104 could zoom climb pretty high, and some specially modified F-104's with the addition of a rocket motor earned a few test pilots their astronaut wings...

but the F-104G service ceiling is listed at only 50,000ft.

The F-104 did not have a lot of wing area, relatively speaking.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 19:23
by barrelnut
lrrpf52 wrote:Cool thing about the Draken was that it was truly a lightweight fighter interceptor capable of very high altitude perch, but it lacked any radar missiles, and relied on carriage of 4 x AIM-9s.


Draken (at least some versions of it) was equipped with Hughes AIM-26B semi-active radar guided missiles:

Image

Fatter missile here on a ground stand in front of the plane here is a license built radar guided AIM-26B Falcon.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 21:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
steve2267 wrote:
but the F-104G service ceiling is listed at only 50,000ft.


Steve, it has been well documented that an F-104 with the J79-GE-19 motor (not common in the F-104 for sure, but it did exist) did Mach 2.0 at 73,000ft at 3/4 AB burning a mere 100lb/min fuel covering 20nm/min for a .2nm/lb specific range.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 22:53
by steve2267
Wow. I stand corrected.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 22:54
by steve2267
Does there also exist evidence of aileron rolls around an SR-71 at 72,000ft?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 02:39
by madrat
I would think the radar guided Falcon was more of a chase missile than one suitable for head-on interception.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 05:34
by spazsinbad
Japanese next fighter seems to have infiltrated this thread (by STEALTH!?) so I'll post this info here perhaps a new thread?
Lockheed Martins’ F-22, F-35 hybrid for Japan will cost $177 million per aircraft
16 Jul 2018 ALERT5 from Yomiuri Online

"The Yomiuri Shimbun disclosed that the Lockheed Martin F-22 with F-35 avionics proposal for Japan is being sold at $177 million for each aircraft. An anonymous defense official says while Lockheed’s proposal is most suitable, the price is much higher than the $133 million per aircraft that Tokyo is willing to fork out...."

Source: https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/2018 ... 50017.html [original Japanese} otherwise: http://alert5.com/2018/07/17/lockheed-m ... -aircraft/

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 05:54
by popcorn
Note that's $177M just for the avionics from LM. Presumably engines, airframe, etc. will be Japan's expense. This thing is gonna result in an epic case of sticker shock.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 07:17
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:Note that's $177M just for the avionics from LM.
:doh:

You could buy 10 times the F-35's avionics and still not reach that number.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 10:09
by Corsair1963
Japan would know such a proposal would be to expensive from the start. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised. If, it was just a political move.............


Nonetheless, what I originally said is the most likely course. That Japan will continue to acquire F-35's for short-term. While, joining with a partner or partners to develop a future 6th Generation Fighter long term.


"IMHO"

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 18:29
by barrelnut
madrat wrote:I would think the radar guided Falcon was more of a chase missile than one suitable for head-on interception.


No, it was definitely designed for head-on intercepts, how successful it was in that I don't know.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-26.html

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2018, 01:10
by steve2267
It is possible the Japanese publicly try to acquire the avionics from LM and they do the airframe etc etc. If that is the case, then I think the Japanese may just be approaching it as a technology transfer program similar to the old Galaxy Express launch vehicle. Galaxy Express was ostensibly a launch vehicle program wherein Lockheed Martin would provide an Atlas III stage 1, the Japanese would build the 2nd stage, provide the payload fairing, mission avionics etc etc. The Japanese ended up acquiring a LOT of launch vehicle technology, legally, from LM all with the blessing of the US State Dept, but in the end, threw up their hands and said, this is too expensive, and shut the whole shebang down. (Granted, it was 2008, and the economy had tanked pretty much everywhere, or was in the process of tanking, but the fact that the Japanese govt threw in the towel suggested to me that they were happy with the technology they had acquired; I wonder if that was their goal from the beginning?)

If this new Japanese fighter involves technology transfer from LM and/or other US companies, the US would do well to go into any such agreement with its eyes wide open. FWIW.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 03:55
by litzj
I have visted DX 2018 Korea.

That event concentrated on Army equipment, however, I could see updated feature of KF-X model and Korean Apache helicopter

Separated control surface for flap and aileron, extended fuselage can be seen

http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2018/09 ... korea.html

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 23:10
by maro.kyo
Wow,things getting discussed here is almost to the extent of being toxic. :doh:
There goes someone who claims KF-X is a national pride stuff and others all cry out how irrational it is to develop an indigenous fighter... c'mon folks, interpreting everything from solely American or European perspective, you're ignoring almost everything except for how KF-X would compare to F-35 performance-wise.

I'm mostly annoyed about what's allegedly "the reason" of developing an indigenous fighter as discussed in this thread. National pride the sole reason to develop an indigenous fighter? Are you out of your mind? You think Korea is some politically unstable, underdeveloped nation without a functioning democracy, separation of powers and measures to stop irrational waste of national funds (okay, I should admit that there are some really embarrassing and shameful examples for this but it mostly isn't all that bad)? Do you even know that it took some 15 bloody years to get this project to the point that its something real? During those 15 years the project was literally half dead, just kept barely alive with a respirator. I'm not going to talk much about Indian and Turkish counterparts but this project was established on a politically solid basis when it finally materialized. The first requirement institution regarding KF-X was issued in 2002. In between there were loads of conceptual design work, doctrine research, precedent studies, feasibility studies, etc, etc, you name it. It didn't came out from nowhere without a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I myself is one of those pro-F35 guy. I never favored KF-X over F-35. But the thing is, you guys don't understand some key points.

First off, In ROKAF the requirement for specific kind of jet is fixed. It means there is a fixed amount of requirement within the service for high-, medium- and low- counterparts of tactical birds respectively. For high- class fighter that number is 120. Its been cut half from 240 which was the initial plan before the '97 financial crisis and it is de facto number ever since. Changing or issuing new requirement institution takes years to process. (another proof for KF-X is not just a stupid national pride project) One might say its bureaucratic but sustainable and feasible plan is the key in this sense. Its way better than spending tax money in a short sighted way, having different priorities based on different political agenda under different parties.

Anyways that 120 birds are soon to be filled, with 59 F-15K in service and 40 F-35 on orders, the 4th F-X would be the contract for 20 additional F-35 which is already included as contract option signed during the 3rd F-X and there's no doubt. Now, ROKAF classifies F-35 as high- class bird, how are you going to issue a requirement for medium- class fighter replacing the F-5 and in the near future, the falcons? It just doesn't work. The budget is already being processed separately by the parliament and its going to take ages fighting for the budget within the parliament. In that sense, KF-X is also very favorable because for the MPs, creating jobs by building a domestic equipment, thus spending less money to foreign product is a sound political deal to finance the project.

On top of that, ROKAF requires a substantial amount of tactical fighters, namely 430. That is the minimum requirement for defending the Korean airspace and maritime, already slashed down from 500 + in last few decades and has been a controversy ever since. No matter what you guys think, the heads of ROKAF thinks that its going to be hard to even keep that 430 jets in inventory if its fulled of foreign jets, including F-35. It's very hard to tell if KF-X is going to meet its planned cost of around $ 80 mil per unit (I'm personally skeptical about it) since its just the last month that the construction of the first prototype started, but that's the plan at least. The procurement cost aside, maintenance costs are sure to stay below F-35. (note that in Korea the added value to military equipment manufactured within Korea is fixed by the law) In that sense, KF-X by the plan, is at least equal or even better than most of the foreign options to fill up the medium- class fighter inventory.

Aforementioned ease of maintenance is the second reason for an indigenous jet. FA-50 has already shown a 90% + mission readiness and this is the case for almost all the other Korean equipment in all services. On the other had the ROK military had numerous bad experiences regarding the maintenance of foreign equipment, most notably the tiger-eye on the F-15K and the Hawk trainers. The time required and the cost for which the domestic equipment and parts are issued was unmatched for almost every example.

Thirdly, unlike the already rock solid aerospace industry in the US and Europe, one in Korea needs governmental help to sustain it. Building parts for commercial jets and servicing MRO doesn't suffice to keep the R&D capabilities. Just take a look at Taiwan after F-CK-1. Hell, even Japan has this problem. You guys don't seem to understand but X-2 and F-3 program has a lot to do with keeping their aerospace industry alive. Those bloody expensive C-2 cargo planes and P-1 patrol aircraft,which is still developed even when there is a better solution -just like the F-35 - called the P-8, is developed for a reason. It's not just some silly B2G relationship that keeps them alive. They produce jobs you know, not just some ordinary job but some very important ones. Its an utter failure as of now, but examples like MRJ are clearly noticeable what keeping the R&D capabilities alive leads to.

Lastly, integrating various Korean or other non-US ordnance is also a huge factor contributing to KF-X's existence. ROKAF's demand for various PGM is quite huge and takes a big share of US military exports to Korea. Making a domestic replacement makes sense in that manner and for that they need KF-X. Obviously, no matter of being close ally or not, there ain't no country who likes to see some foreign country messing up with the on-board computer and source codes on a military equipment, including the US.

Unlike what some believe, KF-X is still mostly Korean, with not only the fuselage but most of its avionics and FCS being developed by Korean firms. Providing help and guidance regarding such design is the job of TAC like lockmart or Elta who's helping out with the radar. I mean, demanding core capability related tech like system integration and sensor fusion technology as an offset for F-35 procurement was clearly an utterly stupid move but like I've said, they weren't really without a plan solely relying on those "possible" offset, there were R&D already going on regarding the core tech. Maybe they were just giving a try? A dumb try is still a try you see :| :shrug: Thus it worked out quite well during the first F-X I guess? KF-X is not a F-35 contender anyways. Maybe it could be sold to Gulf nations or other US partner nations who can't buy F-35 due to American doctrine but that's just some really optimistic forecast which I also find quite unlikely as of now.


So, does this still sound like an idiotic choice based on a political agenda to promote national pride and hopefully, win an election with it?

I mean if you want to earn a vote in Korea, promoting national pride by building a fighter jet ain't the best solution anyways. Seriously... :x

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 23:26
by maro.kyo
Besides, I will provide details on recent changes and the prototype design in a few days. There's been quite a change from the known official image of the final design (C109) after the PDR...

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 01:07
by steve2267
I can't say that I've followed this thread super closely... but... what is your issue?

If Korea want's to spend Korean money on a Korean fighter jet...great! Just don't expect to come up with an aircraft that rivals the F-35. And don't expect America to give, or even to sell, Korea F-35 technology. America spent a small fortune developing that technology. It's her national treasure, in a manner of speaking.

Perhaps people here dismissed the KF-X program because the initial images seemed to suggest Korea was trying to create a knock-off clone of the F-35, as the aircraft outer mold lines were compared side by side.

You have already stated that the KF-X is targeting $80M each. Almost invariably, costs grow. So that $80M each is almost sure to increase. So Korea will be potentially getting an aircraft with perhaps the performance of a Gripen, maybe a Rafale, for the cost which is higher than an F-35A, without the benefits of full sensor fusion, mission data files, phenomenal situational awareness, EW capabilities second to none, and super small VLO numbers. But if that is how Korea wants to spend her money... then by all means, have at it.

Just don't expect F-35 performance out of it. (I mean, it is theoretically possible, but the F-35 has been under development for going on 20 years, so I don't see a nation duplicating that level of industrial effort in a short time span, EVEN IF studies have been ongoing for a while now.)

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 03:40
by Corsair1963
The KF-X is just a poor mans F-35 with two 4th Generation Engines. Which, is part of a High/Low Mix with the latter. It is not a rival in any sense of the word.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 05:31
by charlielima223
I completely forgot about this aircraft. This is the most recent piece of news I found about it.
https://www.janes.com/article/85680/ind ... x-payments

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 08:36
by maro.kyo
What you've said is mostly in line to what I've said...
steve2267 wrote:I can't say that I've followed this thread super closely... but... what is your issue?

Did you read what I've wrote in the first place? It's a long post I know, but still :(

corsair1963 wrote:The KF-X is just a poor mans F-35 with two 4th Generation Engines. Which, is part of a High/Low Mix with the latter. It is not a rival in any sense of the word.

Yes, exactly! In fact, no one wants it to be a F-35 and no one believes it can be, including Koreans themselves. It was not even born to be one nor was it even once a F-35 equivalent.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 12:18
by ricnunes
Here is one of those cases that I agree with "all the parties".

Yes, I fully agree with all of you that this KF-X won't be a match to the F-35 or more precisely it would/will be the "Low part" of a Hi/Low mix with the F-35.

On the other hand I don't believe that such aircraft will only cost $80 Million per unit (even by being less capable than the F-35) unless of course this program is to be highly subsidized by the South Korean government (which clearly it will) in order to "sunk" the a great part of the real per unit costs so that an artificial cost of $80 Million per unit could be created.

This being said, I can see the virtues of this program.
And the virtues of such program wouldn't or couldn't IMO be limited to internal procurement and development of national aerospace/combat aircraft development capabilities only.
If the Koreans manage to pull this off then it could IMO become an export success even because as most of us are aware, the F-35 is barred for the majority of countries in the world such as and for example the Philippines, Indonesia and/or Iraq. All of these countries received the FA-50 - a multirole South Korean aircraft based on the T-50 (actually Indonesia received the T-50 version only) - so these countries alongside with many others (to which the F-35 won't be exported) could be potential export costumers of the KF-X.
My 2 cents anyway...

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 16:20
by steve2267
If Saab is finding it difficult to sell the Gripen, then I would expect difficulties for the KF-X.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 17:42
by archeman
maro.kyo wrote:
In that sense, KF-X is also very favorable because for the MPs, creating jobs by building a domestic equipment, thus spending less money to foreign product is a sound political deal to finance the project.

...

The procurement cost aside, maintenance costs are sure to stay below F-35. (note that in Korea the added value to military equipment manufactured within Korea is fixed by the law) In that sense, KF-X by the plan, is at least equal or even better than most of the foreign options to fill up the medium- class fighter inventory.

The time required and the cost for which the domestic equipment and parts are issued was unmatched for almost every example.

Korea needs governmental help to sustain it. Building parts for commercial jets and servicing MRO doesn't suffice to keep the R&D capabilities. Just take a look at Taiwan after F-CK-1. Hell, even Japan has this problem. You guys don't seem to understand but X-2 and F-3 program has a lot to do with keeping their aerospace industry alive.


I'm still having a hard time understanding the WHY to these arguments.
WHY does Korea need to own the entire aircraft design nosecone to exhaust cone?
I disagree that Korea cannot have an active and vibrant aerospace manufacturing AND R&D without owning the entire design process.

Nearly every country on Earth has already reached the conclusion that dozens of indigenous turbo-jet engine and radar development projects are both functionally and cost defective.

There are few components of the F-35 that indigenous Korean aerospace companies cannot bid and win the construction contracts for. The bidding process will require significant engineering effort to be successful since your Korean aerospace teams will be competing with global teams. With a committed effort I'm sure they will mostly succeed. Then all those local manufacturing cost and quality benefits you pointed out would certainly apply. You'll also get a high quality aircraft that will do a far better job of protecting the sovereignty of the Korean people for decades to come.

If protecting government funded Jobs is a higher priority than protecting the People however.......

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 03:57
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:If Saab is finding it difficult to sell the Gripen, then I would expect difficulties for the KF-X.



Excellent point.......... 8)

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 11:35
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:If Saab is finding it difficult to sell the Gripen, then I would expect difficulties for the KF-X.


While I also agree that you made an excellent point up there but I would like to point out a few diferences between Saab/Gripen and this KF-X if the Koreans manage to pull this out (on a timely manner), that is.
In the case of the Gripen (namely older variants ranging from -A/B to -C/D) or when the Gripen came up, there were "tons of competitors" out there ranging from F-16's, F/A-18's, Mig-29's, Sukhois, etc...
Regarding the Gripen E/F there's also several competitors such as the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35, F-16V, etc...

Now regarding 5th gen fighter aircraft - or 4.5th gen fighter aircraft with stealth features such as internal weapons, if you will - how may options are there besides the F-35?
According to the Chinese, the J-20 will only be manufactured for internal usage alone. Resuming it won't be exported (although I grant that this could change).
The (also Chinese) J-31 seems to be more of a demonstrator rather than a full fighter program even because the J-20 is clearly the top priority for the Chinese (it is yet to be seem if this stance regarding the J-31 will actual change).
The Su-57? I'm sure we all know what's the current state of this program, so no comment... :wink:
The Franco-German future aircraft? Well the Korean KF-X program is apparently in a more advanced state compared with this. Uncertainties within the EU may/could eventually prevent such "European" program so ever see the "light of day" and if it does see the "light of day" then the Koreans already have the head start here.

So if the Koreans manage to pull this out - and I admit, this is a very big (if not huge) IF - on a timely manner they could capitalize on the lack of future 5th gen options besides the F-35 which again, won't be exported to many/most of the countries in the world.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 15:56
by maro.kyo
steve2267 wrote:If Saab is finding it difficult to sell the Gripen, then I would expect difficulties for the KF-X.


It depends. The legacy 4th gen fighters in the market will slowly phase out exepct for few of 'em. The TF-X and AMCA could be possible contenders in the export market but I'm still unsure how those programs would actually turn out.

The biggest competition the KF-X will face in the export market would come from the SH and like I've said in the previous post, I'm quite skeptical about the commercial success of KF-X overseas. (hope you don't miss what I'm saying yet again) Its export success will largely depend on
1.) when the super bug production line closes
2.) how TF-X and AMCA will turn out.

On the other hand I couldn't really agree that the KF-X would have the same faith as the Gripen. Gripen is a small fighter from the ground up, thus the domestic demand was already considerably smaller than the KF-X. Having same or even higher price than the falcon didn't help as well. KF-X would definitely have a hard time offering a better deal than the newer SH but I don't think its gonna end up like the Gripen.

archeman wrote:There are few components of the F-35 that indigenous Korean aerospace companies cannot bid and win the construction contracts for. The bidding process will require significant engineering effort to be successful since your Korean aerospace teams will be competing with global teams. With a committed effort I'm sure they will mostly succeed. Then all those local manufacturing cost and quality benefits you pointed out would certainly apply. You'll also get a high quality aircraft that will do a far better job of protecting the sovereignty of the Korean people for decades to come.


That option cannot be the replacement of an indigenous fighter program in terms of its contribution for the industry. Korea would have not been able to become a tier 1 partner of JSF thus by the time when the program actually materialized there was no such space for a domestic involvement in the JSF program; the development was pretty mature by then and the allocation of production contracts for various parts were already decided.

I should disagree that Korea could've had the R&D opportunity joining the JSF program nor could I agree that the JSF would've had the similar impact of the KF-X on the domestic industry just by taking a look on what's going on in Japan and Turkrey. It just doesn't work.

archeman wrote: If protecting government funded Jobs is a higher priority than protecting the People however.......


You should still consider that a possible aggression, war or any kind of combat involving ROKAF mostly comes from the NK and KF-X can already do its job really well in this case. Even if the war escalates to the next level of threat and should ROK face China, KF-X would still deliver within the Korean air space under SAM and ground control coverage. Moreover, such level or warfare would surely see an active American involvement already, so...

I think this thread is in a wrong board with a wrong title in the first place. Like I've said, KF-X is not even meant to be comparable to the F-35. The discussion should rather be "F-35 or KF-X for ROKAF legacy fighter replacement"and I've tried to give some insight on that matter. Once more, there clearly is a sound and rational reason for ROK to pursue its own domestic fighter and claiming it is a national pride thing is clearly misunderstood. ROK is not under dictatorial regime nor is it the best choice to build a domestic fighter to win an election. That is my "issue" you understand? :P

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 16:28
by maro.kyo
charlielima223 wrote:I completely forgot about this aircraft. This is the most recent piece of news I found about it.
https://www.janes.com/article/85680/ind ... x-payments


https://www.janes.com/article/86534/kai ... one-on-kfx
A quick fix: KF-X doesn't replace the F-4. That's lightning's job and ROKAF will continue with 20 additional lightings in a near future. My guess for the 4th F-X lies anywhere in early-mid 20s. Don't think its gonna be any later than that.

ROKAF tried to lease F-15s 16s in AMARG as a stop-gap fighter but it was declined by the DoD. There were suggestions to produce 20 additional FA-50s in order to replace some of the F-5s and keep the KAI production line running but soon enough came new orders for the aircraft from overseas and meanwhile a huge opposition rose up within the air force, that it remained a proposal.

I will provide further details in the modern military aviation forum. Afterall, this thread is dedicated to the comparison of the two fighters so I guess it makes more sense concerning the news and updates.

Furthermore, apart from our conclusion that F-35 vs KF-X doesn't really work, it is just too premature to discuss anything about how the KF-X compares to anything already in the field. Without a flying aircraft and the feedback from its operators, we can't really do anything but a guess in current state.
Time will tell...

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 16:37
by maro.kyo
Damn, after several hours got this reply finally submitted. Deleting it because its a duplicate to one above.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 16:42
by steve2267
maro.kyo wrote:
steve2267 wrote:If Saab is finding it difficult to sell the Gripen, then I would expect difficulties for the KF-X.


It depends. The legacy 4th gen fighters in the market will slowly phase out exepct for few of 'em. The TF-X and AMCA could be possible contenders in the export market but I'm still unsure how those programs would actually turn out.

The biggest competition the KF-X will face in the export market would come from the SH and like I've said in the previous post, I'm quite skeptical about the commercial success of KF-X overseas. (hope you don't miss what I'm saying yet again) Its export success will largely depend on
1.) when the super bug production line closes
2.) how TF-X and AMCA will turn out.

On the other hand I couldn't really agree that the KF-X would have the same faith as the Gripen. Gripen is a small fighter from the ground up, thus the domestic demand was already considerably smaller than the KF-X. Having same or even higher price than the falcon didn't help as well. KF-X would definitely have a hard time offering a better deal than the newer SH but I don't think its gonna end up like the Gripen.

Uhhh... if a country is not permitted to purchase the F-35A @ $80M (+ FMS fees) each, and it cannot purchase a SuperHornet, why would it purchase an unproven KF-X for $80M rather than, say, an F-16V Blk 70?

maro.kyo wrote:I think this thread is in a wrong board with a wrong title in the first place. Like I've said, KF-X is not even meant to be comparable to the F-35.

Feel free to start a KF-X discussion in the Modern Military Aircraft forum.

maro.kyo wrote:The discussion should rather be "F-35 or KF-X for ROKAF legacy fighter replacement" and I've tried to give some insight on that matter. Once more, there clearly is a sound and rational reason for ROK to pursue its own domestic fighter and claiming it is a national pride thing is clearly misunderstood. ROK is not under dictatorial regime nor is it the best choice to build a domestic fighter to win an election. That is my "issue" you understand? :P


No, I don't understand your "issue." Now we're back to discussing whether or not is best for a country to spend the same amount of money ($80M) for an F-35A or for a brand new, unproven, yet-to-be-produced Gen 4.<somethingorother> aircraft? Is that really a question? If you are procuring the aircraft as a legacy fighter replacement, then the stated intent is to use that aircraft either as a deterrent, or in combat to defeat your enemy. It seems only logical, then, that the prudent person would spend the same amount of money to gain far greater capability to defeat one's enemy and enable as many of that person's nation's young people to return home in one piece.

If you want to argue that ROK is developing the KF-X for industry growth & development reasons, that's fine. But if you then try to compare it to an F-35, as you just did, expect a tough argument here.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 17:03
by mixelflick
It's a longshot at best...

If the interested parties were to pull it off, I don't really see that much of an export potential. Not as capable as an F-35 is a foregone conclusion, and I seriously doubt it'll be anywhere near $80 million/copy. Has Japanese F-2 written all over it IMO..

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 03:00
by archeman
maro.kyo wrote:
I should disagree that Korea could've had the R&D opportunity joining the JSF program nor could I agree that the JSF would've had the similar impact of the KF-X on the domestic industry just by taking a look on what's going on in Japan and Turkrey. It just doesn't work.



I wouldn't group the Japan and Turkey experience together.
In one case a local manufacturer turned their "assembly" into a government jobs program, adding costs without adding value (like ROK is planning to do???).

In the other case the government turned the prime contractor host country into "the villain" and started cutting deals with their enemies. Nevertheless there is no way that you can point to Turkey's aerospace industry and tell me that they lost something here. Their sub-component production contracts continue to generate jobs, real aerospace jobs that feed families etc. https://www.f35.com/global/participatio ... ticipation

I hope you're not trying to say that Turkey has some special secret that Korean aerospace industry cannot compete with ever???

I just think that you are stuck with a base rule that ROK Must Have indigenous combat aircraft design and production completely in house (except for engines and radar and munitions and maybe a bunch of other stuff). Once you throw out that rule, a whole lot of options and competitive jobs open up.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 16:44
by maro.kyo
steve2267 wrote:Uhhh... if a country is not permitted to purchase the F-35A @ $80M (+ FMS fees) each, and it cannot purchase a SuperHornet, why would it purchase an unproven KF-X for $80M rather than, say, an F-16V Blk 70?

Yet another reply in which you argue what that is basically the same opinion as to mine. Are you doing so on purpose?
Didn't I just say that :
1) I'm skeptical towards the positive commercial outcome of the KF-X overseas
2) The possibility of it being a better deal than a legacy fighter like SH is going to be unlikely
3) Those possibilities largely depend on when the production of legacy fighters will end

Now if you're going to post yet another reply which basically draws the same line in a same direction to what I say, I can say nothing else but that it defeats the whole point of discussing something. Its very unproductive to argue the same thing just written in a slightly different manner don't you think?

Going further with 3) above, it is obvious that SHornet and block 70 falcon (or F-21 if they want to call it that way) will continue to exist in its respective production line for the mid 2020s but further than that it largely depends on the outcomes of Indian and German fighter acquisition program. When they fail in those two huge markets its gonna get tougher for the production line in South Carolina and St. Louis to survive. I'm not sure if that's going to be the case though and that uncertainty brings me my skeptical views towards the KF-X export possibilities.

steve2267 wrote:Feel free to start a KF-X discussion in the Modern Military Aircraft forum.

like I've wrote on the post above yours, I've got this problem of my post getting lost somewhere in the middle between the submit button and the thread. You've got nothing to worry.

No, I don't understand your "issue."

To make things clear, all I wanted to do was to address some clear misunderstandings of the program, which some folks were not only dismissing the program on a basis established above the lack of knowledge but also effectively disparaging my country's political and military system as a whole. As a modest countryman I was irritated of such matter so I've tried to address this by giving some insight to what might be the actual reason for pushing thru with KF-X. and that's it

steve2267 wrote:Now we're back to discussing whether or not is best for a country to spend the same amount of money ($80M) for an F-35A or for a brand new, unproven, yet-to-be-produced Gen 4.<somethingorother> aircraft? Is that really a question? If you are procuring the aircraft as a legacy fighter replacement, then the stated intent is to use that aircraft either as a deterrent, or in combat to defeat your enemy. It seems only logical, then, that the prudent person would spend the same amount of money to gain far greater capability to defeat one's enemy and enable as many of that person's nation's young people to return home in one piece.


You make valid points here and that's why I've wrote
Don't get me wrong, I myself is one of those pro-F35 guy. I never favored KF-X over F-35.

this. So once more, we're saying the same thing.
and for the price figure of $80 m per unit, which seems to disturb you so much, I've wrote
It's very hard to tell if KF-X is going to meet its planned cost of around $ 80 mil per unit (I'm personally skeptical about it)

Now do you understand why I'm getting to the point assuming you're not fully reading my posts?

But if you then try to compare it to an F-35, as you just did, expect a tough argument here.

Yeah, a tough argument occurs if one basically doesn't thoroughly read through the post which he is criticizing. I've basically stated multiple times that I'm not interested in any kind of "KF-X best plane, better than F-35 hur dur" BS because that's what, from basically everyone's point of view, a uneducated argument. That is the motive behind suggesting that this thread is misplaced.

I'm only providing what the ROKAF is suggesting as the reason to have a domestic fighter that I can personally agree with, thus I know better about Korean parliamentary procedures, military acquisition process and R&D system than most of the other members of this forum. Moreover I hear more from the members of the ROKAF, not only its pilots but also other parts of the branch including the logistics guys and maintenance guys and they make sound points (that I've already mentioned) as well.
As it is nothing short of being natural that members of the forum compare the two options purely on cost and performance basis, thus cannot give a logical answer to the question of "why should Korea do this" other than "national pride" and "its better to go for a F-35 all-in", I'm trying to help solve that trouble by contributing.

Now for the last time I hope that you understand that I'm basically saying what you're saying the whole bloody time, that I'm not arguing that KF-X is a better plane than a lightning, that I don't think $ 80 million per unit cost will be kept, that I don't think the KF-X will be so successful in the overseas market, but there still is a rational reason to pursue KF-X from what I see.

Kapish?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 16:54
by steve2267
maro.kyo wrote:Yet another reply in which you argue what that is basically the same opinion as to mine. Are you doing so on purpose?
Didn't I just say that :
1) I'm skeptical towards the positive commercial outcome of the KF-X overseas
2) The possibility of it being a better deal than a legacy fighter like SH is going to be unlikely
3) Those possibilities largely depend on when the production of legacy fighters will end

Now if you're going to post yet another reply which basically draws the same line in a same direction to what I say, I can say nothing else but that it defeats the whole point of discussing something. Its very unproductive to argue the same thing just written in a slightly different manner don't you think?



Yes, I agree. Evidently I did not think we were on the same page. My most humble apologies.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 17:08
by maro.kyo
archeman wrote:I wouldn't group the Japan and Turkey experience together.
In one case a local manufacturer turned their "assembly" into a government jobs program, adding costs without adding value (like ROK is planning to do???).

In the other case the government turned the prime contractor host country into "the villain" and started cutting deals with their enemies. Nevertheless there is no way that you can point to Turkey's aerospace industry and tell me that they lost something here. Their sub-component production contracts continue to generate jobs, real aerospace jobs that feed families etc. https://www.f35.com/global/participatio ... ticipation

I hope you're not trying to say that Turkey has some special secret that Korean aerospace industry cannot compete with ever???


I've mentioned both because one was a tier 3 partner of the program and other was the prime example of what Korea could have been, a non-development partner who still plays a role in the production; I wasn't really trying to group them.

Talking about Japan's example, although what you're saying is basically what it is, not only the Japanese government but the manufacturers thought the other way I guess. Good read on what Japan was thinking
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Compani ... try?page=1

Recently there were some industry figures arguing the Japanese role in the production of their F-35 was comparable to building a model kit. They've expected more I guess. The problem is, that is what ROK would likely get into, not what ROK is planning to, if ROK decided to do sth with F-35 to include its industry. It would share lots of similarities to Japan: not a development partner but wants to do sth with the F-35 production...

Concerning the example of Turkey, I'm not talking about the recent outcome. Should have clearly stated, my bad. My consideration is about what Turkey was able to do before the recent political and diplomatic upset. By getting actively involved in the program, they've got what you've just mentioned. Their sub-component production contracts show that they aren't losing, that's for sure. You are more than right and I'm not arguing about it. What I'm arguing is that ROK wants more than just a sub-component production.

Sub-component production is what ROK aerospace industry has been doing for years. Parts of the fuselage of both commercial and military aircraft, wings, engine components, maintenance service for USAF aircraft in the west pacific, upgrade services... If they are spending money to get nothing more than yet another sub-component contract, things they have been doing well for quite a while without paying vast amounts of contribution to the program, they wouldn't really be tempted don't you think?

What ROK wants is a R&D opportunity and way to keep the R&D system alive, likewise not to face the same faith as to the case of Taiwan.

More importantly, like what I've mentioned, that kind of Turkey-equivalent amount of contribution to the program wouldn't have been available for Korea as they were too late in the game. As a non partner nation, I don't expect more things to happen for Korea compared to what Japan got. Final assembly at best.

You may argue why ROK needs such R&D capabilities in the first place but there are lots of possible outcomes which are not to be seen without such capabilities.

archeman wrote:I just think that you are stuck with a base rule that ROK Must Have indigenous combat aircraft design and production completely in house (except for engines and radar and munitions and maybe a bunch of other stuff). Once you throw out that rule, a whole lot of options and competitive jobs open up.


Yes maybe... Maybe I'm a die hard KF-X supporter and maybe you are right that I'm narrow minded and trying to ignore other possibilities... but at least before the KF-X program actually commenced, I preferred the F-35 over KF-X like I've mentioned in my first post.

What you mention as a "whole lot of options and competitive jobs" though, is what others can also enjoy. There is a competition in this sector and what I guess is that ROK wants to get above it. I'm not sure about what you mean by "various options" but for ROK without any R&D capabilities has a single option and that is to remain a sub-component contractor; that contract is not an everlasting, fixed contract that they are guaranteed to win every single time and If they lose the contract, they lose the industry. Developing the T-50 and FA-50 aircraft lead to some significant and positive outcomes and that clearly has greatly encouraged ROK to go further than to remain a mere subcontractor.

The aerospace industry in ROK is clearly not autonomous and that's what I've already mentioned. So in that case, KF-X is what I consider as a sole opportunity to keep the industry alive, grow and thrive in the near future. No other project would promote various sectors of aerospace and defense related tech like KF-X does and there are other factors than just the domestic industry that supports the program. That is what I see.

https://www.janes.com/article/86534/kai ... one-on-kfx
This article shows what I'm trying to say. I can't really think of any other opportunities that keeps more than 100 agencies busy; definitely not a sub-component contract for the F-35. In fact, KF-X leads to domestic development of articles including the "radar and ordnance and those bunch of other stuff". Some of them are being developed in conjunction KF-X related programs which exists because of KF-X in the first place.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 17:17
by maro.kyo
steve2267 wrote:
maro.kyo wrote:Yet another reply in which you argue what that is basically the same opinion as to mine. Are you doing so on purpose?
Didn't I just say that :
1) I'm skeptical towards the positive commercial outcome of the KF-X overseas
2) The possibility of it being a better deal than a legacy fighter like SH is going to be unlikely
3) Those possibilities largely depend on when the production of legacy fighters will end

Now if you're going to post yet another reply which basically draws the same line in a same direction to what I say, I can say nothing else but that it defeats the whole point of discussing something. Its very unproductive to argue the same thing just written in a slightly different manner don't you think?



Yes, I agree. Evidently I did not think we were on the same page. My most humble apologies.


It's not a big deal as long as we can stay in peace and have a constructive discussion :wink:
My posts are quite long as well, and I acknowledge that my English skills are still lacking.
Also knowing what those Su-57, TF-X and AMCA fanboys have done, I guess the whole forum is a bit under stress regarding any kind of new aircraft development program.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2019, 17:33
by charlielima223
I wonder what the thing will look like and if they kept to its semi-stealthy design shown on early small scale display models...
Image
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-461123/
Seoul has completed the critical design review (CDR) of the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) KF-X fighter, setting the stage for the rollout of a prototype in the first half of 2021.
***
Work leading up to the CDR included wind tunnel tests, the refinement of systems, and analysis.

“In this detailed design review meeting, reviewers composed of government and civilian experts, including the Air Force, reviewed about 390 technical data [points] to ensure that the military requirements were properly reflected in the design,” says DAPA.
***
The achievement of the aircraft CDR follows the CDR of the aircraft’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar earlier this year. The prototype of the radar was developed by Hanhwa systems with assistance from Israel’s Elta Systems. ADD will help with airborne tests of the radar.

The KF-X will be powered by two General Electrics-built F414 engines, variants of which power the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Saab Gripen E.


Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2019, 20:46
by charlielima223
I do not think that this aircraft is supposed to be a direct competitor to F-35 or other 5th gen designs out there. I do believe its semi-stealthy design (better observable stealth characteristics over current 4.5 or 4.5+ gen aircraft) would make it very appealing to other countries should this aircraft ever make it into production...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ed-461464/
Image

Although the aircraft resembles Lockheed's F-35A, it lacks several of the US type’s stealth qualities. The port for its 20mm cannon is exposed, for example, and the infrared search and track (IRST) sensor protrudes in front of the cockpit canopy, similar to on the Typhoon.


More reading about the KF-X
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... it-461492/

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 00:07
by Corsair1963
Why make a Stealth Fighter only to carry external stores all of the time. That is like putting "lipstick on a pig".... :?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 00:12
by zerion
Corsair1963 wrote:Why make a Stealth Fighter only to carry external stores all of the time. That is like putting "lipstick on a pig".... :?

They are planning on redesigning it with weapon bays later or something :shrug:

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 00:56
by Corsair1963
zerion wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Why make a Stealth Fighter only to carry external stores all of the time. That is like putting "lipstick on a pig".... :?

They are planning on redesigning it with weapon bays later or something :shrug:


That is just as perplexing! Why not just develop the KFX with internal Weapon Bays from the start???

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 05:41
by madrat
That thing is already in the F-22 size range. It is not a mid-size fighter, so no internalized bay is a ridiculous design.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 05:47
by spazsinbad
South Korea’s future fighter program at risk, even as development moves along 15 Oct 2019 Jeff Jeong

https://www.defensenews.com/2019/10/15/ ... ves-along/

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 06:59
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:That thing is already in the F-22 size range. It is not a mid-size fighter, so no internalized bay is a ridiculous design.



Yes, what's the advantage of stealth. If, you must carry all of your weapons and part of your fuel externally??? Just doesn't make sense...

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 10:39
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:
zerion wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Why make a Stealth Fighter only to carry external stores all of the time. That is like putting "lipstick on a pig".... :?

They are planning on redesigning it with weapon bays later or something :shrug:


That is just as perplexing! Why not just develop the KFX with internal Weapon Bays from the start???


I must say that what I just read here about this KF-X is for me a very negative WoW! :roll:

Yes, I agree with you. Such decision is perplexing indeed even because a "Block I" without internal weapons would IMO be a quite different aircraft compared to a potential "Block II" with internal weapons (since "adding" an internal weapons bay would involve massive airframe changes), this instead of a "potential Block II" being a more recent version of the "Block I".

But hey, it's their money (but IMO, still a very stupid decision nonetheless).

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 11:57
by eagleowl
ricnunes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
zerion wrote:They are planning on redesigning it with weapon bays later or something :shrug:


That is just as perplexing! Why not just develop the KFX with internal Weapon Bays from the start???


I must say that what I just read here about this KF-X is for me a very negative WoW! :roll:

Yes, I agree with you. Such decision is perplexing indeed even because a "Block I" without internal weapons would IMO be a quite different aircraft compared to a potential "Block II" with internal weapons (since "adding" an internal weapons bay would involve massive airframe changes), this instead of a "potential Block II" being a more recent version of the "Block I".

But hey, it's their money (but IMO, still a very stupid decision nonetheless).

The airframe changes are already there, structurally a belly IWB can be added. KAI (rightly) made a cost-saving decision to not design it yet and postpone all the work with designing ejectors, integrating weapons (CFD work, fit tests, flight tests), etc as they aren't being paid for it. Blame Korean MoD/Korean AF for their (bizarre) ROC that didn't require stealth in the first place if you want.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 12:50
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:That thing is already in the F-22 size range. It is not a mid-size fighter, so no internalized bay is a ridiculous design.


Spot on!

And given the known engines it's going to use, it will be dramatically under-powered. Any amount of external stores is only going to exacerbate that. If they do switch to an internal bay, I can't imagine it'll carry much.

The only way this thing works is if it's VLO AND has some whizbang avionics. I have more confidence the Koreans can deliver on the latter vs. the former, but they'll need both to find a buyer. History shows not many countries are interested in buying something that's 2nd tier (or perceived as 2nd tier).

See Gripen :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2019, 13:20
by eagleowl
mixelflick wrote:
madrat wrote:That thing is already in the F-22 size range. It is not a mid-size fighter, so no internalized bay is a ridiculous design.


Spot on!

And given the known engines it's going to use, it will be dramatically under-powered. Any amount of external stores is only going to exacerbate that. If they do switch to an internal bay, I can't imagine it'll carry much.

The only way this thing works is if it's VLO AND has some whizbang avionics. I have more confidence the Koreans can deliver on the latter vs. the former, but they'll need both to find a buyer. History shows not many countries are interested in buying something that's 2nd tier (or perceived as 2nd tier).

See Gripen :mrgreen:

Is it? The KF-X has an empty weight and internal fuel capacity closer to the Legacy Hornet/Eurofighter/Rafale, and lower than the F-22A, F-15C/D or F-15E, F-18E/F. Twin F414s should be able to push the KF-X around decently albeit not as sportily as the F-16. F-18E/F does have a reputation for being somewhat underpowered but some of that has to do with design considerations (wieght for structural strength and wing planform for low speed AoA during landings) for carrier ops doesnt it? The internal bay is also not F-35 sized and won't have much for more than AAMs and the occasional SDB-1or2 so (kinematic) performance shouldn't be an issue.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 01:18
by weasel1962
kf-x.png
Got this from a post on CDF. Original source per image. Looks familiar?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:45
by charlielima223
Comparing the given figures of the F-22 and F-35 to the KF-X, the KF-X appears to be closer to the F-35A in size. However the fuselage of the KF-X doesn't appear to be as "girthy" as the F-35A.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 04:58
by charlielima223
Corsair1963 wrote:Why make a Stealth Fighter only to carry external stores all of the time. That is like putting "lipstick on a pig".... :?


I would assume it was a conscious design compromise. Developing and maintaining stealth aircraft is no simple task nor is it cheap. Yes the F-35 is more maintainable than the F-22 which was far more maintainable than the F-117 and B-2. However you still have maintain the F-35's LO features to keep an acceptable LO aspect.
I would guess the designers of the KF-X wanted to go half way in an attempt to reduce cost. Instead of Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Rafale which have minor LO features in its design, the KF-X has obvious LO outer shaping but doesnt go full on stealth like F-35 and F-22.

IMO the KF-X looks like a good middle of the road fighter aircraft if this ever goes into production and to anyone interested in a semi-stealthy fighter.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 05:44
by Corsair1963
charlielima223 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Why make a Stealth Fighter only to carry external stores all of the time. That is like putting "lipstick on a pig".... :?


I would assume it was a conscious design compromise. Developing and maintaining stealth aircraft is no simple task nor is it cheap. Yes the F-35 is more maintainable than the F-22 which was far more maintainable than the F-117 and B-2. However you still have maintain the F-35's LO features to keep an acceptable LO aspect.
I would guess the designers of the KF-X wanted to go half way in an attempt to reduce cost. Instead of Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Rafale which have minor LO features in its design, the KF-X has obvious LO outer shaping but doesnt go full on stealth like F-35 and F-22.

IMO the KF-X looks like a good middle of the road fighter aircraft if this ever goes into production and to anyone interested in a semi-stealthy fighter.


Problem is a Stealthy KFX is not more stealthy than your average 4/4.5 Generation Fighter. The second you add all on those external stores.

So, again what's it's advantage??? :|

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 15:02
by ricnunes
eagleowl wrote:The airframe changes are already there, structurally a belly IWB can be added.


That would even be more "bizarre" (using your own term, just not to call it again, ridiculous). A (belly) IWB will increase weight and above all DRAG. And this into an aircraft that probably won't have that good of Thrust-to-Weight Ratio to start with.

eagleowl wrote:Blame Korean MoD/Korean AF for their (bizarre) ROC that didn't require stealth in the first place if you want.


Then why go to all the extend to creating an aircraft with a fuselage that is clearly meant to give the aircraft a low RCS?
If what you said made much sense then why not chose a more conventional design which in the end would most likely be cheaper while at the same time have a similar RCS when external weapons are loaded?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 15:58
by wrightwing
The F-35 has a lower RCS than conventional jets, while carrying external stores. I fail to see why the KF-X wouldn't similarly benefit. The ultimate goal it sounds like, is internal carriage on later Blocks. That being said, it's a jobs program. They'd be better off just buying 100+ F-35s

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 16:08
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has a lower RCS than conventional jets, while carrying external stores. I fail to see why the KF-X wouldn't similarly benefit. The ultimate goal it sounds like, is internal carriage on later Blocks. That being said, it's a jobs program. They'd be better off just buying 100+ F-35s


Yes, but then again the diferences in RCS between the F-35 and "conventional jets" are massive while the diferences in RCS between this KF-X and "conventional jets" likely won't be big and even more so considering that the KF-X will carry the weapons externally. Another very big diference is that the F-35 carries its EO and IRST sensors internally while this KF-X will carry it externally just like the "conventional jets".

Either way, I believe that going this route the Koreans will miss what IMO would be a tremendous market share opportunity, this for countries that otherwise won't have access to the F-35 and thus will be "forced" to turn to the Chinese and/or Russians (if they pull out their projects).

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 16:56
by zerion
ricnunes wrote:That would even be more "bizarre" (using your own term, just not to call it again, ridiculous). A (belly) IWB will increase weight and above all DRAG. And this into an aircraft that probably won't have that good of Thrust-to-Weight Ratio to start with.

The space for the bay was supposed to be designed in from the beginning, at least most of it, they wanted to reduce the complexity for the initial development.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 17:10
by element1loop
Yeah, but if you ditched the weapons, pods and fuel it would literally look just like a 5th-gen at the air show! Who doesn't want that?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 21:29
by ricnunes
zerion wrote:
ricnunes wrote:That would even be more "bizarre" (using your own term, just not to call it again, ridiculous). A (belly) IWB will increase weight and above all DRAG. And this into an aircraft that probably won't have that good of Thrust-to-Weight Ratio to start with.

The space for the bay was supposed to be designed in from the beginning, at least most of it, they wanted to reduce the complexity for the initial development.


Are you really sure of this?

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 22:27
by zerion
I saw it at least once, but it’s totally subject to the accuracy of the reporters, so it could easily be fake news.

Edit: found this
Block 2 would add internal weapon bays, which Block 1 would be compatible with but not have.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kf- ... am-010647/

Report is from 2013

Block 2 would carry weapons internally, a provision for which would be made in the Block 1 design.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/list-kf-x-opponents-grows

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2019, 23:20
by eagleowl
zerion wrote:I saw it at least once, but it’s totally subject to the accuracy of the reporters, so it could easily be fake news.

Edit: found this
Block 2 would add internal weapon bays, which Block 1 would be compatible with but not have.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kf- ... am-010647/

Report is from 2013

Block 2 would carry weapons internally, a provision for which would be made in the Block 1 design.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/list-kf-x-opponents-grows


The first bulkhead produced for the kf-x quite literally is shaped as if there will be F-22 like belly IWBs.

https://defence-blog.com/news/south-kor ... craft.html

fe48b0ebd9129483635898e9ec817004_Ysuc9f6RcLR9IN.jpg

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 06:56
by weasel1962
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/201 ... er-to.html
Original source (Vietnamese) in link.

Delegation from Vietnam during ADEX 2019 (photo : BaoDatViet)

At the ADEX Defense Exhibition 2019 taking place in Seoul from October 15 to October 21, South Korea exhibited many modern weapons in search of potential customers.

Among the Korean-made domestic weapons, notably the 1: 1 scale model of the 5 KF-X stealth fighter, Seoul recently announced the completion of the design process to prepare. built prototype prototypes.

Although still in the "infancy" stage, the KF-X fighter is considered to be a weapon with high export potential of this Northeast Asian country, attracting the attention of many potential customers. .

At ADEX 2019, the high-ranking military delegation of Vietnam took a close look at the special fighter and was introduced to its tactical features by your side. However, there is still a long way to go to place an order when KF-X's rival Su-57 proved too strong.

The KF-X stealth fighter research program, apart from the main Korean cost, also contributed by Indonesia with 1.5 billion USD in the total estimate of nearly 7.67 billion USD, so the KF-X also known as IF-X.

Preliminary drawings of the stealth fighter KF-X have actually been leaked since 2013, but it was not until mid-2018 that the Korean Defense Procurement Agency officially confirmed.

At that time, they said the basic technical and design requirements as well as the AESA active scan array radar expected to be fitted to the fighter were completed.

Jung Kwang-sun, the leader of DAPA's KF-X program, once said: "We plan to complete the detailed design work in September 2019 and start prototype production," so they finished on time when announcing the process ended 1 month ago.

The published design (codenamed C-109) has completed the tests in the wind tunnel. The first KF-X is expected to ship in 2021 and test flight will take place in 2022.

A very interesting detail is that in the graphic images, the KF-X carries 4 air-to-air missiles outside MBDA Group's Meteor vision and 2 IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missiles at the tip. wing.

Initially, the KF-X intended to integrate the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles made by Raytheon, but the features of the highly-rated European missile made Seoul rethink.

Another detail to consider is that although it is called a fifth generation fighter, the KF-X fighter does not have a weaponry in the body and still uses an external mount.

Concerned about the fact that the radar reflex area (RCS) of the KF-X fighter did not meet the standard, the designers made it clear that the fighter had three variants corresponding to each stage of transmission. development.

The first version of KF-X Block 1 is the newly adopted configuration that will have RCS equivalent to current 4th and 4+ fighters that are F/A-18E/F, Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon.

Next, in the KF-X Block 2 generation, the aircraft will have a body bay and the RCS reduced to the equivalent of the first stealth fighter like the F-117.

Finally, the most complete version of KF-X Block 3, the aircraft will have radar cross-section area comparable to F-22, F-35 and B-2 - the most advanced stealth aircraft currently.

As such, the immediate task of Korean aviation engineers is very chaotic, while waiting for the completion of KF-X, they will still have to buy F-35 to temporarily fill the void to not be left behind. Regional rival

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 07:09
by hornetfinn
Really interesting way of doing things. Basically the Block 1 would be either a prototype or advanced 4th gen fighter in combat configurations. Block 2 would be closer to true 5th gen fighters, but supposedly with lower stealth qualities than F-22 or F-35. They envision that Block 3 would be true 5th gen fighter, but I have my doubts about South Korea being able to design and build such an aircraft by themselves. It's just so costly and resource consuming to develop and manufacture such aircraft especially in likely production quantities.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 11:14
by zero-one
Well block 3 may be built in the mid 2030s time line. So its basically asking them to build a 4.5 gen fighter today. Something they are well capable of with some outsourced parts like engines.

In my opinion, Their F/A-50 is quickly becoming the premier light fighter and successor to the F-5E.

They may also have far less requirements than the JSF program. No commonality with naval versions, engine may be the GE-414, radar may be outsourced as well.

Unlike US planes where everything is built from scratch, S.Korea may get plenty of outsourced components ala Gripen.

If you ask me, they may be looking for a plane that can simply match the F-35 in A-A with half the A-G capabilities.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 12:33
by spazsinbad
ADEX 2019: Lockheed Martin progresses F-35 offset projects in South Korea
17 Oct 2019 Jon Grevatt

Key Points...
• US corporation engages with local industry on KFX technology transfers...

...Steve Over, director of F-35 international business development at Lockheed Martin, told Jane's on 17 October that offset projects to provide a military communications satellite solution and technology transfers to support the development of South Korea's next-generation KFX fighter aircraft are currently under way....

...Over confirmed that in supporting the technology transfers Lockheed Martin is collaborating with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), the prime contractor on the KFX....

...In addition, the United States has granted approvals to support Lockheed Martin's transfer to South Korea of 21 technology suites to support the KFX. These suites include flight control technologies, avionics, system integration, materials, and unspecified weaponry."

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/92019/ade ... outh-korea

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 12:54
by mixelflick
Horrible idea, this Block 1, 2 and 3 IMO..

Makes it unwieldy out of the gate, and there's no guarantee they ever get to block 2 standard, let alone block 3. This strategy is most likely driven by the fact they know they're nowhere near block 2 and 3, at least as they've defined it. Either build a full up stealth aircraft with internal weapons bay and sensors, or don't do it at all.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2019, 15:13
by ricnunes
zerion wrote:I saw it at least once, but it’s totally subject to the accuracy of the reporters, so it could easily be fake news.

Edit: found this
Block 2 would add internal weapon bays, which Block 1 would be compatible with but not have.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kf- ... am-010647/

Report is from 2013

Block 2 would carry weapons internally, a provision for which would be made in the Block 1 design.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/list-kf-x-opponents-grows


Thanks for the heads up, zerion. :thumb:

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2019, 10:02
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:Horrible idea, this Block 1, 2 and 3 IMO..

Makes it unwieldy out of the gate, and there's no guarantee they ever get to block 2 standard, let alone block 3. This strategy is most likely driven by the fact they know they're nowhere near block 2 and 3, at least as they've defined it.


Not necessarily, there are a lot of countries out there that may want a little more than an F-16, but don't necessarily need an F-35 yet.

The Philippine air force for example is already in the final stages on their talks for F-16V block 70s for their Horizon 2 multi-role fighter procurement.
Read here:
https://pitzdefanalysis.blogspot.com/20 ... ogram.html
(More details on their Social media pages)

In 2022 however, they will begin Horizon 3. And its still early but talks are to get something a little heavier than an F-16.
Obvious choice is the F-35 but can they afford the maintenance and operational demands of a Stealth aircraft, I'm not so sure.

F/A-18, Rafale, and Typhoon are all being looked at, but none generated stronger sentiments than Korea's KF-X where the PH can join as a regional partner, they already have multiple defense agreements with Korea and a lot of their modern equipment such as fighters and frigates are being sourced there.

The Vietnamese air force is also interested in partnering up with Korea to get the KF-X. Photos of both the Ph and Vietnamese air force officials in front of the KF-X mock up surfaced this week, both considering a partnership with Korea on the program.

With China quickly taking the place of Russia as the new enemy of the free world, Asia is becoming the new frontline with countries there upgrading their armed services at a pace only seen before during the cold war.

So the market is there, not for Europe or the US, but for countries who want something more than Western 4th gens but can't quite get to 5th gen just yet.