F-35 & T-50 PAK-FA Compete S. Korea + F-15E + Typhoon

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

bigbird2

Banned

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 04:03

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 06:08

Meh, I don't see it. Right now maybe. Beside as of now F-35 is not in production either. And it experiences financial strain. But things like short range multi node VHF radar or long range low band are easy and cheap to build. They are pretty hard to destroy. That if South Korea ever buy F-35. I for one will drop my jaw if it ever happen, cause it's stupid and total waste of investment. Not to mention does not fit with korea long term strategy. What will LM offer? oh we'll give you stealth technology. (gimme a break, korea can ask the russian or german for the math and the rest is coating technology. fairly trivial for them.)

further, suppose North korea mate that KN-06 with air breathing missiles. Granted this is India, china, russia level of technology, and North korea haven't shown any long range air breathing missile yet. Or much simpler scheme, guided vympel dropped from a UAV. Then what? Frantically try to build aircraft carrier to have moving launch capability? Expensive.

Might as well do it right and build proper air superiority fighter independently. Or something big.. Russian-german-Korean consortium. This will be an instant access to world market before the program even begin. All country with money who doesn't want to depend on US supply will want one. (Entire asia, latin america, middle east and eastern europe.. basically everybody outside crisis laden NATO countries.)
Offline

Pecker

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 03 May 2008, 00:23
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 17:14

bigbird2 wrote: Beside as of now F-35 is not in production either.


Really?

So AF-7, the first production jet, wasn't delivered on 5 May 2011?
And AF-9 wasn't deliered to Eglin on 15 July?
And AF-8 five days later?
And AF-10 hasn't flown?

Come on, BigBird.....if you want to be taken seriously at least get your fundamental facts right.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2956
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 18:16

Sheesh Bbird ... You apparently just turned ROK's plan to modernize a specialized segment of her Tacair strategy with a super-weapon proliferation scheme on roids. :shock: Not sure that would help stability/security or enable some serious next-gen fireworks.

imho though, let's just hope such an uber military-industrial-comlex 'consortium' scheme does not in fact end up sending the entire world into stealth fighter arming frenzy, with all countries you mentioned, eh! Sure, it could make money, (if the imperial financing shenanigans were alluring enough), but perhaps there's another opportunity as a race moving into the modern times now... with extreme, unprecedented problems facing us as a planet over next 20-50+ yrs. As it looks, 'the big players' can accelerate counter positioning to exploit that chaos and global threat ahead, or maximize a less militarized method to offset the coming problems. I know... conflicting strategic interests et al, but those can be handled, it's just a matter of willingness/paradigm shift and proper leadership.

Anyway, I guess for whatever threat exists, there will be a counter devised, so ROK will nevertheless not be static and put 'all' eggs into one basket in the hope of 'countering', no matter what their final jet(s) decision is(are). p.s., I wonder why no Rafale-M or possible SAAB-type consortium in the list? Something tells me there will be some drama and surprises when all is decided. Respects-
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

flighthawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 372
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
  • Location: UK

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 19:53

bigbird2 wrote:That if South Korea ever buy F-35. I for one will drop my jaw if it ever happen, cause it's stupid and total waste of investment. Not to mention does not fit with korea long term strategy.)



What is Koreas actual long term military strategy? - and do they post this up on their website - because thats the only way you would know what it was.


Im suspecting from your posts that you probably dropped your jaw last week when you found out Father Xmas wasnt real.

:lol:
Offline

bigbird2

Banned

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 04:03

Unread post04 Aug 2011, 21:48

Well I guess strategy is wrong word. Force structure reform. They enact a major reform in 2005, Defense Reform 2020.. Essentially modernizing and mandating the army to transform itself into modern military force, man power reduction (the old one was sucking too much productive age work force.), replacing all old equipments, self reliance... essentially work toward reunification. One aspect is of course eleminating US reliance, since almost all of them come with massive string attached.

The reform was reviewed and accelerated after Cheonan sinking.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 66548.html

Old RAND review.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_pap ... _OP165.pdf
Offline

kingalbert

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 12 May 2009, 19:28
  • Location: USA

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 16:03

bigbird2 wrote:Well I guess strategy is wrong word. Force structure reform. They enact a major reform in 2005, Defense Reform 2020.. Essentially modernizing and mandating the army to transform itself into modern military force, man power reduction (the old one was sucking too much productive age work force.), replacing all old equipments, self reliance... essentially work toward reunification. One aspect is of course eleminating US reliance, since almost all of them come with massive string attached.

The reform was reviewed and accelerated after Cheonan sinking.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 66548.html

Old RAND review.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_pap ... _OP165.pdf


I'm afraid I don't agree with your summary of the korea times article. The article states that the force structure review is aimed at evaluating ROK force structures and seeing if they are being properly equipped to handle all the threats that North Korea presents, both conventional and asymmetrical. This includes artillery, ballistic missiles, mine warfare, etc. They also wanted to include ROK surveillance capabilities and provide for the ability to engage in independent action.

There's nothing in there about reunification, it's very defense oriented. And there isn't anything about having ending all reliance on the US. In fact, several possible weapon purchases specifically include US weapons (SM-3, PAC-3, Sikorsky).
Offline

y7u7u7

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2011, 15:22
  • Location: Brooklyn

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 18:57

If they go with Russian equipment it prevents N Korea from getting Russian equipment, as that quid pro quot would be part of the deal.
Offline

geogen

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2956
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post05 Aug 2011, 19:32

Y7u7 - That would be tantamount to Black mail.

The Kremlin would probably NOT black mail an important international and bi-lateral trade partner such as SK. If they were trying to gently float that image as part of the negotiations, I'm sure SKgov would raise some red flags and have to question the level of trust. The Kremlin would surely offer their technical equipment unconditionally, as part of this major mil technical competitive contract. Any future mil equip sales to NK would then have to be subject to any normal intl foreign policy decision with normal relationship consequences at issue as part of any hypothetical unilateral policy.

Thus, the Pakfa is a legit contender and if anything, reinforces the concept that the cold war is over, which in turn should slowly condition the world for general demobilization in arms races. That gradual demobilization is what should be put on front burners in Asia-pac summits. It will help solidify trust and cooperation, as our moment in history can finally start to accept such paradigm shift. Pretty amazing if you think about it.

Anyway, as I noted, look for some surprises to come before ROK's final decision(s) is made - perhaps either including some changes in schedule, or new entry considerations, new strategies, etc. imho. Respects-
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

stobiewan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 12:34
  • Location: UK

Unread post08 Aug 2011, 15:14

y7u7u7 wrote:If they go with Russian equipment it prevents N Korea from getting Russian equipment, as that quid pro quot would be part of the deal.


North Korea is still under an arms embargo in any event - they're not getting any material sold directly by any UN member.

The last time they had free access to the global arms market was certainly prior to 2006 and in effect, nearer the early 90's. That's why they're still relying on precisely the same technology that fell over in a matter of hours in both Gulf wars.

Ian
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 09:29

There's talk that one of the 3 PAK FA prototypes has been removed from their test program due to terminal structural cracking issues. This is before it entered high AOA testing too. Not good considering their program has completed less than 200 flights in 2 1/2 years since the first flight (to put into perspective, that's about 70 flights per year to the F-35's 330)

...and people call the F-35 program concerning.
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 11:42

In Mother Russia, stress cracks YOU!

...

In fairness, PAK-FA is only about where the F-35 was a decade ago in terms of stage of development. You wouldn't expect them to have as large and as refined a set of test aircraft as our F-35 LRIP fleet until 2022 or so. It takes a lot of planes with a lot of the basic structural bugs worked out to do 330 test flights per year.
Offline

fat_cat

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2012, 16:49
  • Location: UK

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 11:53

munny wrote:There's talk that one of the 3 PAK FA prototypes has been removed from their test program due to terminal structural cracking issues.


I've heard this too. I imagine it could be a fairly simple fix though. On the other hand there's every chance it could lead to some very unwelcome weight gains. I would think all the other prototypes built so far will also suffer from this nasty issue too, possibly knocking back the test program by several years.

The odd thing is that I see no hysterical articles from certain journalists about it, unlike whenever there is an issue with the F-35.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 16:14

Typhoon
Fuel consumption at 1,500 m altitude at Mach 0.9 (~ 1050 km / h): 85 kg / min
* Configuration of the Typhoon with these figures (bombs, missiles etc.?

Source: http://translate.google.de/translate?u= ... e&ie=UTF-8


Figures
o Fuel capacity internal tank: 4,996 kg / 6215 liters
o Internal fuel: 4,996 kg = 10,991.2 lbs
o Fuel consumption: 85 kg = 187 lbs
o Max. (till internal tanks empty): 58.77 min


- Anyone has some idea how many pounds will be needed for take off?
- As well as how many pounds minimally will be needed as reserve fuel (getting back, landing etc.)?
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 18:35

I've heard this too. I imagine it could be a fairly simple fix though. On the other hand there's every chance it could lead to some very unwelcome weight gains. I would think all the other prototypes built so far will also suffer from this nasty issue too, possibly knocking back the test program by several years.

The odd thing is that I see no hysterical articles from certain journalists about it, unlike whenever there is an issue with the F-35.


According to AI, its more likely an re-structure fix, which would imply a more time consuming fix.

On the more sunny side of it, it T-50-03 are beeing equiped the the N036 AESA
Offline

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3544
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 Apr 2012, 19:12

haavarla wrote:
I've heard this too. I imagine it could be a fairly simple fix though. On the other hand there's every chance it could lead to some very unwelcome weight gains. I would think all the other prototypes built so far will also suffer from this nasty issue too, possibly knocking back the test program by several years.

The odd thing is that I see no hysterical articles from certain journalists about it, unlike whenever there is an issue with the F-35.


According to AI, its more likely an re-structure fix, which would imply a more time consuming fix.

On the more sunny side of it, it T-50-03 are beeing equiped the the N036 AESA


What is their targeted IOC date? Haste makes waste but I can understand Uncle Vlad looking over their shoulders..
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests