By: BlackArcher
- 4th August 2014 at 07:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ananda, what is the Indonesian AF's view on the single-engine vs twin-engine debate for the KF-X? With 20% of the budget to be footed by Indonesia, I think that they may have a big say in what is eventually the final config of the KF-X..also, have any work share arrangements been made so far on this project? What parts will be manufactured in Indonesia and what about technology transfers?
By: ananda
- 4th August 2014 at 08:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ananda, what is the Indonesian AF's view on the single-engine vs twin-engine debate for the KF-X? With 20% of the budget to be footed by Indonesia, I think that they may have a big say in what is eventually the final config of the KF-X..also, have any work share arrangements been made so far on this project? What parts will be manufactured in Indonesia and what about technology transfers?
I have post before in this forum before...both AF (ROKAF and TNI-AU) seems in the agreement for twin engine. However the Industry (Especially KAI and from what I heard also some team from IAe) seems inclined to single engine due to their cautions on over budget for twin engine. Do remembered single engine design come later on from KAI and not from the official design team (which KAI and IAe also heavily represented), as further alternative studies. Then again both AF seems will get the last says.
KAI and IAe already talking on work sharing, where for development stages there will be 5 prototypes where KAI responsible for assembling 4 and IAe 1. At least that's what I heard from local media. Seems the agreement so far more on development stages (those 5 prototypes). More agreement will be talked later on after the development stages.
Add:
The way I see, there is also one other factor that can be more influential. How big tech support the tech partner (more and more inclined to LM) going to support. The design team conclusion from 1st stage (design development) from what I heard already pressed that they need matured Fighters manufacture as design partner on development stages. Some speculation says that the design team prepared cannard design if they got Euro Partner and other design if they get US partner. Whether it's true or not, it show this project need Tech Partner, which can influence the final development.
Final design still has to get approval though from both ROK and Indonesian parliament, although Indonesian one will take cue from what ROK decide. In such, as like politicians all over the world, parliaments can still be swayed. Although at this moment seems the twin engine (C103) design seems got the favorite.
New
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher
- 4th August 2014 at 09:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have post before in this forum before...both AF (ROKAF and TNI-AU) seems in the agreement for twin engine. However the Industry (Especially KAI and from what I heard also some team from IAe) seems inclined to single engine due to their cautions on over budget for twin engine. Do remembered single engine design come later on from KAI and not from the official design team (which KAI and IAe also heavily represented), as further alternative studies. Then again both AF seems will get the last says.
KAI and IAe already talking on work sharing, where for development stages there will be 5 prototypes where KAI responsible for assembling 4 and IAe 1. At least that's what I heard from local media. Seems the agreement so far more on development stages (those 5 prototypes). More agreement will be talked later on after the development stages.
Add:
The way I see, there is also one other factor that can be more influential. How big tech support the tech partner (more and more inclined to LM) going to support. The design team conclusion from 1st stage (design development) from what I heard already pressed that they need matured Fighters manufacture as design partner on development stages. Some speculation says that the design team prepared cannard design if they got Euro Partner and other design if they get US partner. Whether it's true or not, it show this project need Tech Partner, which can influence the final development.
Final design still has to get approval though from both ROK and Indonesian parliament, although Indonesian one will take cue from what ROK decide. In such, as like politicians all over the world, parliaments can still be swayed. Although at this moment seems the twin engine (C103) design seems got the favorite.
thanks for the reply.
And what numbers of KF-X in service is the TNI-AU looking at?
By: ananda
- 4th August 2014 at 10:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thanks for the reply.
And what numbers of KF-X in service is the TNI-AU looking at?
TNI-AU looking for initial demand of 50, while ROKAF, I believe between 120-150. For TNI-AU, they aimed initialy to used this project as replacement for 2 sq of Hawk 200/100 and 1 sq of F-5E/F. However seems looking on condition of TNI-AU F-5, it's questionable they can be keep maintained operationally until 2020+ where those KFX projected to be ready.
Same thing with ROKAF that plan to used this as replacement for F-4 and F-5, but considering some of ROKAF F-5 from what I read on ROK media and forum, also questionable whether can waited until KFX ready. Thus I believe on both AF, the F-5 will be replaced by some F-16, which in turn later on be replaced by KFX.
Somehow I see that the planner on both AF also aimed this project to replaced not just F-4, F-5 and Hawk 200, but also in the end all F-16. Those F-35 that ROKAF going to procured, will not be replacement for F-16 or F-15K, but more on something new. Just like the planner in TNI-AU from what I heard also not aimed this project as replacement for Flanker family.
This website also provide more updated information on KFX program, including the cutaway Internal Bay design that I've posted before and other I posted below. For my understanding, ussualy their information more accurate on the development progress compared to others on line sources.
By: djcross
- 5th August 2014 at 03:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since everyone is posting their wishes for KF-X...
I would like to see the engines spread a little farther apart, add 3D thrust vectoring, eliminate the tails, incorporate a large delta wing with 6 trailing edge control surfaces and a couple or four outboard spoilers.
Doing so would provide a larger weapons bay between the engines, dramatically reduce side sector RCS, provide ample internal volume for fuel and provide maneuver performance as good as any Gen 4 jet.
New
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher
- 5th August 2014 at 04:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since everyone is posting their wishes for KF-X...
I would like to see the engines spread a little farther apart, add 3D thrust vectoring, eliminate the tails, incorporate a large delta wing with 6 trailing edge control surfaces and a couple or four outboard spoilers.
Doing so would provide a larger weapons bay between the engines, dramatically reduce side sector RCS, provide ample internal volume for fuel and provide maneuver performance as good as any Gen 4 jet.
removing the tail might be too ambitious for the Koreans..and 3D TVC would mean having to fund the Eurojet option till completion (although Eurojet may claim its as good as ready), since no real TVC option exists for the F-414 as yet. even with the current config, maneuvering performance may not be any worse than existing 4th gen jets..
This website also provide more updated information on KFX program, including the cutaway Internal Bay design that I've posted before and other I posted below. For my understanding, ussualy their information more accurate on the development progress compared to others on line sources.
These missiles appear to be AIM-120A with the non-clipped fins. A mistake I assume because why would they bother? What does it say at the top of the weapon bay cutaway, are these bays supposed to house Mk84 bombs?
By: ananda
- 5th August 2014 at 08:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These missiles appear to be AIM-120A with the non-clipped fins. A mistake I assume because why would they bother? What does it say at the top of the weapon bay cutaway, are these bays supposed to house Mk84 bombs?
I'll give you the link to more cutaways. Like I said before, this cutaways already circulated for sometime (from last year), when the design team finish their first stage work. Still this is very early, and the design team already put on their recomendation the need for mature fighters manufacturer as tech partner. I believe that's why ROK FX III also put conditions on the winner for tech involvement for KFX.
One of the cutaway did put capability for MK-84 in the bay. Again, this is preliminary design, but seems the design team already reserved that capabilities. The second stage (development stages) I think will determine viability of internal bay that can be incorporated based on prototype performances. From what I read so far, the plan 5 prototypes will not yet incorporate internal bays, but already provide space for that.. Will see if this is going to change.
By: MadRat
- 6th August 2014 at 08:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It looks like the fans want F100's by the raw size comparison to F-35A and F-22A.
I could see a single bay for 4 each, AIM-9X/AIM-132 and/or AIM-120, and support for perhaps a pair of semi-recessed AIM-120. CWB for another weapon and spare fuel on each side. So we're talking maybe another pair of AAM's under each wing for a maximum internal/external load out of 12 AAM, more than anyone would ask.
I realize that the Koreans are producing F110's. It would seem natural to license produce an advanced F414, considering the close ties with GE. (Silly me still thinks they need twin F125's and to severely downscale everything to make the project affordable.) It would lend itself to obtaining help with AIM-9X/AIM-120 integration. They'll also want to develop it to use the future JAGM, JSM, SDB II, Griffin II, etc. It would probably force them to buy an OTS American AESA and ECCM suite, rather than allow them to develop their own.
If the Europeans win the battle for the engines I could see MBDA step in and try to peddle AIM-132, MICA, SPEAR, Brimstone and Meteor. It would probably force them to buy an OTS European AESA and ECCM suite, too.
Korea isn't just designing this for China. They also have to build this to deal with a newly aggressive Japan, the Russians, and any other potential threat against their sea routes.
New
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 9th August 2014 at 15:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
eurojet is nice, but flakey. look at the eurofighter program and promises all around about its potential but implementation taking forever.
best korea stick to american
By: Snow Monkey
- 13th August 2014 at 06:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the Europeans win the battle for the engines I could see MBDA step in and try to peddle AIM-132, MICA, SPEAR, Brimstone and Meteor. It would probably force them to buy an OTS European AESA and ECCM suite, too.
Why? Engine and weapons and avionics suppliers are not the same companies. Saab already freely mixes and matches engine and avionic suppliers from a host of countries and companies.
New
Posts: 3,381
By: Rii
- 1st September 2014 at 12:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
eurojet is nice, but flakey. look at the eurofighter program and promises all around about its potential but implementation taking forever.
best korea stick to american
The proposed developments for EJ200 (EJ220/230) are in the same place as F414 EPE and M88-9t: "give us the money and we will make it happen."
By: MadRat
- 1st September 2014 at 15:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no doubt all three are expensive. F414EPE has the best chance for volume, therefore best projected cost. In reality the EJ200 doesn't have many future orders left whereas F414 is set for a decade more.
But for one F414EPE you could just have F100-PW-229EEP with change to spare. Or F110-GE-132 with a little less left over. The latter two families of engines have more users yet. There are many more parts in the supply chain. And Korea has experience with both.
By: ananda
- 2nd September 2014 at 00:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-414, EJ200, and M-88 being choose as alternatives for twin engine design. F-100 or F-110 being discussed by KAI for single engine design. Using F-100 or F-110 for double engine will increase the size outside the initial parameter of the design which come out on the 1st stage.
By: MadRat
- 2nd September 2014 at 06:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M88-3 is the only design small enough to justify their tight design specs. Unfortunately it's expensive and like the others, unless they pay for development for suped up versions, each pair just isn't powerful enough for a 50,000 pound fighter. It's like they really need a modern Pratt & Whitney PW1120. They are not going to stick to a design using a pair unless they select F414 due really to price and current availability.
It will be strange IMHO if they don't revert back to one engine like the F110-GE-132 and downscale the whole project. Let's face it, the F110's sip fuel compared to the others. The cost is directly relative to the weight. It makes money sense to go the F110. The only better solution is the F135. (Which coincidentally costs what a pair of the others would anyhow.)
If S. Korea truly sees Japan as a regional competitor then it may wish for something using twin F110-GE-132 or F100-PW-229. Japan's stealth fighter will be using engines in the 33-35K pounds of thrust region.
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 4th August 2014 at 07:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ananda, what is the Indonesian AF's view on the single-engine vs twin-engine debate for the KF-X? With 20% of the budget to be footed by Indonesia, I think that they may have a big say in what is eventually the final config of the KF-X..also, have any work share arrangements been made so far on this project? What parts will be manufactured in Indonesia and what about technology transfers?
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 4th August 2014 at 08:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have post before in this forum before...both AF (ROKAF and TNI-AU) seems in the agreement for twin engine. However the Industry (Especially KAI and from what I heard also some team from IAe) seems inclined to single engine due to their cautions on over budget for twin engine. Do remembered single engine design come later on from KAI and not from the official design team (which KAI and IAe also heavily represented), as further alternative studies. Then again both AF seems will get the last says.
KAI and IAe already talking on work sharing, where for development stages there will be 5 prototypes where KAI responsible for assembling 4 and IAe 1. At least that's what I heard from local media. Seems the agreement so far more on development stages (those 5 prototypes). More agreement will be talked later on after the development stages.
Add:
The way I see, there is also one other factor that can be more influential. How big tech support the tech partner (more and more inclined to LM) going to support. The design team conclusion from 1st stage (design development) from what I heard already pressed that they need matured Fighters manufacture as design partner on development stages. Some speculation says that the design team prepared cannard design if they got Euro Partner and other design if they get US partner. Whether it's true or not, it show this project need Tech Partner, which can influence the final development.
Final design still has to get approval though from both ROK and Indonesian parliament, although Indonesian one will take cue from what ROK decide. In such, as like politicians all over the world, parliaments can still be swayed. Although at this moment seems the twin engine (C103) design seems got the favorite.
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 4th August 2014 at 09:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thanks for the reply.
And what numbers of KF-X in service is the TNI-AU looking at?
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 4th August 2014 at 10:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TNI-AU looking for initial demand of 50, while ROKAF, I believe between 120-150. For TNI-AU, they aimed initialy to used this project as replacement for 2 sq of Hawk 200/100 and 1 sq of F-5E/F. However seems looking on condition of TNI-AU F-5, it's questionable they can be keep maintained operationally until 2020+ where those KFX projected to be ready.
Same thing with ROKAF that plan to used this as replacement for F-4 and F-5, but considering some of ROKAF F-5 from what I read on ROK media and forum, also questionable whether can waited until KFX ready. Thus I believe on both AF, the F-5 will be replaced by some F-16, which in turn later on be replaced by KFX.
Somehow I see that the planner on both AF also aimed this project to replaced not just F-4, F-5 and Hawk 200, but also in the end all F-16. Those F-35 that ROKAF going to procured, will not be replacement for F-16 or F-15K, but more on something new. Just like the planner in TNI-AU from what I heard also not aimed this project as replacement for Flanker family.
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 5th August 2014 at 01:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rolls Royce intensifies their campaign for EJ200 toward Korean manufacturing the engine in conjunction for KFX program.
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10067&num=759
This website also provide more updated information on KFX program, including the cutaway Internal Bay design that I've posted before and other I posted below. For my understanding, ussualy their information more accurate on the development progress compared to others on line sources.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 5th August 2014 at 03:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since everyone is posting their wishes for KF-X...
I would like to see the engines spread a little farther apart, add 3D thrust vectoring, eliminate the tails, incorporate a large delta wing with 6 trailing edge control surfaces and a couple or four outboard spoilers.
Doing so would provide a larger weapons bay between the engines, dramatically reduce side sector RCS, provide ample internal volume for fuel and provide maneuver performance as good as any Gen 4 jet.
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 5th August 2014 at 04:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
removing the tail might be too ambitious for the Koreans..and 3D TVC would mean having to fund the Eurojet option till completion (although Eurojet may claim its as good as ready), since no real TVC option exists for the F-414 as yet. even with the current config, maneuvering performance may not be any worse than existing 4th gen jets..
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 5th August 2014 at 05:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
These missiles appear to be AIM-120A with the non-clipped fins. A mistake I assume because why would they bother? What does it say at the top of the weapon bay cutaway, are these bays supposed to house Mk84 bombs?
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 5th August 2014 at 08:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10040&pn=2&num=74395
I'll give you the link to more cutaways. Like I said before, this cutaways already circulated for sometime (from last year), when the design team finish their first stage work. Still this is very early, and the design team already put on their recomendation the need for mature fighters manufacturer as tech partner. I believe that's why ROK FX III also put conditions on the winner for tech involvement for KFX.
One of the cutaway did put capability for MK-84 in the bay. Again, this is preliminary design, but seems the design team already reserved that capabilities. The second stage (development stages) I think will determine viability of internal bay that can be incorporated based on prototype performances. From what I read so far, the plan 5 prototypes will not yet incorporate internal bays, but already provide space for that.. Will see if this is going to change.
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 5th August 2014 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most interesting, thanks!
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 6th August 2014 at 04:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Internalized smart weapons logically assumes targeting and navigation pod integration. I see neither.
They should be working on integration of standoff munitions like Griffin, SDB, or whatnot. Mk84 is disappointing.
Posts: 171
By: EagleSpirit - 6th August 2014 at 06:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10040&pn=2&num=74395
Thankfully this is also all fan made. So no need to be disappointed.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 6th August 2014 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It looks like the fans want F100's by the raw size comparison to F-35A and F-22A.
I could see a single bay for 4 each, AIM-9X/AIM-132 and/or AIM-120, and support for perhaps a pair of semi-recessed AIM-120. CWB for another weapon and spare fuel on each side. So we're talking maybe another pair of AAM's under each wing for a maximum internal/external load out of 12 AAM, more than anyone would ask.
I realize that the Koreans are producing F110's. It would seem natural to license produce an advanced F414, considering the close ties with GE. (Silly me still thinks they need twin F125's and to severely downscale everything to make the project affordable.) It would lend itself to obtaining help with AIM-9X/AIM-120 integration. They'll also want to develop it to use the future JAGM, JSM, SDB II, Griffin II, etc. It would probably force them to buy an OTS American AESA and ECCM suite, rather than allow them to develop their own.
If the Europeans win the battle for the engines I could see MBDA step in and try to peddle AIM-132, MICA, SPEAR, Brimstone and Meteor. It would probably force them to buy an OTS European AESA and ECCM suite, too.
Korea isn't just designing this for China. They also have to build this to deal with a newly aggressive Japan, the Russians, and any other potential threat against their sea routes.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 9th August 2014 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
eurojet is nice, but flakey. look at the eurofighter program and promises all around about its potential but implementation taking forever.
best korea stick to american
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 9th August 2014 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's probably on grounds of raw cost. F100 is far cheaper than EJ200, F414, F110, M88, and slightly even less than F404.
Posts: 840
By: Snow Monkey - 13th August 2014 at 06:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why? Engine and weapons and avionics suppliers are not the same companies. Saab already freely mixes and matches engine and avionic suppliers from a host of countries and companies.Posts: 3,381
By: Rii - 1st September 2014 at 12:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The proposed developments for EJ200 (EJ220/230) are in the same place as F414 EPE and M88-9t: "give us the money and we will make it happen."
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 1st September 2014 at 15:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no doubt all three are expensive. F414EPE has the best chance for volume, therefore best projected cost. In reality the EJ200 doesn't have many future orders left whereas F414 is set for a decade more.
But for one F414EPE you could just have F100-PW-229EEP with change to spare. Or F110-GE-132 with a little less left over. The latter two families of engines have more users yet. There are many more parts in the supply chain. And Korea has experience with both.
Posts: 506
By: ananda - 2nd September 2014 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-414, EJ200, and M-88 being choose as alternatives for twin engine design. F-100 or F-110 being discussed by KAI for single engine design. Using F-100 or F-110 for double engine will increase the size outside the initial parameter of the design which come out on the 1st stage.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 2nd September 2014 at 06:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M88-3 is the only design small enough to justify their tight design specs. Unfortunately it's expensive and like the others, unless they pay for development for suped up versions, each pair just isn't powerful enough for a 50,000 pound fighter. It's like they really need a modern Pratt & Whitney PW1120. They are not going to stick to a design using a pair unless they select F414 due really to price and current availability.
It will be strange IMHO if they don't revert back to one engine like the F110-GE-132 and downscale the whole project. Let's face it, the F110's sip fuel compared to the others. The cost is directly relative to the weight. It makes money sense to go the F110. The only better solution is the F135. (Which coincidentally costs what a pair of the others would anyhow.)
If S. Korea truly sees Japan as a regional competitor then it may wish for something using twin F110-GE-132 or F100-PW-229. Japan's stealth fighter will be using engines in the 33-35K pounds of thrust region.