• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

KAI KF-21 Boramae (KFX Korean Indigenous Fighter program)

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
556
Reaction score
771
on a related note, since we talked about exports and korean aircraft.


JF-17 vs FA-50 in Malaysia!!!
they narrowed it down to those two, but the JF-17 is in the lead due to better medium range weapons

i thought FA-50 was cleared for AMRAAM no?

There are currently two upgrade programs regarding FA-50, namely block 10 and 20 respectively. What's currently under works is the block 10, which aims for the integration of LGBs and Sniper pod (a photo of FA-50 flight testing with a pod hanging on the center pylon has recently been revealed, although there seems to be no high-res photo made public). Block 20 is when the AMRAAM will be integrated (probably the C5/7 variation?) although it is not clear if such upgrade program is actually under development or only being planned on. I would lean towards the latter unless there are some clarification from KAI. KAI seems to even be considering ways to enhance the power output of the existing EL/M-2032 radar once they are done with AMRAAM integration program, probably due to the small antenna aperture, although I'm not so sure how they would be able to achieve such.
on that note, anyone knows the radome width/size? of the FA-50 and JF-17?

also.. this report if true, means Tejas was kicked out of the competition.
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
on a related note, since we talked about exports and korean aircraft.


JF-17 vs FA-50 in Malaysia!!!
they narrowed it down to those two, but the JF-17 is in the lead due to better medium range weapons

i thought FA-50 was cleared for AMRAAM no?

There are currently two upgrade programs regarding FA-50, namely block 10 and 20 respectively. What's currently under works is the block 10, which aims for the integration of LGBs and Sniper pod (a photo of FA-50 flight testing with a pod hanging on the center pylon has recently been revealed, although there seems to be no high-res photo made public). Block 20 is when the AMRAAM will be integrated (probably the C5/7 variation?) although it is not clear if such upgrade program is actually under development or only being planned on. I would lean towards the latter unless there are some clarification from KAI. KAI seems to even be considering ways to enhance the power output of the existing EL/M-2032 radar once they are done with AMRAAM integration program, probably due to the small antenna aperture, although I'm not so sure how they would be able to achieve such.
on that note, anyone knows the radome width/size? of the FA-50 and JF-17?

also.. this report if true, means Tejas was kicked out of the competition.

The JF-17's have about 60-70 cm's of diameter. FA-50 is eliptical but 60 x 50 cm is reasonable. Tejas is about 60 cm.


----------
The EL/M-2032, KLJ-7 or the Russian analogues like Kopyo was basically the "ultimate pokemon or digimon" Evolution of small conventional radar. Increasing power output may not necessarily increase the range that much. Doubling the output power may only give about 19% increase in range (a factor of 1.19). While in return the cooling demand would also increase and so does the weight and maybe size of the cooling equipment required.

The only potential way for increasing range, without increase in cooling demand if desired is actually increasing the beam dwell time or some reduction in receiver noise. Both needs phased array, which why something like Bars-23 and Pharaon exist. Better advantage can be gained with AESA's Thus why there are Chinese KLJ-7A and Indian Uttam. The FA-50 in other hand have to look at Israeli EL/M-2052 or develop alternative based on the KF-21 Radar.

Power aperture wise, the most advantage can be gained by packing the most amount of TR-Module possible as AESA Power aperture product and range scales with cube of number of TRM's. That's the power aperture side.

With the time constraint presented by the movement of mechanical parts of conventional array gone. The beam dwell time can be extended or reduced dynamically and precisely as defined by the radar's requirement. E.g long range narrow area scan or wide area. the AESA might also have lower noise which would help in increasing the "sensitivity" of the radar.

With those mentioned above the AESA may have 1.4 vs 1.19 factor of range compared to conventional array of same size.

Of course there are also plethora of other advantages mainly on maintenance as no more mechanical parts that can break or short lived TWT's (100-500 Hrs vs AESA which can last more than 1000 hrs)
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
556
Reaction score
771
thanks for the info stealth flanker.
i wonder how serious KAI will be in adopting the EL/M-2052 for export on that jet

back to KF-21 i saw this floating around. the evolution of the KFX to the final configuration C109 which would be come KF-21
C104 is interesting as it reminds me a lot of the YF-22 in some areas

q5ig8n53pls61.png
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
thanks for the info stealth flanker.
i wonder how serious KAI will be in adopting the EL/M-2052 for export on that jet

It's more into customer's side tho whether they are willing to pay extra for AESA's or just stick with vanilla EL/M-2032.

Country like Indonesia is usually just go with whatever standards the exporter country adopts.
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,444
Reaction score
445
Max Speed: Mach 1.81 (2,200km/h / 1,400mph)
Engine thrust: 2 x 22,000lb F414
Range: 2900km / 1550nm
Length: 16.9 m / 55.4ft
Wingspan: 11.2 m / 36.7ft
Height: 4.7 m / 15.6ft
Wing area: 46.5 m2*
Empty weight: 11,800 kg*
Max Payload: 7,700kg / 17,000lb
Gross weight: 17,200 kg*
Max takeoff weight: 25,400 kg / 56,400lb

* Figures from media sources - may not be accurate. Metric and imperial figures don't always match.

Interesting.
They seem to have targeted the twin engined size range of the Hornet/Mig 29/35/Eurofighter/Rafale.
Smaller than the Super Hornet, but with the same power.

Like a more powerful counterpart to the Shenyang FC-31, although this might be a function of the highest tech/thrust engine available, within design/cost constraints.
South Korea has licence built the F-16 which is powered by the P&W F100-229, but this larger engine in twin configuaration would have caused an upward spiral in size and costs.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
3,486
Max Speed: Mach 1.81 (2,200km/h / 1,400mph)
Engine thrust: 2 x 22,000lb F414
Range: 2900km / 1550nm
Length: 16.9 m / 55.4ft
Wingspan: 11.2 m / 36.7ft
Height: 4.7 m / 15.6ft
Wing area: 46.5 m2*
Empty weight: 11,800 kg*
Max Payload: 7,700kg / 17,000lb
Gross weight: 17,200 kg*
Max takeoff weight: 25,400 kg / 56,400lb

* Figures from media sources - may not be accurate. Metric and imperial figures don't always match.

Interesting.
They seem to have targeted the twin engined size range of the Hornet/Mig 29/35/Eurofighter/Rafale.
Smaller than the Super Hornet, but with the same power.

Like a more powerful counterpart to the Shenyang FC-31, although this might be a function of the highest tech/thrust engine available, within design/cost constraints.
South Korea has licence built the F-16 which is powered by the P&W F100-229, but this larger engine in twin configuaration would have caused an upward spiral in size and costs.

This. Mirage 4000: lesson learned the hard way, for the Rafale. Also Hornet to Eagle on exports markets (Australia, Canada...)
 

superpower42

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
9
1618550807.jpeg

rear view is uploaded

 

RPO Rys

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
14
Reaction score
14
I wonder how much RCS reduction / better aerodynamics can you get from those 4 semi-recessed hardpoints under the fuselage.

At least it removes the need of large extruding pylons
___________________
Gripen:

1618571075325.png
Source: twitter.com/gripennews/status/1277754051808104448
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
2,567
You can probably hang below a weapon pod (see main landing gear clearance space and height), just like Boeing proposed for the modernized SH to carry some bombs and self defense missiles. Or even have something semi-recessed akin to a bulbous wb.

But head-on the semi-recessed missiles won't affect tremendously the RCS, particularly at engagement speed where a nose down attitude should be expected given the faceted geometry of the nose (canceling nose lift component).
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
183
Reaction score
350
Empty weight: 11,800 kg*
Gross weight: 17,200 kg*

* Figures from media sources - may not be accurate.

That’s a fuel fraction of 0.31, pretty comparable to an F-15, F/A-18, Rafale or Typhoon.

I haven’t seen anyone ask: how will they add the internal bomb bay in future blocks without hurting the fuel fraction? CFTs? Otherwise the later versions risk being very short legged.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
3,486
I wonder how much RCS reduction / better aerodynamics can you get from those 4 semi-recessed hardpoints under the fuselage.

At least it removes the need of large extruding pylonsView attachment 655127
Artist impression(?)
(Source: I was told that the original poster of the 3D pic was twitter.com/7N39AP)

___________________
Gripen:

View attachment 655128
Source: twitter.com/gripennews/status/1277754051808104448

Wow. SEVEN METEORS ? Now that's a Grippen with more long-range firepower than a freakkin' Tomcat ! (which usually carried 4*Phoenix but could go to six if the wing glove pylons were used).
To think that in 1989 when the Grippen prototype first flew, Tomcats ruled the skies... "sic transit gloria mundi" as they say.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
Empty weight: 11,800 kg*
Gross weight: 17,200 kg*

* Figures from media sources - may not be accurate.

That’s a fuel fraction of 0.31, pretty comparable to an F-15, F/A-18, Rafale or Typhoon.

I haven’t seen anyone ask: how will they add the internal bomb bay in future blocks without hurting the fuel fraction? CFTs? Otherwise the later versions risk being very short legged.

You should also be asking the fuel tank arrangement inside the KF-21, how much is carried within the internal weapon bay tank compared to the fuel carried inside the other tanks.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
183
Reaction score
350
You should also be asking the fuel tank arrangement inside the KF-21, how much is carried within the internal weapon bay tank compared to the fuel carried inside the other tanks.

A weapon bay for 4x AAMs will take up >2.5m3 of volume, which is not insignificant. It seems unlikely that this space is left empty on the KF-21 Block I, so adding a weapons bay might displace ~35-40% of its internal fuel (on paper). This is rough math but the order of magnitude is certainly correct. Hence my question.
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
You should also be asking the fuel tank arrangement inside the KF-21, how much is carried within the internal weapon bay tank compared to the fuel carried inside the other tanks.

A weapon bay for 4x AAMs will take up >2.5m3 of volume, which is not insignificant. It seems unlikely that this space is left empty on the KF-21 Block I, so adding a weapons bay on paper might displace ~35-40% of its internal fuel. This is rough math but the order of magnitude is certainly correct. Hence my question.

It does carry fuel.

The thing however is you have to also consider the volume in the other fuel tank. What if the one in internal weapon bay is "extra" which if its gone it does shorten the range but still within the requirement of the aircraft.
 

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
255
On subject of KF-21's RCS.


The link however seems not mentioning the frequency where it was measured/taken. Eyeballing it will only reveal that it has some -20 dB RCS across 0-60 degrees angle. But without frequency information Or disclosure from Korean Authority themselves on what kind of RCS they want to achieve. It would be difficult to draw any conclusion.

I do make my own estimates but i feel they're bit on the optimistic side and very limited.

KF-21, I find your lack of spikes disturbing,
 

eagle

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
24
Reaction score
28
It does carry fuel.

Does it though?
That would be news to me. Also, when looking at the photos, it appears there's only the ammo box in the weapons bay.

So I'm pretty sure KF-21 carries ~5400 kg of internal fuel regardless of the weapons bay being used or not.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
It does carry fuel.

Does it though?
That would be news to me. Also, when looking at the photos, it appears there's only the ammo box in the weapons bay.

So I'm pretty sure KF-21 carries ~5400 kg of internal fuel regardless of the weapons bay being used or not.
Well at least if my memory serves right. Indonesian requirement for longer range. so the place for the bay have fuel tank instead. So it would be more than 5400 Kg. Otherwise it is empty.

The ammo box is not extending all the way inside the bay.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
88
Reaction score
152
You should also be asking the fuel tank arrangement inside the KF-21, how much is carried within the internal weapon bay tank compared to the fuel carried inside the other tanks.

A weapon bay for 4x AAMs will take up >2.5m3 of volume, which is not insignificant. It seems unlikely that this space is left empty on the KF-21 Block I, so adding a weapons bay might displace ~35-40% of its internal fuel (on paper). This is rough math but the order of magnitude is certainly correct. Hence my question.
No. There's no fuel in there. none. nada. It only houses MEL and 20mm ammo box. The rest is empty.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
556
Reaction score
771
You should also be asking the fuel tank arrangement inside the KF-21, how much is carried within the internal weapon bay tank compared to the fuel carried inside the other tanks.

A weapon bay for 4x AAMs will take up >2.5m3 of volume, which is not insignificant. It seems unlikely that this space is left empty on the KF-21 Block I, so adding a weapons bay might displace ~35-40% of its internal fuel (on paper). This is rough math but the order of magnitude is certainly correct. Hence my question.

you can see here, the weapons bay is mostly empty except for that ammo box maro.kyo stated
seems no fuel is stored there
84bd7f462f499.PNG


on a related note, some news site took that compilation pic I made of the KF-21, J-31 and X-2
lol
 

RPO Rys

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
14
Reaction score
14
You should also be asking the fuel tank arrangement inside the KF-21, how much is carried within the internal weapon bay tank compared to the fuel carried inside the other tanks.

A weapon bay for 4x AAMs will take up >2.5m3 of volume, which is not insignificant. It seems unlikely that this space is left empty on the KF-21 Block I, so adding a weapons bay might displace ~35-40% of its internal fuel (on paper). This is rough math but the order of magnitude is certainly correct. Hence my question.

you can see here, the weapons bay is mostly empty except for that ammo box maro.kyo stated
seems no fuel is stored there
84bd7f462f499.PNG


on a related note, some news site took that compilation pic I made of the KF-21, J-31 and X-2
lol
If we put extra fuel inside the reserved IWB space, will it be worth making like KF-21 block 1.5(ER) or something for Extra Range?
 
Last edited:

Frogfigther

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
30
Reaction score
114
2021041121112584328.jpg
Hanhwa EOTGP

Source
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510

Frogfigther

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
30
Reaction score
114
Hanhwa EOTGP

Source

Any chance to see this in TA-50 ? or other aircrafts ?

It might happen if they have will to do. However, it will take so long time because ROKAF already has hundreds of Sniper ATPs for their F-15K, KF-16s and FA-50's integration with Sniper ATP is already running.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
556
Reaction score
771
^ wow baby raptor.
assuming the F-22 refers to Raptor (as the bird, not the dinosaur)
then Boramae (baby hawk or Goshawk) is appropriate!

I wonder, once the KF-21 gets its bays, zig zags and full stealth suite.. its the better lo-hi end of the F-22 than the F-35
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,880
Reaction score
4,831

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
556
Reaction score
771
The discussion over Indonesia's role in KFX was fine since Indonesia is a partner.

but that dude's incessant nagging of a fantasy Russianized version, confidence over his own ignorance, and baiting was hilarious.

"I'm 1000% sure a KF-21 with Russian stuff is cheap and fast!"

followed by

"anything can be modified! you just need time and money!! i am 100000% sure!"
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
255
Reaction score
132
^ wow baby raptor.
assuming the F-22 refers to Raptor (as the bird, not the dinosaur)
then Boramae (baby hawk or Goshawk) is appropriate!

I wonder, once the KF-21 gets its bays, zig zags and full stealth suite.. its the better lo-hi end of the F-22 than the F-35
Its definitely more of what I thought we were going to get out of the jsf program than what we ended up with. If they ever put the upgraded 26k lbs thrust engines into it it'll be a real hotdog. Supercruise maybe? But I don't think they necessarily copied the raptor, but rather airplanes are basically equal parts of science project and engineering problems to be solved and there's only so many ways to divide 7 by 3 if you know what I mean. No one looks at a spar from a su27 and a f15 and says "the Russians copied our spar." same goes for the outer mold line. I imagine its jjust cheaper, easier, and less risky to go with a conventional planform than something like the yf23. As I recall, the yf23 had to have some bleeding edge hydraulic actuators that configured themselves for different airspeeds. So there's less risk and money and time going conventional. But are the Koreans going to give it edge alignment saw tooth panels or is the can kicked too far down the road and tooling is what it is?
 
Last edited:

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
but that dude's incessant nagging of a fantasy Russianized version, confidence over his own ignorance, and baiting was hilarious.


Well.. i got to say there are many more like him. tho as i said maybe some pages ago.. Defense and technology related issues are not really "serious day to day talking materials" here but when problem do arise.. so does the delusional views. Most however are bottled up in facebook or instagram or youtube. It's nice to see people actually care about the issue but as seen, we have long way to go here in instilling realistic views on aircraft design matters.

--------

Even with the Korean standard as it is now.. for our airforce it would be a serious beast. Like no fighter aircrafts in our arsenal.. (unless we bought F-15 or Rafale or actually willing to circumvent CAATSA) possess long range AAM's. There is AMRAAM's and RVV-AE's but Meteor is way ahead of them. It also represent leap in radar capability as the HANWHA AESA basically have twice the range of our current fighter radars. There is request for developing larger volume droptank for our range requirement but i would assume KF-21 can make do with F-16, 2300 Litres external drop tank.

Another thing is of course low RCS. Something which is an alien concept for our airforce. Currently available fighters can't really represent low RCS targets. This KF-21 can come in, it offers flexibility way more than joint training to explore and form doctrine in usage or against low RCS targets. We does have things like Hawk and T-50 Golden Eagle, but what around us now wont stick being 1-2 m sqm class RCS and there is cruise missile, even a baseline tomahawk can do 0.3 sqm in X-band.

Those two points above are my views... considering we didnt even bother investing into necessary industrial baseline, the KF-21 program can no longer be viewed as "Our lesson to make fighters" but instead as a leap.. to get us ASAP into modern reality of air combat.

-------------
Also.. talking about radar signature, well i got myself to learn new things. ANSYS HFSS. I built my knowledge on RCS for long on POFACETS.. but i guess it's time to upgrade.

This is my KFX model, L-band (1 GHz). SBR+ solver with Creeping wave calculations enabled. I picked L-band as X-band seems to strain my PC. Well i obviously have to make a new model. later i would pay more attention to fidelity.
As final outcome, This kind of presentation below might be finally sufficient as it's 3D

Test-PCSR.png
 

Umigami

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
3
Reaction score
3
Indonesian newbie try to give his view about how to make IFX more indonesian here:
- how about put local components as much as possible there?
Something that we really do capable like for example: cockpit instruments from Infoglobal.
- Is it possible to request Korean Boramae's weapon source code?
So we can integrate our weapon of choice.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
88
Reaction score
152
Its definitely more of what I thought we were going to get out of the jsf program than what we ended up with. If they ever put the upgraded 26k lbs thrust engines into it it'll be a real hotdog. Supercruise maybe? But I don't think they necessarily copied the raptor, but rather airplanes are basically equal parts of science project and engineering problems to be solved and there's only so many ways to divide 7 by 3 if you know what I mean. No one looks at a spar from a su27 and a f15 and says "the Russians copied our spar." same goes for the outer mold line. I imagine its jjust cheaper, easier, and less risky to go with a conventional planform than something like the yf23. As I recall, the yf23 had to have some bleeding edge hydraulic actuators that configured themselves for different airspeeds. So there's less risk and money and time going conventional. But are the Koreans going to give it edge alignment saw tooth panels or is the can kicked too far down the road and tooling is what it is?

Then again, even the hypothetical "block 3" of KF-21 wouldn't be able to match F-35's capabilities judging by the information concerning the ongoing R&D programs, which are meant to be implemented onto this plane in the near future. It's a hard question I feel. Also reinforced by the fact that, although the current Block 3F F-35s are a bargain which only costs around $ 80 million (fly-away costs), Lockheed's gonna charge you shit ton of money for the Block 4 upgrades.

Application of F414 EE is also a tricky part. Now that USN thinks the current F414 and the Super Bug is a right match and are satisfied with its T/W ratio, a future variant of KF-21 with an IWB which would probably have less drag wouldn't need much more thrust. ROKAF, I assume, would opt for more airframes to be procured instead of using that money for the funding of F414 EE program. Then on the other hand, KF-21 has even shorter legs compared to the F-35 when only flying with its onboard fuel tanks. Being able to supercruise with F414 EE, which is also claimed to be more fuel efficient, would make its operating range much wider.

Now the question is if ROKAF needs such capability for the KF-21. It's main enemy is NK despite the Chinese presence. OCA and other kind of deep-strike missions are to be done by the 120 high-end platforms designated by the JSOP, which are the F-15Ks with Taurus ALCM and F-35s. KF-21 are medium end fighters after all.

All in all, I would suggest to wait until August when the research regarding the future upgrade plans (what we call the Block 3) for KF-21 is done. Then we'll have some more concrete roadmap to be suggested by KAI and ADD.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
255
Reaction score
132
Its definitely more of what I thought we were going to get out of the jsf program than what we ended up with. If they ever put the upgraded 26k lbs thrust engines into it it'll be a real hotdog. Supercruise maybe? But I don't think they necessarily copied the raptor, but rather airplanes are basically equal parts of science project and engineering problems to be solved and there's only so many ways to divide 7 by 3 if you know what I mean. No one looks at a spar from a su27 and a f15 and says "the Russians copied our spar." same goes for the outer mold line. I imagine its jjust cheaper, easier, and less risky to go with a conventional planform than something like the yf23. As I recall, the yf23 had to have some bleeding edge hydraulic actuators that configured themselves for different airspeeds. So there's less risk and money and time going conventional. But are the Koreans going to give it edge alignment saw tooth panels or is the can kicked too far down the road and tooling is what it is?

Then again, even the hypothetical "block 3" of KF-21 wouldn't be able to match F-35's capabilities judging by the information concerning the ongoing R&D programs, which are meant to be implemented onto this plane in the near future. It's a hard question I feel. Also reinforced by the fact that, although the current Block 3F F-35s are a bargain which only costs around $ 80 million (fly-away costs), Lockheed's gonna charge you shit ton of money for the Block 4 upgrades.

Application of F414 EE is also a tricky part. Now that USN thinks the current F414 and the Super Bug is a right match and are satisfied with its T/W ratio, a future variant of KF-21 with an IWB which would probably have less drag wouldn't need much more thrust. ROKAF, I assume, would opt for more airframes to be procured instead of using that money for the funding of F414 EE program. Then on the other hand, KF-21 has even shorter legs compared to the F-35 when only flying with its onboard fuel tanks. Being able to supercruise with F414 EE, which is also claimed to be more fuel efficient, would make its operating range much wider.

Now the question is if ROKAF needs such capability for the KF-21. It's main enemy is NK despite the Chinese presence. OCA and other kind of deep-strike missions are to be done by the 120 high-end platforms designated by the JSOP, which are the F-15Ks with Taurus ALCM and F-35s. KF-21 are medium end fighters after all.

All in all, I would suggest to wait until August when the research regarding the future upgrade plans (what we call the Block 3) for KF-21 is done. Then we'll have some more concrete roadmap to be suggested by KAI and ADD.
Well considering they threw everything including the kitchen sink into the f35, the KF-21 never match its avionics. But that is a good thing otherwise they will exhaust 20 years trying to get it to work right which is part of the downfall we are starting to see with the f35 is that its not an f16 low end airplane to compliment the f22.... Its basically a superfighter in its own right that people are going "oh shit look at what we spent and need to spend to get it right after 25 years of engineering work." I really wish they had kept the 35 more simple and not so bleeding edge sci-fi. Is it a good airplane? Yeah but now we arena going to get as many as we need and finally develop the low end 5th gen plane that can be afforded... At least its trending that way. Except for its questionable signature as evidenced by the lack of edge aligned panels I think the Koreans did it right. It will be interesting to see what happens to it as they start flying it and running into inevitable hiccups.

Thats interesting about the SH and the navy's thinking about not upgrading engines.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
556
Reaction score
771
Its definitely more of what I thought we were going to get out of the jsf program than what we ended up with. If they ever put the upgraded 26k lbs thrust engines into it it'll be a real hotdog. Supercruise maybe? But I don't think they necessarily copied the raptor, but rather airplanes are basically equal parts of science project and engineering problems to be solved and there's only so many ways to divide 7 by 3 if you know what I mean. No one looks at a spar from a su27 and a f15 and says "the Russians copied our spar." same goes for the outer mold line. I imagine its jjust cheaper, easier, and less risky to go with a conventional planform than something like the yf23. As I recall, the yf23 had to have some bleeding edge hydraulic actuators that configured themselves for different airspeeds. So there's less risk and money and time going conventional. But are the Koreans going to give it edge alignment saw tooth panels or is the can kicked too far down the road and tooling is what it is?

Then again, even the hypothetical "block 3" of KF-21 wouldn't be able to match F-35's capabilities judging by the information concerning the ongoing R&D programs, which are meant to be implemented onto this plane in the near future. It's a hard question I feel. Also reinforced by the fact that, although the current Block 3F F-35s are a bargain which only costs around $ 80 million (fly-away costs), Lockheed's gonna charge you shit ton of money for the Block 4 upgrades.

Application of F414 EE is also a tricky part. Now that USN thinks the current F414 and the Super Bug is a right match and are satisfied with its T/W ratio, a future variant of KF-21 with an IWB which would probably have less drag wouldn't need much more thrust. ROKAF, I assume, would opt for more airframes to be procured instead of using that money for the funding of F414 EE program. Then on the other hand, KF-21 has even shorter legs compared to the F-35 when only flying with its onboard fuel tanks. Being able to supercruise with F414 EE, which is also claimed to be more fuel efficient, would make its operating range much wider.

Now the question is if ROKAF needs such capability for the KF-21. It's main enemy is NK despite the Chinese presence. OCA and other kind of deep-strike missions are to be done by the 120 high-end platforms designated by the JSOP, which are the F-15Ks with Taurus ALCM and F-35s. KF-21 are medium end fighters after all.

All in all, I would suggest to wait until August when the research regarding the future upgrade plans (what we call the Block 3) for KF-21 is done. Then we'll have some more concrete roadmap to be suggested by KAI and ADD.
Well considering they threw everything including the kitchen sink into the f35, the KF-21 never match its avionics. But that is a good thing otherwise they will exhaust 20 years trying to get it to work right which is part of the downfall we are starting to see with the f35 is that its not an f16 low end airplane to compliment the f22.... Its basically a superfighter in its own right that people are going "oh shit look at what we spent and need to spend to get it right after 25 years of engineering work." I really wish they had kept the 35 more simple and not so bleeding edge sci-fi. Is it a good airplane? Yeah but now we arena going to get as many as we need and finally develop the low end 5th gen plane that can be afforded... At least its trending that way. Except for its questionable signature as evidenced by the lack of edge aligned panels I think the Koreans did it right. It will be interesting to see what happens to it as they start flying it and running into inevitable hiccups.

Thats interesting about the SH and the navy's thinking about not upgrading engines.
its interesting how the F-35 and KF-21 are basically becoming a hi-lo end system when the F-35 was originally intended to be the lo.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
3,486
Well considering they threw everything including the kitchen sink into the f35, the KF-21 never match its avionics. But that is a good thing otherwise they will exhaust 20 years trying to get it to work right which is part of the downfall we are starting to see with the f35 is that its not an f16 low end airplane to compliment the f22.... Its basically a superfighter in its own right that people are going "oh shit look at what we spent and need to spend to get it right after 25 years of engineering work." I really wish they had kept the 35 more simple and not so bleeding edge sci-fi. Is it a good airplane? Yeah but now we arena going to get as many as we need and finally develop the low end 5th gen plane that can be afforded... At least its trending that way.

Except for its questionable signature as evidenced by the lack of edge aligned panels I think the Koreans did it right. It will be interesting to see what happens to it as they start flying it and running into inevitable hiccups.

Great minds think alike !
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
255
Reaction score
132
Its definitely more of what I thought we were going to get out of the jsf program than what we ended up with. If they ever put the upgraded 26k lbs thrust engines into it it'll be a real hotdog. Supercruise maybe? But I don't think they necessarily copied the raptor, but rather airplanes are basically equal parts of science project and engineering problems to be solved and there's only so many ways to divide 7 by 3 if you know what I mean. No one looks at a spar from a su27 and a f15 and says "the Russians copied our spar." same goes for the outer mold line. I imagine its jjust cheaper, easier, and less risky to go with a conventional planform than something like the yf23. As I recall, the yf23 had to have some bleeding edge hydraulic actuators that configured themselves for different airspeeds. So there's less risk and money and time going conventional. But are the Koreans going to give it edge alignment saw tooth panels or is the can kicked too far down the road and tooling is what it is?

Then again, even the hypothetical "block 3" of KF-21 wouldn't be able to match F-35's capabilities judging by the information concerning the ongoing R&D programs, which are meant to be implemented onto this plane in the near future. It's a hard question I feel. Also reinforced by the fact that, although the current Block 3F F-35s are a bargain which only costs around $ 80 million (fly-away costs), Lockheed's gonna charge you shit ton of money for the Block 4 upgrades.

Application of F414 EE is also a tricky part. Now that USN thinks the current F414 and the Super Bug is a right match and are satisfied with its T/W ratio, a future variant of KF-21 with an IWB which would probably have less drag wouldn't need much more thrust. ROKAF, I assume, would opt for more airframes to be procured instead of using that money for the funding of F414 EE program. Then on the other hand, KF-21 has even shorter legs compared to the F-35 when only flying with its onboard fuel tanks. Being able to supercruise with F414 EE, which is also claimed to be more fuel efficient, would make its operating range much wider.

Now the question is if ROKAF needs such capability for the KF-21. It's main enemy is NK despite the Chinese presence. OCA and other kind of deep-strike missions are to be done by the 120 high-end platforms designated by the JSOP, which are the F-15Ks with Taurus ALCM and F-35s. KF-21 are medium end fighters after all.

All in all, I would suggest to wait until August when the research regarding the future upgrade plans (what we call the Block 3) for KF-21 is done. Then we'll have some more concrete roadmap to be suggested by KAI and ADD.
Well considering they threw everything including the kitchen sink into the f35, the KF-21 never match its avionics. But that is a good thing otherwise they will exhaust 20 years trying to get it to work right which is part of the downfall we are starting to see with the f35 is that its not an f16 low end airplane to compliment the f22.... Its basically a superfighter in its own right that people are going "oh shit look at what we spent and need to spend to get it right after 25 years of engineering work." I really wish they had kept the 35 more simple and not so bleeding edge sci-fi. Is it a good airplane? Yeah but now we arena going to get as many as we need and finally develop the low end 5th gen plane that can be afforded... At least its trending that way. Except for its questionable signature as evidenced by the lack of edge aligned panels I think the Koreans did it right. It will be interesting to see what happens to it as they start flying it and running into inevitable hiccups.

Thats interesting about the SH and the navy's thinking about not upgrading engines.
its interesting how the F-35 and KF-21 are basically becoming a hi-lo end system when the F-35 was originally intended to be the lo.
And my eyes are telling me the KF-21 its sleeker less bulbous airframe can probably best the 35 in some acceleration scenarios; at least when its carrying missiles internally. But Thats what you get when you have a centerline weapons bay because you didn't need to keep room for a lift fan.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
3,486
But Thats what you get when you have a centerline weapons bay because you didn't need to keep room for a lift fan.

This. That's one of the weirdest aspects of the F-35 tri-service controversy... even when it is not there, the lift-fan (I mean, its empty space !) still impacts the aircraft negatively. A simple example: F-35 rear visibility is not as good as all the other bubble-canopy fighters.
And also, exactly what's in the quote - I'd never realized that before ! : no centerline weapons bay, once again because of the lift-fan empty space.
I remember reading stuff about the JSF-JAST-X35 - F-35 20-25 years ago "on the non VSTOL variants the lift fan will be replaced by a fuel tank" okay... not a bad idea, but there is still a price to pay, you see...
 

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
671
Reaction score
150
And my eyes are telling me the KF-21 its sleeker less bulbous airframe can probably best the 35 in some acceleration scenarios; at least when its carrying missiles internally. But Thats what you get when you have a centerline weapons bay because you didn't need to keep room for a lift fan.
But it only looks like a finer fuselage because it doesn't carry as many / as large weapons internally as F-35 so its not a fair comparison. Centre fuselage packaging is a huge driver for these sorts of aircraft.
 
Top