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

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...hter-jet-need-but-is-mum-on-laggard-payments/
So Indonesia clearly can't afford to participate in the KFX program, but neither party wants to pull the plug just yet. KAI had to have known there was a risk of this happening when they signed Indonesia on a partner, but they were likely under pressure to find a country willing to share the enormous development costs so that the program could proceed.
 
Tbh, that article have nothing new on Indonesia not yet pay their share on RnD fund. The failed to commit on the 20% of their share already recurring paragraph since like 2018 (could be earlier). And the behind $557 million also recurring paragraph since last year meeting between Indonesian official and south Korean official. I'm sorry if i look salty, maybe i got annoyed to read the similar paragraph too often.

Anyway imo, its more like Indonesian govt don't want to allocate the money instead don't having the money. At worst, the money is in the shape that Korean govt don't want to accept (commodities). Also, knowing person on presidential chair is different than in 2014 when the deal agreed and signed. I will not surprised that they have different perspective and commitment on the deal.
 
alberchico said:
KAI had to have known there was a risk of this happening when they signed Indonesia on a partner, but they were likely under pressure to find a country willing to share the enormous development costs so that the program could proceed.
Click to expand...
It was never KAI's choice to choose Indonesia as a partner but rather of the government and the choice itself stemmed from the Korean arms procurement system. As a matter of fact, almost, if not all personnel who are actually working on the project never were really into the idea of teaming up with Indonesia in the first place. If anything, Indonesian participation, or more to be exact, the international structure of the KF-X program was a matter of bureaucracy; it wasn't really matter of the fund. In short, it would be very misleading to think that the Korean gov't can't afford additional $1.6 billion over 10 years.

The international structure is the remnant of the financial requirements imposed on the program on its early days. You've got to remember that this program was kicked off in the early 2000s and had to go through 7 feasibility studies to get finally approved in the early-mid 2010s. Between those two periods, Korean economy grew by almost 2.5 times and the gov't budget increased more than 3 folds. Naturally, what would not have been able to be done in the early 2000s (develop a 4.5th gen fighter on its own, solely with their own budget) came within the reach. In other words, in the 2000s the Korean gov't and parliament would have in no hell agreed on a fighter jet development program without any international partners to share the financial burden.

Alas, as we are all too familiar with bureaucracy, said requirements/criteria of a feasibility study was never updated to reflect the rapid economic growth and the military was stuck and were imposed with the same requirements and criteria which didn't reflect the present-day situation. So, they had to look for a foreign partner, which like I've said wasn't really for the sake of solving a financial problem anymore, but for the sake of "finding a foreign partner" and to appease the MPs. At least they were okay to give a go sign with a single partner; earlier in the program, the requirement was to find two international partners (hence Korea and Turkey have discussed about a joint program).

As a matter of fact, all this is being proven by the fact that the program's going smooth with or without the Indonesian contribution. Safe to say that it's their choice on if they are willing to commit or not, but at least the Koreans doesn't seem to be in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
Source Bemil

2022102015472342096.jpg

2022102015272291328.jpg

2022102015183764651.jpg

2022102015182388293.jpg


more here, which includes better versions of the twitter pics above too
https://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10044&pn=1&branch=&num=225932#none
 
Since you're open to critique :) The canopy isn't quite right (see attached image) and the chine incidence angle should be near-horizontal (virtually the same as that of the LERX). I also suspect the leading/trailing edge sweep angles are a bit too steep, in fact on the vertical tails, the TE appears to be steeper than the LE. And of course the flap/aileron hinge lines are parallel to the wing TE.
 

Attachments

  • u45tdjr.png
    u45tdjr.png
    32.7 KB · Views: 123
Trident said:
Since you're open to critique :) The canopy isn't quite right (see attached image) and the chine incidence angle should be near-horizontal (virtually the same as that of the LERX). I also suspect the leading/trailing edge sweep angles are a bit too steep, in fact on the vertical tails, the TE appears to be steeper than the LE. And of course the flap/aileron hinge lines are parallel to the wing TE.
Click to expand...
Excellent! I'll have a look at those. Trouble with working from photos.

thanks

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Trident said:
Since you're open to critique :) The canopy isn't quite right (see attached image) and the chine incidence angle should be near-horizontal (virtually the same as that of the LERX). I also suspect the leading/trailing edge sweep angles are a bit too steep, in fact on the vertical tails, the TE appears to be steeper than the LE. And of course the flap/aileron hinge lines are parallel to the wing TE.
Click to expand...
Excellent! I'll have a look at those. Trouble with working from photos.

thanks

Chris
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20221011_214036.jpg
Vertical tails are bigger

293603440_1343790199363585_7043984160533681206_n.jpg
Canopy too steep
 
Well, the one from Yonhap News doesn't 'line up'. Spans don't match in plan and front elevation. What I'm finding is that they are all different, but that's always been the trouble with GAs. Why I prefer to use photos. Maybe I'm pedantitc.

Chris
 
Back to the drawing board. Work in progress.

Recently I've been working on drawings of the undersides of aircraft, something that started off after Dr Hopkins and I were discussing antennae arrays on Rivet Joints. We were wondering why general arrangement drawings usually only show the plan view/upper surfaces of aircraft when the interesting stuff is usually on the underside and you'd rarely see the upper surface..

Looking back, this seems to be a postwar thing. Any thoughts?

Before all you CAD boys kick off, I'm old school, taught actual draughting, then lapsed before computers appeared. Still have my Rotring pens.

Chris

1666861046015.png
 
CJGibson said:
Recently I've been working on drawings of the undersides of aircraft, something that started off after Dr Hopkins and I were discussing antennae arrays on Rivet Joints. We were wondering why general arrangement drawings usually only show the plan view/upper surfaces of aircraft when the interesting stuff is usually on the underside and you'd rarely see the upper surface..

Looking back, this seems to be a postwar thing. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I assumed it was just following orthographic projection and many people were too lazy to draw / include the bottom plan view ...
 
red admiral said:
I assumed it was just following orthographic projection and many people were too lazy to draw / include the bottom plan view ...
Click to expand...
Dunno, could be. I doubt it would be laziness. Most folk I know enjoy drawing. Many GA's have a split plan view showing top/bottom, which doesn't really work in my view, especially for the Bv 141. I've discussed this with many researchers and archivists. The chaps at Brooklands took the view that the only completely accurate drawing was the manufacturers drawings of the components for the fab shop. Once you start scaling, you lose accuracy.

Maybe this discussion should go elsewhere, eh GTX?

Chris
 
I don't like the split top/bottom plan views either.

I think it's more from who is doing the drawing: manufacturing drawings aren't usually published - mostly because they're just part drawings. Whereas the overall designer is doing the ortho GA views we typically see, but not actually doing the lofting / surface definition - and then the part designers usually change things later anyway. Then today you go direct to 3D geometry creation in CAD and can pull out any numbers of views needed but we mostly see iso projections...
 
FighterJock said:
litzj said:
From DX 2022 (my blog)
https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/2022/10/dx-korea-2022.html

there is a KF-21N 1/10 scale model (proposal only)

View attachment 686402

View attachment 686401

View attachment 686403

View attachment 686405

View attachment 686406

Weapon on wing is ramjet-propelled-cruise missile
(proposal only)
Click to expand...

First ever time that I have seen the cruise missile, any ideas as to the specifications of the missile?
Click to expand...

Best guess is

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...p-missile-for-south-koreas-kf-x-breaks-cover/

specification is unknown
 
helmutkohl said:
red admiral said:
On the comparisons with F-35 and other aircraft, does anyone know what the internal payload bay capacity is? They look pretty small to me i.e. maybe 4 x AMRAAM-size weapons, but looks challenging to carry air-to-surface weapons or much of a mixed load.
Click to expand...
El96ym6UcAASHPG.jpg


here is the cut away of the fueselage showing where the bays are. Of course, this current aircraft covers the bay with those semi-recessed panels.
But assuming those recessed areas are the size of a Meteor, it looks like 2 each bay, maybe 3


--

on another note
I hope Indonesia's future force would be something like
50 KFX (replace older F-16s, Flankers)
50 FA-50s (replace the hawks, form the lo part of a hi-low mix with KFX as the hi)
20 TA-50s (advanced training)
KT-1s (Primary training)

Korea likely to allow home production of all of them. good for the Indonesian industry
also reduce the many different types

but since I assume Indonesia's main security challenge in the future will be China trying to exerts its claims over the SCS and Natuna island
Indonesia likely needs to maintain a defense relationship with the US and Europe.
US P-8s for maritime warfare
French submarines

would Indonesia need a LHD/LPD capability to defend some islands? would they need something like an F-35B?

Not sure about Russian relations. IRC, the embargoes have made Russian spares a bit challenging
but on the other hand if going by Vietnam's scenario, Russian presence in Vietnam's SCS claims have scared off Chinese pressure for that area.
Click to expand...
Could you fit a 2,000 lbs jadam in there? It seems bigger the the f-22s Bay anyway.
 
Seems unlikely to me if it's designed around 2 X AMRAAM or 4xSDB. It's quite a lot smaller than F-22 bay. Probably need extra depth for 2k JDAM
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom