Without cleansing the entire airframe and adjusting how all emitters on it operate, win will be negligible (lower short range stand in strike signature).
hmm? wasnt it supposed to come by 2035 for the blk3 if it got funding?
That was a couple years ago though. I think 10-11 years rule for a well run development program (before delays kick in) still stands.
It's possible that the various companies working on stuff for KF-21 (with LockMart there to say "it took us a long time to figure [item] out, so I would recommend continuing R&D efforts but not plan to install it in the KF-21") did continue working on pieces like skin-integrated array apertures and they're close enough to ready to be included into the Korean 6gen Fighter.
This is a rational, balanced, and politically resilient approach—especially if it goes hand in hand with the development and maturation of the new engine from Hanwha.
They probably evaluated it as an F-5 replacement, which is exactly what it was designed to be and what it's about to replace in Korea...
It makes sense in Korea(as a de facto industrial policy), but outside of Korean conditions this is pure madness.
I like the KF-21 because of its project management, but it can't be denied that it is inherently a less ambitious project (essentially a Superbug dressed as a 5th gen and equipped with an unambitious radar), especially for one developed in the 2010s-20s -- they deemed replacing the KF-5s ASAP more important and were content with a less ambitious design since they would already have F-35s.
I didn mean it isn't suitable outside of Korea. It's just that you have to have goals and a lot of economic power to replace F5(5t/10t class) with KF21(12/26t).
Gripen E is already chosen, so I guess it's in any case a couple. Russian aircraft are improbable in Thailand, so if a heavier counterpart is being chosen, it's really F-16/KF-21 competition in a more affordable bracket (as superhornet is gone).
Have to disagree with you again; operating costs aren't everything.
I didn't make a comparison to the Kaan though? I only brought it up because I've been seeing comparisons between the two projects everywhere lately, and I wanted to give my own perspective on how they're being managed.
I very much doubt KF-21 signature is substantially different from 4.5 gens or hotspot-treated 4th gens.
Remember that one of the reasons for F-5 was to have a simple fighter that countries without sophisticated industries could maintain fairly easily.
Which is exactly why I specified a clean configuration. They ultimately envisioned the aircraft evolving into a low-observable platform through -- admittedly arduous -- efforts, which is why the initial Block 10 configuration was designed the way it was in the first place, with that geometry from the outset; something no other 4.5th/4++ gen. fighter has, and no amount of RAM can fully compensate for...
Agree on the fourth-root law limiting actual detection-range gains, but I'm one of those people who thinks that even a mere 16% improvement matters quite a lot and is worth the cost and effort, especially for a non-stealth fuselage
They don't sell the platform itself though...
Clean configuration is not even a start. It's IRST, it's visibly untreated cockpit, it's all rwr and comm antennas.
Oh, 16% absolutely matters - going from 5 to 2.5 for example is absolutely a hell of a boost. But if you're painstakingly getting from 0.9 to 0.7(which you'll then promptly get back to ~1.5 with externals), it just won't be anywhere close to 16%.Agree on the fourth-root law limiting actual detection-range gains, but I'm one of those people who thinks that even a mere 16% improvement matters quite a lot and is worth the cost and effort, especially for a non-stealth fuselage
It's a bit unfair to say it is a mistake, I should've made myself clear: koreans were clearly aiming for an air superiority fighter, which also can bring heavy/oversized payloads when needed - contested, if necessary. I.e. engineers delivered exactly what was asked, and KF-21 is likely absolutely great when it's flying defca/intercept/self-escort.
We began with Thailand... which is a rather sophisticated country, but also a country stuck dead in mid income trap. Their economy was recently passed by Vietnam(and is on a good trajectory to be passed per capita soon enough).
Very good point.
Also, the Koreans had the advantage of some LockMart engineers who could say that certain things took LockMart a lot of engineering time so don't tie the airframe to that but keep it in development.
Well, Gripen E(12) is already a done deal. The question i guess is what's next.
Thailand will eventually need an F-16 replacement as well as these are some of the older variants. They already have the Gripen and have ordered the Gripen E to address some of this. They also need a replacement for the F-5s and Alpha Jets. the T-50s they ordered from Korea does some light attack even though its focus is training.
The irony is KF-21(mostly because of that comb) somewhat struggles to provide that step up over Gripen E in capability.
In that case it would contradict claims that the Air Force is not interested in the KF-21EX.
That was the idea probably. But effectively no, they can't. Maybe they can be used to store additional equipment down the line, but for the time being it's mostly a wasted volume (larger 20mm ammo drum is a joke).
It is likely that the RoKAF will continue to use both the semi-recessed and IWB configurations without upgrading them. A retrofit involving major changes to the airframe design would be far too costly relative to the benefits when it comes to countering North Korea.
Probably, but right now there's nothing, not even fuel. Literally empty adapter and missile ejectors.
Fuel.
