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

KFX Korean Indigenous Fighter programme

Dreamfighter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
162
Reaction score
2
Semi-burried missiles?! I'd exepected internal missile-carriage...
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
202
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Sintra said:
Just released by DAPA. The design is the C-103.
Source:
http://www.koreadefence.net/detail.php?number=2023&thread=22r01

Attached in case the original pictures disappear. Thank you, Sintra, for the find.
 

Attachments

UpForce

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
2
Far from me ever having RCS-tested anything (not that I wouldn't like to try), all that stuff hanging off the wings and inset in the belly still seems to defeat the purpose of stealth. Design-wise this iteration (and there are so many already) of KFX seems smack in the middle of an F-35 and a T-50 Golden Eagle - apart from those two engines. I can appreciate that certain development paths prove more frequently applicable than others but this comes close to being almost dishearteningly predictable.

Of course this sort of thing could follow from KAI's comparatively considerable ambitions of scale, economy and scheduling but still, internal weapons bays (esp. for air to air purposes only) do not seem as among the greatest possible technical challenges in a project such as this. Certainly not something to be thwarted by. Anyone here who can give the roughest of ballpark figures of how many/few dB a "traditional" fuel tank reflects compared to an airframe generally considered stealthy (... even if one doesn't consider the geometries together) for example? I.e. if there's anything like magnitudes of difference (on average).

I'm not about to visit the "koreadefence" site anytime soon though to practice deeper source evaluation - my crowdsourced site rating add-on gives it a truly abominable score on all counts. Maybe the braver surfers among us will yet retrieve more information from that site and about it?
 
1

1st503rdSGT

Guest
I share Up's confusion here. If one is planning to ruin the RCS with with external weapons anyways, what's to justify the expense of a VLO airframe?
 

bipa

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
UpForce said:
Anyone here who can give the roughest of ballpark figures of how many/few dB a "traditional" fuel tank reflects compared to an airframe generally considered stealthy (... even if one doesn't consider the geometries together) for example?
The fuel tank alone would be a manageable concern wrt the front aspect RCS of such a fighter.
Though maybe less manageable for beam aspect.

But once together with the aircraft (and pylon) interactions it would indeed hit the overall RCS very hard.

Stealth is not relevant / desirable for all missions, especially since stealth (as in "internal weapons carriage") amounts to reduced payload.
I guess those are removable external stores, just like the F-35 (or Silent Eagle for that matter).
 

ouroboros

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
The Sniper pod targeting mount is an interesting choice. Easier upgrades due to lack of airframe integration? Considering all the hanging stuff, I'm surprised they didn't take the shortcut of an integrated fuel/weapons pod, like the ones proposed for the F-18 or the F-22/FB-22. The wingtip rail seems like a pretty poor choice, though the thoughts behind it can be somewhat understood.
 

mithril

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
1
actually, i'm not seeing any internal carriage at all on that last concept. the shapings do suggest efforts to reduce the RCS, but not really to the point of 'stealth'. more like the kind of shaping applied to the Rafale D and Super hornet, which merely reduce the signature relative to a more conventionally shaped 4th generation airframe.

if this represents the direction they have chosen to go, it probably means they have dropped the 'stealth' aspects of their requirements in favor of just reduced signature.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,011
Reaction score
199
Is the C-103 meant to be half of a high-low mix, much as the F-22 and F-35 were meant to be? Does anyone know if they are still working on the K-200 design?
 

datafuser

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
The prototype and initial production examples are likely to come out without an internal weapon bay, but with a space reserved for that purpose, probably filled with fuel.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
1st503rdSGT said:
I share Up's confusion here. If one is planning to ruin the RCS with with external weapons anyways, what's to justify the expense of a VLO airframe?
Because they eventually plan to reach the VLO + Supercruise status in later blocks. Since it is costly to change the airframe at later date, the airframe will start with a full stealth shaping. Then additional features will be introduced incrementally in later blocks like an internal weapons bay sized for four AMRAAMs, LPI AESA radar, uprated engine, etc.

Grey Havoc said:
Is the C-103 meant to be half of a high-low mix, much as the F-22 and F-35 were meant to be?
It is more like the Swedish model, an eventual transition to single fighter jet model airforce.

FYI, the new C103(The model in the picture is the "old" declassified C103) is said to be longer than an F-35. Since the new C103 sits in between the F-22 and the F-35 in terms of size and performance, it is difficult to classify in the traditional "high/low" category.

Does anyone know if they are still working on the K-200 design?
The Eurocanard model was dropped.
 
1

1st503rdSGT

Guest
SlowMan said:
1st503rdSGT said:
I share Up's confusion here. If one is planning to ruin the RCS with with external weapons anyways, what's to justify the expense of a VLO airframe?
Because they eventually plan to reach the VLO + Supercruise status in later blocks. Since it is costly to change the airframe at later date, the airframe will start with a full stealth shaping. Then additional features will be introduced incrementally in later blocks like an internal weapons bay sized for four AMRAAMs, LPI AESA radar, uprated engine, etc.
That still doesn't make any sense... as adding a weapons bay would require major changes to the airframe anyways. However, I do rather like the 4 AMRAAM sized bay, especially if it can hold 2 AMRAAMs and a single piece of 2k ordinance.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
1st503rdSGT said:
That still doesn't make any sense... as adding a weapons bay would require major changes to the airframe anyways.
The weapons bay is said to be located in the forward fuselage between the cockpit and the intake(Think YF-23). For Block 1, the space will be used for a fuel tank.

Korean reasoning is that they have a deadline to meet under any circumstance, and will cut features from the package if the said feature cannot meet the deadline instead of delaying the whole package as is the case with the F-35, instead of delaying the project which raises cost.

especially if it can hold 2 AMRAAMs and a single piece of 2k ordinance.
No 2K JDAM, Only two 1K JDAMs.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
202
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of 4.5 generation KFX/IFX/F33 concept from Indonesian Aerospace (PT Dirgantara Indonesia) formerly known as IPTN.

Sources:
http://www.indonesian-aerospace.com/view.php?m=news&t=news-detil&id=64
 

Attachments

helmutkohl

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I noticed no one has posted these yet but KAI has updated their KFX models from 101 (conventional, and 201 (canard)
to 103 and 203

seems like they are going semi-conformal

canopy on the 103 version looks like the pak-fa/x-32 style while 103 seems to go further back. 103 seems to have more bay area?






 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,592
Reaction score
1,052
The CxxxE and CxxxI seem to be external and internal carriage versions, CxxxT perhaps twin seat? Hard to see at that size.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
76
To admit, both seem to evolve quite nicely !

Does anyone have more specific information on both designs ... and finally when the winning design wil be chosen ?? (I would prefer 203)

Deino
 

helmutkohl

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Deino said:
To admit, both seem to evolve quite nicely !

Does anyone have more specific information on both designs ... and finally when the winning design wil be chosen ?? (I would prefer 203)

Deino
Everyone loves canards!
But yes the 201 design looks too much like the F-35, J-31, ATD-X.. very typical.

however what role does canards have on RCS? What do you guys think?
The JAST model for the X-35, the X-36, and other models that the US made using canards had them at the same level as the main wing. However the 203 has them angled upwards like the J-20
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
13
...and look at the shape of the vertical tails on the 103........... ;)

cheers,
Robin.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
41
Interesting.

The last picture states 2x 18 000lb plus thrust engines.

I assume this to mean either EJ-200, Snecma M-88, or F-404/F-414 or derivitives?
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
kaiserbill said:
Interesting.

The last picture states 2x 18 000lb plus thrust engines.

I assume this to mean either EJ-200, Snecma M-88, or F-404/F-414 or derivitives?
What other off the shelf engines are there? We sure as well ain't going to make on ourselves.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Wouldn't recessed carriage of missile on the underside place the missile fins at right angle to the bottom surface of the aircraft, and thus creating what amounts to an angle reflector for a radar directly abeam?

Or perhaps the recess indentation the bottom of the aircraft is shaped in such a way that the missile would fit in at an angle.
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
chuck4 said:
Wouldn't recessed carriage of missile on the underside place the missile fins at right angle to the bottom surface of the aircraft, and thus creating what amounts to an angle reflector for a radar directly abeam?

Or perhaps the recess indentation the bottom of the aircraft is shaped in such a way that the missile would fit in at an angle.
I would guess its a 'lazy' model maker tasked to make a plane that doesn't exist in detail.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
chuck4 said:
Wouldn't recessed carriage of missile on the underside place the missile fins at right angle to the bottom surface of the aircraft, and thus creating what amounts to an angle reflector for a radar directly abeam?
The bottom aspect stealth doesn't matter, at least for now. It is strictly an A2A fighter intended to operate over the skies of Yellow Sea, the primary intended adversary being China. The ROKAF doesn't intend to fly over North Korea until its integrated air defense network is degraded enough for a flyover in wartime. Until then, it is strictly stand-off strikes using tens of thousands of glide bombs.

The internal weapons bay won't arrive until the Block 2. Even then the internal armament will be restricted to A2A missiles.

Or perhaps the recess indentation the bottom of the aircraft is shaped in such a way that the missile would fit in at an angle.
Then releasing it would be difficult.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Bullshit. Fins sticking out vertically to the bottom ruins efforts to reduce signature to side aspects as well. Most likely this half assed approach reflects awareness of limits of the industrial capability that precludes a weapon bay without unacceptable sacrifices in other areas.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
chuck4 said:
Bullshit. Fins sticking out vertically to the bottom ruins efforts to reduce signature to side aspects as well.
This matters less when the jets are flying toward the enemy formation.

Then there is the local AMRAAM-sized missile under development, which may have folding fins.

Most likely this half assed approach reflects awareness of limits of the industrial capability that precludes a weapon bay without unacceptable sacrifices in other areas.
The roadmap makes it clear that weapons bay will be present from Block 2 and onward. The Silent Eagle's CWB is engineered and manufactured in Korea, so the knowledge and experience to do an internal weapons bay will be there. The reason it is not included in the Block 1 is because it can't make the 2020 deadline.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
TaiidanTomcat said:
How many have they made so far?
A pair of prototypes. Working on the production version at the moment.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1499

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 3, 2010 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that the company has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd. (KAI) for KAI to design, develop and manufacture the Conformal Weapons Bay (CWB) for the F-15 Silent Eagle.

"KAI is a leading aerospace company with world-class core technical capabilities that complement Boeing's," said Roger Besancenez, Boeing F-15 program vice president. "We are excited about KAI's growing role on the development and production of key technologies for Boeing aircraft."
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
http://www.angkasa.co.id/index.php/fokus/324-apa-kabar-kfx
Just found an additional interview from a fan site http://arc.web.id/artikel/55-tni-au/482-optimis-dengan-kfxifx.html

Reading this google translated Indonesian article we can confirm that the 2013 break will be used to wait for the FX-3 winner and then negotiations of ToT with said winner.
(The article says 8 items. Wonder what they are. The backend/processing for our AESA seems a likely one, what 7 others?)

Which would be in addition to another official offer and negotiation of Turkish involvement.
(Honestly don't care if Turkey don't have exactly the same amount of tech as us, as long as they agree to buy an equal number share of planes because the additional funding and security is worth it. And each plane should be cheaper too.)

After that EMD will start. Cool!

(Also here is a completely random thing I have found for wind tunnel testing. Can't tell anything about the aircraft but its good to know.)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:R3YMPDJCBdYJ:lpse.bppt.go.id/eproc/publicberitadetail.filedownload:download/31353132303036393b31%3Bjsessionid%3D56A883B657740AF64D96049EFAE67492%3Ft:ac%3D112069+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESifeq3lR88LJJyUAa5hbqAPwloHmElX_RJ7F9HjPe_DmBaWdoPDi1URjPpPbX56O_m2dJivWHcFaxXZOIXubxVxcKxSGH_Q3_ZBxT5uqEKY61Bkt8P_QwSERoasYD-ghZUXJAKz&sig=AHIEtbQQYsMLZf5NJt_9R6qcqIBtM7u-5g
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
Uh oh! Looks like someone in Korea finally realized that developing another F-35 (which has been hard enough for the US) is redundant and problematic one small country.

List Of KF-X Opponents Grows

South Korea's proposed KF-X stealth fighter program has not been short of influential opponents. Now it has another. A defense ministry think tank, the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis, has told a public meeting that the country is not technologically equipped to develop the aircraft, that the project is economically unviable and that the KF-X would not be a successful export product. The institute challenges cost estimates by the Agency for Defense Development, which is leading development of the aircraft.

KF-X development would cost more than 10 trillion won ($9.2 billion), one of the institute's researchers, Lee Juhyeong, has told a seminar on the program. Over the life of the program, the KF-X would cost the country more than twice as much as an imported aircraft, Lee says.

The institute's stance has not previously been publicly stated, although the Naeil newspaper reported last year that it had submitted a confidential report doubting the viability of the project. Now speaking openly, the institute questions whether the U.S. will be willing to help develop the KF-X. Other skeptics wonder how it could be exported in competition with U.S. aircraft, since South Korea would probably have to use major U.S. components, whose export could be blocked by Washington. Another influential think tank, the Korea Development Institute, reported as early as 2007 that the KF-X was not viable...
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_02_18_2013_p23-548417.xml
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
2IDSGT said:
Uh oh! Looks like someone in Korea finally realized that developing another F-35 (which has been hard enough for the US) is redundant and problematic one small country.
Not going to flip out but how is the KF-X similar to the F-35? And why is it redundant? It will be a technical challenge, of course. And similar criticisms have been made all along development and it is creeping along.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
2IDSGT said:
Uh oh! Looks like someone in Korea finally realized that developing another F-35 (which has been hard enough for the US) is redundant and problematic one small country.

South Korean Economy is more than twice as large as that of the the home of the Grippen, and also possesses considerable depth and breadth in high-tech manufacturing, probably substantially deeper and broader than, say, Sweden.

If they can muster the project management skills and are willing to invest, I think it is well within their power to come up with a useful fifth generation equivalent to the (Korean) T-50 that would be a suitable and up-to-date replacement for the F-5 or Mig-21 as might be required by a Philipine or a Malaysia.
 
Top