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

KFX Korean Indigenous Fighter programme

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
The Korean Standing+Special Committee where the talk on the KF-X/IF-X was held has very kindly uploaded a PDF of the presentation used during the talk.

http://industry.na.go.kr/portal/pds/view?rdCommitteeId=&committeeId=2005110000006&boardId=2006011000274&recordId=2013010034487&p=2

I don't have the time to translate all of it but I might have time to do some requests on the weekends.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
chuck4 said:
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.
Its not about whether they can or can't its about how much they spend making it happen. And if it costs more than a JSF, then they won't have export success. Is the juice worth the squeeze? the article seems to indicate that this Korean think tank believes it is not.If having an economy twice the size of sweden means they can sell the aircraft at a loss, then yes it will be an export success. (providing the US allows them to export it with the major US parts)
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,614
Reaction score
1,089
Sorry, but F-35 is not some panacea.


It is conceivable for countries to prefer a different solution depending on the weight they put to various factors.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Sorry, but F-35 is not some panacea.


It is conceivable for countries to prefer a different solution depending on the weight they put to various factors.
I don't disagree, but cost will always be a factor, and seeing as the final stage of the KFX is to be at F-35/F-22/B-2 level; I can't help but draw parrellels.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
TaiidanTomcat said:
chuck4 said:
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.
Its not about whether they can or can't its about how much they spend making it happen. And if it costs more than a JSF, then they won't have export success. Is the juice worth the squeeze? the article seems to indicate that this Korean think tank believes it is not.If having an economy twice the size of sweden means they can sell the aircraft at a loss, then yes it will be an export success. (providing the US allows them to export it with the major US parts)

It also depend on how much they really want a domestic fighter design and manufacture capability, and whether they want to use the Kfx as the lose leader to achieve that objective. I can't imagine their T-50 advanced trainer/light fighter program has turned in any profit. But it appear to be their first stepping stone to indigious fighter design goal, and Kfx would make as good a second step as anything on the horizon.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
TaiidanTomcat said:
Its not about whether they can or can't its about how much they spend making it happen. And if it costs more than a JSF, then they won't have export success.
Given that Lockheed's bid price was $14.1 billion for 60($233 million/unit program cost for 60 units + 3 years worth of spare parts), the math is in the KFX's favor. Afterall, they need to maintain a fleet of 430 combat jets(excluding drones), and buying and operating 250 F-35s is not an option, nor is a European style disarmament in that part of the world facing China and North Korea. Then the only viable option becomes a locally manufactured jet that is cheap to maintain due to a local supply industrial base.

If having an economy twice the size of sweden means they can sell the aircraft at a loss, then yes it will be an export success.
No export needed, as the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 KFX units is $5 billion less than the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 Super Hornets, the difference coming entirely from the lower maintenance cost. Some 300 KFX units produced for the Korean and Indonesian air forces can pay for themselves. Any export would be considered an unexpected windfall, but not needed.

(providing the US allows them to export it with the major US parts)
[/quote]
The counter-ITAR strategy is already in place, namely EJ220 engine being the reference engine, local AESA and avionics prototypes already on display etc. Excluding the engine, 87% of it is already local.
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
TaiidanTomcat said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Sorry, but F-35 is not some panacea.


It is conceivable for countries to prefer a different solution depending on the weight they put to various factors.
I don't disagree, but cost will always be a factor, and seeing as the final stage of the KFX is to be at F-35/F-22/B-2 level; I can't help but draw parrellels.
Block 3 is an arbitrary future 'goal'. Block 2 is what we are aiming for.
Not to mention the RO/LO/VLO distinctions have no actual numbers.
And also how stealthy one's aircraft is ain't a measure of how costly it will be. Do you really think the B-2, F-22 and F-35 are expensive cheifly because of their stealthiness?

And seeing how expensive wholly new fighter designs are, I expect this KF-X design to live on with constant upgrades and maybe a Super Hornet style bigger brother as well. Think of it as an investment.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
Given that Lockheed's bid price was $14.1 billion for 60($233 million/unit program cost for 60 units + 3 years worth of spare parts), the math is in the KFX's favor. Afterall, they need to maintain a fleet of 430 combat jets(excluding drones), and buying and operating 250 F-35s is not an option, nor is a European style disarmament in that part of the world facing China and North Korea. Then the only viable option becomes a locally manufactured jet that is cheap to maintain due to a local supply industrial base.
FTFA:

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.
he is saying the exact opposite of what you say, also it should not be forgotten that the KFX will need to be developed exclusively by Korea, so comparing it plane to plane price wise to the F-35 doesn't take that into account.


No export needed, as the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 KFX units is $5 billion less than the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 Super Hornets, the difference coming entirely from the lower maintenance cost. Some 300 KFX units produced for the Korean and Indonesian air forces can pay for themselves. Any export would be considered an unexpected windfall, but not needed.
So Korea is going to develop by itself, a twin engined 5th generation fighter, and with a run of 300 aircraft that will cost less to buy than an FRP F-35, and less to operate than a Super Hornet?

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.
we are talking about $9.2 Billion in development alone.

Look I am not saying that it can't be done, I am not saying Korea doesn't have good reasons that make sense for Korea, but lets not pretend that this fighter is going to magically appear without some serious cost in development, purchase, and maintenance. The R&D is going to cost, the aircraft and spares will cost and it would be the first 5th generation fighter to have less operating cost than a legacy machine. come on, now. I was born yesterday but I studied all night.

Mach42 said:
Think of it as an investment.
You and slowman seem to differ on your opinions on this area. Slowman seems to think its going to be super cheap to buy and operate because a Korean fighter made in Korea means ignoring basic economic reality, and you seem to think that the KFX is a stepping stone, an investment, high cost for a good eventual return. correct?
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
TaiidanTomcat said:
Given that Lockheed's bid price was $14.1 billion for 60($233 million/unit program cost for 60 units + 3 years worth of spare parts), the math is in the KFX's favor. Afterall, they need to maintain a fleet of 430 combat jets(excluding drones), and buying and operating 250 F-35s is not an option, nor is a European style disarmament in that part of the world facing China and North Korea. Then the only viable option becomes a locally manufactured jet that is cheap to maintain due to a local supply industrial base.
FTFA:

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.
he is saying the exact opposite of what you say, also it should not be forgotten that the KFX will need to be developed exclusively by Korea, so comparing it plane to plane price wise to the F-35 doesn't take that into account.


No export needed, as the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 KFX units is $5 billion less than the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 Super Hornets, the difference coming entirely from the lower maintenance cost. Some 300 KFX units produced for the Korean and Indonesian air forces can pay for themselves. Any export would be considered an unexpected windfall, but not needed.
So Korea is going to develop by itself, a twin engined 5th generation fighter, and with a run of 300 aircraft that will cost less to buy than an FRP F-35, and less to operate than a Super Hornet?

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.
we are talking about $9.2 Billion in development alone.

Look I am not saying that it can't be done, I am not saying Korea doesn't have good reasons that make sense for Korea, but lets not pretend that this fighter is going to magically appear without some serious cost in development, purchase, and maintenance. The R&D is going to cost, the aircraft and spares will cost and it would be the first 5th generation fighter to have less operating cost than a legacy machine. come on, now. I was born yesterday but I studied all night.

Mach42 said:
Think of it as an investment.
You and slowman seem to differ on your opinions on this area. Slowman seems to think its going to be super cheap to buy and operate because a Korean fighter made in Korea means ignoring basic economic reality, and you seem to think that the KFX is a stepping stone, an investment, high cost for a good eventual return. correct?
1. I wouldn't put much stock in the aviationweek article. The information is largely comprised of stuff gleaned from the images posted in this thread and other English forums + google translate.

2. "twin engined 5th generation fighter" Twin-engine doesn't mean expensive and 5th generation is not clearly defined, you hang on those words like indicators of doom.

3. Paraphrase: 'It's going to be really expensive'. So? Is it not cost effective enough? What other option is there?

4. Everyone is looking at promises, the promises of LM of KIDA and of the ADD, no man is totally pure of heat and if they were thing still wouldn't go to their heart's desires. I look at the grand scheme of things. There are many paths, many outcomes and possibilities. Right now I think KF-X is a good idea. In mind's eye KF-X can provide a powerful stride as opposed to (quite necessary) KT-1's crawls and T-50's shuffles in a long march to the future.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
TaiidanTomcat said:
he is saying the exact opposite of what you say
KIDA has lost all credibility and isn't a factor here.

KIDA opposed the KT-1 citing the lack of a prior experience and a bleak export prospect. The KT-1 project went ahead anyway.
KIDA opposed the T-50 citing the lack of a prior experience and a bleak export prospect. The T-50 project went ahead anyway.
KIDA is opposing the KFX citing the lack of a prior experience and a bleak export prospect. Guess what the outcome will be?

also it should not be forgotten that the KFX will need to be developed exclusively by Korea
Not the case. The ongoing F-X III contest winner is required to be the engineering consultant in the KFX project. This is why the KFX development plan cannot be finalized until the winner of F-X III is announced.

So Korea is going to develop by itself, a twin engined 5th generation fighter, and with a run of 300 aircraft that will cost less to buy than an FRP F-35, and less to operate than a Super Hornet?
At $233 million/unit offered FMS rate, almost anything is cheaper than the F-35.

we are talking about $9.2 Billion in development alone.
The Parliament is working on the Saab certified cost projection of $6 billion.

The R&D is going to cost, the aircraft and spares will cost and it would be the first 5th generation fighter to have less operating cost than a legacy machine. come on, now. I was born yesterday but I studied all night.
The ROKAF's experience with T-50 series jet was that it cost 1/3rd as much as an F-16 to operate despite only 60 examples in existence to date, thanks to the local parts supply industry. Parts ordering for F-15 and F-16 take more than 230 days, but it takes only 10 days for T-50. If something breaks down on an imported jet they must send it back to the country of origin and wait up to a year to have it fixed. In case of the T-50, the technician from the vendor drive to the base within hours of making the repair phone call.

So when the ADD and the ROKAF project that a KFX would cost only 1/3rd of the Super Hornet to maintain and operate, it is entirely believable to them because of their prior experiences with a locally manufactured jet.

The same thing with F-15J series, which the JASDF praised the high readiness and low maintenance cost thanks to the local parts supply industry, and high readiness is cited as the primary reason for the F-3.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
Not the case. The ongoing F-X III contest winner is required to be the engineering consultant in the KFX project.
consultants don't pay the bills. Thats my point, if Korea wants to develop and manufacture its own aircraft thats fine, but it will come with additional costs compared to importing aircraft. I don't think thats heresy to say.

This is why the KFX development plan cannot be finalized until the winner of F-X III is announced.
The counter-ITAR strategy is already in place, namely EJ220 engine being the reference engine, local AESA and avionics prototypes already on display etc. Excluding the engine, 87% of it is already local.
but of course the development plan can't be finalized yet

At $233 million/unit offered FMS rate, almost anything is cheaper than the F-35.The Parliament is working on the Saab certified cost projection of $6 billion.
Ok so right there is 6 billion dollars spent. do you see my point? also if the block 1 is comparable to an F-18E/F, so lets compare it to that. Australia is talking about 24 more F-18E/Fs for $4 billion. :eek: explain how that is cheaper? SAAB? I thought the consultant was the winner of the contest?

Parts ordering for F-15 and F-16 take more than 230 days, but it takes only 10 days for T-50.
But aren't there F-15 and F-16 parts made in Korea already? and you are telling me that when an F-16/F-15 needs a new part, its down for nearly 8 months? :eek:

If something breaks down on an imported jet they must send it back to the country of origin and wait up to a year to have it fixed.
what?!?!And I thought you just said you ordered the parts and it took 230 days? now you have to fly the aircraft back to its host nation an it takes up to a year? so which is it? Am I waiting on parts for 8 months or flying back to the manufacturer for a year?

This becomes even more confusing when you realize that F-16s are manufactured in SOUTH KOREA SINCE 1997. South Korea being one of 5 nations with an F-16 production facility.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article18.html

So my next question is, how are local F-16s drastically cheaper because they are manufactured locally both to buy and operate, and if the 8 months down/one year gone scenario is true, how bad is the state of local Korean aviation manufacturing?

Or can we all take a deep breath and realize what you said just isn't true?

In case of the T-50, the technician from the vendor drive to the base within hours of making the repair phone call.
Its the vendors fixing the aircraft?? Its not local forces? how about Samsung and the KF-16?

So when the ADD and the ROKAF project that a KFX would cost only 1/3rd of the Super Hornet to maintain and operate, it is entirely believable to them because of their prior experiences with a locally manufactured jet.
No I'm sorry that doesn't make sense aircraft parts are not expensive because they must be imported. The F-16s in the US at Hill AFB cost nearly the same amount to maintain as F-16s in Norway. Parts don't magically get super cheap because they are manufactured locally. slightly cheaper yes logistically simplified yes, 66 percent cheaper? Thats a stretch. I don't even think 1/3 operating cost would cover fuel... I don't even think a Gripen is 1/3 the cost of a super hornet, and its the cheapest combat aircraft to operate in the world.

:eek:
Mach42 said:
1. I wouldn't put much stock in the aviationweek article. The information is largely comprised of stuff gleaned from the images posted in this thread and other English forums + google translate.
Fair enough

2. "twin engined 5th generation fighter" Twin-engine doesn't mean expensive and 5th generation is not clearly defined, you hang on those words like indicators of doom.
I beg your pardon but twin engine does mean more cost not just initially; It adds to maintenance, and fuel burn as well. Someone can correct me

3.
Paraphrase: 'It's going to be really expensive'. So? Is it not cost effective enough? What other option is there?
Importing is another option and its one Korea has previously used. If Korea wants to build their own aircraft, good for them... but it will cost more. please don't try to tell me that aircraft manufactured and used by home nations are magically cheaper. the US has some of the worlds largest air wings and even "local" and "bulk" discounts still carry high prices because that just the price of operating high end fighters. Korea won't escape that. If it costs 2 million dollars for a part, making it in korea doesn't suddenly mean it now only costs $.6 million.


Seeing as S Korea built the KF-16, can't we compare it apples to apples in every cost category including operation to a US built F-16 and see how much is spent locally vs export? and by what amount? Simple enough right?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
48
Website
beyondthesprues.com
SlowMan said:
No export needed, as the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 KFX units is $5 billion less than the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 Super Hornets, the difference coming entirely from the lower maintenance cost.

Based upon what?
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
48
Website
beyondthesprues.com
SlowMan said:
The ROKAF's experience with T-50 series jet was that it cost 1/3rd as much as an F-16 to operate despite only 60 examples in existence to date, thanks to the local parts supply industry. Parts ordering for F-15 and F-16 take more than 230 days, but it takes only 10 days for T-50. If something breaks down on an imported jet they must send it back to the country of origin and wait up to a year to have it fixed. In case of the T-50, the technician from the vendor drive to the base within hours of making the repair phone call.

I would like to see some objective evidence for soem of these claims.


Yes, the T-50 should be less expensive simply because it has a smaller engine etc (it being basically a F404 powered subscale F-16). Yes, having parts supplied locally can certainly help in regards to speed of support...sometimes ( not in all cases though) but it doesn't also necessarily equate to being less expensive. It also depends upon what parts you are referring to.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
TaiidanTomcat said:
consultants don't pay the bills. Thats my point, if Korea wants to develop and manufacture its own aircraft thats fine, but it will come with additional costs compared to importing aircraft. I don't think thats heresy to say.
This happened to Taiwan in the 1990s as well, spending years distracted with their own project (F-CK-1) before deciding they wanted to buy American after all. Oops, too late; new political situation means they're stuck with what they have.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
48
Website
beyondthesprues.com
KIDA opposed the T-50 citing the lack of a prior experience and a bleak export prospect. The T-50 project went ahead

Can't speak for the others but I know that the T-50 was only possible because of the massive support of Lockheed Martin...which interestingly enough should make them a perfect candidate for the KFX since they already have proven expereince working with South Korean industry on similar program's.


Re it's exports, they haven't exactly been stellar... ::)
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
The key phrase is "Industrial nationalism". In its defence everything Korean industry does would be claimed to be better, cheaper, faster then anything foreign, just as a matter of principle. Facts, experience, good sense, or even plausibility are totally besides the point. In this the communist North and the schizophrentic nationalists in the South appear united.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
2IDSGT said:
This happened to Taiwan in the 1990s as well, spending years distracted with their own project (F-CK-1) before deciding they wanted to buy American after all. Oops, too late; new political situation means they're stuck with what they have.
Blame it on short-sighted Taiwanese politicians for cutting off fund when the F-16 became available. Had Taiwan continued its fighter jet development, they wouldn't be in the situation of begging for the sales of F-16 AESA.

GTX said:
Can't speak for the others but I know that the T-50 was only possible because of the massive support of Lockheed Martin...
There was no massive support from Lockheed Martin; all they did was to send a handful of engineers to validate designs and sell some modified F-16 subsystem components utilized in the T-50(T-50 has a greater parts commonality with the F-16 than that between F-35 variants).

The actual airframe design leads were 20 AIDC Ching Kuo engineers from Taiwan.

which interestingly enough should make them a perfect candidate for the KFX
Lockheed already said no to KFX. Only Boeing and EADS offered to join in.

Re it's exports, they haven't exactly been stellar... ::)
Once again, any export is an unexpected windfall, not in the plan.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
213
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Is the K-FX/I-FX program also a response to the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of the increased economic, military, and political power of the People's Republic of China and their potential objections, or veto power, of the sale of military aircraft by the United States?
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
chuck4 said:
The key phrase is "Industrial nationalism". In its defence everything Korean industry does would be claimed to be better, cheaper, faster then anything foreign, just as a matter of principle. Facts, experience, good sense, or even plausibility are totally besides the point. In this the communist North and the schizophrentic nationalists in the South appear united.
Thats what I'm screaming. IF Korea is talking about an F-18E/F class fighter I assume its going to be roughly the same price and operational cost (after the billions in development that is) as an F-18E/F class fighter. If you are going to try and sell me that it will cost 66 percent less to operate and "pay for itself" it better because of truly revolutionary new design and manufacture, or that its fueled by salt water or cold fusion, not "because Korea"-- I'm an adult, I would like to be treated like one.

There is no such thing as a free lunch-- Korea and its aerospace industry have to compete in the same aerodynamic and economic realms as everyone else.

SlowMan said:
There was no massive support from Lockheed Martin; all they did was to send a handful of engineers to validate designs and sell some modified F-16 subsystem components utilized in the T-50(T-50 has a greater parts commonality with the F-16 than that between F-35 variants).
excuse me?
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Triton said:
Is the K-FX/I-FX program also a response to the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of the increased economic, military, and political power of the People's Republic of China and their potential objections, or veto power, of the sale of military aircraft by the United States?

China, certainly, but also Japan. I think if you are in Asia, it must look like American influence would wane and those of China rise. In response countries like Japan would rearm. For Korea a probable future would be somewhat like Poland of 1939, trapped between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
48
Website
beyondthesprues.com
SlowMan said:
There was no massive support from Lockheed Martin
BS!!!

SlowMan said:
Once again, any export is an unexpected windfall, not in the plan.
My comment was in response to your comment regarding KIDA's opposition to the T-50 on the basis of bleak export prospects which has proven correct. One sale to Indonesia hardly counts. It has been beaten in very other contest it has entered I believe.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
SlowMan said:
The actual airframe design leads were 20 AIDC Ching Kuo engineers from Taiwan.
Who do you think gave the massive support to make Ching Kuo possible?
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
GTX said:
Yes, the T-50 should be less expensive simply because it has a smaller engine etc
Fuel cost is only a minor part of overall operations cost.

Yes, having parts supplied locally can certainly help in regards to speed of support...sometimes ( not in all cases though) but it doesn't also necessarily equate to being less expensive. It also depends upon what parts you are referring to.
I will give you an illustration. Let's say there are two Rolls-Royce owners; one in UK and another in Africa somewhere. The fuel injector of both cars break down and must be replaced by a certified Rolls Royce technician. Now who's gonna pay more? I guarantee you that the owner in Africa will pay several times more to repair his Rolls than the UK owner.

Triton said:
Is the K-FX/I-FX program also a response to the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of the increased economic, military, and political power of the People's Republic of China and their potential objections, or veto power, of the sale of military aircraft by the United States?
No, there is no such thing as "Chinese veto" over there. The most obvious example of relationship is Korean coastguard's detainment of some 700 Chinese fishing boats off the Yellow Sea and the imprisonment of thousands of Chinese fishermen in Korean jail each year; there are so many imprisoned Chinese fishermen that China has permanently based consuls at the processing center in advocacy of those imprisoned Chinese fishermen brought in daily.

Now where else does China tolerate imprisonment of thousands of its fishermen every year? Nowhere.

Koreans pursue the KFX because of economy; a locally made jet costs a fraction of imported jet in maintenance and operations, so they could afford to have more.

Indonesians pursue the IFX because this is the best jet they could have access to. The best western jet that Indonesia could afford diplomatically and economically is this jet. It's not like Indonesia will be offered F-35 or could afford PAK-FA, so the KFX is the best jet available to Indonesia.

chuck4 said:
Who do you think gave the massive support to make Ching Kuo possible?
Well, the Ching Kuo engineers certainly learned their trade from General Dynamics, then absorbed it to make it their own. Once again the actual project leads of T-50 projects were a group of engineers known as "Taiwan 20", not Lockheed Martin.
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
TaiidanTomcat said:
Not the case. The ongoing F-X III contest winner is required to be the engineering consultant in the KFX project.
consultants don't pay the bills. Thats my point, if Korea wants to develop and manufacture its own aircraft thats fine, but it will come with additional costs compared to importing aircraft. I don't think thats heresy to say.

This is why the KFX development plan cannot be finalized until the winner of F-X III is announced.
The counter-ITAR strategy is already in place, namely EJ220 engine being the reference engine, local AESA and avionics prototypes already on display etc. Excluding the engine, 87% of it is already local.
but of course the development plan can't be finalized yet

At $233 million/unit offered FMS rate, almost anything is cheaper than the F-35.The Parliament is working on the Saab certified cost projection of $6 billion.
Ok so right there is 6 billion dollars spent. do you see my point? also if the block 1 is comparable to an F-18E/F, so lets compare it to that. Australia is talking about 24 more F-18E/Fs for $4 billion. :eek: explain how that is cheaper? SAAB? I thought the consultant was the winner of the contest?

Parts ordering for F-15 and F-16 take more than 230 days, but it takes only 10 days for T-50.
But aren't there F-15 and F-16 parts made in Korea already? and you are telling me that when an F-16/F-15 needs a new part, its down for nearly 8 months? :eek:

If something breaks down on an imported jet they must send it back to the country of origin and wait up to a year to have it fixed.
what?!?!And I thought you just said you ordered the parts and it took 230 days? now you have to fly the aircraft back to its host nation an it takes up to a year? so which is it? Am I waiting on parts for 8 months or flying back to the manufacturer for a year?

This becomes even more confusing when you realize that F-16s are manufactured in SOUTH KOREA SINCE 1997. South Korea being one of 5 nations with an F-16 production facility.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article18.html

So my next question is, how are local F-16s drastically cheaper because they are manufactured locally both to buy and operate, and if the 8 months down/one year gone scenario is true, how bad is the state of local Korean aviation manufacturing?

Or can we all take a deep breath and realize what you said just isn't true?

In case of the T-50, the technician from the vendor drive to the base within hours of making the repair phone call.
Its the vendors fixing the aircraft?? Its not local forces? how about Samsung and the KF-16?

So when the ADD and the ROKAF project that a KFX would cost only 1/3rd of the Super Hornet to maintain and operate, it is entirely believable to them because of their prior experiences with a locally manufactured jet.
No I'm sorry that doesn't make sense aircraft parts are not expensive because they must be imported. The F-16s in the US at Hill AFB cost nearly the same amount to maintain as F-16s in Norway. Parts don't magically get super cheap because they are manufactured locally. slightly cheaper yes logistically simplified yes, 66 percent cheaper? Thats a stretch. I don't even think 1/3 operating cost would cover fuel... I don't even think a Gripen is 1/3 the cost of a super hornet, and its the cheapest combat aircraft to operate in the world.

:eek:
Mach42 said:
1. I wouldn't put much stock in the aviationweek article. The information is largely comprised of stuff gleaned from the images posted in this thread and other English forums + google translate.
Fair enough

2. "twin engined 5th generation fighter" Twin-engine doesn't mean expensive and 5th generation is not clearly defined, you hang on those words like indicators of doom.
I beg your pardon but twin engine does mean more cost not just initially; It adds to maintenance, and fuel burn as well. Someone can correct me

3.
Paraphrase: 'It's going to be really expensive'. So? Is it not cost effective enough? What other option is there?
Importing is another option and its one Korea has previously used. If Korea wants to build their own aircraft, good for them... but it will cost more. please don't try to tell me that aircraft manufactured and used by home nations are magically cheaper. the US has some of the worlds largest air wings and even "local" and "bulk" discounts still carry high prices because that just the price of operating high end fighters. Korea won't escape that. If it costs 2 million dollars for a part, making it in korea doesn't suddenly mean it now only costs $.6 million.


Seeing as S Korea built the KF-16, can't we compare it apples to apples in every cost category including operation to a US built F-16 and see how much is spent locally vs export? and by what amount? Simple enough right?
1. Consultants help with the complexity you are worried about
2. Development is not but certain goals are being created
3. Block 1 is an EMD model, call it a prototype or maybe LRIP. SAAB participated in some early feasibility studies and such, you might have seen some slides of it.
4. Not all parts are made in Korea, some are not even made at all.
5. I do not know about flying back to America, maybe there is sensitive technology they dont feel safe just sending to us to fix it ourselves?
6. Maybe sub-contractors work on the parts they have made, again I do not know of this.
7. Twin-engines will be the last of our problems according to you then.
8. KIDA says one thing and ADD says another.
GTX said:
SlowMan said:
No export needed, as the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 KFX units is $5 billion less than the 30 year life-cycle cost of 120 Super Hornets, the difference coming entirely from the lower maintenance cost.

Based upon what?
Based upon the promises of men.
GTX said:
SlowMan said:
The ROKAF's experience with T-50 series jet was that it cost 1/3rd as much as an F-16 to operate despite only 60 examples in existence to date, thanks to the local parts supply industry. Parts ordering for F-15 and F-16 take more than 230 days, but it takes only 10 days for T-50. If something breaks down on an imported jet they must send it back to the country of origin and wait up to a year to have it fixed. In case of the T-50, the technician from the vendor drive to the base within hours of making the repair phone call.

I would like to see some objective evidence for soem of these claims.


Yes, the T-50 should be less expensive simply because it has a smaller engine etc (it being basically a F404 powered subscale F-16). Yes, having parts supplied locally can certainly help in regards to speed of support...sometimes ( not in all cases though) but it doesn't also necessarily equate to being less expensive. It also depends upon what parts you are referring to.
The fact that the T-50 is newer might have something to do with it.
GTX said:
KIDA opposed the T-50 citing the lack of a prior experience and a bleak export prospect. The T-50 project went ahead

Can't speak for the others but I know that the T-50 was only possible because of the massive support of Lockheed Martin...which interestingly enough should make them a perfect candidate for the KFX since they already have proven expereince working with South Korean industry on similar program's.


Re it's exports, they haven't exactly been stellar... ::)
GTX said:
My comment was in response to your comment regarding KIDA's opposition to the T-50 on the basis of bleak export prospects which has proven correct. One sale to Indonesia hardly counts. It has been beaten in very other contest it has entered I believe.
If LM is willing to do so, of course.
Yes the exports haven't been good. THATs the point. T-50 has been a success without them when KIDA previously said the T-50 is a bad idea because they wouldn't sell well. But T-50 is perfectly fine WITHOUT stellar exports.

chuck4 said:
The key phrase is "Industrial nationalism". In its defence everything Korean industry does would be claimed to be better, cheaper, faster then anything foreign, just as a matter of principle. Facts, experience, good sense, or even plausibility are totally besides the point. In this the communist North and the schizophrentic nationalists in the South appear united.
One minute we have some inferiority complex and love everything american and in the other minute we are nationalists and everything is Korea no.1, what kind of spastics are we.
chuck4 said:
Triton said:
Is the K-FX/I-FX program also a response to the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of the increased economic, military, and political power of the People's Republic of China and their potential objections, or veto power, of the sale of military aircraft by the United States?

China, certainly, but also Japan. I think if you are in Asia, it must look like American influence would wane and those of China rise. In response countries like Japan would rearm. For Korea a probable future would be somewhat like Poland of 1939, trapped between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Your nuttier that some Koreans. You really think China and Japan will have some bargain? The 'Poland' of WW3 in the Pacific would be Taiwan. If china invades everyone is going to look on and say: Start WW3 with a superpower? (lets say China is in this situation) over Taiwan? No thanks!
Maybe the world also looks on at a South-East-Asian country get invaded or Korea, maybe Japan needs to be under direct threat for everyone to wake up. Who knows?
There won't be anything like Poland. There might be a Phoney War until a France gets invaded.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
Fuel cost is only a minor part of overall operations cost.
can you show us comparisons vs the also locally manufactured KF-16? Why is one Korean Manufactured fighter ultra cheap, and another so expensive? I think its because you weren't aware that Korea also made F-16s.

I will give you an illustration. Let's say there are two Rolls-Royce owners; one in UK and another in Africa somewhere. The fuel injector of both cars break down and must be replaced by a certified Rolls Royce technician. Now who's gonna pay more? I guarantee you that the owner in Africa will pay several times more to repair his Rolls than the UK owner.
Rolls Royce doesn't have an office in Africa with certified techs and spare parts? How did the Guy in Africa Get the RR in the first place when there are no RR people near? See how that changes that rather poor analogy? It assumes there are no logistics in Africa. I worked for helicopter companies that operated European helicopters but we rarely got parts from Europe.

Moreover, doesn't Korea fix their own aircraft already? So we have parts that are already produced in Korea with the KF-16, maintained by Koreans, for Koreans in Korea, and the price is not drastically different, (surely not 66 percent less!) So where are these massive savings I'm hearing about?

You seem to think that all of this is ground breakingly new in Korea when its not, you are counting "savings" that have already been in use for years, and then leaving out the billions of dollars in cost to develop the aircraft in the first place. Of course Korea uses local parts and local logistics. There is nothing new in that, and doing the same thing you have been doing with the KF-16 for years with KFX won't change any of that. If anything it just maintains the status quo

Next as GTX pointed it depends on the part and the procedure, I have had simple radio fixes here in the US that have taken weeks and had rare parts from Sweden delivered to my door in 36 hours. You really don't understand aviation logistics in which the golden rule is "there is no golden rule, it depends" We have had cases where the cheapest thing to do was to get someone, hand him the part and say "Your flight takes off in two hours" he puts the part in his pocket and meets someone at the airport when he lands delivers the part, and then takes the most convenient flight back. We saved 5,000 dollars doing that. because the part was installed that afternoon as opposed to waiting for shipping. Logistics!!


Koreans pursue the KFX because of economy; a locally made jet costs a fraction of imported jet in maintenance and operations, so they could afford to have more.
Please explain how the KF-16 costs a fraction of what a US F-16 costs.

Indonesians pursue the IFX because this is the best jet they could have access to. The best western jet that Indonesia could afford diplomatically and economically is this jet. It's not like Indonesia will be offered F-35 or could afford PAK-FA, so the KFX is the best jet available to Indonesia.
They already have Flankers...
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
1. Consultants help with the complexity you are worried about
The consultants will help you avoid pitfalls, they can't pay for the aircraft. Look at Sweden and the Gripen NG. Tons of aircraft building talent there and its still over $100 million per aircraft. It doesn't matter if we get you the best aerospace designers form all over the world, in the end Korea has to pay the money. Just like how a Football coach can't play the game for you. He can only direct you and hope you listen to his advice.

2. Development is not but certain goals are being created
Sorry Slowman speaks so decisively sometimes I forget.

4. Not all parts are made in Korea, some are not even made at all.
?

5. I do not know about flying back to America, maybe there is sensitive technology they dont feel safe just sending to us to fix it ourselves?
you build the KF-16 yourselves, what are you keeping secret from yourselves? I have no idea why Korea would send an F-16 all the way to the US to be fixed when their own factory is right there, but I suspect its because Slowman didn't realize Korea manufactures its own F-16s.


6. Maybe sub-contractors work on the parts they have made, again I do not know of this.
Slowman is wrong again.

Based upon the promises of men.
Think about that.


One minute we have some inferiority complex and love everything american and in the other minute we are nationalists and everything is Korea no.1, what kind of spastics are we.
This is all I am trying to convey: If Korea develops and builds its own aircraft it will cost more than importing them, or licencing them and building them locally. These costs may lead to local savings, but they may also not if the development and cost doesn't overwhelm those benefits. Korea may well decide that it is worth the cost. But it won't be cheaper. Engines cost, Radars cost, avionics cost, there are certain things that Korea will not be able to change imported or locally built. The people material and machines will all cost. SAAB, Boeing, LM EADS all build aircraft that encounter problems, and have delays and cost over runs, if they knew how to prevent these things, they would certainly be doing them for themselves correct?

All of this "super savings" that suddenly makes your warplanes "cost a fraction" of what they were if they imported, goes out the window when you are comparing them with aircraft that are already locally built and operated. Slowman is trying to make the F-16 look like an overly expensive import aircraft with terrible logistics, but the KF-16 is built in Korea, by Korea, for Koreans for use in Korea... How could it get any more local than that? Demonizing the F-16 is all well and good if its a purely American Aircraft but in Korea its an American design, everything after that is Korean. How can a KF-16 get any more Korean?

There is no way to make 3 gallons of water fit into a 1 gallon jug, you either get more jugs or put in less water. I'm being told that Korea will build this almost completely on their own, except when they don't and it will all cost less than anything else out there because Korea is Korea, as if no one has ever built a local fighter used locally before. Korea will build the aircraft perfectly, because of all their aerospace experience, which for some reason ignores the KF-16 while embracing the T-50. Its confusing.

Have you heard the old joke "what weighs more a ton of bricks, or a ton of feathers?" Its a trick question-- A ton is a ton.

Lets say for example that Korea decides to locally manufacture the F-18E/F. the F-18E/F is 67 million dollars each. even if local manufacture knocked 10 percent off that price its still a savings of only 6.7 million. Its a savings yes, but its not 1/3 the price, its not a "fraction of an import fighter". ::) the engines alone are 4 million each. getting that down to 1/3 would mean 22 million dollars per aircraft? A Gripen costs more than that. What if Korea manufactured the Gripen? would they only cost 10 million dollars each?

The 'Poland' of WW3 in the Pacific would be Taiwan. If china invades everyone is going to look on and say: Start WW3 with a superpower? (lets say China is in this situation) over Taiwan? No thanks!
Actually the Invasion of Poland was what officially started WWII. :(
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
TaiidanTomcat said:
1. Consultants help with the complexity you are worried about
The consultants will help you avoid pitfalls, they can't pay for the aircraft. Look at Sweden and the Gripen NG. Tons of aircraft building talent there and its still over $100 million per aircraft. It doesn't matter if we get you the best aerospace designers form all over the world, in the end Korea has to pay the money. Just like how a Football coach can't play the game for you. He can only direct you and hope you listen to his advice.

2. Development is not but certain goals are being created
Sorry Slowman speaks so decisively sometimes I forget.

4. Not all parts are made in Korea, some are not even made at all.
?

5. I do not know about flying back to America, maybe there is sensitive technology they dont feel safe just sending to us to fix it ourselves?
Slowman is wrong, and you build the KF-16 yourselves, what are you keeping secret from yourselves?


6. Maybe sub-contractors work on the parts they have made, again I do not know of this.
Slowman is wrong again.

Based upon the promises of men.
Think about that.


One minute we have some inferiority complex and love everything american and in the other minute we are nationalists and everything is Korea no.1, what kind of spastics are we.
This is all I am trying to convey: If Korea develops and builds its own aircraft it will cost more than importing them, or licencing them and building them locally. These costs may lead to local savings, but they may also not if the development and cost doesn't overwhelm those benefits. Korea may well decide that it is worth the cost. But it won't be cheaper. Engines cost, Radars cost, avionics cost, there are certain things that Korea will not be able to change imported or locally built. The people material and machines will all cost. SAAB, Boeing, LM EADS all build aircraft that encounter problems, and have delays and cost over runs, if they knew how to prevent these things, they would certainly be doing them for themselves correct?

All of this "super savings" that suddenly makes your warplanes "cost a fraction" of what they were if they imported, goes out the window when you are comparing them with aircraft that are already locally built and operated. Slowman is trying to make the F-16 look like an overly expensive import aircraft with terrible logistics, but the KF-16 is built in Korea, by Korea, for Koreans for use in Korea... How could it get any more local than that? Demonizing the F-16 is all well and good if its a purely American Aircraft but in Korea its an American design, everything after that is Korean. How can a KF-16 get any more Korean?

There is no way to make 3 gallons of water fit into a 1 gallon jug, you either get more jugs or put in less water. I'm being told that Korea will build this almost completely on their own, except when they don't and it will all cost less than anything else out there because Korea is Korea, as if no one has ever built a local fighter used locally before. Korea will build the aircraft perfectly, because of all their aerospace experience, which for some reason ignores the KF-16 while embracing the T-50. Its confusing.

The 'Poland' of WW3 in the Pacific would be Taiwan. If china invades everyone is going to look on and say: Start WW3 with a superpower? (lets say China is in this situation) over Taiwan? No thanks!
Actually the Invasion of Poland was what officially started WWII. :(
1. No one is saying it doesn't cost money. Everyone is promising how much.
2. Some parts are made here and some are made in America and some are not made at all.
3. Wut, you think because we assembled F-16s we have the technology of every part in the F-16?
4. KAI is obviously more available just not sure how the system works for the ROKAF (and so are you)
5. You think I am not?
6. He is probably talking about the F-15K
7. "importing them": Which one? "licencing them and building them locally": Which one? (What is "them")
8. We won't do it alone. We have Indonesia + FX-3 winner + independent companies (http://www.acab.se/en-EN/news/KFX)
9. The only think we are sure to buy outright is the engines.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
2. Some parts are made here and some are made in America and some are not made at all.
how is a part not made?

3. Wut, you think because we assembled F-16s we have the technology of every part in the F-16?
In that case won't you run into the same problems with parts on the KFX? Who are you going to send the parts to? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of keeping things Local?

6. He is probably talking about the F-15K
I guess we will let him explain himself

7. "importing them": Which one? "licencing them and building them locally": Which one? (What is "them")
Aircraft is them. I'm betting both are cheaper than developing and manufacturing your own aircraft.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
I think we can all agree that whether KFX is economical or not, those Korean nationalist who associate a domestic armament industry with Korean pride will insist it is economic so as to justify pursuing the program at any cost.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
chuck4 said:
I think we can all agree that whether KFX is economical or not, those Korean nationalist who associate a domestic armament industry with Korean pride will insist it is economic so as to justify pursuing the program at any cost.
I concur. I just wish we could say its for those reasons instead of pretending its magically cheaper thus fiscally logical.
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
TaiidanTomcat said:
2. Some parts are made here and some are made in America and some are not made at all.
how is a part not made?

3. Wut, you think because we assembled F-16s we have the technology of every part in the F-16?
In that case won't you run into the same problems with parts on the KFX? Who are you going to send the parts to? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of keeping things Local?

6. He is probably talking about the F-15K
I guess we will let him explain himself

7. "importing them": Which one? "licencing them and building them locally": Which one? (What is "them")
Aircraft is them. I'm betting both are cheaper than developing and manufacturing your own aircraft.
1.You think manufacturer X keeps making part Y for a single customer?
2. Certain parts, yes. Send them to eurojet or ACAB? Does every jet need to be 100% local? Why does Sweden bother with the Gripen?
3.Any names for these aircraft?
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
TaiidanTomcat said:
chuck4 said:
I think we can all agree that whether KFX is economical or not, those Korean nationalist who associate a domestic armament industry with Korean pride will insist it is economic so as to justify pursuing the program at any cost.
I concur. I just wish we could say its for those reasons instead of pretending its magically cheaper thus fiscally logical.
How many of these mythical creatures have you met to form such opinions.
 

TaiidanTomcat

"A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
863
Reaction score
0
2. Certain parts, yes. Send them to eurojet or ACAB? Does every jet need to be 100% local? Why does Sweden bother with the Gripen?
This where things get confusing, you say one thing, Slowman another


3.Any names for these aircraft?
Actually yes, you can get F-18E/F quality right now by simply buying F-18E/Fs or by striking a deal with Boeing to manufacture them locally. Seeing as Australia is talking about 4 billion for 24 aircraft, and Korea is saying 6 billion dollars to develop the KFX, I can't help but think that Korea under the same rate could get 36 aircraft with that money right off the bat. where as the KFX means 6 billion to develop and then the cost of the aircraft themselves, and we are talking about production in the early 2020s.


Mach42 said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
chuck4 said:
I think we can all agree that whether KFX is economical or not, those Korean nationalist who associate a domestic armament industry with Korean pride will insist it is economic so as to justify pursuing the program at any cost.
I concur. I just wish we could say its for those reasons instead of pretending its magically cheaper thus fiscally logical.
How many of these mythical creatures have you met to form such opinions.
Just Slowman but as you can see he really goes all out.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Two of these mythical creatures appear to prowl here in electronic flesh and blood, one of them is almost all blood and no flesh.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
Mach42 said:
Why does Sweden bother with the Gripen?
That's a good question. Why does Sweden bother with the Gripen?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,614
Reaction score
1,089
Good question for another topic, perhaps. Not sure of its relevance here.
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
TaiidanTomcat said:
2. Certain parts, yes. Send them to eurojet or ACAB? Does every jet need to be 100% local? Why does Sweden bother with the Gripen?
This where things get confusing, you say one thing, Slowman another


3.Any names for these aircraft?
Actually yes, you can get F-18E/F quality right now by simply buying F-18E/Fs or by striking a deal with Boeing to manufacture them locally. Seeing as Australia is talking about 4 billion for 24 aircraft, and Korea is saying 6 billion dollars to develop the KFX, I can't help but think that Korea under the same rate could get 36 aircraft with that money right off the bat. where as the KFX means 6 billion to develop and then the cost of the aircraft themselves, and we are talking about production in the early 2020s.


Mach42 said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
chuck4 said:
I think we can all agree that whether KFX is economical or not, those Korean nationalist who associate a domestic armament industry with Korean pride will insist it is economic so as to justify pursuing the program at any cost.
I concur. I just wish we could say its for those reasons instead of pretending its magically cheaper thus fiscally logical.
How many of these mythical creatures have you met to form such opinions.
Just Slowman but as you can see he really goes all out.
chuck4 said:
Two of these mythical creatures appear to prowl here in electronic flesh and blood, one of them is almost all blood and no flesh.
2IDSGT said:
Mach42 said:
Why does Sweden bother with the Gripen?
That's a good question. Why does Sweden bother with the Gripen?
1. He knows the engines are going to be bought and he mentioned eurojets multiple times. ACAB was fot the sake of the argument.
2. Why buy planes that are only as good as your planed prototypes as an alternative.
3. If you have any beef (possibly horse) with our ideology then say so. No need to pin 'korean nationalists'
4. I don't get the last part of your flesh and blood analogy.
5. Maybe SAAB is full of Swedish nationalists....

Keep in mind I think of domestic manufacturing and tech that in born from this project as much of a product that is bought with money as the aircraft are.
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
71
Reaction score
1
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Good question for another topic, perhaps. Not sure of its relevance here.
I just want to say it's wonderful to be able to talk about the KFX with such knowledgeable people and from different perspectives (negative or not)
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
TaiidanTomcat said:
can you show us comparisons vs the also locally manufactured KF-16? Why is one Korean Manufactured fighter ultra cheap, and another so expensive? I think its because you weren't aware that Korea also made F-16s.
KF-16 had something like 30% local content, mostly in the airframe. Avionics and radar was shipped from the US as kits to be installed. When those parts are broke, they had to be shipped back to the US for servicing.

T-50 is approaching 70% in local content, including most major replaced parts.

This the reason behind operating cost difference between two.

Rolls Royce doesn't have an office in Africa with certified techs and spare parts?
That could be thousands of km away. Africa is a big place, bigger than US + Canada combined.

How did the Guy in Africa Get the RR in the first place
Direct importation.

when there are no RR people near? See how that changes that rather poor analogy?
It make the perfect analogy.

When you live in a country where the product you own originated, servicing is cheap and quick.
When you live half-away across the world from the country of origin, servicing is a nightmare especially it is a rare product.

Moreover, doesn't Korea fix their own aircraft already?
Jets nowadays have increasingly larger portion of "black box" which the purchaser agrees to not open it. Opening the black box constitutes a major diplomatic fiasco.

Consider, F-15J had 90%+ Japan sourcing. The Super Hornet offered to Japan had 75% Japan sourcing, with the remainder being black boxed. With the F-35, the black box rate approaches 80% the foreign operator is not even allowed to self-repair airframe; all airframe repair work must be done at Lockheed FACO in Italy or Japan. Even in those FACO, certain areas are allowed to Lockheed employees only, Japanese or Italian workers banned and the area is guided by armed US military personnel..
 
Top