KF-X/IF-X & TF-X for Europe?

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 65

KF-X/IF-X & TF-X for Europe?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]216403[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]216404[/ATTACH]

There are many indications, that (results of the) projects KF-X/IF-X & TF-X can be a very good alternatives for future air forces of European countries in 2030s and later.

Because:

- there will be no other alternative to F-35 for NATO/western countries

- both should be more affordable than F-35

- both will be full NATO compatibile

- both will use results of European R&D and can help and bring benefits (and employees) for European industry in many areas (SAAB, Eurojet etc.)

- many European countries will need relatively cheap and affordable replacement for 4th generation fighters in 2030s and later, for example: Finland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, (Germany? :rolleyes:)…

(BTW both fighters could have good export potential: KF-X/IF-X especially in Southeast Asia and Pacific region – Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore… – and TF-X in Middle East and Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco and…Azerbaijan of course.)

Geo

Attachments
Original post
Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

I think to dub them as " affordable compared to the F-35" is really under-estimating the Inherent RISK involved with these 2 projects. Both the nations are attempting something that is quite complex (5th gen fighter development) and a big step up from what they are used to do within the aerospace industry. If they are executed 100% as planned, and fairly close to the design goals, yes they would come in cheaper, however the RISK associated is HUGE for both nations. The F-35 10-15 years from now, would be filedided , had its chinks sorted out, and the production lines would be running at full capacity... So the CAPABILITY and COST combined with TIMELINES (IOC 2025, 2030 etc etc) would matter a lot as far as exportability is concerned...I would add the AMCA to the list as well. The main benefit obviously is to the indegenous aerospace industry, which i understand : my argument is only towards the export prospects vis-a-vis the F-35.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 506

Isn't to early saying anything on KFX/IFX or TFX ? KFX/IFX only manage to finish the first stage of development, and the second stage now being delayed by ROK for at least another 18 mo. TFX, well right now is just a rough design.

Anything can happen on those projects.

Member for

13 years 10 months

Posts: 2,813


- there will be no other alternative to F-35 for NATO/western countries

- both should be more affordable than F-35

- both will be full NATO compatibile

- both will use results of European R&D and can help and bring benefits (and employees) for European industry in many areas (SAAB, Eurojet etc.)

- many European countries will need relatively cheap and affordable replacement for 4th generation fighters in 2030s and later, for example: Finland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, (Germany? :rolleyes:)…

(BTW both fighters could have good export potential: KF-X/IF-X especially in Southeast Asia and Pacific region – Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore… – and TF-X in Middle East and Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco and…Azerbaijan of course.)

Geo

What makes you think they will be cheaper? Is Mitsubishi F-2 a cheap airplane, compared to say a Eurocanard or F-16?

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

F-2 would have been cheap if built at a reasonable rate. Programme unit cost was high mainly because development costs (in themselves, not high - cost control seems to have been good) were spread over very few units, & to a lesser extent because production rate was very low. If enough had been ordered to replace all the F-1s & F-4s one for one, the unit price would have looked a great deal better, & if as many had been ordered as the Typhoon, I think it would have turned out pretty cheap.

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 65

F-2 would have been cheap if built at a reasonable rate. Programme unit cost was high mainly because development costs (in themselves, not high - cost control seems to have been good) were spread over very few units, & to a lesser extent because production rate was very low. If enough had been ordered to replace all the F-1s & F-4s one for one, the unit price would have looked a great deal better, & if as many had been ordered as the Typhoon, I think it would have turned out pretty cheap.

That's one reason. One of the other reasons is very expensive workforce in Japan in 90s and 2000s.

Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 7 months

Posts: 2,040

sure TF-X in europe can be a reality.
Turkey is already in Europe
.. or is it

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 65

Isn't to early saying anything on KFX/IFX or TFX ? KFX/IFX only manage to finish the first stage of development, and the second stage now being delayed by ROK for at least another 18 mo. TFX, well right now is just a rough design.

Anything can happen on those projects.

Naturally, ananda, its only hypothetical topic. But... may be, Turkey, South Korea and Indonesia are in relatively good economic condition.

Member for

7 years 4 months

Posts: 3,156

I think to dub them as " affordable compared to the F-35" is really under-estimating the Inherent RISK involved with these 2 projects. Both the nations are attempting something that is quite complex (5th gen fighter development) and a big step up from what they are used to do within the aerospace industry. If they are executed 100% as planned, and fairly close to the design goals, yes they would come in cheaper, however the RISK associated is HUGE for both nations. The F-35 10-15 years from now, would be filedided , had its chinks sorted out, and the production lines would be running at full capacity... So the CAPABILITY and COST combined with TIMELINES (IOC 2025, 2030 etc etc) would matter a lot as far as exportability is concerned...I would add the AMCA to the list as well. The main benefit obviously is to the indegenous aerospace industry, which i understand : my argument is only towards the export prospects vis-a-vis the F-35.

I second Bring_it_on's point about the F-35 being a fully mature aircraft by the 2030s. Even if all goes smoothly for these prospective programs they will be in their early stages at a time when the F-35 will have fully hit its stride. The odds that they will be able to appreciably under-cut the F-35's price is quite low and the F-35 will be a far more mature product.

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 783

It could be an option for countries seeking freedom from ITAR / US restrictions.

Thus I would put into the list of potential buyers all the "uncool" countries with some dough. the countries in the "cool" list will continue with the F35s and the ones who like to hang out with the "cool" countries can get some F16 hand-me-downs.

But of course in the business of "uncool" countries the Chinese J31 will also be breathing down everyone's neck.. as well as possibly a JF17 block 4 with semi stealth features for the price of a VW beetle.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

Thus I would put into the list of potential buyers all the "uncool" countries with some dough.

Those countries would have other options which would be direct competitors...Chinese jets, Russian light fighter, Indian AMCA, in addition to these 2 fighters...It may well come to offsets and economic ties...

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 506

Naturally, ananda, its only hypothetical topic. But... may be, Turkey, South Korea and Indonesia are in relatively good economic condition.

Agree, that's why I said anything can happen. And it cuts both ways. What I'm getting at, at this moment, what will come out from both program, may not neccesary will be as design says. For KFX/IFX for example, what can be turn out can be just another upgrade FA-50, singgle engine and not twin . This just an example of the program that turn out not something that will be interesting for even second or third tiers Euro Nations.

After all look at MAKO concept. Not turn many interest on Euro zone. And something just little more updated of that ( Mako), that in the end can still come out from both projects.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 178

It is quite early to talk about future foreign sales of both aircrafts. I belive European producer will boots their market presence with "stealthy" Eurofighter and Rafale derivatives; but Swedens has to stick with gripenNG at least 2-3 decade. But in the end Turkish TF-X can be easily sold to from MidEast to Mid Asian markets; where as KF-X/IF-X could dominate south-east Asia.

I think European aerospace industry powerful enough to market new competetive fighter aircrafts against up-coming "new generation" figters. But if you look back European UAV industry performance, there is a risk even with superior technologlical capabilities, to create useful solutions.

For USA, they will concantrate so called 6th generation fighters. I dont see any cheap alternative of F35.

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 65

It is quite early to talk about future foreign sales of both aircrafts. I belive European producer will boots their market presence with "stealthy" Eurofighter and Rafale derivatives; but Swedens has to stick with gripenNG at least 2-3 decade. But in the end Turkish TF-X can be easily sold to from MidEast to Mid Asian markets; where as KF-X/IF-X could dominate south-east Asia.

I think European aerospace industry powerful enough to market new competetive fighter aircrafts against up-coming "new generation" figters. But if you look back European UAV industry performance, there is a risk even with superior technologlical capabilities, to create useful solutions.

For USA, they will concantrate so called 6th generation fighters. I dont see any cheap alternative of F35.

Its quite early, but we can be sure, that the right people in Sokor/Indonesia and Turkey are thinking about future export perspectives. Market potential is one of the important factors for feasibility study.

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 65

It is quite early to talk about future foreign sales of both aircrafts. I belive European producer will boots their market presence with "stealthy" Eurofighter and Rafale derivatives; but Swedens has to stick with gripenNG at least 2-3 decade. But in the end Turkish TF-X can be easily sold to from MidEast to Mid Asian markets; where as KF-X/IF-X could dominate south-east Asia.

I think European aerospace industry powerful enough to market new competetive fighter aircrafts against up-coming "new generation" figters. But if you look back European UAV industry performance, there is a risk even with superior technologlical capabilities, to create useful solutions.

For USA, they will concantrate so called 6th generation fighters. I dont see any cheap alternative of F35.

Stealthy Eurofighter is sci-fi.

Profile picture for user Sign

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,577

Europe doesnt need a new fighter in a long time, they need a stealthy UCAV striker and upgraded avionics and sensors on there 4 gen+ fighters.

The Sensors need to be very very good to make it possible to use of Meteor to its full potential on stealthy AC. i think the sensors of this kind will make "x-band stealth" known to date not as effective....new approach in stealth is needed in 6 gen, and there goes the evolution of weapon development..:D

After that, in 2040. who knows?

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 65

Europe doesnt need a new fighter in a long time

There is no European Air Force. There is no common defence policy. There are still sovereign european countries, partners with own air forces and own - coordinated - needs.

Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 6,983

Yes, i too don't think there will be a new European fighter until ~2040,
A2G UCAV from 2025-2030.

Profile picture for user Sign

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,577

There is no European Air Force. There is no common defence policy. There are still sovereign european countries, partners with own air forces and own - coordinated - needs.

Well, youre right about that. Did i say anything that contradict your statement above?

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 65

Well, youre right about that. Did i say anything that contradict your statement above?

Basically not, my dear colleague. I only reminded the fact, which is quite often forgotten.

France has different needs than Romania, UK has different needs than Finland etc., that is what I meant.

And… not all European countries have 4,5th generation eurocanards – only 9 of them.

Profile picture for user Sign

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,577

Basically not, my dear colleague. I only reminded the fact, which is quite often forgotten.

France has different needs than Romania, UK has different needs than Finland etc., that is what I meant.

And… not all European countries have 4,5th generation eurocanards – only 9 of them.

Ofcourse, what i meant with "Europe", i meant, no country in europe needs a 5 gen fighter. Those that have 4gen+ will upgrading those to cope with new threats. And Rafale/EF/Gripen origin countries, which have the most ambitios AF in Europe. Will develop stealthy UCAVs to complement the 4 gen+ for strike and rec. Countries like Romania will probably buy used 3/4 gen fighters or rely on others for air policing.
Thats my 5 cents...