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

Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 6,983

no, absolutely not as a part trainer/fighter at these sizes,
even the swedes dont use gripen as trainer, altho in that case it could pass as financially viable

Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 4,619

...and they will need some for their display team too!

Member for

7 years 5 months

Posts: 932

those are some big planes

Latest insider info said nothing was certain. Those were 3 images given to press among hundreds of preliminary design studies.. Aircraft can be twin engined or a single engined. It can use an EJ-200 derivative, or an F-110 derivative using EJ-200's technological base. It can be as large as F-15 (twin F-110) or it can be as small as Grippen (single EJ-200). Its "likely" to be twin engined EJ-200, similar in size to Typhoon, MiG-29 or F-35, but it was not certain. To my knowledge, nothing has changed beyond that... TAI will (probably) give some alternative designs to military with some risk analysis, and let the military chose one of these..

no, absolutely not as a part trainer/fighter at these sizes,

If true, then it's going to have to be a single engined plane, considering EJ200 being picked as the basis of new engine.

Some F-16 squadrons (primarily A-G oriented ones) are promoted from F-4E squadrons. Indirectly those F-16 squadrons use F-4Es as their trainers, even if its costs more than twice to operate... Simply because they are twin seat, can carry all the munitions F-16s can, and wear&tear, damage&malfunctions and training losses to F-4Es are preferred over the loss of an F-16..

Same analogy could be said for F-35 and TFX. It will be able to carry all the munitions F-35 can use, and if Turkey can more easily replace a domestic component on TFX or even build new airframe. IF there could be a twin seater version, it will certainly be the preferred trainer for TuAF..

Replacing T-38s directly is obviously nonsense, but it is possible TFX can be used for training flights after spending minimal time in T-38. In essence, replacing it in some roles.

If true, it would still mean a planned increase of combat coded squadrons by roughly 50%. And as F-5 squadrons would be replaced by true combat planes, their training role would then have to be performed by additional new trainer planes, no? Aren't most of those 50+ F5 really retired? And remaining two dozen are purely for training (as addition to T-38) and/or airshow performance?

They are retired in reality, not because they have no flight hours remaining, but simply because they have no role for them.... They can't do CAP, they can't do A-G missions, there is really no need for additional trainers (TuAF has ~192 single seat F-16s, but has 42 twin seat F-16Ds, ~49 twin seat F-4Es, some ~50 twin seat (operational) F-5 and T-38s) so remaining twin seaters just wait at the hangars in Çiğli AFB, and single seaters at Eskişehir AFB, parked next to some unupgraded F-4Es and few F-104s, waiting to be scrapped eventually...

The thing is, it was never intended to "actually" phase out F-5s and half of F-4Es and reduce the numbers... F-35 simply delayed too much. At one point, Turkey considered F-15 procurement to at the very least replace F-4Es, but decision makers was like "hey F-35s will arrive in few years, lets build some additional F-16s as a stopgap measure and wait for it". A few years later, Typhoon procurement was also considered but didn't happen for the same reason. F-35 was hoped to be in TuAF ranks 7-8 years from now.

I am not saying numbers will not reduce, they may or they may not, but F-35 will not replace F-16s. First 14 F-35s will be stationed 7th Main Jet base (F-4E and former F-5 base), then Eskişehir (F-4E base), supplementing first, then replacing the F-4E 2020s. By that logic, if F-16s were to be replaced, its not THAT impossible some equivalent number of aircraft will take their place.

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 4,731

EJ200 engines does not have much potential beyond 23000lbs unless reliability goes down. building twin engine stealth fighter will cost even more than F35 and timeline will be even longer. Plus US government and LM will make sure this does not become successs and get funding from Middleast and without it has zero chance of getting of the ground.

Profile picture for user KGB

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,168

...whereas the Asian projects are either dead ducks or US linked.

The UK and Turkey have a long history together and just because the current president of Turkey is engaged in questionable domestic/foreign policies, that doesn't put him in a different category to other UK partners around the world.

I wouldn't say the Asian fighters are stiff dead yet.

But yeah it seems like Turkey is all gung ho about it. They are starting from rock bottom though. This is going to be a tough project. All the ingredients. Even a transnational partnership.

One doesn't need to look any further than the Russia/France Mistral ship deal to see how that might become a problem.

Profile picture for user KGB

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,168

The Turkish MOD and TAI are payinng for consulting services to BAE, what "money and brain drain" would this last one possibly incur?

Just the political unrest. Incipient civil war. This will always put a crimp on talent and money for the project.

South Korea has problems too but not these problems.

Member for

10 years 2 months

Posts: 3,259

substitute to the F-16 and trainers, stealthy... I wonder if they haven't come across some MAKO documentation and decided to do something from there on...

Member for

8 years 2 months

Posts: 5,875

substitute to the F-16 and trainers, stealthy... I wonder if they haven't come across some MAKO documentation and decided to do something from there on...

By the look at it, it4s a much heavier and more complex aircraft. But yes, Mako will have done in the great.

Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 4,951

First things first, test drive EJ200's on an RF-4E.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 506

am I also the only one who thinks Korea/Indonesia should join with them on this project? they seem to be asking for the same things. might as well join together to share risk and costs.

Frm what I read frm South Korea sources, Turkey is the one who turned down ROK approach, saying that what KFX-IFX envisage is different frm what TFX aimed. Still frm the way I see it..KFX-IFX already moved to development stages when Turkey being approach, thus Both Korea and Indonesia seems unwilling to change and alter basic design, for benefit of Turkey. Eventough both welcome another partner.

KFX/IFX already set their design, and already proceed to development stages. Thus any alteration just for sake to include Turkey, will further development time frame than schedulled. Unless Turkey want to follow the approved design, which Turkey decided not completely in line with what they want.

I know I wrote in the early thread on 2013 that the 1st phase is not finish, Korea then for domestic politics suspend the program for 18 mo, but now they are moving ahead on Phase 2 (development stage) which aimed to produce prototype by 2020. They already set target for blk 1, blk 2 and blk 3. Current agrement between KAI for Korea and IAe/DI for Indonesia as far as I know only set for Blok1.

In sense after Blok 1 both Indonesia and ROK can go seperate ways or still developing Blk 2 and 3 together. Blok 1 and Blok 2 basically still 4.5 gen Aircraft. Korean envision on Blk3 is more stealthly design with inner weapon bays, and avionics more comparable to F-35 standard.
That's why for this moment both ROK and Indonesia only aimed for Blk 1 or Blk 2 at most, since Blk 3 will be somewhat different class of development.

Bellow is the set design for Blk 1.

Attachments

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 4,731

I wouldn't say the Asian fighters are stiff dead yet.

But yeah it seems like Turkey is all gung ho about it. They are starting from rock bottom though. This is going to be a tough project. All the ingredients. Even a transnational partnership.

One doesn't need to look any further than the Russia/France Mistral ship deal to see how that might become a problem.


This thing will take money away from upgrades to current fleet of Turkish fighters and possibly derail F35 (loss to US manufacturing). Turkey simply cant afford two programmes at same time. On top of that failure in Syria only stronk countries are rewarded.
US carefully manage the inventory of bombs it sell to Turkey. BAE and UK will become even more dependent on US and markets that's US control.
Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 2,040

Frm what I read frm South Korea sources, Turkey is the one who turned down ROK approach, saying that what KFX-IFX envisage is different frm what TFX aimed. Still frm the way I see it..KFX-IFX already moved to development stages when Turkey being approach, thus Both Korea and Indonesia seems unwilling to change and alter basic design, for benefit of Turkey. Eventough both welcome another partner.

KFX/IFX already set their design, and already proceed to development stages. Thus any alteration just for sake to include Turkey, will further development time frame than schedulled. Unless Turkey want to follow the approved design, which Turkey decided not completely in line with what they want.

I know iwote in the early tnread on 2013 that the 1st phase is not ginish, Korea then for domestic politics suspend the program for 18 mo, but now they are moving ahead on Phase 2 (development stage) which aimed to produce prototype by 2020. They already set target for blk 1, blk 2 and blk 3. Current agrement between KAI for Korea and IAe/DI for Indonesia only set for Blok1.

In sense after Blok 1 both Indonesia and ROK can go seperate ways or still developing Blk 2 and 3 together. Blok 1 and Blok 2 basically still 4.5 gen Aircraft. Korean envision on Blk3 is more stealthly design with inner weapon bays, and avionics more comparable to F-35 standard.
That's why for this moment both ROK and Indonesia only aimed for Blk 1 or Blk 2 at most, since Blk 3 will be somewhat different class of development.

Bellow is the set design for Blk 1.

what do you think the differences in goals for the Koreans and Turks are?

The models they proposed look more or less different and quite honestly, not sure if the Koreans are really that far ahead of the Turks. they both look like theyre playing with models. but the Koreans seem closer to finalizing on it.

I suspect it may end up being like Rafale and Eurofighter. they be like "no no we had to split up, our goals are just too different", and outside of carrier landing.. both produced an aircraft that meets like 80-90% of the same needs.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 506

Korea wants to be the lead in the projects. While Indonesia happy to be Junior Partner and let Korea leads (considering ROKAF will used more KFX then TNI-AU..latest report stated 120 for ROKAF and 80 for TNI-AU)..mind you that's the requirement for Blok 1 and Blok 2. Blok 3 will be different matter.

Turkey on the other hand want to have same lead power on the design like Korea, at least frm I heard. Yes in the end you can say some similarity with Rafale and Euro-Jet situation..since in truth I don't really see much difference on design specs between KFX/IFX and TFX. Still Korea seems want another Junior Partner, while Turkey did not want to be Junior Partner..

As for the model for KFX/IFX..what I put the picture is already a set design. That's why they go ahead to phase 2 which is Manufacturing and Development phase for prototype manufacturing and development. This phase begin frm 2016 - 2025, aimed to build 5 prototypes and test them until 2025, when manufacturing on blok 1 will begin.

Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 2,040

I think there's a newer one now

your model is c103 but the last i've heard is c103a
which is bigger, heavier, and has a full internal bay

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7Ir5Mtg9jZM/VRlsYNW-moI/AAAAAAAAP3Y/W4_a_bEaJlA/s1600/KFX-c103-evolution.jpg

Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 2,040

another one

http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10044/upfile/201410/20141011154327_1.jpg

which really does look like

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/359/65359/p1686122.jpg

Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 4,619

I have to wonder if the TF-X will look solo Lockheed. I would like to think it will look less like a generic F22/35 thing, particularly now.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 506

Yes, but all derived frm C-103 design. That's why I say the design is set..but on development stages of current Phase 2, the posibilities to modified the design for prototypes is there. However basic design already set.

As C103-IA frm what I heard is the one which then called blok3, while blok 1 and 2 will derived frm C103-I. At least that's what I heard frm Indonesian side..But off course it's not close the possibility to go straight to C103-IA..however that's the calculation on this stage for the cost of development coming. The budget USD 10-12bio is for blk 1 prototype and design test. Thus if the budget can go straight away to C103-IA then why not.

However frm what I read frm several korean site, the vision for that C103-IA is quite ambitious, thus I'm quite sceptics the present phase2 stage which aim to build blk1 at phase3, can go straight away to that design.

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 178

Taiwan also decided to develope its indigenous stealth fighter.

Profile picture for user Deino

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 4,082

Taiwan also decided to develope its indigenous stealth fighter.

Any source for that and some additional info ??

Profile picture for user obligatory

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 6,983

unless L.M failed horribly on F-35, this fighter will only marginally improve performance,
so building it cant be performance driven