What kind of 5th Gen project for the raising aeronautical nations around the world

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

This thread gets its inspiration by the move toward a twin-engines heavier design for RoKAF. But the question remains the same for other countries: -Turkey - Sweden (on an economic and geopolitical background only of course) - India - China (Geopol only) Etc... Please discuss, illustrate and share your opinion around this subject ~S!
Original post
Profile picture for user Rii

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 3,381

That article does not say that Korea has decided on a twin-engine design, merely that the Air Force would prefer one. There are different factions with different preferences: ROKAF, DAPA, KAI, ADD, IDA ... and of course LM. Defense News
DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said, “We will listen to various opinions from different research institutes and experts before choosing KF-X specifications.” The agency will hold a top executive meeting presided over by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin to finalize KF-X requirements, he added.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

That article does not say that Korea has decided on a twin-engine design, merely that the Air Force would prefer one. There are different factions with different preferences: ROKAF, DAPA, KAI, ADD, IDA ... and of course LM. Defense News
...possible move... You're right. I should have been more precise. Regarding LM, it's another story. Or, more adequately said, a singularity in that story ;)
Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 4,939

Let's not forget the origins of T-50 Golden Eagle originate from F-CK-1. The twin F125 powered layout is technically more friendly to develop being that foreign nations have been offered licensing rights to manufacture F125. Two of the more recent F125 is on par if not more powerful than a single F404 and near peer to F414. This is without all the bells and whistles of the F414's 10:1 to 12:1 twr's. Digital controls however have long since been assimilated into F125, which boosts the safety record yet further than single-engine deigns. My only wonder is why not design from the onset for future conformal packs to bolster mission profiles. Modular pack design could offer fuel, internal bays, reconn packs, ECM-jammers, etc.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

Yes yes. Modular Modular Modular. This is the new trend of the 5-/5+ or 6th Gen. I also firmly believe in that concept since I read the USN paper. Regarding the point you raise for a twin 125, in my view, there is no diff btw a twin light weight and a single light weight. A Welter is a Welter. I was opposing the heavier design to the lighter.
Profile picture for user Rii

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 3,381

The only way I can make sense of the claim that a twin-engine design has better long-term economic feasibility is if ROKAF is thinking ahead to replacing its F-15s also. If KF-X is a single-engine project powered by e.g. F110/232 then using it as the basis of an F-15 replacement is out of the question and this will require another clean-sheet project perhaps even overlapping with KF-X. A twin-engine design in the class of e.g. Typhoon could more readily be scaled up in future, particularly if this is anticipated from the very beginning. Such an evolution could also map onto the otherwise curious notion of internal stores carriage arriving only with KF-X v2.0.

Member for

9 years

Posts: 506

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225757[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]225758[/ATTACH] The twin engine design (C-103) which being prefered by ROKAF in the end will evolved with 5th gen design augmented by internal weapons bay. While the single engine design (C-501) directly evolved from existing T-50 thus more ready to developed. The questions is will the budget can be enough for full 5th gen design of C-103 (granted the devlp prpject will be conducted on at least 3 batch, which the full 5th gen come out on the 3rd batch), or more appropriate for C-501 less ambitious single engine design. ROK so far can only get Indonesia as Junior Partner and Junior means only take 20 % share of total cost. Yes the twin engine design can be more ready for future enhancements. It's simply be ready to developed with only less than USD 20 bio budget ? I more incline unless aditional budget or partner can be secured, the less ambitious C-501 will be more likely to developed simply on the budget issue.
Attachment Size
9a8w.jpeg 125.09 KB
f0082824_5213f97d106d3.jpeg 239.13 KB
Profile picture for user Rii

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 3,381

It would be great if Korea could bring another junior partner on-board ... Vietnam would seem ideal. ananda do you know if Indonesia/TNI-AU has any preference regarding size/configuration/technologies of KF-X?

Member for

9 years

Posts: 506

It would be great if Korea could bring another junior partner on-board ... Vietnam would seem ideal. ananda do you know if Indonesia/TNI-AU has any preference regarding size/configuration/technologies of KF-X?
Both ROKAF and TNI-AU prefer C-103 design. Both wants design that flexible enough for further tech enhancement. But then again, whatever both AF wants, the questions, can the existing budget enough for C-103. That's why C-501 design come up, since KAI prepared this design as fall back if further studies show the C-103 design simply too expensive to developed. Yes C-501 design is less capable then C-103 design on nearly every aspect such as, weapons load, range, stealth characteristics, and flexibility for further tech enhancement. However it's more easily to developed based on both Korea and Indonesia resources thet yet being agreed to committed until now. Additional Partner so far that realistically to be involved is Turkey. However since Korea and Turkey from what I gather still has not resolved on what this indigenous fighter program priorities will be, then so far they choose not on join program yet.
Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 2,040

lol neither side wants the canard design

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 2,595

I would say that the rising aeronautical nations should (a) avoid a design that competes with F-35 Any joint design approximating to F-35 would fall short in many ways. For South Korea and Turkey what would be the point - they are getting F-35. (b) avoid a design that competes with AMCA The market for medium weight twins is likely to be limited. If one country is already embarking on such a design, why fight for a share of a small market? (c) aim at designing a 5G aircraft that would be the right replacement for F-16 Cheaper to develop with the largest potential market. No design for such an aircraft exists so a manufacturer could have the largest 5G market with no direct competitor.

Member for

9 years

Posts: 506

For (a): Neither KFX C-501 or C-103 designed to directly matched F-35. KFX seems designed for something that close enough with F-35, but more economical thus can be procured on larger number. Just like you say in the end both Korea and Turkey will hop on F-35 wagon. Still both need something indigenous that can complement F-35 but made much the rest of their fleet. For (b): Seems something like AMCA is what the AF prefered. For (c): That argument for something that can replaced F-16, have more capabilities than present F-16 but more economical than F-35 is the argument from KAI for C-501 design. The AF seems argued that C-103 have more flexibility on design thus profide better flexibility for future tech enhancement. This they argue profide better attractiveness in the market. KAI argued for C-501 on the merit it can be ready sooner than C-103, and from economical stand point will be more attractive for International market. Afterall KFX is designed not just for what ROKAF and TNI-AU need, but also what will be more attractive for 2020+ export market.[ATTACH=CONFIG]225777[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
KFX-E_KoreanAerospaceIndustries.jpeg 20.61 KB

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

I have to say that I am surprised to see every one focusing on a commercial approach. What can be done to be sold well. What are the service needs that we can fulfill... I understand the motto behind that but I think over confidence is what really driving such conversation. Do I have to remind all here the old rule when you are dealing with a complex industrial problem ? 80% of design = 100% of time&budget. Refining the last 20% can cost you as much time and a tremendous amount of what ever left in your own pockets. So lowering complexity is not a prudent approach. It's a design objective! Or to say it less bluntly: it's the requirement. I know that many here thinks the Yanks gradual approach to stealth was only a sign of their deficiencies and blablabla... But look for one second... From have blue to the NGB, how many prudent steps were taken by the top of the cream in this industry? And how many are Turkey, India Korea planing to take? One. ONE! C'mon guys. That path lead to a concrete wall. You'd either have your industry broke, your pilot frightened to take off in teh new stealthy widow maker, the OP perfs be anemic or the planes lightening up like Christmas tree on everyone scope. So ppl have to be reasonable. A first stealth jet fighter, for some industries that never have really completed a single modern fighter jet, is an achievement by itself. It's not because of the internet that you don't have to keep tracks of this fact. So. WHat all the digression above does told us ? - Size have to be small - Number of paneling components have to be kept low - Number of connected sub-assembly have to be low - Shape have to be either radical or completely conservatives - Mission panel have to be restricted to what the user will need IN NUMBER to balance it's OP tempo - One single pilot - No unmanned - Mach >1.6 + k*F(available tech) : means that you don't plan to use supernatural stealth composite to balance for a lack of industrial/R&D knowledge. You take what is supposedly available on the market and derived/create your own similar product. Months ago (years?) I pushed the idea of a wing on top, single panel wing composite skin design. basically, this is where you start: a bad looking supersonic stealthy Cessna. Regarding the eng, I known that many think that a twin is a modern choice, but may I remind you that this idea surfaced at the time when reliability of engines was not what we know today? That nowadays most twins are no more survivable that a single enginned fighters ? So unless you are planning to go wide spaced (hence the radical shape option), there is only detrimental consequences to go for a twin. Etc... Etc...
Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 4,939

The single, monolithic tail is obsolete IMHO. I want to see a set of all moving tail rudders like on Sukhoi's T-50 and Chengdu's J-20. A miniaturized Sukhoi T-50 wouldn't be that hard on the eyes.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

The single, monolithic tail is obsolete IMHO. I want to see a set of all moving tail rudders like on Sukhoi's T-50 and Chengdu's J-20. A miniaturized Sukhoi T-50 wouldn't be that hard on the eyes.
Frankly, a miniaturized PakFA with moderns J85 type of engines is what sparks in my eyes brightly when speaking of a twin design. MiniMini_FA or F23. All moving rudders: forget about it. The 20 is not an high Alpha bird. That's why he got those.
Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 2,040

The single, monolithic tail is obsolete IMHO. I want to see a set of all moving tail rudders like on Sukhoi's T-50 and Chengdu's J-20. A miniaturized Sukhoi T-50 wouldn't be that hard on the eyes.
forget it.. Korea doesn't have the engineering capabilities to do that.. thats why they're pushing for a stealthy golden eagle design
Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 13,434

I would say that the rising aeronautical nations should (a) avoid a design that competes with F-35 Any joint design approximating to F-35 would fall short in many ways. For South Korea and Turkey what would be the point - they are getting F-35. (b) avoid a design that competes with AMCA The market for medium weight twins is likely to be limited. If one country is already embarking on such a design, why fight for a share of a small market? (c) aim at designing a 5G aircraft that would be the right replacement for F-16 Cheaper to develop with the largest potential market. No design for such an aircraft exists so a manufacturer could have the largest 5G market with no direct competitor.
The above makes perfect sense. It also makes it easier to get foreign expertise on board. Boeing, for example, might be interested in co-operating, to stay in the fighter game. SAAB could see it as a Gripen successor, & Dassault, etc. as a commercially useful venture & a way of keeping their hands in after Typhoon & Rafale.

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 5,831

The above makes perfect sense. It also makes it easier to get foreign expertise on board. Boeing, for example, might be interested in co-operating, to stay in the fighter game. SAAB could see it as a Gripen successor, & Dassault, etc. as a commercially useful venture & a way of keeping their hands in after Typhoon & Rafale.
So Swerve, if I do read you clear and loud, emerging countries should organize their advanced technology projects (the ones that they push painfully forward just to cut their dependence) to suit the old order of the post-colonial industrial age? Do I am right? (Sry for Boeing and the Swede) Given that China is still dependent of foreign tech 30 years after setting the trend to be self-sufficient in aerotech (what they are in many other sectors where they did had a light hand when it came to recruits foreign expertise), I would say that this is CERTAINLY NOT what other should do. India has Tata in Fr (Toulouse) to get some experience, trace and contract on individual basis the required experts Korea has got a life culture that can seduce as much as the US most of the 20+ newly graduated engineers to work in-country Japan could relax its posture of isolationism when it comes to defense tech Turkey can surf on the bulimia of racism to attract talented Phd and be the point of focus of tech excellences on the south Mediterranean shores (with Israel of course) The years to comes are not the eighties. There is plenty of industrial successes to set examples for the audacious. That it could be in the IT or in the mobile phone industry as well as in the aero or space tech is a sign to come.
Profile picture for user topspeed

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,595

The single, monolithic tail is obsolete IMHO. I want to see a set of all moving tail rudders like on Sukhoi's T-50 and Chengdu's J-20. A miniaturized Sukhoi T-50 wouldn't be that hard on the eyes.
I think a 88 kN ( 4 x 22 kn J-85s ) small F-23 kinda jet would not only the stealthiest..it would be also the most maveuvrable and mach 2 + capable ( if not mach 3 ). F-5 had 2 J-85s...would 4 engines of proven technique be difficult to operate by the ground crews ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMBXJFHUrPo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J85 Is there an upgraded version of it ? I checked briefly...it can be made to this size; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 208

What about a cross over between JF17/MIG 21 and a F117? Very light, cheap tin can?
Profile picture for user MadRat

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 4,939

I think Yak-130 could be more easily made stealth than a JF-17. JF-10/L-15 the same. Twin engine J-7/MiG-21 is pretty heavy and anything but cheap. J-8II requires a similar crew size to an Su-27.