getting to know more about Soko from datafuser , and others my conlcusions are this –

*Soko should pursue the development of the A50 and try to make it a international sucess as both a trainer and light attack aircraft .

* The A-50 looks like a good replacement for the F5 , A-37 fleet and for that alone it has brought in success

* Adding AESA and Link – 16 or similar should be future goal anyway for a F-5 replacement

* develop Future BVR and WVR weapon aswell as Pods and Cruise missiles for the fleets of A-50 , F-16 and F-15K

* work with LMA to licence build the F-35 modified to personal needs in the 2020 timeframe.

Which countries do you think would be interested in buying the A-50 (original version with APG-67(V)4 radar and no datalink) by the way? We cannot sell it to anti-American countries as you know.

Cheers,
Sunho

He talks about how the USAF by 2010 having 1/3 strength of UCAV’s . Wow that is news to me , by modest estimates the USAF by 2010 would most likely have the Predator striker etc etc the J-UCAS is gone and a different unmanned sollution is year away .

The next point that struck me was the point on the KFX fighter , now do they really want to spend all that ammount of money to develop a fighter for just less then 2 squadron worth of demand ?? and this is before the no.s are cut which has been the case with the FX program before that!! I would recomend scrapping plans to develop the KFX alltogether , spend money on a2a and a2g ordinance such as a dedicated BVR weapon ( something like a suped up derby would be great) and cruise missiles and let the KFX be a sollution to replace most of the F-16 fleet going into the long term . i would estimate that atleast 30-40% of the current F-16 fleet ( atleast the blk 30’s ) should be replaced with UCAV and the rest by a substituting fighter . How about teaming up with Lockheed again and taking the F-35 beyond the current envisioned versions , the development can include a lot of indegenous components such as a A2a weapon for instance ( other partners have been able to integrate their own weaponry if they are willing to pay for it – which sounds reasonable) and electronic components , and licence produce it in house .

The projected number of KFX to be built is 120 at best. I am afraid we may end up with 120 “F-70” fighters, less capable than the F-35 but cost twice as much. Isn’t the AMX called “F-32” by the Italians?

Cheers,
Sunho

There is a self contradiction in that. The problem of F-16s and your own avionics, is that the US, and LM, would not necessarily want your indigenous avionics and missiles even on the F-16s they sell to you. They want their own total package and they want to sell their own version of upgrades. Look at the Israeli experience. They developed their own avionics and missiles, but LM would not let them put those on the brand new F-16I’s, which still comes with US made and designed APG-68V9. Integration appears so far as limited as using IR AAMs like Pythons, but integrating IR AAMs are relatively easy to do. What about the Derby’s?

For that matter, we don’t see Taiwan’s indigenous AAMs like the TC-1, TC-2 don’t see duty on their F-16s either.

Because of LM’s lock on the market, the F-16 upgrade market isn’t a lucrative one. Ask IAI’s ELTA. Ask Italy’s FIAR.

Well yes I am aware of the problems the Israelis encountered when they tried to put their own ELTA EL/M-2032 radar on the F-16I Soufa. However this approach is still a lot less riskier than trying to develop a whole new fighter for the ROKAF. We are going to develop an IR AAM comparable to the AIM-9X for that matter.

And the same company that blocked the installation of the EL/M-2032 on Israeli F-16Is may offer a variant of the F-16I Soufa which may have that radar and the Derby BVR missile to India.

Cheers,
Sunho

CAS role? This design is poor for a CAS role, in the same way the F-16 blows compared to the A-10 for such purposes. It’s too fast and its even supersonic. A proper CAS aircraft is meant to fly efficiently and very maneuverbly at very low speeds. This is more of a light fighter design (Gripen, LCA, FC-1, F-CK-1, F-20) class that is still surely meant for air combat.

Apparently the ROKAF favors a ‘high and fast’ CAS concept. They don’t want to go low & slow because of the MANPADS threat. What is your ideal CAS aircaft by the way? A-10?

Cheers,
Sunho

Still doesn’t answer the question, because it fails to address the likelihood of either of them actually engaging in a shooting war with South Korea. China is interested in S. Korea as a trading partner, & has no disputes of any kind with S. Korea. Only possibility of dispute I can see is in the case of war with the north, or if S. Korea absorbs the north & then gets interested in the Korean minority in Manchuria.

Japan – do you really see the quarrel over a few rocks (held by S. Korea & likely to be awarded to them by an international court) escalating into a war? At present, Japan is, in effect, S. Koreas second closest military ally. Japan provides bases for the USA to support S. Korea, & a secure rear area for resupply. The JASDF & JMSDF would, by protecting their own waters & airspace, cover S. Koreas back.

The risk here is that by treating neighbours with which S. Korea has no substantive differences as security concerns, & arming against them, they’ll get worried about S. Korea, react accordingly, & thus it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

History is history. It isn’t the present. Japan is not S. Koreas enemy, any more than Germany & France, or France & Britain, are enemies – and we’ve fought each other for as many centuries as Japan & S. Korea have. But if one of us started arming against the others, that would change. You can make something true by acting as if it is. For S. Korea to treat Japan as an enemy might make what is now false, true. Crazy behaviour.

Yes history should be history and the possibility of a shooting war is remote. However, there is an ongoing territorial dispute between South Korea and Japan. Unfortunately politicians on both sides abuse this dispute and history to raise their popularity. In this environment military planners think ‘better safe than sorry.’

Stratfor also says “China continues to insist that most of the Korean Peninsula was Chinese territory in the past, and though such historical quibbling might seem insignificant, Seoul and Pyongyang see this as the groundwork for justifying future inroads into one or both Koreas.”

Please note that China also claims the sea area between Vietnam, China, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia is all theirs just because their ancestors went fishing there a long time ago.

Cheers,
Sunho

Who else is likely to fight you? I can’t think of anyone.

Strategic Forecasting‘s analysis “South Korea: Rethinking its Military Future” on 22 September 2006 says “South Korea is already thinking past North Korea” and “looking beyond unification to longer term security concerns — primarily Japan and China.”

Cheers,
Sunho

Many in South Korea think the A-50 is warping the entire force structure of the ROKAF. As I wrote earlier money for upgrading F-16C/D Block 52s is withheld to pay for the A-50, squandering billions of dollars we spent to build them only a few years ago.

Cheers,
Sunho