datafuserLooking at things other then the unmanned version nothing really should be that costly or complex to develop , I mean look at the single seat fighter version , they allready have the 2 seat attack version i believe ( as seen from pics) all they need to do is build a single seater and probably offer more fuel and/or electronics , the E verison will most likely use Pods for EW equipment , both the AESA radar and the EW pods can be sourced in from NG or ELTA so its all about integration money and customers.
The EW pod shown next to the proposed EA-50 is actually Rafael’s Sky Shield.
The Italians considered a more or less same concept called AMX-E but thought better of it because the AMX-E ‘escort jammer’ cannot escort strikers all the way to the target and back due to its short endurance.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserNo, It’s KAI’s road map. Their f—-n’ imagination…
No, the original poster who uploaded that picture made it clear that it’s the Air Force’s roadmap.
See http://brd3.chosun.com/brd/view.html?tb=BEMIL081&pn=6&num=32384
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserThis is the ROKAF’s (not KAI’s) roadmap for the T-50. It includes an unimaginative copy of the F-16 UCAV proposed in the late 1990’s.
Sunho
datafuserBoeing can offer a lot more , they have a design team just like any other big player and are a huge company ( easily surpass Lockheed overall) , it all depends on the nature of the accociation and how much effort and money soko are willing to part out with , technically boeing can start on a clean sheet of paper , with soko assistance design a full up stealth fighter for all we know .
Yes Boeing can offer a lot more but probably we cannot afford to have their full range of services. How many countries intend to develop and mass-produce a new manned fighter from scratch when almost everybody else has joined the JSF bandwagon? It’s foolhardy to try to do something even the Japanese have given up.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserdatafuser , IIRC boeing had an ofset package with soko vis a vis them providing technical assistance in the design and manufactering of a new generation aircraft as part of the F-15K deal . Any news on that ??
No news yet. However a Korean aerospace analyst at ADIA Consultancy in Germany says what Boeing can offer is the basic design of F-15 or even X-32!
Attached is the article he wrote for the Royal United Services Institute of the UK. It’s freely available at the RUSI site.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserWhat’s your preferred option? More F-16 to replace the F-5E? More F-15K? Some other fighter? Smaller numbers of higher performance fighters? Something else? I’m interested in how it appears from over there.
BTW, how much of the development money has been spent? Don’t forget that can’t be recovered, so while it’s valid to criticise it if it hasn’t bought value, it shouldn’t be taken into account when deciding what to buy now.
My preferred option would be a smaller number of higher-performance jets. The NK air force is already no match for us with or without those old F-5s.
More specifically, F-16 upgrades would have priority over the FA-50 in my version of the ROKAF. If KAI is in desperate need for more work, then I’d let them build some advanced F-16s with CFT, datalink, etc. Money for R&D activities would be directed to avionics & missiles rather than to airframes.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserAESA is something that has to find its way as it does offer distinctive advantages , look at the F-16 and F-18 fighters they have benefited greatly from this . AESA atleast if US modules and industry is used is not all that expensive to procure , a 1300-1400 module -79 costs about 2 million a pop with all the electronics and sub systems included and that is before the hundereds and thousands of Twin packs are on order for the -81 (something like 2000-3000 radar sets will be produced on order) . A-50 costs around 25 million now , with time if they can get costs down and bring up the no.s you could well pick up the F/A-50 for 25 million or so with the AESA and a Link-16 or IFDL etc .
I am not quite sure if the A-50 costs 25 million USD now. It can be offered at that price or even at a loss to potential foreign buyers. If we count all the investment poured in to develop it and divide the money spent by the number to produce, the A-50 in itself would not offer value for money for sure. Of course this line of thinking does not factor in skills learned and as one of South Korean taxpayers I am worried, because KAI does not seem to learn much.
The puzzling thing is that the ROKAF is dragging its feet over upgrading its 140 F-16C/D Block 52s and going to retire 30-strong F-16C/D Block 32s bought in the 1980’s without upgrading them. The reason they say is “we don’t have enough money.”
But they anyhow found money to build as many as 120 “little F-16s” which are smaller, slower, and shorter-legged than the F-16. Perhaps we can buy as many advanced F-16s with the money for the FA-50.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserYes it’s AMX with two Mk84 2,000-pounder bombs.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserWhen will this AEW plane start flying operationally?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserDoes anybody know whether the RAF asked for a single-engined lightweight fighter like the P106?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserWas the P106 a private venture? AFAIK the RAF didn’t show any interest in a single-engined lightweight fighter in the late 1970’s – early 1980’s. What the RAF actually bought was a twin-engined long-range interceptor.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserThere is a version of the AV-8 with radar & AMRAAM. Operated by the USMC, & Italian & Spanish navies. But Taiwan has never shown any interest in it.
Taiwan did consider leasing the AV-8B but decided against it in early 2003.
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/national-reporting/works/national1.html
“A number of other countries, including Spain and Italy, have bought Harriers over the years. But Taiwan decided earlier this year not to lease nearly three dozen AV-8Bs from the Marines because of concerns about “maintenance, safety and performance,” said a Taiwan defense official.”
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserHere is the whole post by Jimbo at the Taiwanese board. I highlighted the relevant text in red.
Jimbo 於: 2005/2/23, 06:18 NO: 1104479567#r96
TC-2 seeker is the Motorola design used by Raytheon in the failed bid for the initial AIM-120 contract, which was won by Hughes. The ECCM on TC-2 is worst than AIM-120, but for trailing crossing targets the TC2 seeker is extremely good, better than AIM-120.
Overall, TC-2 is just as good as AIM-120, which incidentally put Taiwan in a very selective club of active radar “fire and forget” AAM producing country. The failure of TC-2 is not the failure of the design, but the failure of the short sightedness of Taiwanese!
What Taiwan did wrong was that your country have no experience with large scale arms acquisition program, and to maintain the level of your military equipment readiness with follow up orders. Your country’s bitter prolong haggling with the defense contractor over prices and changing the terms of the contract mid-stream, has left you with only around 200 seeker heads for the TC-2s. Your country could’ve ordered more, or sign a long term repeat follow up contracts that will guaranteed your country a steady supply of TC-2 seeker heads. But in the end, the batch of 200 was too small for Raytheon to continue, they have stop producing the seekers for TC-2s.
Taiwan Air Force is left with the unworkable number of 200, that’s it!
The F-CK-1 is designed to carry 2 TC-2s in belly mounts. With around 130 airframes, Taiwan Air Force can’t even carry the designed 2 TC-2s per aircraft! Both F-CK-1 and TC-2 are failures, both programs are doomed by the short sightness of the Taiwan government! Your government’s constant penny pinching, led to a situation where they are penny wise but dollar stupid. The small numbers of both items ordered increased cost dramatically instead of saving money, AIDC was saddled with large up front cost of starting F-CK-1 production line, just to end it after 130 airframes. The huge start up cost was pass to each individual airframes, that each bare fly away unit costing $30 million. This is a very expansive way of buying a F-16 style fighter!
Instead of preserving the F-CK-1 production line to recoup the $10 billion start up cost, your country abandoned the production line. The production line could’ve been saved with an advance trainer based on the IDF to replace the AT-3, similar to South Korea’s T-50 “Golden Eagle” with a single F404 engine, loosing your country’s chance to acquire the F404 engine. Now, you can’t even build any replacement F-CK-1s if you want to, or to upgrade the F-CK-1 to the proposed ADF variant.
Just imagine, your country could have a fighter (ADF) that’s powered by two F404, placing it in the F-18 class, with similar range and performance capable of striking inland targets in China.
In 2003, your country spend $7,611.7 million on military, where did all that money went? You should be concerned, because your country have a military that couldn’t fight.
———-
Jimbo 於: 2005/2/24, 02:24 NO: 1104479567#r104
I felt that the IDF program could have been a lot better, the engine designed should have been rated at a minimum 7,000 lb st and 10,000 lb afterburning, the ITEC engine came short on both counts. With the above engine requirement, you can replace both J85s on the F-5E with one new engine. The radar and cockpit development should have been parallel with both the new aircraft and upgrading the F-5E in mind, this way you would have two air frames launching the TC-2 missile. In effect, the money spend and the development on the IDF/TC-2 program could have been spread over the upgrading the F-5E to F-5G/F-20 standard. Even with the limited number of IDFs built, the development cost would saved by upgrading the F-5Es. The production line for IDF could be used to rebuild F-5Es to F-5G/F-20s. In the end, Taiwan would have 130 IDFs, and at least 100 F-5G/F-20s. Each aircraft would have a requirement for 4 TC-2s, the total TC-2 manufactured would be at least 920 just for the fighters. Then, there are the navalized version to replace the totally ineffective Sea Chaparral and air defense version to replace both the Chaparral and Skyguard/Sparrow. The combined total for TC-2 manufactured could be over 2000~3000, given enough foresight and political will.
What’s done in the past is done, therefore how much lamenting is of no use.
Moving on…
Taiwan Air Force is faced with 4 adversaries, J-10, J-11, FC-1, and Su-30 MMK.
J-7 and Q-5 does not have the range to operate effectively over Taiwanese air space, J-8, JH-7 has the range but can be easily countered.
J-10 and FC-1 are broadly equivalent to F-16 Block 20 and IDF, however, they are only the verge been introduced.
Therefore, the only effective threat facing Taiwan right now are the J-11 and Su-30MMKs. In 2005, China will have 133 J-11s and 76 Su-30s, a combined total of 209 Sukhois facing 330 total frontline Taiwanese fighters. The lost ratio between Taiwanese fighters and Sukhois are 1.6~1.7 to 1, the numbers game dictates that Taiwan will need 334 and 355 Taiwanese fighters. Notice both numbers are higher than the combined total Taiwanese frontline fighter right now, without throwing in J-10 and FC-1. The lost ratio between J-10 and FC-1 to Taiwanese fighters are .7~.8 to 1.
As of right now, your country’s air force don’t have enough frontline fighters to counter the J-11/Su-30 MMK threat. If Chicom introduces J-10 and FC-1 in great numbers, your country’s air force will certainly be overwhelmed.
The situation is critical right now!
———-
Jimbo 於: 2005/2/24, 14:05 NO: 1104479567#r109
Yes, you should be pissed off, given Taiwan Air Force’s current state of crisis. Your leaders paralysised by clan fighting and petty self centered hold on power. Facing the Chinese threat with their modernizing military, Taiwan should be spending more money on military. But when China is spending an ever increasing amount upgrading their military, your president decided that it’s a good idea to reduce the size of Taiwan’s military and reduce the amount of time served for the draftees. I don’t get it…
Unless China is not a threat, and Taiwan is ready to become a province of China.
We already moved away from the IDF/F-20 discussion. Let me to the math for you again.
The scenario with PLAAF’s overwhelming advantage was calculated with Taiwan’s total frontline fighters, including F-16s, Mirage 2000s, and IDFs.
Taiwan’s combined total frontline fighters, F-16 Block 20, Mirage 2000-5, IDF, are only 332 aircrafts. Taiwan’s got 146 F-16 Block 20, 57 Mirage 2000-5, 128 F-CK-1s, the number you use are no longer accurate. PLAAF’s got 133 Su-27/J-11 and 76 Su-30 MMK for a combined total of 209 Sukhois.
Using the lost ratio versus Sukhoi fighters Su-27/J11 and Su-30 MMK of 1.6~1.7 Taiwanese fighters per 1 Sukhoi, as of right now you don’t have enough frontline fighters to counter the Sukhoi threat. Taiwan still need 334~355 frontline fighters just for the Sukhois, let along all the other sundry fighters and attack aircrafts in the PLAAF’s inventory like 674 J-7, 200 J-8, 401 Q-5, 25 JH-7, 120 H-6. Of course, these are the total number of fighters in PLAAF’s inventory, there’s no way they can all be deployed for the cross strait conflict. However, given the seriousness Chicom placed on the cross strait conflict and the limited number of Sukhois, they can all be in theater for the cross strait conflict. So, the J-7s, J-8s, Q-5s, H-6s are countered by whatever the number of F-5Es still in Taiwan Air Force’s service.
The balance of power already tipped towards China, Taiwan Air Force needs an influx of new fighters right now, I am no longer talking about the IDFs, or the F-20s, or the stillborn ADF.
Let’s face it, Chicom’s Sukhois are arguablely one of the best fighters in the region, matched only by Japan and U.S. F-15s. Last time I checked, Taiwan didn’t have any F-15s.
———-
Jimbo 於: 2005/2/24, 14:13 NO: 1104479567#r112
I don’t agree…
MiG-21 by all account is comparable to Taiwan’s F-5E. In fact, the capability of the two aircrafts are so close that the U.S. military uses the F-5E to mimic the MiG-21 in adversary roles.
So, MiG-21 = F-5E. Super 7 or FC-1 = IDF. J-10 = F-16A early model. Taiwan’s F-16 Block 20 is effectively F-16C, with higher capability than J-10.
ADF’s performance will be in the F-18C/D range, which is less than Su-27/J-11.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserPerhaps they could replace the two engines with a single large engine a la F-20.
When was this proposal created and by whom?
Below is what the original poster in the Taiwanese board wrote.
Just imagine, your country could have a fighter (ADF) that’s powered by two F404, placing it in the F-18 class, with similar range and performance capable of striking inland targets in China.
It must have been proposed by AIDC, Taiwan’s sole aircraft manufacturer.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserI believe GE F-404 would be way to large for the IDF. (i.e. wouldn’t fit) :rolleyes:
Well they could have enlarged the whole airframe. It’s not clear yet if the ADF was a simply re-engined IDF or a somewhat larger IDF just like the relation between the Hornet and Super Hornet.
Cheers,
Sunho
Sign In
