Waaaaht. So they are buying another 6 expensive, large, multirole fighters, and are not even getting A2A packaged for them OR the existing fleet?!?

They already buy weapons for Flankers (that USD 56 mio deal). The practice of Min-Def in here, the budget and procurement or Hardware/platform and weapons/ammo conducted separately.
@rsetiawan, the deal for the first 2 MI-35 is not the same with USD 190+ for the first 4 flankers. I still try to find out the exact deal detail (rather difficult since it was conducted in Megawati era, and Min-Def accountability is less than presnt time). However from what I heard, it’s different.

Anyway back to the topic:

I heard your gent’s argument that mostly support Yak 130/M-346. Like I said, I believe M-346 is a excellent trainer, but saying so I do also believe T-50 is just as same. Only build on different approach and philosophy as trainer. Like I said, T-50 is not for everyone liking, and although I do agree that supersonic capabilities is not conducted frequently on USAF training regime, but they do still need conducted it.

T-50 has smaller radius than M-346/Yak 130, however still better than T-38 has. I just point out that USAF with T-38 based Advance Training, seems show slightly different training regime, that perhaps T-50 can be more suitable than M-346. Anyway you can’t count out Lockheed factor as the main force for T-50 entering T-X competition.

As why TA-50 won in Indonesia. Well with small fleet, TNI-AU need to have their LIFT/Advance Trainer as secondary fighters. As simple as that. And I believe many Air Force in this world will be intrigued and attracted with TA-50 with that capacity as advance Trainer/LIFT and Secondary Fighters (or even primary one).

Again with better avionics/electronics already in the present packages (compared to what M-346 has on the present packages), TA-50 attractiveness can be increase.
Anyway Singapore bough M-346 at Euro 20 mio a piece, whille Indonesia bought TA-50 at USD 25 mio a piece. With the currency comparison (when Singapore bough it) of 1 Euro = 1.3 USD, the price fall in similar ball park.

if they wanted to save time, they can simply use existing technologies and even designs like Swervey mentioned.

I believe that’s what KAI trying to do. Find the best off the shelf available in the market. For the engine, J-20 still used Russian based engine yes ?
Anyway, I suspect unless the US willing to give F-35 engine to the project, twin engine configuration will be the final choices.

T-50 is single engine trainer that weighs 6500kg. Now it is good for small airforce that will buy at most 50 airplanes over period of 50 years.
But when you consider large airforce like USAF & Ruaf whose requirement may run into 400 to 500 planes over 50 year period. They have to look at reliability of twin engine, light weight efficiency as they have to spend money on so many other things.
T-38 was designed in different era. when labor, material and oil was cheap. Now every thing for next 50 years is going to be very different.

I agree with Ru-Af, since their training regime was based on light weight, relative economics to maintain trainer (L-29, L-39). Thus replacing those, Yak 130 is a considerable step-up.

However, again USAF already used with the training regime based to T-38. Will M-346 able to provide significant step-up from that, or have to be T-50/TA-50 ?

The procurement cost for T-50 yes is higher than Yak 130, but looking to Indonesian experience, in the end is not much so. Compared to what Indonesian has to pay for TA-50 then what Italian and Singapore has to pay for M-346 is relatively still fall in similar ball park.

Is back to the engine. Realistically the US will look to M-346 and not Yak 130 for consideration. That’s mean Honeywell engine vs GE 404 or 414 on T/TA-50. With large fleet, I do believe the costs of maintaining GE 404/GE414 to Honeywell engine will not much be different.

In the end it will be back to ‘oil’ costs/running costs of GE 404 vs Honeywell. This that can be determining factor for USAF on deciding to keep having supersonic capabilities on their training regime or not.

That’s I believe the only significant minus factor T/TA-50 has compared to M-346. But do remembered that Lockheed will be the driving force for T/TA-50 on this competition and not KAI. This after all Lockheed designed aircraft to begin with. In such Lockheed has said that they will bring T-50 as the most compatible trainer there is for USAF to F-16 latest block and to F-22 + F-35. Will M-346 can offer that to USAF ?

Will USAF put fuel costs concern as more significant factor than capabilities ? With majority of present and future USAF manned fighters come from Lockheed, who can bring more compatible advance trainer for USAF rather then Lockheed.

I just point out this last factor can be more determining factor for USAF consideration rather than just fuel cost factor.
And the last thing, will USAF drop supersonic capabilities from their advance training regime, based only to fuel cost consideration ?

Remembered we’re talking about the Advance Training regime/module. Not the basic training regime. The advance training regime is for the last year students and for existing pilots (many from ANG) that need refreshment hour. Having something that most closely resembled what they will fly on real operational situation is big consideration in here.

these 3 countries put together has neither the financial means nor technical ability to put together a 4.5 generation fighter. 4.5G I define it as fighter having speed, payload, altitude and range greater than 4G fighter.
It is not just function of avionics.
Rafale with CFT/larger ET or Su-35. EF comes with its limited supercruise ability.

This 3 nation have more than USD 2 trillion in GDP (on nominal base not PPP), which is bigger than French. Also KF-X project is not a project that designed everything from scratch. KAI will make sure to have ‘mature’ technological partner, thus use already existing technology as based for KF-X.

Besides this decade, 4.5 gen aircraft is not something that a very cutting edge just like in 2000.

A PTDI director I met told me he prefers single-engine designs. Don’t know whether it’s his personal opinion or the company’s official one.

To be numerous enough, lift-cycle costs should be as low as possible, and generally single-engine fighters are cheaper than twin-engine ones (the twin J85-powered F-5 is a rare exception).

I think it’s his personal interest. DI people that I meet already said they will follow KAI preferential of twin engine, since realistically 2 Eurojet (as front runner possible contender) will be needed to give the planned sufficient thrust.

KAI T-50 is a single engined supersonic trainer where as Yak-130 is a twin-engined sub-sonic trainer. T-50 can be theoretically compared to the Su-54 supersonic trainer concept.

Yes, and KAI T-50 is the only trainer in the market today that in my opinion can substitute what T-38 bring as trainer in the 60’s relative to today’s environment. After all when USAF already costumed for more than 40 years with advance supersonic trainers (well that’s T-38 bring when they come at the 60’s), they will be more in place to go with KAI T-50 rather then any other trainers in the market today.

If an affordable and stealthier FA-50 or whatever derivative is good enough against future threats from the 2020’s to 2040’s, I would heartily endorse the program.

Would it really be good enough? That’s a ten billion dollar question.

Is the threat will use extensive F-22, F-35, or PAKFA ? If not, then it’s good enough I think. Afterall, none of the participating Nations on this program will use KF-X as their most sophisticated fighters after 2020 +. In such if most adversaries will use what exist in the market so far, then more stealthier twin engined and evolved FA-50 will be good enough.

KF-X will be (if the program come to fruition) most numerous fighter in ROK and Indonesian inventory after 2020. But not the most sophisticated ones I believe. ROK still looking for F-35, and Russian already put present Flankers users like Vietnam and Indonesia as possible market for PAKFA, even on much less number compared to their main partner in PAKFA program (India).

In aerospace, we Koreans tend to play safe, perhaps too much, to avoid risks because nobody wants to take responsibility for something that may go wrong.

That’s why we are still seeking foreign development partners – I am not talking about Indonesia or Turkey, but Western companies like EADS, Boeing, etc – despite all the experiences we had from the KT-1, T-50 and KUH.

The KUH, as you can see below, was supposed to be an all-new clean-sheet design. But it ended up as the latest incarnation of the venerable Puma because of this “play safe/avoid risks” mentality.

I suspect the KF-X may end up as another derivative of something we’ve already seen somewhere.

That’s what I heard from DI team in here after they being briefed by KAI team. I will not be surprised if KF-X final design will be some kind more stealthy twin engined FA-50.

And nothing wrong with that, since it will be sophisticated enough from 2020 + environment.