With Trump trade behaviour…French and Germany will go with Airbus..Airbus already shown their concept for A-320 MPA. Why should French and Germany buy Boeing, when Airbus alternative can easily developed..Thus is French and Germany we are talking about, not UK.
2010 – 2020 Su-30 MKI and Mirage 2000
2020 – 2030 Su-30 MKI and Rafale
2030 – 2040 Rafale and Su-57.
But India always need third Fighters. Thus Mig 21 (from 2010 – 2020) and Tejas as the replacement (from 2020 – 2040).
Isn’t obvious..? It’s 2010 and it’s Su-30 MKI and Mirage 2000..
Singgle Aircraft JA-37 Viggen..preferably reengine with GE F-110.
Mixed Aircraft, F-16 and Mirage 2000. F-16 mostly on attack role, Mirage 2000 for Air Superiority.
http://www.janes.com/article/77928/indonesia-finalises-contract-to-procure-su-35-fighter-aircraft
Indonesian and Russian finalise contract for 11 Su-35
“There is no F-50 because they concluded that modifying the airframe to remove the second seat does not give a major performance difference compared to just leaving it in place”.
I don’t know where you got this Alexz..but please go to Korean sites..go to KAI sites..and you’ll learn that F-50 is much more than just removing the second seat from T-50 airframe. F-50 is completely new airframe eventough it’s derived from T-50 design..but “it’s not using” T-50 airframe. While FA-50 “is using” T-50 airframe. F-50 is designed from on set as Fighter with Fighter airframe. FA-50 is design as Light Fighter using existing LIFT Airframe.
For that to produce F-50, KAI need much more investment, much more than just removing second seat from existing airframe..at the same time ROKAF much prefered KFX design. Thus F-50 is cancelled not because potential FA-50..but because Korea can’t afford two Fighter program. They have to choose either goes with F-50 or straight away to KFX, and they choose the later.
Turn out developing KFX need much more time, Investment and effort that originally planed. Mean whille some F-5 already needed replacement (which originally planned to be replaced by F-50). As KFX far from ready, from what I gather from korean sites, they choose to developed FA-50 as cheap replacement for some functions that F-5 did. However ROKAF fully aware that FA-50 far from same with the F-50.
Just to clarified that F-50 is not a design that simply taken out second seat from a ‘LIFT’ airframe as you mentioned above.
Alexz..there are threads in here that already talk much on Gripen C..(since we are not talking on E/NG variance)..even other posters already put it here also. Simply says to FA-50..it has more powerfull engine (eventough derived from GE 404)..much better radar..much better avionics..and airframe that designed more as fighter and not trainer.
The plan F-50 is designed by KAI from onset as Fighter, not as trainer as FA-50 derived from. I’m not aeronautics engineer, but that kind of designed difference on airframe determined how much you can hold, how agile you can be, and how fast you can fly. In such F-50 will be much differed from T-50 as Hawk 200 is much differed than Hawk 50. While FA-50 still share many commonalities with T-50.
I would say, You are too fixiate with the external size..Gripen mostly designed from begining with many composite in mind, that eventough the size not much differed than FA-50, but the airframe can handle bigger load, and higher stress environment.
Look, the price don’t lie..with Gripen price is closer to Viper price..shown many charateristics of Gripen in line against Viper..check again both weapons load..and check again difference on weapon load of Gripen against FA-50..you will see while their size externally not much differed, but their capacity is differed considerably..due to difference on airframe design and materials.
I see some other poster already remind you that Gripen C is not just gives little performance upgrade to FA-50, but actually is a huge upgrade. However I see you also keep your opinion that it’s just a little upgrade from FA-50, dispite all other poster already explain the actual otherwise.
So : [ATTACH=CONFIG]258773[/ATTACH]
If KAI decide to build this, then perhaps this will be their answered to Gripen, however they don’t. They decided to skip this, goes straight away to KFX. This left FA-50, or TA-50..whatever the configuration is no more than LIFT with light attack capabilities.
I believe the professional in the AF knows that, and they don’t have any illusion that FA-50 is more than light fighter. For example, the Indonesian AF now study it as replacement for Hawk 200, which is a light fighter it self. Because there are no ilusion in here, that FA-50 is no more than that.
Just to remind you that Gripen C is in much different league from FA-50..and clearly not just a small upgrade in capabilities compare to FA-50.
For the first half of 50’s SAAB J29 Tunnan..for second half of 50’s Dassault Super Mystere..
ROK already try to get third partner..remember Turkey? But they decide to went on their own, if not mistaken bacause they do not want to be Junior Partner (as Indonesian do).
It’s not easy to find another nation that want and willing to invest on Fighter Programme. Despite the issue on last year installment, Indonesia has already invest on Jet Fighter manufacturing facility in DI/IAe complex. This investment outside KFX development share. Thus more or less Indonesis already stuck with the project.
UAE has ambition on Aerospace, but KFX development stages already in stage where design development more or less already in unreversible stage. Thus if UAE want to join in, they have to take the set design (and Junior Partner status). If the want to do that,and they can. Is not secret frm begining ROK hope for 2 partner (thus 3 nation participant) in the project.
How in 60’s any AF being asked to build their fleet on only one Aircraft tupe ? When no 60’s Fighter types being build on multi-purpose need in the begining ?
Still if you want to choose, then Mirage III (especially the ‘e’ type) is the closest you can get for multipurpose need.
Perhaps the simple question is, what is Soviet/Russian airliner with the space and capacity of IL-76 that are more reliable or have population in service..?
Soviet/Russian wide body airliner that potentially can match IL-76was and still is not reliable as Western airliner. Russian airliner that begin to match Western reliability is Sukhoi Superjet..and it’s too small.
Perhaps they will change the thinking when they see their new generation Airliner performance latter on (MS-21 or the C929 JV with Chinese COMAC). Until then, IL-76 family is their only choice..
More realistic plan frm Indonesian Navy. Now, they only need to add 3 frm existing two 209-1300 (modernised) and three 209-1400. Potential front runner being speculated another batch of three 209-1400 or three 214.
Video frm Air Recognition on Hanwha parts of KFX Avionics.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/adex-kf-x-advances-as-detailed-design-beckons-442176/
Tango III already put this on Aviation News thread, but I put it again in this thread on pointed out that the difference need from ROKAF for internal bay (to make it more stealthly) and Indonesian TNI-AU to have more longer flight endurance, does not mean that definetely there’re going to be 2 seperate version of KFX (with internal bay), and IFX (which use the space as additional fuel tanks for longger endurance), as the article stated.
The final design for Block 1 is not final yet, but from what I heard on unofficial report..the designers still try to find away to meet both ROKAF and TNI-AU need.