anandaI think it’s bit too early saying A380 is a failure..afterall without 747-8 anymore as competition..A380 is the only Super Jumbo in the class. When an airline looking more capacity then 777-9 or A350 can offer, A380 is there. It’s niche market frm begining, thus it can get volume as 777, 787, A350 or A330 nor it’s design on that volume anyway.
Besides if German and French politician can agree on common fighter platform, and Airbus is up to the job..getting both German and French need for 5th gen Fighter is a success already. Just like Transall, it’s a success since it fill the need of both Luftwaffee and Arme de’l air transport need. It may not be an export success, but it fill the initial goal for both AF. That’s a success in my opinion.
anandaDesign of KFX C-107 and C-108. Seems if not mistaken 107 for single seat and 108 for double seat ? Sorry not speaking Korean, hope some Korean members can put more light on this.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254670[/ATTACH]
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10067&pn=1&num=1008#none
ananda[ATTACH=CONFIG]254372[/ATTACH]
Officialy KAI did submit to potential buyers of A50(or now FA50) air to air capability that can be augmented for BVR capabilities. Thus enable FA50 to be equiped with AIM 120. However this is only the potential, and it depends on each customers to choose to be equiped with or not.
Just like when BAE offered for HAWK 200 to be equiped with AIM 7, but in reality the customers (Indonesia and Malaysia) never opted to make their Hawk 200 to be equiped with BVR AA missiles, and choose to make their Hawk 200 for more ground support oriented.
KAI did presently have talk with Indonesia in offering FA50 as Hawk 200 replacement. They see it as natural progression since Indonesian AF used Hawk 200 after they choose Hawk 53 as LIFT. Since now the LIFT function in Indonesian AF has been replaced by T-50i, then KAI hoped to get contract for FA-50 as future HAWK 200 replacement.
All this shown FA50 aim in market is as Light Fighter candidate, so it’s bit far to expect FA50 can be in similar function as Mig29 SMT in all sense. However as Mig 21 replacement for Croatia..I see it more to compete in’economics’ of operating it compared to larger F-16 or Mig 29.
anandaAirbus Dispatches A400M to Indonesia to Showcase Platform’s Capabilities (excerpt)
http://angkasa.co.id/info/militer/ksau-dan-sekjen-kemhan-kunjungi-a400m-di-lanud-halim/
Indonesian Media report on the AF Chief and Mindef Brass visit to RAF A400M in Jakarta AB, and Airbus presentation during the visit. As ussual, the Airbus presented A400M as the most cost effective transport in it’s class. Indonesian AF looking for Heavier Transport then its C-130H.
anandaHere, two designs the STVOL on top and the conventional bellow:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251674[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]251675[/ATTACH]
I read long time ago..that the design make changing from STOVL to CATOBAR actually comes within affordable cost. Yet based on what British Mindef flip-flop devision frm F-35B to F-35C and backed again to F-35B..is that any changes on QE and PW will be too high that converting both of them to CATOBAR will be impossible, and if the decision continues, UK in the end will only have one working strike carrier instead of two.
How extensive is the work to change current STOVL condition to CATOBAR..isn’t the design it self already prepared room to install wiring infrastuctures and set asside room for arrester cabling infrastucture ?
I’m talking on EMALS in here, since the propulsion design and power infrastucture on QE class if not mistaken can be geared and already suffivicient enough to support EMALS.
Thus when EMALS technology already matured enough..then the design can support the changes to CATOBAR frm STOVL within affordable budget..
Thus I believe the cost in talking more to cost on changing land infrastucture in supporting Catobar F-35C, frm what’s been invested for supporting F-35B..
Is that correct ? That the prohibitive cost on converting STOVL to CATOBAR in QE Class more related on to supporting investment..rather then the cost to converting the carriers themselves..
anandaHence why the KFX/IFX is 4.5 Generation.
The Brits/Turks on the other hand have a strategic vision: the development of a new generation air superiority fighter akin to a European equivalent to the US F-22. BAE Systems brings a lot of expertise in this regard from its previous research into LO aircraft. The British Aeronautical Society article also implies this.
News coming out of Ankara indicates that there may be more European partners who join the TF-X program in future after completion of the pre-design phase. Germany stands out in this regard.
Basically if I read this right..are you saying TFX will become some kind successor to Eurojet Typhoon, as a Euro project?
Then if that to happen TFX will not become Turkey drive project, cause I don’t think UK or Germany will want to commit themselves on large scale project if the project still Turkey drive and not Euro drive..
Bit difference on individual companies frm UK involved with TFX then to UK as a political entity commit themselves to TFX.
anandaIf all these new aircraft end up looking like F-22 and/or F-35 mashups I’m going to be seriously pissed off. If the Russians and Chinese can design something new to fire the imagination, why not others?
For KFX/IFX…the involvement of LM is there. It’s safe design..the KAI and it’s Junior Partner DI did not want to invent something entirely new. Afterall they are going to used technology that already available in the market as much as possible.
anandaLooks like the whole tail section is F 16. The cockpit section is F 35. The way the intake is drawn doesn’t even make sense. I think this is just a mock up for visual perposes and has little to do with what they are producing.
Off course it’s a mock up..not a final design even for prototype let alone the production ones. However it’s a set ‘basic’ design, which the result on phase 1.
anandaThe c103 design was a very basic one meant to compare configurations. Now that the F-22 like low-risk configuration was selected, further development and engineering is ongoing.
Block 1 and Block 2 will not have any internal weapons bay. The difference between Blk1 and Blk2 is closer to LRIP/IOC to FOC, similarly to the F-35 it’s not about physical changes but software and testing/verification of capabilities. They are aiming for Blk2 capability to be declared operational by 2028 and Blk2s rolling off the production lines to Air Force squadrons. They will aim to fulfil the delivery of 200 some jets by 2030. After that, further orders of Blk2 or Blk3 aircraft may be forthcoming, who knows?
As a side note, the external Targeting Pods and Jammers seen on the KF-X will be external on the Blk3 as well. Logic being, those are only needed for serious AtG work, and in that use-case (unlike the F-35 which would be the main perpetrator of the ROKAF) the KF-X would only be able to carry a meaningful AtG loadout externally. So there’s no need to worry about stealth.
Thanks for the clear-up..
Thus C-103 is the basic design..and further design will derived on that basic design. In sense the basic configuration more or less already set by this design, and further development will be more fine tuning on it.
This more or less what I’ve gather so far, where Blok 1 and 2 difference will be on systems and avionics. Whille Blok 3 will have further physical difference. Anyway are you sure on 8 prototypes in Phase 2 ? Just clearing up..because so far I got 5 Prototypes in Phase 2..
anandaYes, but all derived frm C-103 design. That’s why I say the design is set..but on development stages of current Phase 2, the posibilities to modified the design for prototypes is there. However basic design already set.
As C103-IA frm what I heard is the one which then called blok3, while blok 1 and 2 will derived frm C103-I. At least that’s what I heard frm Indonesian side..But off course it’s not close the possibility to go straight to C103-IA..however that’s the calculation on this stage for the cost of development coming. The budget USD 10-12bio is for blk 1 prototype and design test. Thus if the budget can go straight away to C103-IA then why not.
However frm what I read frm several korean site, the vision for that C103-IA is quite ambitious, thus I’m quite sceptics the present phase2 stage which aim to build blk1 at phase3, can go straight away to that design.
anandaKorea wants to be the lead in the projects. While Indonesia happy to be Junior Partner and let Korea leads (considering ROKAF will used more KFX then TNI-AU..latest report stated 120 for ROKAF and 80 for TNI-AU)..mind you that’s the requirement for Blok 1 and Blok 2. Blok 3 will be different matter.
Turkey on the other hand want to have same lead power on the design like Korea, at least frm I heard. Yes in the end you can say some similarity with Rafale and Euro-Jet situation..since in truth I don’t really see much difference on design specs between KFX/IFX and TFX. Still Korea seems want another Junior Partner, while Turkey did not want to be Junior Partner..
As for the model for KFX/IFX..what I put the picture is already a set design. That’s why they go ahead to phase 2 which is Manufacturing and Development phase for prototype manufacturing and development. This phase begin frm 2016 – 2025, aimed to build 5 prototypes and test them until 2025, when manufacturing on blok 1 will begin.
anandaam I also the only one who thinks Korea/Indonesia should join with them on this project? they seem to be asking for the same things. might as well join together to share risk and costs.
Frm what I read frm South Korea sources, Turkey is the one who turned down ROK approach, saying that what KFX-IFX envisage is different frm what TFX aimed. Still frm the way I see it..KFX-IFX already moved to development stages when Turkey being approach, thus Both Korea and Indonesia seems unwilling to change and alter basic design, for benefit of Turkey. Eventough both welcome another partner.
KFX/IFX already set their design, and already proceed to development stages. Thus any alteration just for sake to include Turkey, will further development time frame than schedulled. Unless Turkey want to follow the approved design, which Turkey decided not completely in line with what they want.
I know I wrote in the early thread on 2013 that the 1st phase is not finish, Korea then for domestic politics suspend the program for 18 mo, but now they are moving ahead on Phase 2 (development stage) which aimed to produce prototype by 2020. They already set target for blk 1, blk 2 and blk 3. Current agrement between KAI for Korea and IAe/DI for Indonesia as far as I know only set for Blok1.
In sense after Blok 1 both Indonesia and ROK can go seperate ways or still developing Blk 2 and 3 together. Blok 1 and Blok 2 basically still 4.5 gen Aircraft. Korean envision on Blk3 is more stealthly design with inner weapon bays, and avionics more comparable to F-35 standard.
That’s why for this moment both ROK and Indonesia only aimed for Blk 1 or Blk 2 at most, since Blk 3 will be somewhat different class of development.
Bellow is the set design for Blk 1.
anandaFusion of Safran and Zodiac decided today.
5 A400M for Indonesia http://www.janes.com/article/67064/indonesia-approves-acquisition-of-five-airbus-a400ms-for-usd2-billion
Until a definite contract has been signed. It’s still not definite yet. Airbus have good leverage in Indonesia due to their strong relationship with IAe/DI. If the deals goes through DI got final fitting job as in C-295 deal previously
Still LM work hard on C-130J, as Indonesian AF is long term users of C-130. Rumours say that LM offered 8 C-130J package to 5 A-400M package frm Airbus with similar budget.
anandathe IAF officers I’ve spoken to and some other guys have spoken to already believe so. As did a Tejas test pilot who was a former Su-30MKI squadron CO.
That’s what IAF should focus too..getting enough Tejas as the main ‘numerous’ fighter in the IAF inventory as it was meant to be..
Face it, Rafale, or F-16 or even MKI will not make and fill the numbers gap..that’s supposed go to tejas frm begining.
anandaWhat’s wrong with Tejas ? Despite initial problem the Tejas already evolve quite well. Frm begining with Mig 21 is sloted to be replaced by Tejas, then India should stick it’s backbone with Tejas, as Mig 21 used to be and still the backbone for Indian AF.
Billlions have been committed to developed Tejas, it’s LCA thus no more than LCA..since it’s developed for MIG 21 replacement anyway..sometimes when I see some comments that talking about inadequency of Tejas..and compared Tejas with medium figthers..well off course it can’t..it’s LCA..which developed for Indian AF to have numbers to fill the gap.
So frm begining of this thread, the answered already clear. The gap will be filled by Tejas, which build and developed to fill the numbers as backbone frm begining.
Sign In
