When did economics interfere with military budgets?!

It’s relevant if Embrear already positioning KC-390 as C-130B-H replacement. They already begin marketing on that approach. They already approach Indonesian AF with that strategy for example. Indonesia has 3 C-130 sq, 1 B and 2 H, and Embrear aiming for B replacement. I’m sure they also targeting other AF on similar approach.

LM heavily targeting customers equiped with legacy C-130 for J version, and boasted that the J is the only replacement which meet the legacy C-130 economics (operational wise). It’s Embrear job to proved C-390 can be match J economics, if they want to get the piece of legacy C-130 market.

If they rebuild OV-10, give stronger engine thus enable for better armour and bigger gun in the underbelly pod, then it will be more appropriate then A-10. Can be prepared in very primitive airstrip, thus close to conflict zone. Combine it with UAV, it can provide 24/7 rapid air support.

F-414, EJ200, and M-88 being choose as alternatives for twin engine design. F-100 or F-110 being discussed by KAI for single engine design. Using F-100 or F-110 for double engine will increase the size outside the initial parameter of the design which come out on the 1st stage.

Yes, I there are thread for C-390…I just commented on previous post from Siddar that the market for better c-130 is already out. I believe on the opposite. Yes, the formula for A-400 seems in question from outside as replacement in the market for C-130 family. However it’s bigger and more capable tranport than C-130J, thus they will fill the market for those who need more than C-130J, but not so much as C-17.. While the Brazilian C-390, can be direct filling on C-130 family, with potential competitive economics.

These missiles appear to be AIM-120A with the non-clipped fins. A mistake I assume because why would they bother? What does it say at the top of the weapon bay cutaway, are these bays supposed to house Mk84 bombs?

http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10040&pn=2&num=74395

I’ll give you the link to more cutaways. Like I said before, this cutaways already circulated for sometime (from last year), when the design team finish their first stage work. Still this is very early, and the design team already put on their recomendation the need for mature fighters manufacturer as tech partner. I believe that’s why ROK FX III also put conditions on the winner for tech involvement for KFX.

One of the cutaway did put capability for MK-84 in the bay. Again, this is preliminary design, but seems the design team already reserved that capabilities. The second stage (development stages) I think will determine viability of internal bay that can be incorporated based on prototype performances. From what I read so far, the plan 5 prototypes will not yet incorporate internal bays, but already provide space for that.. Will see if this is going to change.

thanks for the reply.

And what numbers of KF-X in service is the TNI-AU looking at?

TNI-AU looking for initial demand of 50, while ROKAF, I believe between 120-150. For TNI-AU, they aimed initialy to used this project as replacement for 2 sq of Hawk 200/100 and 1 sq of F-5E/F. However seems looking on condition of TNI-AU F-5, it’s questionable they can be keep maintained operationally until 2020+ where those KFX projected to be ready.

Same thing with ROKAF that plan to used this as replacement for F-4 and F-5, but considering some of ROKAF F-5 from what I read on ROK media and forum, also questionable whether can waited until KFX ready. Thus I believe on both AF, the F-5 will be replaced by some F-16, which in turn later on be replaced by KFX.

Somehow I see that the planner on both AF also aimed this project to replaced not just F-4, F-5 and Hawk 200, but also in the end all F-16. Those F-35 that ROKAF going to procured, will not be replacement for F-16 or F-15K, but more on something new. Just like the planner in TNI-AU from what I heard also not aimed this project as replacement for Flanker family.

Thx for tho Info

The catapult system for the missiles is strikingly similar to the LM design.

So, we probably have a shallow arrangement for A2A and a bulges one (belly pack?) for A2G. Do I understand right ?

Well it’s early too tell. This drawing of C-103 internal weapons bay design, has been circulated for some time on Korean and Indonesian media and forum. For me, this just show, the design team has reserved internal bay on design, but how to move on this still to early to tell.

The design show LM influenced, wich seems related to ROK choices for F-35. Some in forums speculated (or claimed heard but can not be validated from design team), that they think only shallow internal bay design can be put to C-103, since more bulges one (which can acomodated A to G weapons) is more complicated to adopt with initial C-103 design.

The initial design mock up (from KDN sources) for C-103, did not put internal weapon bay. However looking on the mock up, probably the shallow internal bay can be adopted. Then again, at this time, anything still can be speculated.

The numbers must be wrong. US $93 billion for KF-X development is inconceivable. IIRC F-35 development costs have not reached US $50 billion yet.

Yes seems thats wrong calculation there. 1 trillion Won supposed get USD 970 mio. So the number should be USD 9.3 bio. This is still in line with initial number of USD 10 bio on development budget. However KIDA now think that number only can match for single engine, while the ROK Join Chiefs office still think that number can covered twin engine design development costs.