I was thinking more of scraping both fleet entirely (A10 and KC10). Above post edited (thx for the correction).

This has absolutely nothing to do with military aviation and everything to do about procurement processes, budget management, transparency and accountability.

Basically the issue is an accounting one, not a military one.

South Korean government has rules on how things are brought (and I assume this applies to everything from office stationary to planes to building roads).

The issue is:

1. Korean generals are advising that the government violates it’s own budget processes by increasing the budget but not restarting the project as required.

2. They want the project funding to be increased to favour one competitor (the F-35). This kind of thing is viewed as bad – in Australia it could result in court cases and corruption investigation and I’m sure something similar would happen in South Korea.

3. Making an exception for F-X III also opens a precedent for other procurement processes to be violated in the same way. This would result in less transparent procurement processes thus making corruption more likely and would tarnish government reputation.

I work in this area and we have to tread on egg shells everytime we go to tender. The government has to respect it’s own laws – it’s a key principle of successful democracies.

If they are retired generals, they don’t risk to face corruption accusations per se.

The voice of retired general is often the voice of an acting army.

I think you just hve finger pointed the answer: the X31.

What does not hve the T50 that the services will need? High alpha and supersonic manoeuvring (in the 21st century meaning).

My take (Warning! Wild speculations to be followed. Reader own discretion is advised):

As I said earlier, the canards will stay (perhaps reduced), the wing surface will be sized down, the fuselage won’t be shortened (or even slightly stretched) to keep commonality (Saab makes the fuselage-Boeing build the modified wing), no radar, no ECM, cheap dual-mode IRST and, possibly, bolt-on/bolt-off paddle for thrust vectoring training or integrated variable stability.

The only T-6 of the ROK Navy :
……………………………………………[ATTACH=CONFIG]220792[/ATTACH]

more views in ; http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=47413

[…]

Fantastic! And Thx for the link

Well, not available for export but as you speak abt perfs (A2G):

ASMP-A (nuclear missile):
Ramjet/rocket
Mach2 sea level
mach 3 high alt
500km range
Carried by Rafale (and 2KN)

Maybe, its a valid point but;

Nonsense due to two factors:
1-Su-30 is capable of carrying 32xFAB-250 bombs, and have zero problems deploying them all 8000 kg payload in short notice. This was also demonstrated by baseline Su-27S during acceptance trials. Each BrahMos weigh 2500 kg, which is less than 4xMk-84 bombs, which is hardly a problem to drop; even for an F-16. Also, we all know upgraded Su-30 will be able to carry a centerline BrahMos. It makes zero difference if the said load is detached from the centerline pylon, or from a wing pylon. Mass and inertia are the same.

2-Aircraft is not a car. On an aircraft flies in a balance, decrease in weight will simply bump the aircraft upwards due to lift. It doesnt matter if computer -or pilot- balances the lift in 10 seconds, aircraft will simply gain a few meters of altiude. Nothing bad will happen. If you are talking about CG motion, yes, there will be an AOA change, and will correct itself on a stable aircraft, or it will be auto-corrected on an unstable aircraft before pilot even notices it. Again, nothing bad will happen.

About pt 1:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]220770[/ATTACH]

What do you see here? Simultaneous release ? But you said it yourself: in short notice… So why do we hve to disagree so vehemently ?

Mk84 on most aircraft are released in pair. Brahmos is a missile. You don’t release that stuff in pair.

Brahmos on centerline… Never said that it was not what it would be done. Centerline carrying solve a lot of problems inherent with an asymmetrical load-out.

Since you don’t release simultaneously in pair there is an interval of time where your configuration is unbalanced. This asymmetry is principally balanced by the the inertia of your plane with the help (on some aircraft) of your flight ctrl surfaces.

If the load is carried under the wing, yes the overall mass of the system (plane + loadout) is the same. Inertia is not. Moments of inertia are depending of the distance of the mass from the axis of references (here passing by aircraft own CG). But you certainly know all the stuff that comes with the Mechanical modelling of a system (I write it with no irony so don’t over-boil for nothing )

About pt 2:
An aircraft travel at a non negligible speed and doing so it exposed all of its surfaces to a free stream of air. Those imply great forces acting on the surface on each body exposed to that stream. Lift is one of them, you are right. But there is also, surfaces force like the force of the stream impacting the body and drags.

When an aircraft loaded symmetrically flies perfectly straight (never true since there is always a residual bank and yaw angles what many tends to forget) all those forces are perfectly balanced . If you remove at a time t a large object attached under the wing, the system (plane + residual load-out) will found itself unbalanced by the lack of drag, lift and side forces of the missing body. At t+ the attitude of the plane and hence its trajectory will be modified to reflect the new state of balance. The amount of accelerations of this modification is dictated by the inertia of the system and it’s kinetic energy. This is where you see aircraft dropping bombs bumping to quote you. But the same is true on the perpendicular axes and all three angles (in fact you can observe pilots pushing on the stick). Aircraft ctrl surfaces are the only active correcting meaning of the induced motion (give bank, add teta etc..).

Store separation is in fact a more complicated problem since when you start to link two object together in a dynamic scenario with a non perfectly rigid links, interactions occurs. Immerse them in a free stream of air and aerodynamics interactions adds themselves to the list. Jõ has given a partial list of all the problems you can observe so I won’t comment further in that direction.

Here is a good example (I’ll left that one un-commented):

What you can see now, I sincerely hope, is that the example of the car in a curve is a 2D simplified approach (not really 2D in fact) of the 3D problem faced in the aircraft situation: a sudden modification of dynamic balance.

Well frankly, my selected route along the southern coast of Brazil might hve been more entertaining for any pilots and at least helps them to stay awake with wide open eyes. :dev2:

PS: Argentina lacks nothing on that field too.

IV=2×2
2 engines
2 pilots

Q3 is mostly valid. That’s why I was referring to a very limited number of sorties.

With Q4 you are perfectly right but given the topography of South Argentina , navigation won’t hve been the most difficult part (for ex. Rio Gallejos is in the middle of a big flat and bumpy nowhere near the coast). Radio calibration after last refueling from the tanker would hve been enough I think.

As a side note, oil tanks for the Raf are said to be up to the task for 12hr missions. And in a WhatIF scenario, nothing exclude the oild tank being modified on the Mirage IV

There is also an interesting topic of long duration flight in FrAF compared to the USAF somewhere on the web. You might be interested to makes some google search.

H_K made the point.