Super Mystère or Hawker Hunter look like the obvious choices but I will cast my vote for the de Havilland Venom/Sea Venom.

Tangentially related to Korean Aerospace Industry: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2018/01/10/0200000000AEN20180110004000315.html

SEOUL, Jan. 10 (Yonhap) — South Korea’s top Air Force commander will soon visit Turkey and Indonesia to promote mutual defense cooperation and support Seoul’s arms exports, his unit said Wednesday.

Lee will collect opinions on South Korea-made KT-1 basic trainer jets exported to Turkey beginning in 2010 and discuss its request for Turkish pilots to train in South Korea, the Air Force said.

I guess the Turkish AF doesn’t have enough instructors after the purge? Or is it a lack of equipment that’s the issue?

Could France consider leasing Rafales to Germany as an interim-solution for the Tornado while working on FCAS? The Armée de l’air could help the Luftwaffe with some of the fixed costs like training, facilities, and logistics? Then after the lease the Armée de l’air can take the leased Rafales back that are fully upgraded and have lower flight-hours.

This process is 2013 for building those GaN MMIC. It will be obsolete by the time KFX enter service with obsolete engines.

1. The US had 0.25 μm tech long before 2013, obviously Korea isn’t on the level of Qorvo
2.There is a difference between proving a tech and that tech having a good enough yield to be cost effective
3. Because Radars/Fighters take so long to develop and semiconductors improve so quickly there is no Radar that has been operational with the very latest processes.
4. Just because 0.25 μm gate-length isn’t cutting-edge that isn’t the same as being obsolete. It also doesn’t make the Radar itself obsolete.
5. Just because the Radar doesn’t have the very best technology doesn’t mean it’s not worth perusing to improve domestic industry.

I don’t even know why I’m even replying to you when you will never change your mind.

To end the OT digression, I Wonder how a nation so focused on new technologies still takes the burden of building a twin seat design.

It depends on the operational concept. Considering how 4.5th Gen designs have twin-seat designs while 5th Gen aircraft do not, I may be a indicator of Korea’s reduced ambitions in terms of technological complexity. It may be purely for conversion training. Or maybe if the rear-seater becomes a kind of dedicated UCAV/drone swarm controller, with the benefit of hindsight it may be recognised as a embryonic 6th Gen capability.

On that point, as the advancement of UAV/UCAV capabilities causes the possible synergy between manned and unmanned systems to be explored, I think the concept of an ‘Airborne Distributed Lethality’ where sensors and weapons are shared between multiple platforms becomes viable. Instead of having a single (fighter) be a omni-role, jack-of-all-trades, one size fits all platform, why not have two separate, more economic platforms (manned and unmanned) work together? Distribute sensors and EOTS and stealthy 1k-lb,2k-lb bomb internal carriage to a more optimised platform. (Obviously Data-link, EW, Jamming vulnerabilities are an obvious weakness)

While the F-35 and the US’s future UCAV platform will undoubtedly be the most capable, Korea could have a combination of KF-X and K-UCAV platforms that leads to nearly F-35 level capabilities at a lower-risk and for a lesser economic burden.

The Single and Dual seaters are parallel variants of the C108. C107 becomes C108. (Beginning from the very rough, F-35 benchmarked C103 to the final C109)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]254672[/ATTACH]

As seen by the above image computer models and wind tunnel testing is helping to improve the design of the aircraft from the canopy and intake to the overall size.

Here’s the latest C107 design iteration taken by a Defence blogger who travelled to a symposium opened by the ‘Korea Institute of Military Science and Technology’ on Jeju Island.
Taken from this blog. (More images and other fun stuff)

Here is a comparison to the C104 design.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]253940[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]253941[/ATTACH]
The first is C104 the second with the watermark is C107.

Still making small changes to the design to fine tune trade-offs. Larger fuselage and wings give better operational range and internal volume for fuel/weapons but increases drag and empty weight, ect.