DATE:01/10/09
SOURCE:Flight International
South Korea to delay indigenous fighter, attack helicopter programmes
By Siva Govindasamy

South Korea's defence ministry has reduced the funding for the development of indigenous fighters and attack helicopters as part of a major cost-cutting plan.

Successive South Korean governments have sought to push for indigenous solutions to the country's military requirements, leading to the KFX programme to develop a fighter to replace the air force's Northrop F-5s and a Korea Attack Helicopter (KAH) programme to replace the army's Bell AH-1s and Hughes 500s.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the country's defence procurement agency, had hoped to secure funding to begin developing the KFX and embark on more studies into the KAH in 2010. But these will be delayed as the country aims to trim the expenditure of some ministries in an effort to increase spending on welfare programmes, and on measures that ensure that economic growth continues in 2010.

Seoul has also postponed a decision on a $1 billion requirement for eight new airborne mine countermeasures helicopters. The AgustaWestland AW101 and Sikorsky MH-60 Seahawk were in contention for the deal.

Overall, the Ministry of National Defense has asked for a 3.8% increase to 29.6 trillion won ($25.1 billion) for the 2010 budget, down from the 7.9% rise it had asked for in July. Former defence minister Lee Sang Hee expressed his dissatisfaction over the planned cut in August, but was replaced by Kim Tae Young, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in September.

"Despite the reduction in the rate of increase, the new budget will sufficiently help defence projects to be pursued in a stable manner," the ministry says.

Spending on Boeing F-15K fighters has not been affected by the budget cut, according to industry sources, but Seoul could delay a decision on whether to order 36 attack helicopters from a Western manufacturer until 2011.

Spending on the research and development of several new weapon systems will rise by 0.5% to 6.1% of the total budget, or 1.7 trillion won. The work will include continued support for the development of the Korea Aerospace Industries F/A-50 light attack aircraft, and medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned air vehicles.

Given Seoul's worries about North Korea's nuclear missile threats, the ministry says it will give priority to equipment including early warning radars and ballistic missile interceptors.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/01/332917/south-korea-to-delay-indigenous-fighter-attack-helicopter.html

reprhasings de-mentieds

Am I supposed to be impressed ? Sorry forgoteds my manneris

===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

Good, cuz you're not supposed to be impressed. I ain't either. This is just a dead-in-the water proposal which ain't being funded this year. Ta.




_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

damm. that chopper looks like a super duper mi-24

____________________________________________
"Anti indian, the raja of the jungle!!"

Good, cuz you're not supposed to be impressed. I ain't either. This is just a dead-in-the water proposal which ain't being funded this year. Ta.

Don't worry about angloZionKiller, he's just bitter

As for the Korean 5th generation fighter, as I said when it was announced I never expected a proper indiginous fighter to come about, the same goes for Japan, it's just too damn expensive. The only thing I could see being likely was the importing most of the subsystems from the US or Europe, making some bits themselves and of course doing the integration/testing/fine assembly. I think its still possible the programme could continue in the future though, it doesn't seem like a cancellation, and even so cancellation would probably result in an F35 procurement which is IMO a better choice anyway. As for the F15 Silent Eagle, I think that would be more likely to be an upgrade to the existing F15SKs than as a new procurement option


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!

Expensive as it may be, there's nothing wrong with money going to local industries and circulating about. It really would have given a huge boost to our aerospace industry. The real problems are its offered capabilities and timeline. Next year's omission of the KFX from the budget is knocking an already too late program back another year. When you can buy an F-35 now, the DND expects the air force to wait at least 10 years for a plane that's barely equal. By then, I'd assume that UCAV research would have made significant strides, and the KFX could face obsolescence before production even begins. This is just another classic case of the government's obsession with home-grown weapons and keeping KAI afloat. The air force wants the F-35, the DND will shove the KFX down its throat, the same way it's "persuading" them to take the F/A-50. It's a familiar story for all the branches, just look at what the army got instead of Apaches. A plastic mock-up of a weaponized KUH.

As for anglozion, I think I'm really gonna like this guy. He's as funny as he is appalling, every place has got to have a village idiot and a source of comic relief.


_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

Expensive as it may be, there's nothing wrong with money going to local industries and circulating about. It really would have given a huge boost to our aerospace industry.

That's the thing though, a lot of the systems would end up being imported from the US and Europe, so much of the money wouldn't actually stay in the local economy. If they tried to develop everything themselves it would be absolutely terrible waste of vast amounts of money. If there is that much money floating about they might as well start a UCAV programme, at least they wouldn't be as far behind the rest as they would be with a 5th gen fighter.

Next year's omission of the KFX from the budget is knocking an already too late program back another year. When you can buy an F-35 now, the DND expects the air force to wait at least 10 years for a plane that's barely equal. By then, I'd assume that UCAV research would have made significant strides, and the KFX could face obsolescence before production even begins. This is just another classic case of the government's obsession with home-grown weapons and keeping KAI afloat. The air force wants the F-35, the DND will shove the KFX down its throat, the same way it's "persuading" them to take the F/A-50. It's a familiar story for all the branches, just look at what the army got instead of Apaches. A plastic mock-up of a weaponized KUH.

I'm no fan of the T-50 and F/A-50 either, the T-50 is overkill for a trainer and the F/A-50 looks pretty poor for a combat aircraft, its almost as if they tried to place it in both sectors and ended up having it in neither. But still, F/A-50 is better than nothing. Joining a programme like Neuron would make a lot of sense, but then they wouldn't get to call it "Korean UCAV" and paint Korean flags all over it, though they would certainly end up with a better deal all round at the end of it. Neuron also has other countries that are both behind (e.g Greece) and ahead (e.g France) in terms of combat aircraft so they should fit in well.

As for anglozion, I think I'm really gonna like this guy. He's as funny as he is appalling, every place has got to have a village idiot and a source of comic relief.

His English is quite creative


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!

The F/A-50 is meant to be a replacement for the F-4/F-5s, and in this regards they're just fine. It will form a good hi-lo mix with the F-15Ks with the F-16s as our workhorse. I wished the DND had looked at the big picture beyond the border with North Korea, but our current frontline situation calls for their need, so I'm willing to compromise. What really baffles me however is that they diverted from the original ground-attack concept and apparently thinks they could turn it into a fighter if they sexed it up with AESA and some other new toys.

Regarding the T-50s, we just narrowly lost to the M-346 in the UAE competition. That was a potential $1.25 billion contract. Singapore, Greece, Poland are all seriously considering T-50s to replace their Hawks, in Poland the T-50 is the runaway favorite, and orders are expected to come very soon. Obviously, none of these countries think the T-50 is "overkill", and these are countries, with the exception of maybe Singapore, which are not flying 5th generation aircraft anytime soon. With supercruise fighter capability spreading rapidly throughout the globe, old trainers are simply not cut out to simulate the level of speed and manueverability of these latest aircraft. The T-50 and the M-346, as the only two "supersonic certified" trainers out there, I can see a huge surge of demand happening very soon, especially as the F-35s start coming into mass, widespread service with over a dozen countries. Better to buy a T-50 than to risk a $100 million plane hoping a rookie pilot can overcome the shock and successfully transition over from a Corolla to a turbo-charged mustang. Unless there's an earlier than expected demise of manned fighters, I can see a lot of potential orders coming in for a good part of the next decade.


_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

Regarding the T-50s, we just narrowly lost to the M-346 in the UAE competition. That was a potential $1.25 billion contract. Singapore, Greece, Poland are all seriously considering T-50s to replace their Hawks, in Poland the T-50 is the runaway favorite, and orders are expected to come very soon. Obviously, none of these countries think the T-50 is "overkill", and these are countries, with the exception of maybe Singapore, which are not flying 5th generation aircraft anytime soon. With supercruise fighter capability spreading rapidly throughout the globe, old trainers are simply not cut out to simulate the level of speed and manueverability of these latest aircraft. The T-50 and the M-346, as the only two "supersonic certified" trainers out there, I can see a huge surge of demand happening very soon, especially as the F-35s start coming into mass, widespread service with over a dozen countries. Better to buy a T-50 than to risk a $100 million plane hoping a rookie pilot can overcome the shock and successfully transition over from a Corolla to a turbo-charged mustang. Unless there's an earlier than expected demise of manned fighters, I can see a lot of potential orders coming in for a good part of the next decade.

A trainer should ideally be as cheap as possible, twin engine or high powered aircraft are just a waste of money which could be better spent on frontline aircraft. Similarly with F/A-50, from a neutral perspective given a choice of F16 or F/A-50, even if there were less F16s available I'd have taken the F16 without a doubt. Aircraft that go over mach 1 are really nothing new, supercruise just makes it more sustainable which doesn't really call for a faster trainer.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!

"A trainer should ideally be as cheap as possible, twin engine or high powered aircraft are just a waste of money which could be better spent on frontline aircraft. Similarly with F/A-50, from a neutral perspective given a choice of F16 or F/A-50, even if there were less F16s available I'd have taken the F16 without a doubt. Aircraft that go over mach 1 are really nothing new, supercruise just makes it more sustainable which doesn't really call for a faster trainer."

That's only if you can't afford it. When you got money to burn like the UAE, they want the best, not the cheapest, and the T-50, M-346 are unchallenged out there. Greeks and Poles are not even flying 5th gens, yet they're dead serious about T-50s. Those guys obviously see something we don't, especially when they're ones with a chequebook in their hands. And supercruise being more sustainable is exactly a part of my point. Aircraft are no longer punching afterburners to go supersonic only during intercepts. Thanks to these new advances, operational speeds of aircraft have increased vastly and the domain of speed and manueverability have gone up that much higher. More reason to start thinking about a T-50.



_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

I actually don't mind the idea of gun-shipped KAH--more in line with the Armed Hawk rather than the Apache.

That is to say, I wouldn't mind picking 200 KAH over 40 Apache.

Granted, it would never really have the intelligence capability of the Apache, or its ability to fly in deep, gather target data and attack on its own. But it really depends on how the helicopter gunships would be used. At the moment, the bulk of our attack helicopters are tiny MD500 Defenders equipped with some TOW missiles and rockets. Cobras are armed similarly anyway, though more of them. They are employed more as mobile direct-fire artilleries than anything else. I don't see anything WRONG with it per say, and though I find army's pursuit of deep-strike capabilities admirable, I have to ask....

Aren't you getting like 2000 guns with 100km ranged shells plus something like 300 rocket artilleries? Do you REALLY need deep-strike capabilities all that much? I'm just saying....

---

Swiss Army Knives...up to a dozen tools, and the only thing you learn to use is the bottle and can opener.

It's like me, only prettier.

That's only if you can't afford it. When you got money to burn like the UAE, they want the best, not the cheapest, and the T-50, M-346 are unchallenged out there.

The UAE bought the M-346 though, not the T-50, as you say they wanted the best out there not something second best. But anyway, as I was saying, it's better to have the money spent on frontline combat aircraft, are you suggesting you'd prefer 70 F16's and M-136 as a trainer like the UAE over 232 Eurofighters and the Hawk as a trainer like the RAF?


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!

At the price that T-50 is quoting, an airforce could purchase 2 seater actual fighters planes. T-50 is a trainer trying to be a fighter, but ends up being neither. It lacks the combat capability of a real fighter and its too big, heavy, expensive to be a trainer. I don't doubt that T-50 is a great plane but its not going to make much sales because the anchoring of the program wasn't too smart.


Whoever said winning isn't everything must be a loser...

"More reason to start thinking about a T-50".

There are a lot of reasons for it, National capabilties (Conceiption, design, industrial) and the aircrafty own capabilties.

T-50 is higly rated by all analysts and for all the good reasons.

"twin engine or high powered aircraft are just a waste of money which could be better spent on frontline aircraft".

I don't think AdA and the Belge A-F would even think about swaping their Alfa-Jets for a BAE Hawk, you keep writing about what you know nothing about.

As for twin engines been a waste of money for anything but frontline aircrafts, considering the investment of the UK on F-35 you're even funnier mentioning this.

Twins always offer a much lower loss rate over their entire service life by virtue of the safety level offered by the second engine, the number of trainers like fighters coming down to bird strike is a good example.

Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

Can Korea develop a fifth gen fighter? Keep in mind that Europe hasn't done it yet.



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

Korea has no money to develop a 5th gen fighter, and its domestic market is too small to warrant an expensive indigenous 5th gen program. The original 5th gen proposal was first scaled back to 4.5 gen and now throw out to dry, firstly because theres no funding from the budget strapped S Korean military and secondly the program is very likely overambitious. The industrial capability needed to put together a truly indigenous fighter is ridiculously large, at best S Korea would piece together a domestic airframe with a few Korean avionics while the major components are all imported (radar, engine, the myriad of subsystems onboard such a high tech plane).

T-50 for example has a majority of its vital subsystems imported (engine=GE, FBW+Avionics+consulting=Lockmart, BAE HUD, Honeywell MFDs+navigation, Raytheon HF radio, RC landing system, Martin Baker ejection seats, GD cannons, Power by Hamilton Sunstrund, Fuel system by Argo Tech, Messier Dowty landing gears...). Of course these are all brand name suppliers but it demonstrates my point on how much industrial capability is needed to design even a much less complicated T-50.


Whoever said winning isn't everything must be a loser...

I read somewhere that South Korea has 50% of know-how to develop the KFX 5th gen fighter; apart from engines and maybe AESA radar they can do it. But it would cost too much; even the US and European countries are moving towards international partnerships as we saw in F35 and Eurofighter, and also PAK-FA between Russia and India.

I think a cooperation between Japan and South Korea would be great actually, as Japan also has a 5th gen program, the Mitsubishi ATD-X. However I guess the old rivalry and distrust between Koreans and Japanese will prevent this from happening even though both countries are allies today.

ATD-X is up in the air right now, with US unwilling to release F-22, Japan has to go on its own if it wants a heavy twin engine fighter. Theres not too much info right now but apparently Lockmart might have a stake in it, logical since US gov won't let Lockmart export F-22. Japan is also facing defense budget cuts right now, we'll have to see what the new Japanese government wants to do with its defense programs.

ATD-X is just a tech demonstrator ATM, its size is too small for induction as a fighter unless they scale it up. Its wingspan at the moment is around 9 meters while its length is around 14 meters, MTOW of around 8 tons.


Whoever said winning isn't everything must be a loser...

"Nighthawk00)
Can Korea develop a fifth gen fighter? Keep in mind that Europe hasn't done it yet".

LOL! This one is worth its weight oflaughing gas, considering that there are only less than 6 years between F-22 and Rafale first flights and that Boeing calls their F/A-18 5th generation.

Some guys decidely love to feed themself with commercials.

Aircraft developement time increased from 2/3 years to nearly ten from Mirage III to F-22 and their life-span is about 30 years, this generation thing is total bullsh!ts.

As for Europe, there is no need for it just yet, it is meant to rep[lace Tornados and Mirage 2000D, so the implication that it haven't done it because it can't is the usual bulls.

What europe have done is to design/develop more performant aircrafts than the latest US so called 5th generation and systems which are equal to superior in particular in the field of passive sensors IR and Optical and keep upwith the USA in engine technololgies, easy donme at the look of F135 technical problems...

The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet Block IIs are just beginning to enter service, with significantly improved AN/APG-79 AESA radars and other electronic upgrades. Recent years have seen another spreading improvement within global fighter fleets, however: Infa-Red Search & Track (IRST) systems that provide long range thermal imaging against air and ground targets. Most of these deployments have been on Russian (MiG-29 family, SU-30 family) and European (Eurofighter, Rafale) fighters, or special American exports (UAEs F-16E/F Block 60s, F-15K/SG).

That absence puts American fighters behind an important curve. This IRST approach can defeat radar stealth in some instances...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-18-super-hornets-to-get-irst-03429/


Let us laugh.




Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

I don't think AdA and the Belge A-F would even think about swaping their Alfa-Jets for a BAE Hawk, you keep writing about what you know nothing about.

I'm not trying to make a suggestion that one is better than the other, but since you started it we can compare Hawk and Alfajet exports if you like

As for twin engines been a waste of money for anything but frontline aircrafts, considering the investment of the UK on F-35 you're even funnier mentioning this.

Yup the UK is so terrible that you chose to live here. And you call me a stupid moron?

Can Korea develop a fifth gen fighter? Keep in mind that Europe hasn't done it yet.

The US hasn't developed a counterpart to the Eurofighter/Rafale and Europe hasn't developed a counterpart to the F22, but both have developed a replacement fighter for future use and neither will be developing a fighter similar to the others as it would be absolutely pointless. As for Korea, with enough money and imports they can have a better fighter than the F22 or Eurofighter or F35 or Rafale.


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!

The Americans are offering Block-I Apache D's at half price. That's an absolute steal and it's a buying opportunity we shouldn't pass up. The only downside right now being that the Americans are demanding the purchase of 30 years worth of maintenance parts, balooning the costs. If we can negotiate the deal to knock off the added costs, the base price of $9 million per Longbow looks to be cheaper than a KAH, so why pay more money for an inferior product? Buying the used 'Paches AND cancelling development on the KAH looks to be a better cost-saving measure in the long run. If additional platforms are needed, upgrades on newer (or should I say the least old :P) Cobras, or an armed variant of the Surion with minimal modification should suffice.




_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

Any articles showing that US forces are offering Ah-64 blk I for half price? The articles I've read said that ROK made a proposal to buy 36 second hand AH-64 for $755 million with no mention of upgrades being included in the proposal. As far as I know, its just a one sided proposal as of now by ROK, US has not made a statement.


Whoever said winning isn't everything must be a loser...

"ppp56)
I'm not trying to make a suggestion that one is better than the other, but since you started it we can compare Hawk and Alfajet exports if you like"

Sure, considering the way they were marketed and the knowlege that one is a better aircraft than the other i dont have any problems with this, as usual the trolls excuse of the export market.

Makes the Mig-15 the world's best fighter ever designed and Mig-21 No2 or the other way around, makes no difference.



"ppp56)
Yup the UK is so terrible that you chose to live here. And you call me a stupid moron?"

You REALLY have a BAD reality block boy.

People dont live in the UK because it is "a better place" but because they have personal busineses there which are none of your busines.

As for your case, looking at your signature, you really try hard to associate by mediocrity but fail miserably at every atempt to demonstrate.

Since you understand fcuk-all to the subject, next best thing is to pretend everyone is as low-estime and ineducated as you are, not good enough.



"ppp56)
The US hasn't developed a counterpart to the Eurofighter/Rafale and Europe hasn't developed a counterpart to the F22, but both have developed a replacement fighter for future use and neither will be developing a fighter similar to the others as it would be absolutely pointless.

Bulls by the bucket.

A poor atempt at excusing G. Hoon signature of the F-35 MOU and the let down of BAe and their own will to develop it with Dassault previous to 2001 in profit of the US industry.

As far as we know nor the UK nor France will procure the F-22 and F-22 is in a classe of its own so your bubling IS pointless and totaly meaningless.

Typhoon and Rafale were developed without EM stealth because the technology wasn't ready at the time in Europe (and will not for a little longer thanks to the UK betrayal of their european partners) and too costly anyway.



"ppp56)
As for Korea, with enough money and imports they can have a better fighter than the F22 or Eurofighter or F35 or Rafale".

Yeah sure, and you can win the nobel price for quantum mechanics by training at your local pub; as Korea would develop the necessary technologies even the UK can't on its own, (reason for signing to F-35), who are you calling a moron?

If i was infortunate enough to be you, I would at the very least spend a LOT more time learning my ABC instead of writing bullsh!ts and flaming R.I.P topics because someone make it obvious that you are an ignorant little flame.

Get a life if an education is so hard for to you afford.


@ThuMantis214)

Good going from the Korean Aerospacial industry.

I just wish you don't mind me stating the obvious that it is not just ready to think of desigining the equivalent to Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 or F-22, even the Brits can't do Typhoon on their own anymore.


nder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

The US hasn't developed a counterpart to the Eurofighter/Rafale and Europe hasn't developed a counterpart to the F22, but both have developed a replacement fighter for future use and neither will be developing a fighter similar to the others as it would be absolutely pointless. As for Korea, with enough money and imports they can have a better fighter than the F22 or Eurofighter or F35 or Rafale.
---
What do you mean a counterpart to the Rafale/EF? Isn't the SH a good counterpart to the Eurocanards and the Raptor eclipsing the Eurocanards?

Let's put it this way: you're a pilot going to war and you can choose between the EF/Rafale and the F-22, which aircraft do you choose?



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

Good you figured the guy has got his head up his @ss...

Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

SH is on the same class as Typhoon/Rafale, it might not be better but it is on the same class in terms of technology and design era. SH is the best USN has ATM and it is also getting more capable block by block.

Thunder I have a question, I still don't understand what separated French and German/British efforts for a delta canard that resulted in Rafale + Typhoon. Whats your take?


Whoever said winning isn't everything must be a loser...

Sorry i wont reply in this topic.

No need to go so far off it, try visiting TMor's forum or start another topic OK?
http://rafale.freeforums.org/index.php

You can read one of my essais there...
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html



Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

U.S. Offers to Sell 36 Apache Helicopters to S.Korea at 60 percent of Tag Price

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=7244

*edit: found a better link*

The Americans first made the proposal, not the ROK. They didn't want the KAH to happen, so they pulled over half their Apache assets out of Korea that relocated to Afghanistan, noted to the DND that the ROKA had the need to compensate for this loss in capability, and made this stunning Apache offer, with an option for Block-II upgrades. Basically trying to squeeze the life out of the KAH. I didn't like the politics of the move, but minus the ridiculous clause that obligates us to pre-purchase 30 years worth of replacement parts, this was a hell of a deal. Too bad the deal collapsed, but I'm still hoping for a revival, however slim the chances may be.

@Thunder

No offence taken. I'm not gonna pretend here, at this point Korea may have some experience designing airframes, but little to none when it comes to most subsystems (engines, radar, FCS, etc.) With some foreign co-operation, and if given a decent budget and a lengthy timeline, I think it's fully possible that we could build a 5th gen out of scratch, but the timing is too late, the money isn't there, and the program is not financially viable in the long run.


_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

Totaly agreed, same problem as europe with a little less experience than the most advanced manufacturers over here, it took 60 years-plus for Dassault and SAAB to be where they are.

If you want to push your analyse further you will notice that there are specific design points for M 2.0 fighters which demands quiet a specific experience from the engineers, as the subsonic, transonic and even low supersonic design points are a little different to those requiered for Mach 2.0 and above.

I'd say you are being quiet realistic saying Korea would need support in these domains as well as FCS because of course it got more complex with the advent of instable aircrafts, but this T-/A-50 is a remarkable start as it is already supersonic, which is more than most trainers today.

The funny thing, is that the world's industry is in a well documented knowlege base and skill crisis which means that programes are launched not only for developing future technologies but also for preserving them, as generation of experienced engineers and technicians retires and "newbies" come in replacement with more IT knowlege than aerodynamics or flight mechanics know-how and experience.

I doubt very much that the team which designed F-22 is doing the job at L-M today with F-35 for example, as for those who go flaming pretrending their industrials doesn't have this problem and can do it without puting a single M 2.0 programe on their own for decades we all know what these statments means.

Korea have aerospacial industry the unique opportunity to be at the same time smaller and younger than the US (which helps keeping these skill within the "house") and it will not take long, with a little luck for it to be competitive worldwhile, at least, first with trainers with superior performances.


@COWlan)
Try this for a start.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51977/wings-ofchange.html

Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

As happy as I am with F-15Ks in our arsenal, in hindsight this is one reason why we might have been better off with the Rafale. As good an aircraft the F-15K may be, the F-15 airframe has peaked out when it comes to future improvement, and close to reaching its development ceiling. The Rafale is still at an early stage of its long-term development cycle, had Korea made the purchase of Rafale with full industrial cooperation in the development of the F3, our industries would have been kept very busy far into the future, and maybe would have given us the necessary experience, and a better platform on which to help us jumpstart the KFX program, but in any case the KFX would be doomed anyways, a premature concept for which the industry is not fully ready for regardless.


_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

"the KFX would be doomed anyways, a premature concept for which the industry is not fully ready for regardless"

Not necessarly if its requiered specs can be moved to meet those of EFCAS it still would in the the pipeline and Korea onboard nEUROn, but we can't rewrite history or the past with "IFs".

About F-15 you are right it have reached it potential growth limits and didn't bring too much in terms of technologies to Korea.

Political situation allowing, there might be a scoop for future collaborations although i guess the US will not allow it easly which is understandable, Korea is "their" background after all...

Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

The Americans can try and apply pressure, but that's all. We're cooperating with Europe now more than ever, parting with Apache purchases for the KAH option in cooperation with Eurocopter, and trying to go the way of KFX instead of F-35s highlights the overall shift away from the US, which at one time was the exclusive player of military exports in this country. Granted, Boeing and LM have the upperhand when it comes to partnering up with the KFX, well this is no surprise since they're the only ones with experience in stealth and with 5th gens. But since the requirements of the KFX was knocked down to a 4.5 gen, they are apparently showing heavy interest in linking up with Saab as well.





_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"

surprisingly no turkish waffer offered them the italian chopper yet. LOL

"Mantis214)
The Americans can try and apply pressure, but that's all."

They are more likely to succeed than most, though.



"Mantis214)
in cooperation with Eurocopter, and trying to go the way of KFX instead of F-35s highlights the overall shift away from the US"

Eurocopter is certainly one of europe best asset considering their rank and the technologies they developed over the past four decades as Aerospacial and DASA.


"Mantis214)
with experience in stealth and with 5th gens. But since the requirements of the KFX was knocked down to a 4.5 gen"

Which doesn't mean they can't make a right mess of a programe due to bad design management, they have the technologies but when it comes to conducting a programe, SAAB and Dassault can teach them a few good tricks.


"Mantis214)
they are apparently showing heavy interest in linking up with Saab as well"

No one can argue that SAAB are also one of Europe sure values when it comes to design, DGA and Dassault didn't miss the opportunity to associate with them and it is for everyone's benefit.

You're welcome to post more about your aerospacial undustry, we know too little about it over here.


"GER_Mark)
surprisingly no turkish waffer offered them the italian chopper yet"

I wouldn't rate Agusta-Westland as high as Eurocopter but they are not doing too badly either, they have some very good designs too.

The point with the A/T-129 was primarily about requierements, they were simply higher for the Tiger and Eurocopter were fully capable of meeting them too.

This is something WAFFERs often forget:

Specifications are what makes performances when the technologies, know-how and expertise are there to allow for the programe to run smoothly.

In many cases, requiered performances or design goals are simply not meet because the design skills or experience aren't there to allow for this to happen and there are several recent examples of this in the industry, not only concerning aviation.

The best way to figure when this happens is the amount of redesign needed to meet these design points and requierements and when they are not meet, the solutions needed to meet those which are still possible to reach.

The number of recent large programes that ran smoothly, at scheduled cost and time-scale is not so high, see A400M for one...

Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

What do you mean a counterpart to the Rafale/EF? Isn't the SH a good counterpart to the Eurocanards and the Raptor eclipsing the Eurocanards?
Let's put it this way: you're a pilot going to war and you can choose between the EF/Rafale and the F-22, which aircraft do you choose?

Bear in mind the F18G is superior to the F22 in BVR in many ways, but inferior to the F22 in WVR, so I take it you mean the Eurofighter is superior to the F22 in BVR but inferior in WVR? As for the F22 eclipsing the "eurocanards", you're just reading from American sales guides, so clearly you will reach that conclusion. If someone from the RN describes the RN as the best in the world, I guess that must make it true, by the logic of Eric. Or does this only apply to pro-American claims?

If I were a pilot going to war, I'd fly what I'm told to fly. If I had to procure an aircraft to go to war, it would depend whom I was fighting and what the aircraft would mostly be doing. Rafale, F22 and Typhoon all have winning advantages in different scenarios.

SH is on the same class as Typhoon/Rafale, it might not be better but it is on the same class in terms of technology and design era. SH is the best USN has ATM and it is also getting more capable block by block.

The SH is a very poor dog fighter, even the F35 could probably beat it and the F35 isn't exactly a dog fighter either. Its a good performer in BVR though, especially in the G version. The only thing Typhoon/Rafale C and SH have in common is they aren't design for stealth at the expense of everything else.

Thunder I have a question, I still don't understand what separated French and German/British efforts for a delta canard that resulted in Rafale + Typhoon. Whats your take?

French workshare demands + demand to control the programme. The same happened with the CNGF programme. Their demands were absolutely stupid, presumably because their industry preferred their existing Mirage line to be bought by the other European countries instead! No wonder then, that none of the UK services want anything to do with French programmes


"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."

I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!

thunder as a sidenote i recently have read that german army ordered 16 tigers with stronger engines for use in afghanistan ect.

i just fell over this info while reading budget critic on the germen ec tiger programme

it also says the other ones most likely receive the same engine upgrade






the article:

http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,643046,00.html%23ref%3Drss

"ppp56)
Bear in mind the F18G is superior to the F22 in BVR in many ways,"

EEEEEEEK!..

I strongly suggest you quit with sniffing whatever you're sniffing, F-22 isn't as maneuvrable as a Typhoon or Rafale (only marginaly) but it would make a cold meal of F/A-18 just as the Rafales Ms did.

So you see a couple of F-22 silouets on a Growler and you jump to conclusion then?

F/A-18G is NOT a fighter but a pure attack aircraft for SEAD/DEAD.

F/A-18 is notoriously draggy, can't accelerate as fast (can't change induced drag and critical mach from wingsweep appart in your fantasy world) and is way underpowered to beat F-22 even at lower speeds.


"ppp56)
As for the F22 eclipsing the "eurocanards", you're just reading from American sales guides, so clearly you will reach that conclusion".

So did our specialists including those reporting to assemblee Nationale.

F-22 is of course perhaps not as maneuvrable but it beats the ekke of both Rafale and Typhoon before getting in WVR, which is what it was designed to do at a much higher cost too.

Before concluding that Typhoon and Rafale can compete with it now, at least you could have the intelligence to wait until the 2014 generation of IR technologies are there to prove the point.


"ppp56)
by the logic of Eric. Or does this only apply to pro-American claims?"

Not HIS logic but reconised performances advantages including spupercruise.


"ppp56)
The SH is a very poor dog fighter, even the F35 could probably beat it and the F35 isn't exactly a dog fighter either".

F/A-18 is NOT a" poor dogfighter" it would beat the hell of many 4th generation fighters, only Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon are exeptional energy-turning machines and have the advantage to have been fully optimised at design stage for the role.

The S/H was never designed/optimised for dogfighting and more to it it was designed for specificaly taking care of F-18 short-coming in range and bring-back load at the lowest cost possible.

Considering these requierements it is still an excellent machine, only one which was not designed with 9.0+ g maximum turning performances in mind.



"ppp56)
Its a good performer in BVR though, especially in the G version. The only thing Typhoon/Rafale C and SH have in common is they aren't design for stealth at the expense of everything else".

You keep insisting on the G version, based on freak situations where F-22 pilots get caught when facing a new threat, as if a T-38 was a better dogfighter than F-22, but let's face it, you're a genius you, figured USAF will acquier F/A-18 instead of their full complement of F-22.

Offensive ECM doesn't give you more BVR capabilties, only that of negating that of your opponent with better S.A and Counter-Measures.

In the case of Rafale and F/A-18, low EM signature management was always in the design requierements, even IR signature management in the case of Rafale, not so much the case for Typhoon.


"ppp56)
French workshare demands + demand to control the programme. The same happened with the CNGF programme. Their demands were absolutely stupid"

The FUNNY troll's version of:

Not one of Eurofighter partners had Dassault-aviation expertise to come up a design which would make it at the same time; trouble-free (not the case of Typhoon with a crash due to design points Dassault rejected at the time) and performances/flight envelop needed for a naval version.

Otherwise said:

Close coupled canard vs long moment-harm which is so troublesome it forced EADS into a programe specificaly designed to eliminate (only partly) a transonic "bump" of several gs and instaure a Low Speed Auto-Recovery system to avoid departure and superstall.

As fort their respective REAL performances:

Typhoon intakes are responsible for the double engine flame-out that took the Spanish prototype down, a design point totaly rejected by Dassault at the time.

They also are cause of a high-frequency vibration causing great concern about the life-span of the engines.

Rafale can pull 11.0g on a day-to-day basis due to a higher than standard MSL, Typhoon is limited to 9.0g and have a lower Maximum Structural Load at 1.5 instead of the international 1.6 standard.

Rafale can pass a Cobra, i.e passed 100* AoA and 40 kt negative speed, Typhoon is limited to 70*.

Rafale is software limited to 290* roll rate but it is still a full 90* above Typhoon, and control have notoriously crisper and more precise controls, a Norvegian pilot quoting this said it made him miss his F-16.

Rafale can be trimmed at neutral in supersonic due to Dynamic instability (Non-existant with non-close-coupled canards) Typhoon elevons have to be used with a 4* pitch-up attitude at M 1.8 due to a nose-down moment, which increases trim drag and reduces range.

Rafale have been flown at 16 kt, below 50 kt Typhoon will depart into a superstall (from which it doesn't have enough pitch control authority to recover).

Typhoon doesn't meet its requiered performances for landing distances in bad weather conditions WITH a drag-chute, Rafale is not only capable of landing in less than 400m without one, it also operates from carriers.

Typhoon is notoriously short legged compared to Rafale it also is totaly incapable to carry the same playload while being larger, heavier and costlier.

Typhoon T2 airframes had to be reinforced to meet multi-role demands, Rafale Maximum Structural Load is 1.86 vs 1.6 for international standards (ALL versions) no need for redesign and weight increase.

A close-coupled canard doesn't superstall, control authority remains and Rafale as a result is a far better and safer dogfighter which doesn't know ANY of Typhoon limitation in AoA and low speeds, it also boosts the highest instantanous turn rate known of modern fighters.

F/A-18 pilots who can pull 52* AoA vs Typhoon's limit of 30* are revving about Rafale "incredible ability to point its nose anywhere in the sky", i guess there is something they know that you don't.

Appart for these points which are ALL very well documented, Dassault didn't have any "rights" to claim design lead and their claim were totaly stupid; your lot, your usual mediocrity.

So here you go, next time you see an aerodynamic patch-up on a Typhoon think of what Dassault would have made of it (having been given design lead) before even building it, making of it a safer and better aircraft in the process at lower cost and in time.

There is NO presumption into saying ppp that you know fcuck-all on the subject and keep talking out of your @ss, the best part being that you don't even have the brain power to figure that it shows big time but keep demonstrating arrogance, ignorance and a full load of biggotry.

Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

"GER_Mark)
it also says the other ones most likely receive the same engine upgrade"

Perhaps ultimately they all will be equiped with this engine for the stake of lowering the costs in the long term, the AdT HAT are not equiped with them and they do well although they would do better with them i guess.



Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

I want to add one thing: I don't believe the Raptor is so much better than the rest mainly because I don't believe its stealth capabilities are all that. But it sure as hell is the best fighter in the world today and I don't see what fighter could match it in the foreseeable future.



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

"surprisingly no turkish waffer offered them the italian chopper yet. LOL"



Ok...

S. Korea should assess Turkish T-129 as a candidate for their KAH program as well... Lool... ATAK team can provide more incredible technology than any other institues in World...

"But it sure as hell is the best fighter in the world today and I don't see what fighter could match it in the foreseeable future".

I see a few which could but it is another topic...

Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

French workshare demands + demand to control the programme. The same happened with the CNGF programme. Their demands were absolutely stupid, presumably because their industry preferred their existing Mirage line to be bought by the other European countries instead! No wonder then, that none of the UK services want anything to do with French programmes
It's strange how british posters always forget that RR requirement to the french governement was "could you bankrupt SNECMA please ?"

About the main topic, develloping a 5th gen fighter means (a very summerize point of view)
- a stealth airframe (easy to do)
- state of the art avionics (harder and harder to develloped, you can guess why Dassault is trying to get as much share as possible in Thales)

So, getting a prototype of a stealth fighter with foreign engines, radar and electronic sub-system may not be the best solution to sustain local industries.

"jesse04)
It's strange how british posters always forget that RR requirement to the french governement was "could you bankrupt SNECMA please ?"

Exactly, not to mention the fact that SNECMA are the only European company keeping up with the US manufacturers on TET at 2.050k, while Euroject didn't make the grade yet with a lower TET than M-88 E1 which is still the hotest runing European engine at 1.850k.


@Mantis214)

This is a very important aspect we didn't mention, jet engine technology is moving very slowly and requier a lot of researches on metals and powder metalurgy.

"jesse04)
- a stealth airframe (easy to do)"

Not that easy but the UK got cold feets on this one; when BAe and Dassault were wroking on what is now EFCAS, the then a New European Manned Fighter, their common company, European Aerosystems had a few VERY interesting conceiptual projects.


The Future Offensive Aircraft (FOA), a project founded on the assumpion that the UK would need to replace its fleet of Tornado GR.4 interdictor strike aircraft early in the 21st century.
(Source: BAe)


The Future Offensive Aircraft (FOA), a project founded on the assumpion that the UK would need to replace its fleet of Tornado GR.4 interdictor strike aircraft early in the 21st century.
(Source: BAe)

With time and the money spent in both side in separate EM L.O developement without doing what the usual troll calls "Giving" stealth technologies, even less US technolgies, in 2015 the bi-national (or more) equivalent of F-35 would have been available.
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw010122_1_n.shtml


"jesse04)
- state of the art avionics (harder and harder to develloped, you can guess why Dassault is trying to get as much share as possible in Thales)"

They are majoritary with the Frencvh gouv so it's promising, the main effort is ported on IR multibandwidth and the next generation of all-weather/long-range Optronics.

With two world's first and technology breakthrough since 2007, you can be sure it is going to pave the way for anti-EM L.O in the near future.


"jesse04)
So, getting a prototype of a stealth fighter with foreign engines, radar and electronic sub-system may not be the best solution to sustain local industries".

As far as i can see the latest is a total commercial CON and obviously was planned by the US, first imposing a BAN to MoD in 2000 then getting them to sign for F-35 the following year effectively forbiding BAe to pursue what they started on their own will with Dassault.

= "The plan as proposed is set to fall apart because the UK MoD is refusing to give BAE Systems or other UK companies permission to discuss any aspect of LO technology with other potential European partners - EADS, Dassault Aviation and Saab. The LO ban stems from years of secret LO technology transfer between the UK and the USA at government level (JDW 4 October 2000)".

Now it's funy we have the usual trolls claiming that the UK shouldn't GIVE stealth technology to France forgeting that the first two countries to fly L.O UAVs were France and Sweeden. Bad excuse.

Anyway with time istart to think it was way better for France, sweeden and the other nEUROn partrners in the long term, it triggered a good reaction and the efforts are well focused on the technologies we need to develop to play our part (and more) comes 2015.

MoD's stealth stance blocks UK role in European demonstrator

NICK COOK JDW Aviation Editor
London

The UK may be cut adrift from a European initiative to build a 'low observables' (LO) technology demonstrator for a next-generation strike aircraft because of the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD) refusal to allow UK industry to co-operate on stealth technology with companies outside the USA.

Sources close to talks between the French, German, Swedish and UK governments seeking to establish the technology demonstrator initiative, known as the European Technology Acquisition Programme (ETAP), said that the stealth issue was as far from resolution today as it was six years ago, when the UK MoD first issued the edict.

All four nations are agreed that a manned technology demonstrator aircraft is needed to test critical technologies for the aircraft that will replace the Tornado strike aircraft in Germany and the UK and strike variants of the Mirage 2000 in France. Sweden believes it may also require such an aircraft, either manned or unmanned, in the same time period, around 20 years from now.

In the UK, the Tornado GR4 replacement programme is known as the Future Offensive Air System (FOAS). Current studies are evaluating derivatives of the Eurofighter multirole combat aircraft, a new manned strike aircraft, an unmanned combat air vehicle and cruise missiles, as well as combinations of all four.

Stealth is an integral part of the design of whichever force-mix solution emerges from these studies.

Both France and the UK have been conducting small-scale technology demonstration programmes under national and joint auspices since the early-mid 1990s. Each also has its own stealth initiatives. Yet, because of the UK MoD stealth ban, which is believed to emanate from the USA with which the UK has long-standing classified agreements over LO technology, co-operation on stealth has had to be set aside. Industries on both sides of the Channel have described this situation as intolerable.

"The UK government claims it is working on a solution, but it has been saying this for years," one participant in the ETAP negotiations told Jane's Defence Weekly. "Now Spain and Italy have said that they want to join the discussions. The big question is, how do we proceed from here?"

With time running out, French, German and Swedish companies are now floating the idea of a continental ETAP programme, possibly including Italy and Spain as well, while the UK considers its position on the stealth issue.

"While the UK MoD makes its mind up, it could retain observer status in ETAP," a German government official said.

While a Tornado/Mirage 2000 replacement is still around 20 years from service-entry, a concerted technology demonstrator programme, with stealth at its core, is already overdue. It is needed to perfect suitable designs in the run-up to a development programme. Because funds are scarce, industry officials on all sides believe the work needs to be done in a joint forum to offset the huge stealth advantage currently enjoyed by the USA.
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw000808_1_n.shtml


Thunder Supports Rafale
http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

Looks like the AHX is not so dead after all. Sorry, I don't have an article in English.

http://news.bemil.chosun.com/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10005&pn=1&num=31

Apaches, Tigers, and A-129s are being studied again as immediate solutions to the American withdrawal of all 72 Apaches from Korea by 2013. Weaponized KUH isn't even being considered as an option, and budget issues not withstanding, the KAH won't nearly be ready by that timeline.




_________________________________________________
"Made from 100% Quality Korean Genes"