Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has issued an image of the first KF-X fuselage, which is undergoing assembly in the company's Sacheon factory. The company states that the first prototype of the twin-engined jet will be rolled out by April 2021, with test flights starting in 2022. Source...
Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has issued an image of the first KF-X fuselage, which is undergoing assembly in the company's Sacheon factory. The company states that the first prototype of the twin-engined jet will be rolled out by April 2021, with test flights starting in 2022. Source...
What I find fascinating with non-US stealth jets (be them chinese, russians, or SEA allies): they all look like variations in shape and engines, of F-22 / F-35.
The Chinese got the "big strike F-22" with their J-20 (plus canards)
FC-31 looks like a F-35 "done right / uncompromised by VSTOL" (JAST ? did I said JAST ?)
This one from Korea looks like "F-35 met a Superbug and stole its powerplant"
Same for the Japanese demonstrator...
The irony is that F-22s are too few (180) when F-35 is, well, the F-35 (no intend to start any flame war).
What I find fascinating with non-US stealth jets (be them chinese, russians, or SEA allies): they all look like variations in shape and engines, of F-22 / F-35.
I think he means the Su-57 that was originally designated as the T-50 during initial prototyping. It's easily the least US-like of the 5th gen jets assuming it's RCS haracteristics are even up to snuff to meet 5th gen standards. Basically a stealthified Su-27 type planform.
What I find fascinating with non-US stealth jets (be them chinese, russians, or SEA allies): they all look like variations in shape and engines, of F-22 / F-35.
The Chinese got the "big strike F-22" with their J-20 (plus canards)
FC-31 looks like a F-35 "done right / uncompromised by VSTOL" (JAST ? did I said JAST ?)
This one from Korea looks like "F-35 met a Superbug and stole its powerplant"
Same for the Japanese demonstrator...
The irony is that F-22s are too few (180) when F-35 is, well, the F-35 (no intend to start any flame war).
In general its safer to be reactionary than revolutionary.
saves them time by following an existing design rather than trying to change it with a new idea.
of the non-US jets, I think the Su-57 is probably the most unique.. but also the one that has the most people questioning its stealthiness
of all jets, the X-32 is by far the most unique flying 5th gen design..and a concept I wish some one else could explore more.
Pancake, tunnel, wide-spaced engines. LERX switched for Levcons and all other major surfaces changed to trapezoidal. It's a clear evolution from a familiar configuration.
The YF-23 is the most unique flown stealth fighter configuration so far. Not hard to believe that in numerous key areas it still remains the most effective design flown. F-35 and X-32 are unique in being the only single engine designs flown so far and packing in so much into such a small space in the actual F-35 variants remains impressive. But that was at severe costs on many fronts.....
We could argue the F-22 is an evolved F-15 configuration but that's only looking at the outside. Lockheed looked at alot of configs before settling on the central box design that has become so ubiquitous. It's understood and other countries have alot of access to F-22 photos that can serve as inspiration and influence.
Pancake, tunnel, wide-spaced engines. LERX switched for Levcons and all other major surfaces changed to trapezoidal. It's a clear evolution from a familiar configuration.
...
We could argue the F-22 is an evolved F-15 configuration but that's only looking at the outside.
So basically i crafted myself a KFX C-107. This hopefully be close to what would be built, still however fidelity would be limited to resolution of the reference image available to me. It's not going to need paints,textures etc, as it's for RCS approximation purpose. Then like many others i throw it to POFACETS. Set frequency to 10 GHz (X-band).
The Frontal aspect RCS appears to be quite promising (Perhaps it would be bit higher considering POFACETS actually underestimate curved surface RCS and it cannot do duct). The value in order of 0.1 sqm appears to be achievable in frontal aspect.
Also for additional interest i did another approximation this time to see the RCS fluctuation at frontal aspect.
One can see the fluctuation of RCS from frequency to frequency. It's quite jagged but show although kind of weak, dependence between wavelength and RCS. The POFACETS however or at least in my settings (PEC-no RAM) the increase or fluctuation caused by creeping and surface wave, this become important in lower frequency (where target feature is as large or smaller about half wavelength). But at high frequency regime where the feature of the target (e.g wing) is at least 10 times larger than impinging wave, it would be minor.
That however is just one of the caveat. The other is that POFACETS works for Specular RCS. Specular RCS is also known as "spike" It is the strongest RCS contributor, basically it is the "antenna mainlobe" of the feature being exposed to radar. Getting those spikes away from potential threat aspect is priority, so the enemy radar is presented with weaker lobes. However as the frequency decreased the power of the specular RCS decreases But the width of the "spike" increased.
Considering the limitation of the software i decided not to include the engine so the inlet and the exhaust is one big gaping hole basically. If i put anything inside there would be "unexplainable" spike arising from within the plane. Nonetheless I would love if anyone can point out on a "standard" on how RCS approximation can be done. Like everyone basically only "match" the size of the target with wavelength of the threat radar and maybe materials if the software supports. But none said on whether the inlet/exhaust should be blocked or can be left open so that the Resulted RCS graph is *only* from the external shaping of the target.
Yeah but can't cancel them outright as that would constitute breach of agreement.
It always amuse me tho how our media always try to portray Korea dont want to share anything etc... Well We only have like 15% of shares nothing more and that's fine. It is not like we would have the necessary or even considering our politics to actually invest on the industry. You can see the minister seems to contradict himself that Despite having "small" amount of transfers of technology. He then mentioned that We would need additional Infrastructure. Yes.. about 185 M USD would be needed., and that only for the Aircraft.
Imagine if the Korean shares say... AESA Radar technology... who's gonna build it back here in Indonesia ? There is no real foundry or factory here making Semiconductor RF Equipment, as far as i know. If we desire to make that. I did a rough calculations that over 485M USD FY2020 is required for a Foundry facility having annual capacity of 30000 Wafer for TR modules. If we turned it all into Radar we would be able to produce about 30 AESA radars annually. But then.. what else can use anything produced from there ? That's the big question.
Well, if you start and prove that local production can be reliable and affordable, the risk is that some private industry would want to piggyback on that.
Not bad...
A prototype of the Active Electronically Scanning Array (AESA) radar locally developed in South Korea for the country’s upcoming future fighter jet was unveiled at a joint ceremony held by Agency for Defense Development, Hanwha Systems, and Defense Acquisition Program Administration. A new radar...
While there has been some contact/ technology sharing re: SAM technology not aware of any (at least open) Russian involvement re: South Korea’s ballistic missiles. Indeed there has been Russian opposition to South Korea’s enhancement of their ballistic missiles with allegations of Russian assistance to North Korea re: there ballistic missile (including ICBM) programs.
While there has been some contact/ technology sharing re: SAM technology not aware of any (at least open) Russian involvement re: South Korea’s ballistic missiles. Indeed there has been Russian opposition to South Korea’s enhancement of their ballistic missiles with allegations of Russian assistance to North Korea re: there ballistic missile (including ICBM) programs.
I might have missed something but how do they compare themselves regarding the competition? What's the main differences with the EL/M2052 that seems to be similarly sized?
Very few details have emerged about the AESA radar, which officials have described as a “state-of-the-art system capable of detecting and tracking more than 1,000 targets simultaneously”.
South Korea has unveiled an indigenous active electronically scanned-array (AESA) radar prototype for use by the Republic of Korea Air Force’s (RoKAF’s) next-generation...
Very few details have emerged about the AESA radar, which officials have described as a “state-of-the-art system capable of detecting and tracking more than 1,000 targets simultaneously”.
South Korea has unveiled an indigenous active electronically scanned-array (AESA) radar prototype for use by the Republic of Korea Air Force’s (RoKAF’s) next-generation...
Anyway, power aperture wise. My estimates of tracking capacity at 165 km range vs 3 sqm RCS would be 36 Targets. This is a great figure. As the range closer the "tracking capacity" increases. 1000 targets track of same RCS could be attained at 71 Km.
Old KF-X model(maybe C106?) RCS Data without RAM/RAS application from KAI.
And KF-X Prototype radar's TRM count. It has 1088 TRMs and its power is about 15~18 W.
South Korean military forum guessed it will have about 120+ km tracking range vs 1 sqm RCS.
Also their ultimate goal is to enhance its radar performance to be comparable to AN/APG-81.
Unfortunately, the conditions for the analysis was not disclosed. However, the author who found the data thinks it was under X-band RF, and think its overall RCS figures will be distributed around 0.1 ~ 0.01 sqm w/ RAM/RAS/FSS Radome application.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.flightglobal.com
