Sintra said:Just released by DAPA. The design is the C-103.
UpForce said:Anyone here who can give the roughest of ballpark figures of how many/few dB a "traditional" fuel tank reflects compared to an airframe generally considered stealthy (... even if one doesn't consider the geometries together) for example?
Because they eventually plan to reach the VLO + Supercruise status in later blocks. Since it is costly to change the airframe at later date, the airframe will start with a full stealth shaping. Then additional features will be introduced incrementally in later blocks like an internal weapons bay sized for four AMRAAMs, LPI AESA radar, uprated engine, etc.1st503rdSGT said:I share Up's confusion here. If one is planning to ruin the RCS with with external weapons anyways, what's to justify the expense of a VLO airframe?
It is more like the Swedish model, an eventual transition to single fighter jet model airforce.Grey Havoc said:Is the C-103 meant to be half of a high-low mix, much as the F-22 and F-35 were meant to be?
The Eurocanard model was dropped.Does anyone know if they are still working on the K-200 design?
SlowMan said:Because they eventually plan to reach the VLO + Supercruise status in later blocks. Since it is costly to change the airframe at later date, the airframe will start with a full stealth shaping. Then additional features will be introduced incrementally in later blocks like an internal weapons bay sized for four AMRAAMs, LPI AESA radar, uprated engine, etc.1st503rdSGT said:I share Up's confusion here. If one is planning to ruin the RCS with with external weapons anyways, what's to justify the expense of a VLO airframe?
The weapons bay is said to be located in the forward fuselage between the cockpit and the intake(Think YF-23). For Block 1, the space will be used for a fuel tank.1st503rdSGT said:That still doesn't make any sense... as adding a weapons bay would require major changes to the airframe anyways.
No 2K JDAM, Only two 1K JDAMs.especially if it can hold 2 AMRAAMs and a single piece of 2k ordinance.
Deino said:To admit, both seem to evolve quite nicely !
Does anyone have more specific information on both designs ... and finally when the winning design wil be chosen ?? (I would prefer 203)
Deino
kaiserbill said:Interesting.
The last picture states 2x 18 000lb plus thrust engines.
I assume this to mean either EJ-200, Snecma M-88, or F-404/F-414 or derivitives?
chuck4 said:Wouldn't recessed carriage of missile on the underside place the missile fins at right angle to the bottom surface of the aircraft, and thus creating what amounts to an angle reflector for a radar directly abeam?
Or perhaps the recess indentation the bottom of the aircraft is shaped in such a way that the missile would fit in at an angle.
The bottom aspect stealth doesn't matter, at least for now. It is strictly an A2A fighter intended to operate over the skies of Yellow Sea, the primary intended adversary being China. The ROKAF doesn't intend to fly over North Korea until its integrated air defense network is degraded enough for a flyover in wartime. Until then, it is strictly stand-off strikes using tens of thousands of glide bombs.chuck4 said:Wouldn't recessed carriage of missile on the underside place the missile fins at right angle to the bottom surface of the aircraft, and thus creating what amounts to an angle reflector for a radar directly abeam?
Then releasing it would be difficult.Or perhaps the recess indentation the bottom of the aircraft is shaped in such a way that the missile would fit in at an angle.
This matters less when the jets are flying toward the enemy formation.chuck4 said:Bullshit. Fins sticking out vertically to the bottom ruins efforts to reduce signature to side aspects as well.
The roadmap makes it clear that weapons bay will be present from Block 2 and onward. The Silent Eagle's CWB is engineered and manufactured in Korea, so the knowledge and experience to do an internal weapons bay will be there. The reason it is not included in the Block 1 is because it can't make the 2020 deadline.Most likely this half assed approach reflects awareness of limits of the industrial capability that precludes a weapon bay without unacceptable sacrifices in other areas.
SlowMan said:The Silent Eagle's CWB is engineered and manufactured in Korea,
A pair of prototypes. Working on the production version at the moment.TaiidanTomcat said:How many have they made so far?
ST. LOUIS, Nov. 3, 2010 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that the company has entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd. (KAI) for KAI to design, develop and manufacture the Conformal Weapons Bay (CWB) for the F-15 Silent Eagle.
"KAI is a leading aerospace company with world-class core technical capabilities that complement Boeing's," said Roger Besancenez, Boeing F-15 program vice president. "We are excited about KAI's growing role on the development and production of key technologies for Boeing aircraft."
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_02_18_2013_p23-548417.xmlList Of KF-X Opponents Grows
South Korea's proposed KF-X stealth fighter program has not been short of influential opponents. Now it has another. A defense ministry think tank, the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis, has told a public meeting that the country is not technologically equipped to develop the aircraft, that the project is economically unviable and that the KF-X would not be a successful export product. The institute challenges cost estimates by the Agency for Defense Development, which is leading development of the aircraft.
KF-X development would cost more than 10 trillion won ($9.2 billion), one of the institute's researchers, Lee Juhyeong, has told a seminar on the program. Over the life of the program, the KF-X would cost the country more than twice as much as an imported aircraft, Lee says.
The institute's stance has not previously been publicly stated, although the Naeil newspaper reported last year that it had submitted a confidential report doubting the viability of the project. Now speaking openly, the institute questions whether the U.S. will be willing to help develop the KF-X. Other skeptics wonder how it could be exported in competition with U.S. aircraft, since South Korea would probably have to use major U.S. components, whose export could be blocked by Washington. Another influential think tank, the Korea Development Institute, reported as early as 2007 that the KF-X was not viable...
2IDSGT said:Uh oh! Looks like someone in Korea finally realized that developing another F-35 (which has been hard enough for the US) is redundant and problematic one small country.
2IDSGT said:Uh oh! Looks like someone in Korea finally realized that developing another F-35 (which has been hard enough for the US) is redundant and problematic one small country.