good point.. think the Chinese will replace it with domestic alternatives?
or UAE will just cancel the order outright and go for T-50s?
One possibility would be to replace the engines with the Russian Salyut-manufactured AI-222s... though I'm not sure of how much modifications would be needed, since afaik the Russian made AI-222 for YAK-130 and the Motor Sich model which is currently being used by the L-15 are different variants.

Further complicationg will be the current political/diplomatic dynamics surrounding Russia and their products and I'm pretty sure the west, especially the US wouldn't be that fond of seeing UAE purchasing Chinese aircraft with a Russian engine under ongoing circumstances.

If not the Russian AI-222, I'm not well-informed about the Chinese equivalent of AI-222 or F124 that could power the Emirati L-15. I've heard there's an engine named FWS-17, though I can't say for sure. If there's no suitable replacement, going with the T-50 would be the logical choice, though we don't know how the L-15 was chosen in the first place, so obviously it's hard to say if the Emiratis are interested of opting for non-Chinese profuct for this particular occasion. Could be that they want the JL-9 instead. Who knows, maybe the situation quickly improves and Motor Sich could supply the engines as agreed upon.

Anyways, I went quite off the topic. Sorry for that,
 
Last edited:
hmm nice to see the canopy
I'm still impressed that they went straight to building both the single and twin-seat version from the beginning
but at the same time confused why they plan to implement internal weapon bays and other stealthy systems in phases
 
One potentially plausible guess is that their RAM technology is still lacking. So there wouldn't be much rcs reduction even if internal weapon bay is implemented, due to poor RAM. I stress this is just a guess trying to rationalize the "fitted for but not with " approach with the bays.
 
It simply that they don't need it yet. The iwb will be costly to develop with a lot of test flights. Something that would come easier starting from a matured airframe.
Don't forget also that they have F-35s. Stealth is not the quest but one of many paths in the design of a modern fighter. This is very different from what it was initially with the FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS (and, once again, I would suggest them to follow the same route).
 
Last edited:
It simply that they don't need it yet. The iwb will be costly to develop with a lot of test flights. Something that would come easier starting from a matured airframe.

It will be interesting to see how they will implement the design of the internal weapons bay further down the line, whether they use the F-22 style or go with an all new system of opening the bay doors to keep the fighter stealthy.
 
One potentially plausible guess is that their RAM technology is still lacking. So there wouldn't be much rcs reduction even if internal weapon bay is implemented, due to poor RAM. I stress this is just a guess trying to rationalize the "fitted for but not with " approach with the bays.

You got most of your RCS reduction from shapes not RAM's. shapes alone can give you about -20 to -30 dB of RCS reduction at your key aspect (e.g frontal) RAM is expected to give the extra 10 dB and to suppress things like surface/creeping wave.
 
One potentially plausible guess is that their RAM technology is still lacking. So there wouldn't be much rcs reduction even if internal weapon bay is implemented, due to poor RAM. I stress this is just a guess trying to rationalize the "fitted for but not with " approach with the bays.

You got most of your RCS reduction from shapes not RAM's. shapes alone can give you about -20 to -30 dB of RCS reduction at your key aspect (e.g frontal) RAM is expected to give the extra 10 dB and to suppress things like surface/creeping wave.

Interesting stuff stealthflanker, I read in a book once that the in the Skunk Works they had a saying that it was all about shape/shape and materials where materials only played a small part of the total radar cross section reduction of the entire fighter.
 
They may have designed the structure in a manner which could then implement a weapon bays as part of a block upgrade, maybe like a structural drop ceiling/void which could support a simpler, future structural upgrade to full internal bays, they may also have installation provisions as well to a support bay drive system(s), of course this speculation?
 
It's worth pointing out that the skunk works adage of 4 things being important for stealth: materials, shape, shape and shape
Was coined in the 1970s.

I did not know that it was coined as far back in the seventies, and that it was actually 4 things being important for Stealth. Thanks totoro.
 
They may have designed the structure in a manner which could then implement a weapon bays as part of a block upgrade, maybe like a structural drop ceiling/void which could support a simpler, future structural upgrade to full internal bays, they may also have installation provisions as well to a support bay drive system(s), of course this speculation?

the bays certainly look "easy" (maybe this is not the best word) to implement.
The prototype sections clearly shows the weapon bay space, but its being covered with a panel for the semi recessed missiles.

One other concern however, is the paneling on the fueselage..
there's not that many serrated edges if at all (zig zags)
 
the bays certainly look "easy" (maybe this is not the best word) to implement.
The prototype sections clearly shows the weapon bay space, but its being covered with a panel for the semi recessed missiles.

One other concern however, is the paneling on the fueselage..
there's not that many serrated edges if at all (zig zags)
I'd say, a lot of the aspects of KF-21 today could be traced back to/explained as the inertia of the choices made early into the development.

KF-X on its earlier days was meant to be developed as a 5th generation fighter. Preliminary studies were carried out accordingly and resulted in C100 and C200, the F-22 and Northrop NATF lookalikes. Though as the early studies on requirements and self-assessment, as well as Korean aerospace/defense technology matured, they soon realized that they haven't got what it takes to develop a full-fledged 5th gen fighter.

As a result, around early 2010s, ADD, KAI and other parties involved, including the AF all agreed that the most rational choice for the program would be to take a step back and develop a 4.5th gen fighter, which would arguably still be relevant into the '30s and would supplement F-35 well as a main work horse.

It is also around this period when there were serious discussions on if they should make something that really is a 4.5th gen fighter from the ground up or something which is kinda in between the initial and current goals, namely (the single engined, F-16 - and more importantly - T-50 lookalike) C501 and (continuation of the earlier C102/202 designs) C103/203. From what is known, KAI and DAPA seriously pushed for C501 which was supposedly going to be cheaper and easier to design, as opposed to ADD and the AF which argued for a twin-engined design with considerations for future growth and mission capabilities. In the meantime ADD also came up with the idea of growth-in-steps, which was essentially "we will make a 5th gen-to-be fighter with some features lacking and call it a 4.5th gen, but would later turn it into an actual 5th gen fighter". This is the famous "block 3 is 5th gen" plan before 2015.

What's important at this point was that AF made up their mind and was asking for a 4.5th gen fighter. Their ROC reflected on this and was also the reason C501 design was created in the first place, but the problem was that they wanted a twin-engined jet which was more powerful than a single engined C501. So in series of events which could arguably be called a power struggle between KAI/DAPA and ADD/AF (who stood on the same side for different reasons) to decide on who holds the baton(and gets what they want), ADD and AF kinda won.

In the end, ADD's original plans of staged devlopment to 5th gen was scrapped but the design itself, which is based on the studies (C100/200 ~ C103/203) that were meant for a 5th gen fighter development, lived on and became C109, ths final design which the prototypes are based on. Such design wasn't without its benefits, too. Also, although ADD's original plan was thrown into the bin, the concept itself surely had a greater influence of the design which lead to the fuselage compartment that is empty and is meant for the installation of IWB. I'd say, KAI and ADD have bigger ambitions, which is also reflected on their publications and interviews(I mean, if you design something that needs to fly, you don't fit in that big and redundant of a design without a purpose). As for the AF, they're probably fine with any design(apart from anything single engined unless its F135) as long as it meets their 4.5th gen ROC, which is the reason KAI and so on are not interested on implementing serrated panels and other stealth designs for now, as they are not something required by their customers. It's quite straight forward really.

The AF wants 4.5th gen : you give them 4.5th gen design.
 
Last edited:
H
It's worth pointing out that the skunk works adage of 4 things being important for stealth: materials, shape, shape and shape
Was coined in the 1970s.

I did not know that it was coined as far back in the seventies, and that it was actually 4 things being important for Stealth. Thanks totoro.
Have Blue & F-117: 1977 and 1981, respectively.
 
It's a monster that will certainly cost a mighty dragon to coat and seal for stealth (this one has none of this). Plus the mass and complexity to eject properly for pilots ejection. I don't understand their choice here. Single piece canopies are good when there is a staggered seating position and the instructor in the back need uncluttered forward view. Here none of this comfort that choice. The good old Phantom two pieces canopy would have done as well IMOHO.
 
Last edited:
Does that mean they're removing it from the loads testing cell? Because that's where it's (The single seat) shown. Obviously, their definition of ready for first flight and mine differ. ;)
 
Excellent news for the KF-21 Boramae, that means that the first flight is coming soon.
 
I heard the first flight scheduled in July 22nd. Idk how reliable that rumour
 
I heard the first flight scheduled in July 22nd. Idk how reliable that rumour
22nd of July is not a rumor but a confirmed date. It's going to be flown by an AF pilot, as opposed to the usual practice of first flight by KAI pilots (KT-1, T-50, KUH, etc).
 
Last edited:
I heard the first flight scheduled in July 22nd. Idk how reliable that rumour
22nd of July is not a rumor but a confirmed date. It's going to be flown by an AF pilot, as opposed to the usual practice of first flight by KAI pilots (KT-1, T-50, KUH, etc).

That's odd. First flights are always by company pilots in all countries to my knowledge.
 
wow that's kinda random.

imagine explaining your day to your wife

"hi honey, im home from work"
"anything happen today?"
"nothing much, but at the traffic light, the prototype of a semi-stealthy fighter jet crossed the road to get to the other side"
 
this just came out

TLDR:
the author is claiming that Korea acquiring F-35Bs will be limited because there would only be 10 operating off a proposed carrier and that it can't even carry AShMs (can anyone confirm this?)
on the other hand they are arguing for a navalized KF-21, which would at least have nearly half the life cycle costs which includes navalization costs.
 
this just came out

TLDR:
the author is claiming that Korea acquiring F-35Bs will be limited because there would only be 10 operating off a proposed carrier and that it can't even carry AShMs (can anyone confirm this?)
on the other hand they are arguing for a navalized KF-21, which would at least have nearly half the life cycle costs which includes navalization costs.
This guy has no idea what he's talking about. JSM isn't on the F-35B, but it is being integrated right now, and while it may not be able to carry the missile internally it can carry four externally and still be stealthier than any other fighter in the Korean inventory. Further, everything I've read about the Korean carrier points to it carrying 20 fighters, not 10. And if they do go ahead with operating F-35Bs off the Dokdos they'd need even more.

And a navalized KF-21 is even more braindead. He's badly underestimating how difficult navalization is and I have serious doubts the KF-21 would be flyable off the planned carrier.
 
this just came out

TLDR:
the author is claiming that Korea acquiring F-35Bs will be limited because there would only be 10 operating off a proposed carrier and that it can't even carry AShMs (can anyone confirm this?)
on the other hand they are arguing for a navalized KF-21, which would at least have nearly half the life cycle costs which includes navalization costs.
That's full of rubbish. He may be formal pilot but it seems he doesn't know a thing about F-35 or CVX. First off, 10 F-35s if operated in lamding assault configuration, ie with more landing and attack helicopters. Secondly, no the proposed mission and capabilities of this new carrier cannot be achieved with Navalized KF-21 in ppace of F-35. Lastly, navalized KF-21 is a budget nightmare, as completely opposed to what this guy is arguing with his nonsense.
 
Any reason given as to why the videos were removed Flyaway, that makes me want to see the first flight via video via official websites or even YouTube.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom