lets hope the pilot doesn't take his test plane to Mach 10 ;)

in any case, which prototype is this? I can't tell from the fin as the resolution is low
001
First prototype?

I think they used the same third prototype (003) for the supersonic test.


But the video clearly showed 001
Yeah I mean, I thought KAI will used the same number 003 prototype for the supersonic test last night.


Sorry, for my bad grammar...
 
BBS_202301170629511590.jpg

HUD indicating Mach 1.05

- HUD Type/Model: BAE Systems LiteHUD
- HUD Mode: Navigation
- Mach Speed: Mach 1.05
- Airspeed: 332 knots
- Flying altitude: 39,600 feet
- Airplane heading: 256 degrees
- Active navigation: using GPS 1
 
Exactly, when the Boramae finally gets the internal weapons bay fitted some time in the future it will be less draggy and we will see it's full potential.
Recently the Block 3 plans are beginning to take shape and one of the suggestions is to not include the IWB. Instead there are talks about adding additional avionics into the free space, one of which being high-capacity, low latency directional communication device and waveform for various purposes including CDL-like UAV control (MUM-T). Seems like they might not go the "stealth Boramae" route and instead entirely focus on MUM-T and NCW capabilities. Makes some sense since there are 2 stealth UCAVs in development, both with MUM-T with Boramae in mind. It's definitely a easier job to make a separate (unmanned) aircraft stealthy and let them do the job instead of making Boramae itself 5th gen as well.

Though this still ain't a foregone conclusion since there are other people in the ROKAF who are supporting a stealth block 3, as was the original plan.
 
Though this still ain't a foregone conclusion since there are other people in the ROKAF who are supporting a stealth block 3, as was the original plan.

Let's see what happens especially considering the export market, there would be a lot of countries that would like to buy the stealthy Boramae that would not purchase the initial variant.
 
Let's see what happens especially considering the export market, there would be a lot of countries that would like to buy the stealthy Boramae that would not purchase the initial variant.
Parallel to this new Block 3 plans the ROKAF is considering a separate 5.5th ~ 6th gen fighter aircraft based on the enlarged KF-X design called the KF-XX powered by a Korean engine. Although based on KF-21, the design is expected to be almost clean sheet, akin to the legacy Hornet - Super Hornet development and design relationship. Block 3 is being considered as a technological bridging between the 4.5th gen KF-21 Block 2 and a next gen KF-XX, similar to Rafale Standard F5 or Eurofighter beyond T4.

Unfortunately the first hand sources are from ROKAF seminar which was not public, but there's a video where the ROKAF Deputy Chief of Staff was interviewed regarding this exact matter. I'll post the key points with bits of translation soon.
 
Let's see what happens especially considering the export market, there would be a lot of countries that would like to buy the stealthy Boramae that would not purchase the initial variant.
Parallel to this new Block 3 plans the ROKAF is considering a separate 5.5th ~ 6th gen fighter aircraft based on the enlarged KF-X design called the KF-XX powered by a Korean engine. Although based on KF-21, the design is expected to be almost clean sheet, akin to the legacy Hornet - Super Hornet development and design relationship. Block 3 is being considered as a technological bridging between the 4.5th gen KF-21 Block 2 and a next gen KF-XX, similar to Rafale Standard F5 or Eurofighter beyond T4.

Unfortunately the first hand sources are from ROKAF seminar which was not public, but there's a video where the ROKAF Deputy Chief of Staff was interviewed regarding this exact matter. I'll post the key points with bits of translation soon.

That is news to me Maro.Kyo, I for one cannot wait.
 
Strange that SK is taking all these steps whereas Turkey is jumping right to their TF-X.
 
Let's see what happens especially considering the export market, there would be a lot of countries that would like to buy the stealthy Boramae that would not purchase the initial variant.
Parallel to this new Block 3 plans the ROKAF is considering a separate 5.5th ~ 6th gen fighter aircraft based on the enlarged KF-X design called the KF-XX powered by a Korean engine. Although based on KF-21, the design is expected to be almost clean sheet, akin to the legacy Hornet - Super Hornet development and design relationship. Block 3 is being considered as a technological bridging between the 4.5th gen KF-21 Block 2 and a next gen KF-XX, similar to Rafale Standard F5 or Eurofighter beyond T4.

Unfortunately the first hand sources are from ROKAF seminar which was not public, but there's a video where the ROKAF Deputy Chief of Staff was interviewed regarding this exact matter. I'll post the key points with bits of translation soon.

Thanks.
Is there any relevant information in which thrust class the new Korean engine will be?
 
Strange that SK is taking all these steps whereas Turkey is jumping right to their TF-X.
The Korean approach is the safer, faster approach of getting your next gen fighter operational, which was exactly the case since the KF-21 is plan to replace the F-5s of ROKAF, very old, limited in capabilities and assignements, and most critically, regularly crashes due to its age.

The Turkish approach on the other hand gives you major benefits in terms of commonality and sustainment cost across a larger fleet size. That is of course once that bird is successfully developed. Time will tell if their approach is a sound one.

Thanks.
Is there any relevant information in which thrust class the new Korean engine will be?
The KF-XX, or at least how it is unofficially called amongst ROKAF officers now, is not even in conceptual studies as of now. Other than that it will be larger than KF-21, nothing is concrete. Although the suggestsed thrust class is that of F414-EPE or EJ230, which makes ton of sense.
 
Strange that SK is taking all these steps whereas Turkey is jumping right to their TF-X.
keep in mind the political situation as well
Turkey's government has more control and influence over things, so they have greater ability to push through a project
SK has two very divided parties, which while more democratic, also has higher risk of changes to development
 
The Gripen crashed twice (1989 & 1993) and one early F-22 went down too. Because of FBW trouble, not sure it was PIO ?
 
Let's see what happens especially considering the export market, there would be a lot of countries that would like to buy the stealthy Boramae that would not purchase the initial variant.
Parallel to this new Block 3 plans the ROKAF is considering a separate 5.5th ~ 6th gen fighter aircraft based on the enlarged KF-X design called the KF-XX powered by a Korean engine. Although based on KF-21, the design is expected to be almost clean sheet, akin to the legacy Hornet - Super Hornet development and design relationship. Block 3 is being considered as a technological bridging between the 4.5th gen KF-21 Block 2 and a next gen KF-XX, similar to Rafale Standard F5 or Eurofighter beyond T4.

Unfortunately the first hand sources are from ROKAF seminar which was not public, but there's a video where the ROKAF Deputy Chief of Staff was interviewed regarding this exact matter. I'll post the key points with bits of translation soon.
So in the end not just Turkey but mostly everyone wants a new heavy air supeority fighter akin to the F-22 or (concept-wise) a new stealthy F-15. I like the design and concept of KF-X so it'll be interesting to see how this new machine turns out.
 
Strange that SK is taking all these steps whereas Turkey is jumping right to their TF-X.
keep in mind the political situation as well
Turkey's government has more control and influence over things, so they have greater ability to push through a project
SK has two very divided parties, which while more democratic, also has higher risk of changes to development
It wasn't the government who pushed for a heavy fighter, it was the Air Force. Both the government and the Air Force wanted a more "nationalized" development but as it can be seen from the evolution of the TF-X design; the government pushed for a safer approach with an F-16 or an F-18 class aircraft whereas the Airforce insisted on a heavy air superiority fighter due to their ever increasing roles in the region.
 
So in the end not just Turkey but mostly everyone wants a new heavy air supeority fighter akin to the F-22 or (concept-wise) a new stealthy F-15. I like the design and concept of KF-X so it'll be interesting to see how this new machine turns out.

Same here snne, I for one cannot wait to see the new KF-X. Let's see what happens between Boramae and the new fighter I would think that it will be highly interesting to find out what SK does between now and when the KF-X is revealed.
 
Strange that SK is taking all these steps whereas Turkey is jumping right to their TF-X.
The Korean approach is the safer, faster approach of getting your next gen fighter operational, which was exactly the case since the KF-21 is plan to replace the F-5s of ROKAF, very old, limited in capabilities and assignements, and most critically, regularly crashes due to its age.

The Turkish approach on the other hand gives you major benefits in terms of commonality and sustainment cost across a larger fleet size. That is of course once that bird is successfully developed. Time will tell if their approach is a sound one.

Thanks.
Is there any relevant information in which thrust class the new Korean engine will be?
The KF-XX, or at least how it is unofficially called amongst ROKAF officers now, is not even in conceptual studies as of now. Other than that it will be larger than KF-21, nothing is concrete. Although the suggestsed thrust class is that of F414-EPE or EJ230, which makes ton of sense.
you mentioned in the Typhoon thread (but felt i should respond here instead)
that in the Korean forums, there were very heated debates on the KFX.
Generally speaking, what were the debates about?

For example, IIRC, in the early days of the J-20.. there were a lot of debates on its length and bays. especially whether it was 19M to 21-22M. people were very heated about that. for the T-50/Su-57, there were heated debates on its intake and ducts.
 
you mentioned in the Typhoon thread (but felt i should respond here instead)
that in the Korean forums, there were very heated debates on the KFX.
Generally speaking, what were the debates about?

For example, IIRC, in the early days of the J-20.. there were a lot of debates on its length and bays. especially whether it was 19M to 21-22M. people were very heated about that. for the T-50/Su-57, there were heated debates on its intake and ducts.
Discussions about KF-X was quite different to what the western forums (key pub, here, etc, you know) discussed concerning J-20 or Su-57 for example. For those fighter jets it was mainly the foreigners talking about what is what based on limited information available and it mainly revolved around technicalities of those jets.

In the case of Korean forums discussing KF-X, it was more about the program itself rather than the aircraft, well its obvious since the "aircraft" was non-existent back then. Also, people discussed different things in different periods. It should be noted that there were 7 different feasibility studies between the program's inception and actual initiation of development phase. During those years the proposed KF-X has changed quite a few times.

During the first (2003, KIDA) and second feasibility study (KDI), the jet was supposed to be a supermaneuverable, supercruising, fully stealth 5th gen fighter jet with thrust vectoring engines. ADD laid out there development plan which would, according to them would cost fraction of other 4.5th and 5th gen fighter jet developments costed in the west but KIDA and KDI's reports right out rejected such estimates and expected the KF-X to cost magnitudes more than ADD's extremely optimistic figures. On top of that, KF-X during this period was supposed to be fitted with mostly foreign avionics, akin to Gripen, since Korea have only just started the research on most of the underlying technologies required for a fighter jet. This meant that industrial benefits of the program was deemed to be lacking. A lot of enthusiasts questioned if KF-X is a sound program in the first place and there were two camps of people: one that was supporting ADD's claims ("They are the technicians on first line. What would those white collar bureaucrats of KIDA and KDI know? They're clueless") and others were supporters of feasibility studies ("Based on previous fighter jet development programs of the west, ADD's proposal is a pipe dream."). One thing that should be noted is that there was an extreme, borderline rabid nationalism within Korean population during this period. Most if not all of the supporters of ADD were nationalists who argued that "Korea could pull it off". A lot of them were very underinformed and we should remember that this was still the primal period of internet; information was scarce and most of them relied on first hand sources from different Air Force seminars and a few other enthusiasts who were seemingly better informed.

Then in 2009 a third feasibility study was commissioned to Konkuk University and their report favored the KF-X program and research of underlying technologies over a procurement of foreign fighter jet, with a few caveats. They "rationalised" and proposed a beefed down KF-X with less capabilities, by quite a margin. Less stealth, less speed, less maneuverability, etc. Their report also included an extremely optimistic export outlook, just like many other Korean defense programs during this period. Enthusiasts were continuing to fight over if KF-X is a feasible and the supporters now got another argument apart from ADD's claims. The opposition pointed out the differences between the Konkuk study and the preceding two feasibility studies. Add to that, now there was a newly found discussion concerning if KF-X should be developed the way Konkuk university proposed or the original ADD proposal. Majority of the nationalist camp favored the original ADD model since the Konkuk model was way less capable.

Anyways, the Konkuk study had a larger significance to the program, since any large Korean military program needs a feasibility approval and with Konkuk's report favoring a national fighter program, it meant that the KF-X program had the legal grounds to proceed upon. Since KIDA and KDI and Konkuk deduced different program assessments, there were 4 public hearings about the feasibility of the program by Aerospace Industrial Development Commission and it was deemed that the program is indeed feasible. In 2009 the Letter of Intent was signed between Korea and Indonesia for a joint development and in 2010 the preliminary studies for the fighter started. Talking about the joint development between Korea and Indonesia, this was due to the first feasibility study report by KIDA mentioned above, since that report mentions Korea to be "unsuitable of funding a fighter jet development program on its own" and "needs a development partner". I've talked about this in detail in post 1084 a few pages ago.
Back to the program and enthusiast reception, during this period the preliminary designs and its iterations were outlined. It started with C100/200 and developed into C103/203. 100 series was a conventional wing-tail config and 200 had a canard. Important to note during this period is that, while they were iterating the 102/202 designs, they came up with several different variants of it, one of which being a single engine designs of 102 and 202 called the C102E and C202E. This sparked yet another topic of debate on "should the KF-X be single engined or twin engined?". This particular discussion had a lasting and significant effect on discussions on both the enthusiasts' and decision makers' level.

Although these discussion were pretty popular amongst Korean military enthusiasts, there were a few other very interesting and hotly debated topics around this period so all was fine. Then there was the 3rd F-X and additional feasibility studies to follow for the KF-X program during the early 2010s which has literally nuked the entire military community, including the enthusiasts and was even highly politicized. I'll get to this period on a separate post.
 
Continuing from my last post, in 2011 the 3rd F-X program was officially initiated by Defense Acquisition Program Agency and RFI were sent to the manufacturers of the candidates of the program. Although I wouldn't go into detail concerning F-X, since there's a separate thread here in the forum, it is very important to note that the 3rd F-X program was highly interconnected to the KF-X program around this period. I'll give more details about such interconnections down below.

In the meantime, the preliminary studies regarding the KF-X program was concluded in December 2012. It now only needed a go sign from the administration to enter the development phase, although things didn't went all that smoothly. Following constant oppositions against the program, the government commissioned yet another feasibility study to KIDA, this time named "reassessment" concerning KF-X development phase in 2012. The reassessment was going to be concluded before the preliminary study was over so that it could line-up with the transition into development phase; but - to no one's surprise - KIDA once more concluded the KF-X program to be "not feasible". Development of the KF-X was once more postponed indefinitely. Obviously ADD strongly objected such conclusion and DAPA commissioned a follow-on study, this time to KISTEP. Unlike KIDA, KISTEP deemed KF-X feasible. One of the results of the KIDA study was that the alternative development strategy for the KF-X program was considered. The presentation in the Eurofighter thread (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/eurofighter-typhoon.11962/post-578785) describes such alternative plans very clearly; on top of the clean-sheet KF-X based on C103/203, a FA-50 based design and a derivative fighter based on foreign model were considered. FA-50 based design for one was very similar to C102E, although way less capable. A derivative fighter varied in its development scale and capabilities depending on the proposed bidder. As I've wrote in the Eurofighter thread, EADS' bid was the most extensively modified design, followed by Boeing then LM with their modest modification based on Falcon.

As you could imagine, the KIDA reassessment and alternative development strategies were very hotly debated, both by the decision makers and enthusiasts. Most people supported either the C103 (supported by ROKAF, ADD) or a derivative fighter jet (supported by KIDA, some politicians) since the FA-50 based design (supported by KAI) was way less capable than the two. By this point, the 3rd F-X program and KF-X were getting strongly connected to each other, as I've mentioned in the beginning. Although DAPA deleted/loosened the original ROC which strongly favored 5th gen bids (F-35 and PAK-FA) in early 2013 in order to level the playing field amongst candidates and therefore achieve stronger leverage for more favorable deal, it was still very much clear that the ROKAF favored a 5th gen model (F-35). With that in mind, EADS' bid for KF-X could very well been interpreted as a desperation move to win the deal. More to it later. By this point civil discussions were becoming less of an occasion at some forums. One should know that most of the Korean forums during this period was very loosely moderated so once the shots were fired, there was no turning back.

Anyways, the discussions regarding a derivative fighter based on foreign models ended by August of 2013. It was now decided that the KF-X will be wholly Korean model, either entirely clean sheet or based on FA-50. As I've noted above, the majority of military enthusiasts, along with ROKAF and ADD strongly opposed the FA-50 based design. The biggest problem was the reliance on the technologies derived from the KTX-II program (which led to T-50). As most of you would know, Korea severely lacked any aerospace expertise and technology during the KTX-II program and relied heavily on LM for the development of T-50. As a result, majority of the technologies used/derived in and from the KTX-II program were under control of LM and US. Should the KF-X get developed based on FA-50, it was clear that US will have a major control over this jet. But others argued that they should go with the safer FA-50 based design considering Korea's technological capabilities, save budget and reallocate it to expand the F-X program. Also to consider was serious reliability issues with the aging F-4 and F-5 fleets. Although F-4s were better off since the F-X fighter was going to replace it by mid 2020s, F-5s which were to be replaced by KF-X was dropping out of sky every now and then. By 2013, 4 birds crashed since 2008 and it was expected that such reliability issues and crashes would only worsen. In that sense, the FA-50 based design was not only cheaper but also required less development time and was suitable in replacing F-5s as fast as it could.

In the meantime F-X program was going nowhere. All three bidders (Sukhoi dropped out early on) were not able to bid below budget for a few months already, though by August rumors were flowing out that Boeing and EADS somehow got their bids within the F-X budget limit. Also, By this point it was decided that the winner of the F-X program was going to be the TAC of the KF-X program, providing technical assistance as the offset for program selection and the contract clause was structured accordingly. Boeing and EADS were competitively offering more and more offset clauses due to the inherent disadvantage of their bids compared to LM, of which EADS' (and Eurojet's) offset offers were especially (and unbelievably) lucrative. For this reason there were a lot of enthusiasts who've supported EADS' deal, though there were just as much if not even more doubters of such deal sweeteners, especially those who remembered how the Europeans handled any international programs with Korea. On top of that, Eurofighter's reputation as the most expensive fighter jet to maintain hasn't helped with their chances.

The final blow to EADS was their disqualification following their arbitrary, unilateral change to the contract clauses of their bid. F-15SE was now virtually the sole candidate and was the preferred bidder, close to winning the deal. DAPA had to choose between F-15SE or program reset. The possibility of F-15SE winning F-X was heavily criticized by the ruling party and was very much opposed by the Air Force. DAPA ultimately reset the bid and EADS got their arse saved though it was clear that their reputation was very much damaged. EADS doubled down on their desperation move and Boeing changed their bid to Advanced Eagle ditching Silent Eagle proposal but to no avail, LM won the competition by late 2013, just as expected.

Though, once the F-35 was selected, there now was a congressional EL problem concerning transfer of technologies from LM to Korea during the technical assistance. It became clear that Korea would not be getting what they've wanted. Also, the FA-50 based design took further shape and was named the C501 or KFX-E. Debates continued on and reached its height on- and offline, though especially in the internet forums concerning whether the C103 based development was feasible and should they go with the C501 instead. US Congress declining the EL for the ToT only fueled such debates even further. Variety of topics were discussed, ranging from costs, development schedule, risks, capabilities, technicalities of single- and twin-engined designs, etc. One of the most controversial topic was the "potential for future growth" in either designs. The iterative design approach, ranging from a 4.5th gen block 1 to LO block 2 followed by fully VLO, 5th gen block 3, as proposed by ADD was also born around this period. Once more, people were fighting over the question of "if such iterative design approach was possible or not" and "if possible with C103 as ADD claims, is it possible with smaller C501?". Obviously such discussions went nowhere since there were no fighter jet like KF-X before KF-X; a 4.5th gen fighter aircraft designed with LO, planform aligned airframe that could "potentially" be improved into fully stealth, possibly 5th gen fighter. No one was able to give clear-cut and reliable answer to all these bunch of internet nobodies. Debates were getting very rough and were becoming something that one would no longer call a debate but a total shitshow full of name-calling. Long time forum members of SPF or former users of Key.pub wouldn't be all that unfamiliar with such development if you remember how things were in the F-35 or Rafale/Eurofighter related threads around a decade ago. Some websites, such as Bemil or Aerial Combat Gallery, which were the biggest Korean military/aviation enthusiast forums at the time literally went downhill, losing well informed and mannered members due to uncivilized, borderline uneducated/troll attitudes of other forum members. Consequently, new military enthusiast forums were also born around this period with much stricter moderation.

In the end, as we all know the twin-engined C103 was ultimately chosen as the basic concept of the KF-X, mainly thanks to the ROKAF support for a bigger design and the development phase started in 2015. Again, the Eurojet lost to GE in the engine bid despite offering wider range of offsets and industrial participation for Korea. There were some debates concerning the engine bids but it wasn't even close to the slugfest of 2012~14 period before the selection of C103. Those who questioned KF-X continued to stay very much in doubt for a few years afterwards, still questioning Korean industrial and technological capabilities but things have gone very smoothly at least until now. Looking back, KF-X related discussions and debates, especially during the 3rd F-X was never matched in terms of community engagement and participation ever since. I think the biggest reasons are the maturation of Korean military procurement structure/system and industrial/technological capabilities, coupled with the development of the internet environment and the depth of information available to the users.

It was fun summarizing some defence procurement and internet history.
 
Last edited:
awesome. been waiting for the full reveal of the two-seater version for the longest time
what's interesting to note is the canopy frame. one bar? is on the inside of the glass, and the other is on the outside.

tbh, I do like the look of the single seater more.
 
awesome. been waiting for the full reveal of the two-seater version for the longest time
what's interesting to note is the canopy frame. one bar? is on the inside of the glass, and the other is on the outside.

tbh, I do like the look of the single seater more.
IMO the only 4th/5th gen 2-seater that doesn't look stupid is the Tomcat. The rest were designed as single-seaters and then had a giant bubble attached when they wanted a second crew member.
 
awesome. been waiting for the full reveal of the two-seater version for the longest time
what's interesting to note is the canopy frame. one bar? is on the inside of the glass, and the other is on the outside.

tbh, I do like the look of the single seater more.
IMO the only 4th/5th gen 2-seater that doesn't look stupid is the Tomcat. The rest were designed as single-seaters and then had a giant bubble attached when they wanted a second crew member.
indeed the F-14 is a beautiful aircraft, although as for 4th gen single seater conversions to twin seat...
I like the twin-seat F-16 with the enlarged spine, as it seems to look more balanced than the single seater with the spine and CFTs.
the J-10 looks better as a twin seater too.. I felt the single seat looked a bit too long and the twin more balanced.

back to the Boramae
Bemil has this comparison of the two.. not sure if the scale is correct

2023022013421489042.jpg
 
IMO the only 4th/5th gen 2-seater that doesn't look stupid is the Tomcat. The rest were designed as single-seaters and then had a giant bubble attached when they wanted a second crew member.

The F-15 two-seaters are barely distinguishable from the singles. The canopy is just a bit taller as the rear but not that much.
 
IMO the only 4th/5th gen 2-seater that doesn't look stupid is the Tomcat. The rest were designed as single-seaters and then had a giant bubble attached when they wanted a second crew member.

The F-15 two-seaters are barely distinguishable from the singles. The canopy is just a bit taller as the rear but not that much.
You need your eyes checked. ;)

061101-F-6911G-029.jpg
 
Last edited:
Anyone that can identify the range of power used on takeoff by the sound of it (notice how there is no howlings until the T-50 shows-up)?
 
Last edited:
Something I just noticed, on the KF-21, all of the safety placards/decals are in English. Is that a requirement of the South Korean air force, or is it just they have many of those due to all of the U.S. equipment they own?
 
Something I just noticed, on the KF-21, all of the safety placards/decals are in English. Is that a requirement of the South Korean air force, or is it just they have many of those due to all of the U.S. equipment they own?
its just how a lot of KAIs stuff are
even Russian aircraft, when exported, have a lot of notices/decals in English
such as
ares_malaysia_su30_closeup_maxim.jpg



back to the Boramae,,
something I always wanted to ask

why are AESA radars usually facing at an angle?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom