KAI KF-21 Boramae (KFX Korean Indigenous Fighter program)

H_K said:
This brings to mind a question… Is there a good summary anywhere of which KF-21 equipment is being supplied or designed with the help of non-Korean companies? (Engines obviously, but also avionics etc)

Also curious about the development status of the major electronics items that were blocked by the US (AESA radar, IRST, ESM/ECM suite, EO targeting pod). Are these items being developed from scratch or leveraging foreign technologies?

Trying to get a sense of whether the KF-21’s avionics will really be up to par with the best out there from the US/Europe/Israel…
Click to expand...
There are some information scattered around in this thread but there's no definitive summary here; or anywhere else in the english speaking realm of internet. I'll create a separate thread in the avionics and military electronics section where we could discuss about it. Now I haven't got enough time, but later I'll add some necessary information in it as well (have been trying to update the ETS thread I've created as well but haven't had time).
 
Going by the Boramae twin seater it would be interesting to see what the F-22B would have looked like had it entered service with the USAF. And also how much input in the overall design process that Lockheed had.
 
snne said:
Overall that seems to be the norm with emerging manufacturers, i.e KAI, TA, HAL, etc.
Click to expand...
It's how I'd want to do it. At least have someone in on the meetings whose job is to say "figuring out how to do X took us (length of time), does the schedule have that much slack in it?" Or to smack your hand and say "you're about to do something very expensive!"
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's how I'd want to do it. At least have someone in on the meetings whose job is to say "figuring out how to do X took us (length of time), does the schedule have that much slack in it?" Or to smack your hand and say "you're about to do something very expensive!"
Click to expand...

In the 1970's the US helped France develop nuclear weapons by 'negative guidance'.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve15p2/d326

Kissinger:
May I raise one point? On the sensitive or policy aspects of any nuclear cooperation, it should go through the White House. Otherwise we lose control and it ends up in Aviation Week. In the field of strategic forces, the first approach is through...
...
Kissinger:
... President Nixon held the view, which I share, that a strong Europe and a strong France are in our interest. He told President Pompidou we didn’t exclude nuclear cooperation. He sent Galley to meet me out to San Clemente. Now this gives us two problems: Congress and our other allies. France sometimes is our most fractious ally; it could look like we were rewarding recalcitrance. Also there is a small Soviet problem, but that is manageable. Negative guidance was an important aspect of what we were doing.
Then came the October war and Jobert made a number of inflammatory statements—about condominium and so on. In November there was a series of unremitting differences. France was telling our allies, “You cooperate and you are taken for granted; we don’t and we are rewarded.” We were ready to go ahead in December but the energy imbroglio started and Jobert went on a trip through the Middle East criticizing us. That is the history. We never asked for a quid pro quo for our cooperation, but we couldn’t move under such constant criticism.
We believe that as long as France has a nuclear force it should be a good one, and it is senseless for you to have to spend billions learning what the Soviets already know. President Nixon didn’t ask for total agreement.

Giscard:
It will not change our program but it will save money and time. Some will be ready in 1981, 1985, and will make a contribution to the West. We will send our technical expert to meet with your people.
 
Last edited:

​

Indonesia affirms commitment to KFX/IFX development, South Korea waits for Indonesia to pays obligations

www.kompas.tv

Indonesia Tegaskan Komitmen Pengembangan KFX/IFX, Korea Selatan Tunggu RI Bayar Kewajiban

Sebagai bagian dari kesepakatan awal tahun 2014, Indonesia menanggung 20 persen dari total biaya pengembangan jet tempur nyaris siluman tersebut.
www.kompas.tv www.kompas.tv

(Edge automatic translation)
(...)
In a workshop organized by the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia (FPCI) in Jakarta on Friday (27/10/2023), TNI First Marshal Dedy Laksmono, Director of Defense Technology and Industry Directorate General Pothan Kemhan stated, "This is cooperation between countries and a national priority program. If it's a state program, whoever the government is, it should continue."

This statement responds to the issue of the halt in payment of Indonesia's cost-share commitment for the KFX/IFX project. As part of the initial 2014 deal, Indonesia bore 20 percent of the total cost of developing the "near-stealth" fighter jet. (...) Dedy admitted that the limitations of the State Budget are obstacles in paying Indonesia's cost-share, which reaches around Rp14 billion until 2026 for the development, engineering and manufacturing phases.

According to him, the Ministry of Defense is only able to allocate around Rp1.5 trillion per year for KFX/IFX development contributions, an amount far from enough to pay Indonesia's obligations. "For our budget in Kemhan, the obligation is very difficult. We have proposed an increase in the budget, but the Minister of Finance said we can't," Dedy said.(...)

Meanwhile, Woo Bong Lee, Chief Representative Officer of KAI Indonesia Office, stated that Korea allocated as much funds as possible to continue the KFX/IFX project. (...). He hoped that the governments of the two countries could soon find a middle way to overcome these funding barriers, so that the partnership between Korea and Indonesia could continue to be maintained. (...)

Through the KFX/IFX development cooperation, the two countries will produce 120 fighter jets for Korea and 48 fighter jets for Indonesia. In addition, Indonesia will also receive technology transfer that will encourage the domestic defense industry to produce KFX/IFX aircraft to market globally.
Click to expand...



Feasibility study of KF-21 fighter jet suggests cut in initial production volume

www.koreatimes.co.kr

Feasibility study of KF-21 fighter jet suggests cut in initial production volume

A state-run defense research agency has suggested reducing the initial production volume of KF-21 homegrown fighter jets from the original plan due to uncertainties over the project, military officials said Tuesday, raising concerns over its price competitiveness.
www.koreatimes.co.kr www.koreatimes.co.kr
 
Last edited:
That is better news for Boramae the fact that Indonesia has now confirmed that it is to honour their side of the deal, it will be interesting to see how many Boramae they eventually purchase.
 
Deltafan said:
Feasibility study of KF-21 fighter jet suggests cut in initial production volume
Click to expand...
To add context, this is the feasibility study required to get a green light for transition into production phase. Such feasibility study is mandated in Korean defence acquisition act.

What the study is saying is that they should reduce the production volume for the first batch (to be introduced between 2026~2028, block 1) from 40 to 20 and instead postpone that 20 aircraft for later batches (2029 ~2032, block 2). Obviously, both KAI and ROKAF are opposed against such directions due to unit cost concerns and delays that will be caused in replacing aging aircrafts (here, F-5).
 
Maro.Kyo said:
What the study is saying is that they should reduce the production volume for the first batch (to be introduced between 2026~2028, block 1) from 40 to 20 and instead postpone that 20 aircraft for later batches (2029 ~2032, block 2). Obviously, both KAI and ROKAF are opposed
Click to expand...

Experience with other fighters (F-35, Rafale, F-16, going all the way back to the F-4A Phantom or even WWII fighters) suggest this delay is wise as early production aircraft are often far from a finished product.

20 aircraft will be enough to start training pilots and ground crews, perform operational evaluations, and accumulate more fight hours and experience to help mature the weapon system. Those early production aircraft will likely need major updates down the line to be fully combat capable.
 
H_K said:
Experience with other fighters (F-35, Rafale, F-16, going all the way back to the F-4A Phantom or even WWII fighters) suggest this delay is wise as early production aircraft are often far from a finished product.
Those early production aircraft will likely need major updates down the line to be fully combat capable.
Click to expand...
No.

The thing is, that is not the case. Like I've mentioned a few time in this thread, there is no change to the hardware between block 1 and 2. The only difference between the two are the amount of integrated weapons and some software upgrades for strike mission configuration. Nothing else. All that a block 1 aircraft needs is a software update, and it's an exactly same aircraft to block 2.

The difference between the two versions are not something as radical as the differences between Rafale Standard F1 and F2 or Eurofighter Tranche 1 and Tranche 2.
 
@Maro.Kyo That’s the theory in PowerPoint.

In real life any brand new product is going to have physical hardware issues that require fixes + ongoing enhancements based on early user feedback. Some may not be very visible but they will be there. It’s impossible for a configuration to be fully frozen after only 6 prototypes and a few thousand flight hours. That’s why every major fighter project goes through low rate initial production. Saying only software changes are needed is a myth.
 
H_K said:
@Maro.Kyo That’s the theory in PowerPoint.

In real life any brand new product is going to have physical hardware issues that require fixes + ongoing enhancements based on early user feedback. Some may not be very visible but they will be there. It’s impossible for a configuration to be fully frozen after only 6 prototypes and a few thousand flight hours. That’s why every major fighter project goes through low rate initial production. Saying only software changes are needed is a myth.
Click to expand...
If you can't freeze a design after "a few thousand flight hours," your project managers and engineers need to be fired, Nork style.
 
Scott Kenny said:
If you can't freeze a design after "a few thousand flight hours," your project managers and engineers need to be fired, Nork style.
Click to expand...
It takes 100,000+ fight hours for a modern aircraft to reach maturity. On top of that technology is a constantly moving target and before you are even done maturing a product your users will already be asking for dozens or hundreds of small enhancements and starting to think about big electronics upgrades.

Complex products like fighters are never “finished”. Simple as that. That said, best to wait until you have some maturity and user feedback in real operational units before launching into full rate production.
 
H_K said:
It takes 100,000+ fight hours for a modern aircraft to reach maturity. On top of that technology is a constantly moving target and before you are even done maturing a product your users will already be asking for dozens or hundreds of small enhancements and starting to think about big electronics upgrades.

Complex products like fighters are never “finished”. Simple as that. That said, best to wait until you have some maturity and user feedback in real operational units before launching into full rate production.
Click to expand...
If you only have 20x fighters built in the first LRIP lot, that means you have ONE squadron, the OCU, that can provide feedback to the engineers about what is working and what isn't. Maybe 2 if you're okay with 63% strength squadrons.

If you need that 100k+ flight hours to reach maturity, then you need 40 LRIP/Block 1 aircraft to get to that 100k hrs in a reasonable amount of time. If each aircraft flies 200 hours a year, 40 aircraft will fly 8000 hours per year, so you'd need over 12 years to get to that 100khrs point, assuming that the 40 aircraft are available at the start of the process. Instead, it's going to take about 3-5 years to build that first batch of 40 planes, and then it's going to take another decade of flying before you think the design will be locked down. 15 years from first delivery to "design freeze" is bullshit.
 
H_K said:
@Maro.Kyo That’s the theory in PowerPoint.

In real life any brand new product is going to have physical hardware issues that require fixes + ongoing enhancements based on early user feedback. Some may not be very visible but they will be there. It’s impossible for a configuration to be fully frozen after only 6 prototypes and a few thousand flight hours. That’s why every major fighter project goes through low rate initial production. Saying only software changes are needed is a myth.
Click to expand...
Well, tell that to KAI engineers and project managers, not me ;)
 
H_K said:
It takes 100,000+ fight hours for a modern aircraft to reach maturity. On top of that technology is a constantly moving target and before you are even done maturing a product your users will already be asking for dozens or hundreds of small enhancements and starting to think about big electronics upgrades.

Complex products like fighters are never “finished”. Simple as that. That said, best to wait until you have some maturity and user feedback in real operational units before launching into full rate production.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what you are talking about is exactly the reason a block 3 exists. Conversely, you are getting the whole concept of this programme wrong. The primary focus is to go as conservative as possible, without any radical new technology or risk. The view is also shared between the user (ROKAF) and the supplier (KAI). Shifting targets to keep up with constantly evolving technology? Well, ROKAF doesn't give a damn before they replace their F-5s. I don't know why you are trying to reason with a choice that both KAI and ROKAF thinks is a bad idea. Think about priorities first.
 
www.kedglobal.com

S.Korea mulls plan B as Indonesia falls behind on KF-21 project payments - KED Global

Indonesia, a partner of South Korea’s KF-21 fighter jet development project, has failed again to notify the Korean government of its plan to pay its shar
www.kedglobal.com

not looking good. Indonesia missed the October deadline.

maybe good time for UAE or Sweden to jump in and take over co-development, and take it to block 3 with IWB.
or if news of the Airbus-Dassault split over FCAS is true, maybe one of them would like to join too.
 
Is non english source accepted here? Because from local Indonesian news site, the govt says they will pay. The MoD failed to get bigger budget for KF-21 from Ministry of Economy. The report said that they only get $94.5 million each year for it, and only $78.7 million ready for next year. Meanwhile there are $883.5 million need to be paid.
 
Desertfox said:
Another option would be Mexico... Block 1s would be perfect
Click to expand...
No chance, they are not interested in high-profile fighter jet programmes.

Scott Kenny said:
Could Mexico afford 20% of the development costs?
Click to expand...
In terms of purely economincal standpoint, their nominal GDP currently is bigger than Korea's (in large part due to current exchange rates, but that's what matters here) and their government budget is around 1.5 times larger than Indonedia's. They definitely can, but they definitely wouldn't.
 
Alifzero said:
Is non english source accepted here? Because from local Indonesian news site, the govt says they will pay. The MoD failed to get bigger budget for KF-21 from Ministry of Economy. The report said that they only get $94.5 million each year for it, and only $78.7 million ready for next year. Meanwhile there are $883.5 million need to be paid.
Click to expand...
So as long as you provide context in English, there's no problem citing non-english sources in this forum.
 
I've got to say after seeing photos and video of the KF-21 in flight it really makes me wish the F-35 was a few feet longer. I hope the South Koreans can find an additional partner to help cover some of the cost.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
No chance, they are not interested in high-profile fighter jet programmes.


In terms of purely economincal standpoint, their nominal GDP currently is bigger than Korea's (in large part due to current exchange rates, but that's what matters here) and their government budget is around 1.5 times larger than Indonedia's. They definitely can, but they definitely wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Their current fighters are at the end of the line and the Mexican Navy did just splurge on a frigate program and was looking at Su-27s back in 2013.

Mexico has been investing into aerospace manufacturing in the last decade with Bombardier and some other companies going into Queretaro. I could see them looking to add more aerospace manufacturing into their portfolio.

I'm not saying they are thinking of doing so, but they could definitely do it and would make sense with recent moves.
 
The oscillator array appears to have over 1000 elements, matching Aviation Week's "approximately 1,000 transmit receiver (TR) modules" :rolleyes:
 
Maro.Kyo said:
So as long as you provide context in English, there's no problem citing non-english sources in this forum.
Click to expand...
Okay.. Thanks.

Tl;dr
>Indonesian government says they will pay
>MoD only get 1.5 trillion rupiah ($94.5 million) each year for KF-21
>next year, there is 1.25 trillion rupiah ($78.7 million) ready for payment
>there are $883.5 million need to be paid
>the report said Korean side says "wait and see"

nasional.kompas.com

Pemerintah Tegaskan Komitmen Lunasi Tunggakan Jet Tempur KF-21 dengan Korsel

Tahun depan, pemerintah sudah mengalokasikan Rp 1,25 triliun dari kekurangan sekitar Rp 14 triliun yang harus dibayarkan.
nasional.kompas.com nasional.kompas.com
 
Alifzero said:
Okay.. Thanks.

Tl;dr
>Indonesian government says they will pay
>MoD only get 1.5 trillion rupiah ($94.5 million) each year for KF-21
>next year, there is 1.25 trillion rupiah ($78.7 million) ready for payment
>there are $883.5 million need to be paid
>the report said Korean side says "wait and see"

nasional.kompas.com

Pemerintah Tegaskan Komitmen Lunasi Tunggakan Jet Tempur KF-21 dengan Korsel

Tahun depan, pemerintah sudah mengalokasikan Rp 1,25 triliun dari kekurangan sekitar Rp 14 triliun yang harus dibayarkan.
nasional.kompas.com nasional.kompas.com
Click to expand...
I don't get their rationality. If they pay they're going to get their hands on Boramae relatively quickly, i.e. as quick as how long the procurement of a jet from a 3rd party would take. But on the other hand they'll get numerous benefits that they won't be able to get with buying Rafales or F-15s or any 2nd hand aircraft.

If they continue with Boramae they'll get a 4.5th gen aircraft with substancial RCS advantage over its competitors and at the very least a radar that has a similar performance prolly at the bare minimum. It is also more future proof with different blocks AND they'll get local production benefits (had they paid they'd have gotten their industrial participation)

It is a shame really. Throwing a really good deal for a country like theirs into the trash bin just for the sake of short term benefits...
 
its worth pointing out that the Indonesian report above, was published in late October.
the non payment news, was published in early November (just a few days ago).

so its possible the ID govt said they will pay but did not do so by the end of October.
 
What i got reading between the line is i feel that Indonesian govt can only start paying in 2024. But idk, not much can be extracted because the politician when asked, always answer in unclear manner.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom