KAI MC-X Future Transport

helmutkohl

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
29 November 2010
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
3,375
defence-blog.com

South Korea unveils design for future military transport aircraft

South Korea’s Korea Aerospace Industries, commonly known as KAI, has released a short promo video of its proposed design for the future military transport aircraft. The released video doesn’t reveal much other than a shape that resembles pretty much every other aircraft in the class, as the...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com

Last month, Yonhap News Agency also quoted the company’s Executive Vice President Ryu Kwang-su saying that KAI has already reached a consensus with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration on the need to develop future transport and multipurpose aircraft.


“Currently, there are 30 multipurpose and 70 transport planes operated by the Army, Navy and Air Force. We are targeting to replace the imported aircraft with domestically developed ones and advance to overseas markets with our own planes in the long term,” Ryu said.

According to open-source, the Republic of Korea Air Force operates C-130s and CN-235s, mainly for airlift operations.

If developed, the transport aircraft would be used for multiple purposes, including as a reconnaissance plane and a maritime patrol aircraft, as it shares the same platform as a midsized aircraft, Ryu added.

Approximately one year earlier, KAI reported that it will be able to build its own transport aircraft in seven years with an investment of about $2.7 billion.
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3IZC2UY-kk


2021051115363293649.png
 
Not surprising to see SK moving out in the Aerospace arena. With competitive pricing there is a good possibility they will find a solid market in the mid-tier states, especially in the Pacific Rim where they can offer a product without as much political implication.
 
Will be interesting to see what kind of payload range they aim for.
 
Looks too big for the commercial 100-seat market... any sales from there are probably a pipe dream.
 
Engines bybass ratio is too big IMO. Just look at those giant nacelles
 
All transport aircraft look the same since Lockheed set a kind of standard with Hercules (for props) and C-141 (for jets) 60 years ago. Even the Soviet counterparts (An-12 and Il-76) looked like Hercules-ki and Starlifter-ovitch.
 
Screen Shot 2021-05-14 at 18.51.56.png

Quickly made, but not to scale. Judging by the door size of the KAI transport
looks closer or maybe slightly taller than the C-390. Japanese C-2 would be the largest of these 4.
whats interesting is that the root extension of the wing is really far forward compared to the other 3.

a screenshot of the above video that shows missiles for scale

Screen Shot 2021-05-14 at 18.43.43.png
 
Just dont use this early CGI image as your guideline. It's obviously not made on proportion.

Should rely on available informations like say... what kind of payload the Korean wants. If they want to say.. airlift their K2 MBT. Payload class of Il-76MF or C-17 would be desirable or about 60-78 metric tonne. From there early estimates on MTOW and what kind of engine that could fit the bill can be estimated. and then range.
 
bemil.chosun.com

Ä«ÀÌ°¡ Á¦¾ÈÇÏ´Â »õ·Î¿î ÇØ»óÃÊ°è±â CG

CG Ãâó https://www.bizhankook.com/bk/article/21915ù´«¿¡ º¸¸é Çü»óÀÌ ±âÁ¸ Ä«ÀÌ°¡ Á¦¾ÈÇß´ø ¼ö¼Û±â¿Í ¿ÏÀüÈ÷......
bemil.chosun.com

it seems in addition to a new transport, KAI is also proposing a new maritime aircraft.
according to the link above, they think it might not be the same airframe.

it also seems to carry Harpoons or some other Ashm's internally as well as externally
2021051719204296082.jpg
 
What they really want to have is a comercial airliner, something in a 80~100 seats class. Since the push for a gov. funded commercial airliner program is dead dead now, their only choice is to develop a transport aircraft, demand of which within the AF range around 30~35 airframes.

As we all know a military transport aircraft design is a nightmare in terms of fuel efficiency due to the rear ramps, they'de like to first develop a MPA that has a new fuselage but common wings and engines to the transport, kind of a stepping stone to the airliner. Then using that more airliner-looking MPA fuselage, develop an actual airliner by removing military systems.

KAI is arguing that including derivatives (likes of afforementioned MPA, SoJ, SIGINT, etc) there would be a demand for around 100 airframes within the three service branches although its more like their own pipe dream.

Allegedy, Embraer is interested in this transporter program and since their Swodfish program is half dead, SAAB is interested in the MPA program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sounds like what Japan tried to do with the P-1, but so far it hasn't materialized to the YPX airliner they envisioned
 
Last edited by a moderator:
helmutkohl said:
sounds like what Japan tried to do with the P-1, but so far it hasn't materialized to the YPX airliner they envisioned
Click to expand...
Well, the problem with YPX was that there was already MRJ program going on which was also more closely tied with METI than the YPX program and also P-1 was inherehntly 4 jet layout which meant it would have been necessary to develop quite a different wing structure, meaning that the commercial break even point would haven been harder to reach than wbat they originally envisioned.

KAI would at least not have a competing commercial airliner project in terms of receiving subsidies but that aside, I still think it's a pipe dream, just like your comparison of it to the YPX.
 
She also has a fully circular fuselage section, something weird since Korea has no known airliner projects and round is penalizing in term of structural weight for a military cargo. Usually, you want to flatten the under body that you can spread the loads induced by landing at a higher mass.
Going circular is good only when you re-use another airplane section that has already known characteristics and existing toolings.
 
Certainly this size cargo aircraft is logical in the Pacific Rim. With now at least three potential contenders (C-130[?], C-390, and now Korea's MC-X, it will be a buyers market I think. Turbofan makes sense for the speed difference that could be a factor in such a large theater.
 
Let's compare to KC-390:
KC-390MC-X
Lengthm35,240,3
Heightm11,813,5
Wingspanm35,141,1
MTOWton8792
Payloadton2630
Thrust (2x)lbs31.3k30k
Ferrykm61307000
Ferry w/ add fuelkm8500
Basically the MC-X engines of the same class as the KC-390, is some 20% bigger, 5 tons heavier - but has only 4 tons more payload and somehow flies almost 1000 km farther.
How can they do it? I doubt that it will be lighter when empty (since it's considerably larger).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"But while further details are being refined, we have incorporated several basic requirements that the RoKAF is known to have for its future MPA. These include the ability to launch anti-submarine missiles such as the Red Shark”, he said, adding the MPA variant will feature six hardpoints beneath its wings to accommodate such weapons.
Click to expand...

MADEX 2023: KAI introduces maritime patrol variant of MC-X transport aircraft

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has introduced a maritime patrol variant of its MC-X transport aircraft concept.
www.janes.com
 
TomcatViP said:
"But while further details are being refined, we have incorporated several basic requirements that the RoKAF is known to have for its future MPA. These include the ability to launch anti-submarine missiles such as the Red Shark”, he said, adding the MPA variant will feature six hardpoints beneath its wings to accommodate such weapons.
Click to expand...

MADEX 2023: KAI introduces maritime patrol variant of MC-X transport aircraft

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has introduced a maritime patrol variant of its MC-X transport aircraft concept.
www.janes.com
Click to expand...

Interesting. Adapting an VL-ASROC style missile like Red Shark is certainly a different solution to the issue of deploying torpedoes from MPA at medium or high altitude (the USN option was a gliding wing kit). Probably not exactly off the shelf, because of the issue of how you hang the missile from a pylon -- it certainly wasn't designed for that sort of bending load. Regardless of whether you attach the pylon to the booster or the torpedo payload, there's a big sideways load on the joint between them that probably was not anticipated in the original design.
 
Last edited:
^ based on those dimensions
it seems more or less comparable to the Embraer C-390.
Cargo Hold bay seems slightly shorter than the Embraer, but slightly taller, with slightly more tonnage.
yet the plane is longer than the C390 and taller.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom