KAI T-50 and FA-50 Golden Eagle Thread

[stealthflanker]

How are you able to come up with such a specific figure when there are so little details known to public regarding those radars? Both uses GaN, both are limited by cooling capacity of what is already there in FA-50's nose, we know that Phantom Strike on FA-50 weighs 45kg wheras ESR-500A has 500 TRM and that's just about it. "44%" sounds like something you've got from a RNG.

The kind of cooling kinda give some hints. Air cooling for fighter radar typically have 2-3 KW of cooling capacity. That directly constrain the average power of the TRM's.

The picture of the antenna and T-50's nose radome dimension is also known as well as the dimension of the AN/APG-67 radar that also planned to be used by T-50's, This allows estimate of number of TRM's. This can be improved with estimates of frequency.

The number of the TRM's for the phantom strike can be estimated with following equations, this assumes half wavelength spacings with some fudge factor to take account of how big the antenna aperture one can be filled with TRM's.

(4*Antenna Area*Fudge Factor)/Operational wavelength^2

That is how i came up with estimates of 811 TRM's for Phantom strike assuming the GaN allows smaller modules to be made and occupy 95% of antenna aperture, with the 5% are structures or additional channels for countermeasure. Of course it could be smaller say 85% or even less.

While for ESR-500 you can immediately work on the constrain of average power using equations that can be found in K.Barton's "Radar Systems Analysis and Modeling"



As for the 44% figure well, it's not RNG number. Since performance of AESA radar directly related to number of TRM's and in fact it relates to cube of TRM's you can plug that value into radar reference equation like this :


Rfactor = ((ScaledRadarTRM/ReferenceRadarTRM)^3)^(1/4)

The 1/4 factor comes directly from the 4th root law of Radar equation. Since we have Phantom strike radar estimates of TRM worked out (811) We can begin comparing using the ESR-500 as reference/baseline Thus :

Rfactor=((811/500)^3)^(1/4)

Rfactor=1.44

That's how the 44% Advantage come from. Basically my assumed Phantom strike radar would have 44% range advantage. It also shows assumption that the TRM rating would be the same due to same cooling. The peak power could be different but it is average power that determines range performance.

The more convenient thing about using the radar equation that way is you can add more variables e.g SNR, Dwell time, Loss factors, Noise figure or system temperature to take account for more differences and to do a "what if scenario" e.g "what happen if i double the dwell time".

 

[Maro.Kyo]

The number of the TRM's for the phantom strike can be estimated with following equations, this assumes half wavelength spacings with some fudge factor to take account of how big the antenna aperture one can be filled with TRM's.

So basically your estimates are centered around your assumptions that the Phantom Strike would have around 300 TRM difference, which greatly depends on this fudge factor you've introduced although there are no datas to suggest that the Phantom Strike would have a greater fudge factor than the ESR-500A. So I'm not so sure on how you derived this fudge factor seemingly out of the blue and ultimately conclude that there would be a 44% range difference, when, I'm saying it again, there just aren't enough data regarding the two radar systems because they are just so new to the market.

 

[AnonSB]

ESR-500 has ~516 TR channels, and each channel's power is 15W

Whereas PhantomStrike is known to have 600~700 channels and each channel's power is 8W

Assuming that the PhantomStrike is better in other aspects that affects radar performance (SNR etc), I'd say the overall performance would be around the same

 

[stealthflanker]

So basically your estimates are centered around your assumptions that the Phantom Strike would have around 300 TRM difference, which greatly depends on this fudge factor you've introduced although there are no datas to suggest that the Phantom Strike would have a greater fudge factor than the ESR-500A

Well you can make GaN TRM smaller and therefore occupy more. US has been known to invest great deal of funding toward making good and preferrably small and cheap HPA (High Power Amplifier) Also use of Tile architecture which maximizes aperture usage. The typical logical step is to assume the best first. Then refine as necessary, i think this is quite common methods already.

So I'm not so sure on how you derived this fudge factor seemingly out of the blue and ultimately conclude that there would be a 44% range difference

Because TRM has structure and this eat space. If you run my calculations on estimates of TRM based on antenna area without fudge factor you will assume that 100% of the aperture is occupied by TRM and their radiators which is not true. The fudge factor itself is derived from the equation and the observed typical AESA's. For example let's take Zhuk-AE with 652 TRM's and operate somewhere in 9500 MHz.

The antenna diameter for Zhuk-AE is 57 cm thus the antenna area 0.25 sqm. If you run the equations you will get 1023 TRM's. The differences between observed and theoretical calculation requires the fudge factor assumption to be estimated.

when, I'm saying it again, there just aren't enough data regarding the two radar systems because they are just so new to the market.

Then what enough data is enough ?

I see mentions of types of cooling and antenna dimensions is enough, then rest can be filled with what's available in typical radar textbook. If more data is available then the estimate can be refined. If you disagree feel free to provide your own estimate.

At this point you are basically demanding to stop discussion based on logic of not enough data which easily extrapolate to demanding the impossible like some people demanding "Accurate RCS simulation" Where the baseline to define what is accurate does not exist.

ESR-500 has ~516 TR channels, and each channel's power is 15W

Whereas PhantomStrike is known to have 600~700 channels and each channel's power is 8W

Now this is something that one can work on. If we take 700 TRM for Phantom Strike then use the ESR-500 as baseline it would look the following.

Rfactor=((700/516)^(3)*(8/15))^(1/4)
Rfactor=1.07

Based on that, with assumption of 8 Watt for Phantom strike and 700 TRM It would have 7% advantage over ESR-500. While if 600 TRM is used, it would be ESR-500 having about 5% advantage thanks to higher TRM output.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

The typical logical step is to assume the best first. Then refine as necessary, i think this is quite common methods already.

The fudge factor itself is derived from the equation and the observed typical AESA's. For example let's take Zhuk-AE with 652 TRM's and operate somewhere in 9500 MHz.

The antenna diameter for Zhuk-AE is 57 cm thus the antenna area 0.25 sqm. If you run the equations you will get 1023 TRM's. The differences between observed and theoretical calculation requires the fudge factor assumption to be estimated.

Then what enough data is enough ?
I see mentions of types of cooling and antenna dimensions is enough, then rest can be filled with what's available in typical radar textbook. If more data is available then the estimate can be refined. If you disagree feel free to provide your own estimate.

At this point you are basically demanding to stop discussion based on logic of not enough data which easily extrapolate to demanding the impossible like some people demanding "Accurate RCS simulation" Where the baseline to define what is accurate does not exist.

Now this is something that one can work on. If we take 700 TRM for Phantom Strike then use the ESR-500 as baseline it would look the following.

Rfactor=((700/516)^(3)*(8/15))^(1/4)
Rfactor=1.07

Based on that, with assumption of 8 Watt for Phantom strike and 700 TRM It would have 7% advantage over ESR-500. While if 600 TRM is used, it would be ESR-500 having about 5% advantage thanks to higher TRM output.

All you are saying is that :

a) you are making educated guesses based on past AESA developments to derive possible fudge factors
b) that guess you make is based on what you think is a best-case scenario

So that "44%" figure you gave is in fact not the comparison between ESR-500A and Phantom Strike, but between what you think would be the performance of ESR-500A and an arbitrary AESA radar with best possible performance given the physical limitations. If you ask me "what data is enough", I'd always tell you that no data is enough when it comes to modern avionics since they are classified. As you have newly calculated, your figures were greatly off, assuming that the figures given by AnonSB are true. Then again, I also don't really trust those figures either, without some concrete sources. Regardless of those numbers provided by AnonSB, I stand by what I've said, that we need to know more to make out anything meaningful.

You are telling me to provide my own estimates, but I am arguing something before that; I'm not saying that your way of deriving those numbers are wrong in itself since formulas are formulas, but the problem lies on the variables. You could make educated guesses and all, but if that educated guess are possibly so greatly off the reality and practical application, since like I've said we are given so little information, it surely is better than RNG, but only just.

So we come back to my first question : How are you able to come up with such a specific figure when there are so little details known to public regarding those radars? Turns out its an estimate based number derived from another set of estimates. I'd suggest that it would be better to at least explain more concretely on why you have assumed certain performance factors you have employed in you calculations. This time, all you've said is :

Well you can make GaN TRM smaller and therefore occupy more. US has been known to invest great deal of funding toward making good and preferrably small and cheap HPA (High Power Amplifier) Also use of Tile architecture which maximizes aperture usage.

That will be a reason to roughly assume a better performance on the Phantom Strike, which I also think is fair enough, but not such a dramatic difference of 44% in range. That's a generational difference. If you are to assume something so bold, expect people to doubt you and question you how you've got those numbers.

 

[stealthflanker]

That will be a reason to roughly assume a better performance on the Phantom Strike, which I also think is fair enough, but not such a dramatic difference of 44% in range. That's a generational difference. If you are to assume something so bold, expect people to doubt you and question you how you've got those numbers.

and i answered. and it's by no means bold or anything. It give early estimates of what could be achievable. and it's not indicating generational difference. If you are studying or do Radar Range Equation, you may notice there are many ways to achieve detection range as well as their compromise. Or you can trade off detection range for say, stronger signal strength.

All you are saying is that :

a) you are making educated guesses based on past AESA developments to derive possible fudge factors
b) that guess you make is based on what you think is a best-case scenario

So that "44%" figure you gave is in fact not the comparison between ESR-500A and Phantom Strike, but between what you think would be the performance of ESR-500A and an arbitrary AESA radar with best possible performance given the physical limitations. If you ask me "what data is enough", I'd always tell you that no data is enough when it comes to modern avionics since they are classified.

So you're basically saying better not to discuss because they are classified ? I'm sorry but i disagree. These radars and avionics are made by engineers and engineers study physics. Thus discussing them naturally will involve physics and some maths. There are plethora of books discussing that and naturally they will provide some baseline values one can work with.

You just cant expect some fancy accuracy from the get go. Everything have to be guesstimated first and then refined as new information become available.

You are telling me to provide my own estimates, but I am arguing something before that; I'm not saying that your way of deriving those numbers are wrong in itself since formulas are formulas, but the problem lies on the variables. You could make educated guesses and all, but if that educated guess are possibly so greatly off the reality and practical application, since like I've said we are given so little information, it surely is better than RNG, but only just.

Then what variables you are suggesting ? Mathematical equations requires input and this input is in the form of numbers.

As you have newly calculated, your figures were greatly off, assuming that the figures given by AnonSB are true.

Well estimates are meant to be refined. They are not set in stones. AnonSB did the right thing by providing something that one can actually worked on. That's the input i need.

Then again, I also don't really trust those figures either, without some concrete sources. Regardless of those numbers provided by AnonSB, I stand by what I've said, that we need to know more to make out anything meaningful.

Well define "meaningful" ? In my view the knowledge that the Radar is air cooled is enough to start the estimates one then just need to do measure or estimate the size of the antenna to get estimate on possible number of TRM's Then from there range estimate or even rough comparison could be made.

The resulting estimate can then be improved when new information become available. But then given that you dont even have the baseline on what is actually acceptable, you will end up demanding the impossible. Even when a "concrete" source such as research paper become available. You will nitpick what is not available in that source and continue demanding . That is not good behavior nor productive.

So we come back to my first question : How are you able to come up with such a specific figure when there are so little details known to public regarding those radars? Turns out its an estimate based number derived from another set of estimates. I'd suggest that it would be better to at least explain more concretely on why you have assumed certain performance factors you have employed in you calculations. This time, all you've said is :

And what you wanted me to say ? Like i said previously that the Air cooling gives away the cooling capacity for the radar, from which you can derive the limit of average power, and from antenna dimension which can be estimated by looking at similar radar (APG-67) destined for the aircraft, you can glean the idea of possible amount of TRM that can be fitted.

From there range estimate could be made, and then refined as necessary.

I think it's pretty straightforward and not anywhere near controversial.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Then what variables you are suggesting ? Mathematical equations requires input and this input is in the form of numbers.

I'm sorry but i disagree. These radars and avionics are made by engineers and engineers study physics. Thus discussing them naturally will involve physics and some maths. There are plethora of books discussing that and naturally they will provide some baseline values one can work with.

and i answered. and it's by no means bold or anything. It give early estimates of what could be achievable. and it's not indicating generational difference. If you are studying or do Radar Range Equation, you may notice there are many ways to achieve detection range as well as their compromise. Or you can trade off detection range for say, stronger signal strength.

PRF, dwell time, duty factor, peak power, other element factors, phase efficiency, SNR, filter threshold etc, the list goes on. You're already knowledgable enough I don't need to go further. You say you make educated guesses from the book of radar but I'd argue that the book has too many holes to fill to get meaningful figures when we are talking about its applicability for current state of the art radar systems. As you do we could make some guesses based on what could be known like current leading edge civilian HPA development and take, for example Qorvo or UMS products and their performance figures as your yardstick, but from my experience the comparison wasn't that straight forward as I would've wished it would be.

You say that detection range is a result of different tradeoffs with other compromises and yeah, there's no arguing against that, but let's read your original comment again. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I'd say it is pretty fair to assume that your assertions were based on same or at least equivalent operating conditions and modes. In that sense, a 44% difference in detection range for two radars both developed to fit a same radome are in my book enough of a performance gap to be called "generational difference", although you seem to disagree.

Even when a "concrete" source such as research paper become available. You will nitpick what is not available in that source and continue demanding .

And what you wanted me to say ? Like i said previously that the Air cooling gives away the cooling capacity for the radar, from which you can derive the limit of average power, and from antenna dimension which can be estimated by looking at similar radar (APG-67) destined for the aircraft, you can glean the idea of possible amount of TRM that can be fitted.

You'll say that but I've got to tell you I wouldn't. Had you at least bring up some concrete examples of more recent US TRM developments and performance, such as a research paper as you've mentioned, I wouldn't have been this critical of your estimates. To be frank you saying that I will nitpick whatever information not avaialable and continue demanding, when in this instance you haven't even brought up a single concrete data in the first place, doesn't look any better than someone trying to save face. Like I've said, all you did was just state the obvious, re : 'you can reduce the size of TRM', 'US is investing a lot in the field', 'tile layout is better than legacy brick', etc. Sure, you're right. Just that those are such basic, trivial information that one doesn't get all that far in terms of accuracy. It's an inevitable that we lack information and I don't specifically blame the fact that we lack it, though I blame that you are trying to argue something without it.

You just cant expect some fancy accuracy from the get go. Everything have to be guesstimated first and then refined as new information become available.

Well estimates are meant to be refined. They are not set in stones. AnonSB did the right thing by providing something that one can actually worked on. That's the input i need.

At this point let's agree to disagree then. I just personally don't see much point when we fundamentally disagree in what is meaningful and what is not. I'm not arguing against incremental improvement in the process of estimation, but to me the possible deviation range of your figures are just too large to be accepted as a first-try error. Obviously you seem to think otherwise. We'll never reach an agreement here.

 

[stealthflanker]

At this point let's agree to disagree then. I just personally don't see much point when we fundamentally disagree in what is meaningful and what is not. I'm not arguing against incremental improvement in the process of estimation, but to me the possible deviation range of your figures are just too large to be accepted as a first-try error. Obviously you seem to think otherwise. We'll never reach an agreement here.

Okay then.

It's your problem, not mine. I am happily share my methods and the result. and you never really able to show what is "too large" anyway.
I really wish it would be more widespread, like i have seen too many times Radar discussions are treating the radar like some kind of magical box.

Had i in your position i would not be overdemanding instead i will actually do the math the other person provided and see it myself. and maybe adding stuff for improvements.

You'll say that but I've got to tell you I wouldn't.

I'm sorry but i dont believe it. I have been in this kind of discussion many times. You are not the only one and everytime it's because they just refuse to understand and not having a clear idea in the first place what is "acceptable".

 

[GTX]

Malaysia Signs Final Contract to Buy 18 FA-50 Lightweight Fighters

SEOUL --- Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup joined a contract signing ceremony for South Korea's export of FA-50 light attack aircraft to Malaysia during ...

www.defense-aerospace.com

 

[GTX]

Korean Aerospace Industries eyes new fighter designs, FA-50 sales in Pacific - Breaking Defense

Underpinning KAI's plan is an overall goal of reducing the company’s dependence on Korean government procurement and to increase sales in the export market.

breakingdefense.com

 

[helmutkohl]

Ceremony video of Poland's first FA-50

View: https://youtu.be/CbAyeirE8xw

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I'm sorry but i dont believe it. I have been in this kind of discussion many times. You are not the only one and everytime it's because they just refuse to understand and not having a clear idea in the first place what is "acceptable".

And that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

New technology from Thales could revolutionize fighter pilot training | AIN

Thales has developed a new product called “interactive embedded simulation” that could very well become a new industry benchmark in training and simulation

www.ainonline.com

Found some interesting article regarding Thales' "interactive embedded simulation". They seem to have been touting it for various manufacturers/users and interestingly, KAI and T-50 was the most likely candidate. It sadly fell through, leaving me wondering how their system would've been. I don't know how sophisticated Thales' system was but this kind of 2000s simulators kind of reminds me of the K2 embedded training software, which was very crude by today's standards but an interesting piece of technology nonetheless...

It's quite unfortunate especially considering that in various AJT procurement programmes in which T-50 and M-346 competed against each other during the late 2000s/early 2010s period, so UAE, Singapore, Israel and Poland, apart from their cost differences another major advantage the M-346 had a major advantage in its ITS, that it had an ETTS. T-50 had no such ETS integrated to the aircraft during this period. It was only by the Thai AJT programme that KAI developed and integrated their own ETS to the T-50 and some sources suggest that it might not provide some functionalities the Elbit ETTS provides, albeit there's way too less information regarding KAI ETS to evaluate them and compare.

Going further, in APT LM wanted to integrate their own ETS to meet USAF requirements and currently, they are once more developing an ETS that meets ATT requirements and are collaborating with external solution providers such as Red 6.

 

[helmutkohl]

Poland's golden eagles makes its debut this week
looks like it has a fake canopy on the bottom

source Alert5

 

[Scott Kenny]

The more I look at the Egyptian military scene from my observations it would appear that their political leadership takes the same stance as Thailand.
In return for playing nicely (ie. No coups or other silliness. ) They get access to the country's credit card within reason. And pretty much buy what ever they want.
From a logistical point of view it's a nightmare but a hundred years from now there are going to a lot of of very happy historians going through assorted Armories.
See Nepal as an example.

Egypt's military has another role. Oath, rather. The entire Egyptian military swore that they would never allow Islamists to control the government.

Hence the totally-not-a-coup a decade or so back.

source

[ÇöÀåÃëÀç] Æú¶õµå 1Â÷ ¼öÃâÇü FA-50GF ÀüÅõ±â °ø°³! ±¹»ê FA-50 ¼öÃâ Àß µÇ´Â ÀÌÀ¯?

µ¿¿µ»ó ¸µÅ© : https://tv.naver.com/v/34370062Áö³ 3¿ù 8ÀÏ ±¹¹æ±â¼úÇ°Áú¿øÀÇ Æú¶õµå 1Â÷ ¼öÃâ FA-50GF(Gap......

bemil.chosun.com

and

BEMIL 군사세계

폴란드 1차 수출형 FA-50GF 전투기 공개! 국산 FA-50 수출 잘 되는 이유?

tv.naver.com

some more pics of the Polish Eagles and interviews
seems like they said it will include AESA radar and HMD

Compass ghost false canopy! neat!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Quite welcome. One more, then, with a lot of the same slides, but some other info on the origin of the various gun system elements. The M197 did contribute the mid-barrel clamp and rotor tracks, but almost all of the rest of the gun proper seems to be from the M61A2. The feed side is a hybrid between the F-15 and F-16.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2002/gun/cromack.pdf

Some interesting design changes there, bigger feed and unload sprockets for example. And some not-round gears in the drive mechanisms that I've never seen before!

 

[helmutkohl]

some new pics of the Polish Golden Eagles via Beml

 

[raptor82]

Geez.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1718869004641772022

View: https://twitter.com/monteromax/status/1718869004641772022?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg

 

[Scott Kenny]

Geez.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1718869004641772022

View: https://twitter.com/monteromax/status/1718869004641772022?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg

Man, they're serious about making that a very capable fighter, and probably taking over a whole lot of the former MiG-21 user base for a good fighter for not too much money!

 

[helmutkohl]

was hoping the single seat version would look more like their earlier models
it looked like it would also have a bigger radome too, for a more powerful radar

 

[snne]

Geez.....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1718869004641772022

View: https://twitter.com/monteromax/status/1718869004641772022?s=46&t=5THFve96Abhx7VANdlTzrg

Man, that'd be asking for a bit much from a capability-limited airframe. As @helmutkohl said, it'd have better chances with minimal changes and possibly a more powerful radar but even now it's an attractive replacement option for the cheap lower end fighter market. I think they're trying to compete with the Viper but there's no way they can eat its market share except maybe due to availability reasons as in Poland's case. Even then that was an exception.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Man, that'd be asking for a bit much from a capability-limited airframe. As @helmutkohl said, it'd have better chances with minimal changes and possibly a more powerful radar but even now it's an attractive replacement option for the cheap lower end fighter market. I think they're trying to compete with the Viper but there's no way they can eat its market share except maybe due to availability reasons as in Poland's case. Even then that was an exception.

I think they're chasing the MiG-21 user base. Cheap(ish) to buy, cheap to operate.

And if the Koreans can build their own version of the F404/414 to stick into this, that further reduces the influence the US has on who they can sell the FA-50 to.

 

[helmutkohl]

Depends how its used for. I see the Golden Eagle being useful in lead in/advance training and generally "light" combat tasks
such as air policing duties, or ground attack against lightly armed ground targets.

But at the end of the day its smaller than the Gripen, and slightly smaller and lighter than the Tejas. There's only so much you can pack into that air frame. If I wanted an aircraft to take on a more serious combat role, then at least something in the F-16 class that is not the early block.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Depends how its used for. I see the Golden Eagle being useful in lead in/advance training and generally "light" combat tasks
such as air policing duties, or ground attack against lightly armed ground targets.

But at the end of the day its smaller than the Gripen, and slightly smaller and lighter than the Tejas. There's only so much you can pack into that air frame. If I wanted an aircraft to take on a more serious combat role, then at least something in the F-16 class that is not the early block.

Most of the MiG-21 users are really looking for a plane for air policing. Interceptor by technical definition, but super high performance not required because nobody is likely to fly bombers into their airspace.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

was hoping the single seat version would look more like their earlier models
it looked like it would also have a bigger radome too, for a more powerful radar

Though, may I ask what sparked the change of opinion? You've said earlier that KAI's choice right now seems like a correct one compared to the radical "F-50" proposal, so I'm interested if any recent events made you think otherwise.

Man, that'd be asking for a bit much from a capability-limited airframe. As @helmutkohl said, it'd have better chances with minimal changes and possibly a more powerful radar but even now it's an attractive replacement option for the cheap lower end fighter market. I think they're trying to compete with the Viper but there's no way they can eat its market share except maybe due to availability reasons as in Poland's case. Even then that was an exception.

No, it's the right opposite. The new image from ADEX shows a modified FA-50 with just the rear-seat removed and has an additional fuel tank installed in place. There's no structural modification to the airframe, so the cost of development is minimal. Only problem is the change of CoG but that's what flight software can handle.

What Helmutkohl mentioned, the "earlier version", had a completely revised fwd fuselage, and was expected to cost as much as $2 billion to develop.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I think they're chasing the MiG-21 user base. Cheap(ish) to buy, cheap to operate.

And if the Koreans can build their own version of the F404/414 to stick into this, that further reduces the influence the US has on who they can sell the FA-50 to.

South Korea To Spend $3.8 Billion Over 10 Years To Develop Jet Engine | Aviation Week Network

South Korea’s DAPA has unveiled a new plan to develop a 15,000-lb.-thrust-class turbofan engine as a national research and development project.

aviationweek.com

There's already a programme in place that was initiated last year. They are going to develop a F414 sized, 18.000lbf dry thrust engine by 2037. It was originally rated for 15.000lbf as mentioned in the article, but evaluations from the preliminarily studies showed that Korean gas turbine industry is capable of developing a more ambitious product, so the programme goal was revised earlier this year and was uprated by 3.000lbf.

Programme consists of two phases. First phase will start next year and will see the engine core developed by 2029. The second phase will start in 2027 and will end in 2037. The complete turbofan engine wil be developed during the second phase.

Hanwha is already looking for a marketing-/RSP, and from what I've heard, both GE and P&W have initially shown positive responses. Doesn't necessarily mean that their higher-ups will think the same but anyways, it is true that GE would need a F414 replacement at some point and it wouldn't be bad for P&W if they could add a F414 sized engine to their portfolio if someone else will foot the bill.

 

[Scott Kenny]

South Korea To Spend $3.8 Billion Over 10 Years To Develop Jet Engine | Aviation Week Network

South Korea’s DAPA has unveiled a new plan to develop a 15,000-lb.-thrust-class turbofan engine as a national research and development project.

aviationweek.com

There's already a programme in place that was initiated last year. They are going to develop a F414 sized, 18.000lbf dry thrust engine by 2037. It was originally rated for 15.000lbf as mentioned in the article, but evaluations from the preliminarily studies showed that Korean gas turbine industry is capable of developing a more ambitious product, so the programme goal was revised earlier this year and was uprated by 3.000lbf.

Oh, outstanding!

Hanhwa is already looking for a marketing-/RSP, and from what I've heard, both GE and P&W have initially shown positive responses. Doesn't necessarily mean that their higher-ups will think the same but anyways, it is true that GE would need a F414 replacement at some point and it wouldn't be bad for P&W if they could add a F414 sized engine to their portfolio if someone else will foot the bill.

I'd bet on Pratt for buying into the program, so that they have a lightweight fighter engine to use. The sub-F100 engine class seems to be a gap in P&W's portfolio.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

I'd bet on Pratt for buying into the program, so that they have a lightweight fighter engine to use. The sub-F100 engine class seems to be a gap in P&W's portfolio.

That, and Hanwha is also a RSP in GTF programme as well, although their share is a single digit. They also have a JV in Singapore for GTF parts production. More importantly, Pratt needs a PW2000 replacement and using this core engine, they could develop a higher BPR variant. The programme schedule lines up beautifully with projected Boeing NMA resumption as well. From Pratt's perspective, I think there's a merit of having a partner in developing a PW2000 replacement when the programme success is not garaunteed. So I think if Hanwha finds a partner, I think it will indeed be P&W.

 

[helmutkohl]

Though, may I ask what sparked the change of opinion? You've said earlier that KAI's choice right now seems like a correct one compared to the radical "F-50" proposal, so I'm interested if any recent events made you think otherwise.


No, it's the right opposite. The new image from ADEX shows a modified FA-50 with just the rear-seat removed and has an additional fuel tank installed in place. There's no structural modification to the airframe, so the cost of development is minimal. Only problem is the change of CoG but that's what flight software can handle.

What Helmutkohl mentioned, the "earlier version", had a completely revised fwd fuselage, and was expected to cost as much as $2 billion to develop.

change in what exactly

 

[Maro.Kyo]

change in what exactly

I've thought you've changed you opinion based on these previous comments :

my question is.. was this the better trade off?
1. move single seat back to get the larger radome, and assumingly a better radar with more range
2. keep single seat in current area and use the back for more fuel, gives more flight range

for me, I think 2 was the right choice

was hoping the single seat version would look more like their earlier models
it looked like it would also have a bigger radome too, for a more powerful radar

Though, now that I read it again, maybe you haven't meant one to be exclusive from another.

 

[helmutkohl]

yeah i think at the end of the day 2 is the more logical choice..
but 1 is certainly better looking by far, and will give more radar performance.

but like i said in a reply after that.. at the end of the day there is a limit to what the FA-50 air frame can provide
and if your air force has access to something slightly heavier, like an F-16, that would be the better plane for more combat intensive tasks.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

yeah i think at the end of the day 2 is the more logical choice..
but 1 is certainly better looking by far, and will give more radar performance.

but like i said in a reply after that.. at the end of the day there is a limit to what the FA-50 air frame can provide
and if your air force has access to something slightly heavier, like an F-16, that would be the better plane for more combat intensive tasks.

To be honest, I also think that F-50 is more aesthetically compeling, but since they are not going to alter the airframe structure nor deal with aerodynamics, that design of "evolved FA-50" basically is the only option.

Add to that, the rear visibility on that evolved FA-50 seems to be basically non-existent... it's a dogfight nightmare. Even F-35Bs would have a better rear visibility than that thing.

On the other hand, it seems like the rear-seat fuel tank modification is way more extensive than what I have originially expected. What I had in mind (and what I think the KAI engineers initially had in mind as well) was something like L-159A's built-in cockpit rear seat fuel tank. Though now, it seems like that modified fuel compartment could possibly house way more fuel than a simple, Alca-style modification.

 

[helmutkohl]

that seems to be the trend now..
i think i saw it first with the L-159, having the second seat become modified for other uses..
now we see it with the Tejas, newer Fulcrum variants, and the Golden Eagle

I hear you about the bubble canopy.. much prefer the F-50 model
and its a shame that many new planes are ditching the bubble and reducing the rear view..
the F-35, Su-57, Su-75, even the J-20s latest model is doing without it

 

[norseman]

My understanding is that there will be a full 360 virtual helmet view capability bundled with the new single seater based on tech for the KF-21 and Redback.

 

[GTX]

Four Korean FA-50 light attackers may find a new home in West Africa

There's a buzz around the news that Senegal is moving forward with its plan to buy FA-50 Fighting Eagle light combat aircraft from South Korea.

bulgarianmilitary.com

 

[GTX]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1TlsAyi9BY

 

[Maro.Kyo]

KAI, 미래비행체·FA-50단좌형 개발에 909억 투자

한국항공우주산업(KAI)은 지난 7일 열린 이사회에서 미래비행체(AAV)와 FA-50 단좌형 개발에 총 908억6000만원 투자를 결정하고 미래사업 추진에 박차를 가한다고 8일 밝혔다. 우선, AAV 개발 1단계 사

naver.me

Evolved FA-50 is now formally an existing programme, as KAI decided in their latest board-meeting that they will invest $27 million to develop the single-seater varriant. This is not a ROKAF programme.

 

[Whopper]

KAI, 미래비행체·FA-50단좌형 개발에 909억 투자

한국항공우주산업(KAI)은 지난 7일 열린 이사회에서 미래비행체(AAV)와 FA-50 단좌형 개발에 총 908억6000만원 투자를 결정하고 미래사업 추진에 박차를 가한다고 8일 밝혔다. 우선, AAV 개발 1단계 사

naver.me

Evolved FA-50 is now formally an existing programme, as KAI decided in their latest board-meeting that they will invest $27 million to develop the single-seater varriant. This is not a ROKAF programme.

KAI to invest in single-seat FA-50, advanced air mobility

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) will place bets on a single-seat version of its FA-50 light-attack jet and in the continued development of advanced air mobility aircraft.

www.flightglobal.com

To keep development costs down, the single-seater will retain the FA-50’s existing canopy and outer mould line.

Other efforts to boost the FA-50’s range include the development of a larger external fuel tank and the addition of an air-to-air refuelling capability.

Has there been a change in plans?

 

[GTX]

Lockheed Martin's TF-50 page, including talk of a TF-50N for the USN:

TF-50 Trainer Jet: The Future of Fighter Pilot Training

Explore the TF-50, a versatile advanced trainer and light attack fighter designed to enhance pilot training and mission capabilities.

www.lockheedmartin.com

 

[helmutkohl]

^ on the subject of the US Navy, any ideas on what they might be leaning towards? I feel that the TF-50 and the M-346 might be the strongest candidates.