Well, the F125 alias TFE1040 is already partly produced in Taiwan by the International Turbine Engine Company (ITEC), a joint venture of AIDC and Honeywell since the late 1980s. So there seem to be no secrets in this broadley established engine (also used in the Leonardo M-346 as F-124 in the non-afterburning version).
Taiwan 5th-gen fighter studies
- Thread starter Ainen
- Start date
I'm not really sure why you could claim the desired force mix of the Taiwanese conventional and therefore inadequate. We could trace back the jeune école lineage to 19th century and as recently as both wars in Iraq, we were able to observe how useless and defenseless those swarm boats could be without suitable air cover.
Thing to note is that you're not the only one who argues that Taiwan should pursue such strategies; quite a few renowned think tanks in the US as well as the US gov. themselves favor to arm Taiwan with LR-SAMs and smaller missile boats in place of fighter jets and ships but such ideas are being rejected by the Taiwanese themselves. Well you see, in terms of conflict, there are several less severe levels of conflicts below an all out war and without an actual fighter jet and frigates, you are left helpless in those situations. Simply put, a Taiwanese army which is only armed with "swarm boats, mobile SAM and long range land attack missile" would surely do well on an all-out war but is basically useless in anything but an all out war. Not to forget, those swarming missile boats needs and external sensors to relay the FC data. Also a lot of people seems to forget or straight out doesn't know what kind of asshole the Taiwan strait is in terms of sea state.
To make it clear:
www.upmedia.mg
ãè©ä¼°åºçã空è»ä¸ä¸ä»£ä¸»åæ°æ©å¯å¿è¹¤æ¡éç¼åæ©ã2023å¹´ååååæ©è¨è¨--ä¸å ±
æ¥å空è»åç«æ³é¢æåºãä¸ä¸ä»£ä¸»åæ°æ©å ±åãå¼ç¼å¤çé注ï¼ææåºï¼3æåºç©ºè»ç±ã303è¨åå°æ¡å°çµãåè¡è±......
www.upmedia.mg
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 846
(1)bays can be really small, if they're purpose-made for only a pair of a2a weapons.
(2)weapon can be smaller - if stealth aircraft can come closer. Smaller BVR weapons are barely larger than modern WVR missiles
(3)bays can be even smaller if the weapon itself is designed for it (for example, launch forward).
One of the smallest jet fighter designs ever (Boeing fighters for 747-based flying carriers) was intended to carry weapons inside, for example.
(4)finally, you can play with tactics. For example, if your basic requirement is ambushes from low altitude - conformal storage under the body may be as good as a proper bay.
(5)you can simply sacrifice some other specs to get more volume out of the fighter. Arguably that isn't a good way for less experienced design houses (which is why they always drop radical shapes), but one may be daring and try anyway.
Don't forget that size doesn't matter as much as before if we compare it to a 4th Gen design with classical manufacturing techniques.
A new design will benefits from newer technologies, meaning that it can offer a same volume while having less part's count, less manufacturing and design cost and cheaper replacement parts.
Tomorrow 6th Gen cruiser like Japan or the USA are developing will probably cost as much as today F-15EXs if we put aside the fanciest of their cutting-edge technologies.
A new design will benefits from newer technologies, meaning that it can offer a same volume while having less part's count, less manufacturing and design cost and cheaper replacement parts.
Tomorrow 6th Gen cruiser like Japan or the USA are developing will probably cost as much as today F-15EXs if we put aside the fanciest of their cutting-edge technologies.
The key takeaway from that article, which is also a repeating theme among any other news articles reporting on the new Taiwanese 5th gen fighter program, is the so called "Vega Project", or more to be exact, the viability thereof. If ITEC and other Taiwanese entities involved could actually pull off the project and build a TFE1042 variant that has 12,000~13,000+ lbs thrust, that would help a lot with their program.To make it clear:
ãè©ä¼°åºçã空è»ä¸ä¸ä»£ä¸»åæ°æ©å¯å¿è¹¤æ¡éç¼åæ©ã2023å¹´ååååæ©è¨è¨--ä¸å ±
æ¥å空è»åç«æ³é¢æåºãä¸ä¸ä»£ä¸»åæ°æ©å ±åãå¼ç¼å¤çé注ï¼ææåºï¼3æåºç©ºè»ç±ã303è¨åå°æ¡å°çµãåè¡è±......
Obviously avionics' are the bigger problem but this program cannot go though without external(ie US) support so I think that's a second hand question.
If they truly want to do something in this arena the they would be better off trying to replicate something in the Loyal Wingman theme.
It would not have to be the same low observability class like an F-35; the small size with 2 - 4 air-air missiles would provide advantages per se in a defense scenario.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 846
Loyal wingman by definition isn't a self-sufficient combat aircraft.
Moreover, it requires many of the very same technologies.
Furthermore, Taiwan requires a very special type of manned tactical aircraft, something almost no one in the west currently produces (and literally no one in 5th generation). It is either buy unsuitable(no matter how advanced) or do it on your own. US, in particular, hasn't tried doing anything of this kind since the F-20.
Suitable LW drones, on the other hand, seem to be in development.
And what exactly is that?
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 846
Affordable, dispersable point defense fighter/interceptor.
(1)Taiwan wants 5 gen. Gripen is many things, but 5th gen isn't one of them.
(2)Good luck getting Gripen sold to Taiwan...
(3)They already have F-16V. The key point for indigenous Taiwanese weapons programs is not even local specifics, it is that they won't be cut off.
Its called either a F-35B or a mobile SAM
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 846
F-35B is neither
-dispersable(good luck dispersing its logistical train)
-nor is it really an interceptor(worse than F-16 in this metric, which itself impressively is worse than F-CK-1)
-nor is it affordable
-nor is it available to Taiwan
-nor is it local(story of I am selling/I am not selling F-16 to RoC belongs to Kama Sutra)
Good choice!
So now you have lost all credibility.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
A mobile SAM would be the best point defence interceptor Taiwan is going to be able to have.
F-16V likely just as good as anything Taiwan could/ should build themselves and if they can actually get F-35s they should snap the US’s hands-off and thank their lucky stars.
F-16V likely just as good as anything Taiwan could/ should build themselves and if they can actually get F-35s they should snap the US’s hands-off and thank their lucky stars.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 846
So you want to shoot down any incoming radar contact heading towards ROC airspace in peacetime? Not as if something could ever go wrong.
In wartime, mobile SAM will eventually get supressed&overwhelmed. Unlike Russia and European countries, Mainland China has plenty of dedicated SEAD aircraft and units, and way more tactical aircraft in general.
Fighters add a huge degree of elasticity to the AD network - because they can respond and concentrate. If deconflicted well enough, fighters, SAMs and various flying, maritime and land sensors form a very tough nut.
Even bad fighters are vastly better than nothing (remember how desperate Ukraine is for old mig-29s).
F-16V is good, but it isn't a stealth fighter.
And Taiwanese attempts to even inquire abt F-35 were explicitly rejected. No room to negotiate. And probably won't be until there will be a local 5th gen, as it already happened with F-CK-1 in the past.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,704
In peace time the F-16V (or the M2000 or the F-CK-1) can do the air policing role (and would be better at it than some kind of dedicated point air defence defender).
And in wartime mobile SAMs will have limitations but likely to do considerably better than airfields and aircraft shelters against Chinese missiles and air strikes.
In a theoretical scenario where, say, those mobile SAMs have very limited survival then the PRCs application of these same capabilities against Taiwan airforce assets would similarly see them as equally short or even shorter lived.
Whilst I would concede that there will be some possible lessons from the Ukraine conflict that could apply to a theoretical Taiwan conflict it’s fanciful to see the continuing survival and operation of a significant proportion of the Ukrainian airforce as necessarily being applicable to the Taiwan scenario. And if some of the Taiwan airforce can survive for a prolonged period then it would be important that they have range/ endurance and weapon load to hit hard and to widen out area from which it could operating from (and which PRC would then have to search and target, reducing the chances of being picked off on the ground). A very light weight short range point defence air defender is not a good match for that, and point defence would still be better done with mobile SAMs.
And whilst I would be sympathetic re: the potential non-supply of the F-35 there are wider aspects to consider like Taiwan needing (but potentially finding it hard to obtain) foreign assistance to build anything like an equivalent capability as the F-35.
Plus the cost (direct costs and opportunity costs) of such a project to Taiwan. An eventual (potentially limited) F-35 buy may occur and the only apparent alternative options are continued reliance on the F-16V or a Taiwan equivalent to the Korean KF-21 similarly created with significant (probably even more) US financial and technical support/assistance (which does then make the non-sale of US F-35s not make a lot of sense - the later likely to be cheaper for Taiwan and US and provide better capability and deterrence).
And in wartime mobile SAMs will have limitations but likely to do considerably better than airfields and aircraft shelters against Chinese missiles and air strikes.
In a theoretical scenario where, say, those mobile SAMs have very limited survival then the PRCs application of these same capabilities against Taiwan airforce assets would similarly see them as equally short or even shorter lived.
Whilst I would concede that there will be some possible lessons from the Ukraine conflict that could apply to a theoretical Taiwan conflict it’s fanciful to see the continuing survival and operation of a significant proportion of the Ukrainian airforce as necessarily being applicable to the Taiwan scenario. And if some of the Taiwan airforce can survive for a prolonged period then it would be important that they have range/ endurance and weapon load to hit hard and to widen out area from which it could operating from (and which PRC would then have to search and target, reducing the chances of being picked off on the ground). A very light weight short range point defence air defender is not a good match for that, and point defence would still be better done with mobile SAMs.
And whilst I would be sympathetic re: the potential non-supply of the F-35 there are wider aspects to consider like Taiwan needing (but potentially finding it hard to obtain) foreign assistance to build anything like an equivalent capability as the F-35.
Plus the cost (direct costs and opportunity costs) of such a project to Taiwan. An eventual (potentially limited) F-35 buy may occur and the only apparent alternative options are continued reliance on the F-16V or a Taiwan equivalent to the Korean KF-21 similarly created with significant (probably even more) US financial and technical support/assistance (which does then make the non-sale of US F-35s not make a lot of sense - the later likely to be cheaper for Taiwan and US and provide better capability and deterrence).
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 846
We're discussing the replacement for F-CK-1(maybe F-16V, too, but unlikely) .
F-16V is considered to be less than ideal interceptor - it's time from standby to take off and to intercept point (key metrics) are worse than that of F-CK-1(per Taiwanese sources). It isn't unexpected really - F-20 was marketed to be noticeably better than F-16 in this regard, too, and even tiger II (!) was viewed higher.
For relatively small Taiwan with its relatively small warning times, this metric is crucial for wartime employment, too.
That certainly shouldn't be understood by vigilant users as "lol he went nuts, f-ck-1 more capable than f-16v/f-35".
This is a just two metrics, which are important for a particular country in particular geopolitical and geographical realities.
It doesn't challenge the fact that F-16V is obviously the most capable and advanced a/c in Taiwanese service, and F-35 is far beyond that in capability. Both are true. Just not in this particular aspect, which most of its users don't even really care for.
Dispersed light fighter units can operate from straight patches of roadways, and aircraft can be hidden, serviced, fueled and rearmed literally under tree cover/within buildings, by skeleton ground teams(even using drafted and mobilized troops, when aircraft are designed for it). False targets and SAM/AAA network complicates finding them, too.
Again, just a few weeks ago we saw fighter units being based within artillery range of the opposite force(also within LR SAM range, btw), and that force was neither lacking fires nor was it blind.
Key disadvantage of SAMs is that they can maneuver only as rapidly as wheeled vehicles do - they can't proactively react to enemy AF incursions. In the end, concentration of forces wins.
Defender's fighters can react and they can intercept those incursions with concentrated effort. Moreover, that threat is of a completely different nature from SAMs, forcing the attacker to fight two completely vastly different opponents at once.
Main strikers are F-16s, but even now F-CK-1s are anything but harmless.
New fighter will clearly be asked to do at least as much. We aren't in the 1980s anymore when it was something outstanding.
No one asks Taiwan to make a 3-in-1 bleeding edge all-trick-pony. Good enough is the name of the game.
ROCAF clearly needs something that can at least try to reasonably challenge the ever-evolving opponent(which, accidentally, deploys well over a hundred 5th gen aircraft today), that isn't so directly tied to the whims of some people from half a globe away. As a bonus, such an aircraft can be tailor-designed for local requirements.
As an additional bonus, practice has shown that the US often changes its mind on not selling something to ROC as soon as it is ready to deploy a similar capability on its own. Thus, ironically, it may very well be their fastest path to Lightning, too.
So two capabilities for a price of one.
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,007
- Reaction score
- 3,053
Would joining in with the Japanese efforts bring costs closer to being realistic?
Swedish FS2020 comes closest to their ideal I'd say.
The question that should be asked first is "if the Japanese would allow Taiwanese to join their program" to which the answer is an obvious "no". Also, F-3 is projected to be the most expensive fighter jet in history by a large margin. They are trying their best to mitigate the costs but expect nothing cheaper than the F-22s. Cheap is not something the Japanese are pursuing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 24 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,421
- Reaction score
- 1,998
FAR-21 may fit your description...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ultirole-fighter-lmf.38539/page-4#post-511614
Attachments
Cannonfodder43
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 8 December 2019
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 294
Would South Korea even agree to such a sale?
From a geopolitical perspective, that may be a bit too much for South Korea at the moment. Given what happened with THAAD, nevermind Uncle Sam.
From a geopolitical perspective, that may be a bit too much for South Korea at the moment. Given what happened with THAAD, nevermind Uncle Sam.
I think it would be very convenient for the US to have Korea sell them their Borame.
Regarding the post above from @Cannonfodder43, logically South Korea has less incentives than Japan to be obedient to China on economics grounds:
Then, there is the fact that North Korea Nuclear threats would never be without the silent support from China. It could be seen then that Taiwan would be a good commercial target for their Jet.
And then, (as I have said regarding any extra M2K or Rafale sales to Taiwan) a jet is a jet. Russian'S campaign in Ukraine clearly shows that there is much more than buying fancy equipments. Logistical, information and training support is today (like yesterday) what makes the difference.
Regarding the post above from @Cannonfodder43, logically South Korea has less incentives than Japan to be obedient to China on economics grounds:
Then, there is the fact that North Korea Nuclear threats would never be without the silent support from China. It could be seen then that Taiwan would be a good commercial target for their Jet.
And then, (as I have said regarding any extra M2K or Rafale sales to Taiwan) a jet is a jet. Russian'S campaign in Ukraine clearly shows that there is much more than buying fancy equipments. Logistical, information and training support is today (like yesterday) what makes the difference.
Last edited:
Or better yet, the FS2020
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fs2020-stealth-fighter-concept.9798/#post-113292
Since the Taiwanese want F-35B instead of A, if they could ever get one, in pursuit for the STOVL capabilities, FS2020 better suit their needs than any other concept, considering how STOL capability is key feature of previous Swedish fighters, I feel.
Given they are ITAR controlled items they could.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 3,375
supposedly would look similar to the KF-21
www.upmedia.mg
下一代主力戰機研製案 空軍規劃蔡英文卸任前完成並展示原型機--上報
國防部日前已就空軍提出2023年啟動「下一代主力戰機研製案」進行審核，據指出，空軍規劃全案建造的原型機分......
www.upmedia.mg
Yes, or something even more compact which should be possible with today's miniaturisation of the components. Most important would be a real STOL capability (the whole system is no good if you can't get it in the air; VTOL may be too complex and expensive) and a fast deployability overv the whole country.
- Joined
- 13 June 2007
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 2,710
Why F-35B and not A or C variants? V/STOL has its own constraints in terms of weapoins load/range.
Enjoy the Day! Mark
Mainly on basis of being able to operate without runways if need be. For Taiwan I also doubt the range/weapons would be a restriction.
空軍下一代主力戰機研製案 不符現階段戰備需求＋關鍵技術未克服暫喊卡 --上報
韓國研發20年的KF-21「獵鷹」戰機7月底試飛成功，反觀空軍3月底向蔡英文總統就「空軍下一代主力戰機研製案......
www.upmedia.mg
Seems like the program is going nowhere due to the development schedules of their own engines + difficulties to get F414. Add on to that their revised priorities on asymmetric warfare.
Development of next generation fighter engine design technology
●Design of Swept-back fan stage
→Satisfy single stage compression ratio≥1.7, isentropic efficiency≥85%
●Design of Swept-back axial compressor
→Design three-dimensional shape of rotor blade which single stage compression ratio≥1.8, isentropic efficiency=88%
●Design of Swept-back fan stage
→Satisfy single stage compression ratio≥1.7, isentropic efficiency≥85%
●Design of Swept-back axial compressor
→Design three-dimensional shape of rotor blade which single stage compression ratio≥1.8, isentropic efficiency=88%
Similar threads
-
ROC Navy - Taiwan - Future Guided Missile Destroyer - NCSIST- Started by Triton
- Replies: 7
-
-
AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo Projects & Derivatives- Started by GTX
- Replies: 48
-
Gloster CXP-1001 fighter and bomber project for Taiwan- Started by Deino
- Replies: 66
-
