Military Review

KF-X fighter, or How not to do it

79

Against Jucheists and “Communists”



The situation in which South Korea is located is far from the most pleasant. A strange northern neighbor, who, apparently, has a fully operational nuclear weapon, as well as the territorially close quasi-communist China, which is heading for world domination faster than the United States. There are also Japan and long-standing grievances related to the Second World War. And a number of other countries in the Asian region with their own problems: they obviously do not care about South Korea. At least, they definitely do not intend to protect her.

In this regard, it is not surprising that the Koreans observed the American elections even more actively than the US residents themselves. After all, their future is at stake: America is the only real ally that can really help.

In addition to the States, the Republic of Korea can rely on its army, above all, the Air Force. I must say, quite "motley" in composition. Together with the relatively modern F-16 and F-15 fighters, Koreans have the frankly old F-5 Tiger II and F-4 Phantom II. As well as training and combat training vehicles that will not do much weather. By the way, the first ones want to completely decommission by the 2030 year, and the Phantoms already by the 2024 year.

KF-X fighter, or How not to do it

The basis of the South Korean Air Force is the F-16C / D fighters - in all, more than 150 vehicles. And soon, this basis will be the latest F-35A. Recall that all of Korea plans to get 60 of such fighters. Currently, the Koreans have received about ten of these machines. In general, the F-35 will seriously increase the potential of the Korean Air Force, taking it to a new level. In which the threat from the fourth generation fighters will be very conditional in many respects: at least if the Korean pilots will not "climb" into the close maneuver battle. By the way, there have been almost no cases of the latter over the past decades.


Running with obstacles


It is even more surprising that South Korea (now already with the assistance of its colleagues from Indonesia) is actively developing its own fighter with the symbol KF-X. The machine is being developed by Korea Aerospace Industries with the assistance of the Indonesian Indonesian Aerospace.

And here is what is remarkable. The project was first announced by ex-president of South Korea Kim Dae-jung back in ... 2001 year. A whole “eternity” has passed since then: this politician has not been alive for a long time, just like Kim Jong Il (he passed away in 2011). Some countries ceased their actual existence, while others, let us say so, underwent metamorphoses with their borders.

And only one thing remains unchanged - the South Korean fighter, which they wanted to get to the 2020, there wasn’t and never was. As part of the program, so far no one pre-production prototype, prototype or even technology demonstrator has been built by KF-X.


If you look more closely at the program, then some points begin to become clear. Recall that as part of the initial operational requirements for the KF-X, it was planned to create a single-seat fighter with two engines and the use of stealth technology. In terms of size, the car was supposed to be larger than the French Dassault Rafale and the pan-European Eurofighter Typhoon, but smaller than the F-22 and F-35.

In 2010, South Korea and Indonesia agreed to work together on the program. However, already in March, the 2013 th Ministry of Defense of South Korea and Indonesia postponed the implementation of the joint project for the development of the KF-X / IF-X fighter for a year and a half. In July 2013, the Ministry of Defense of Indonesia announced that it intends to continue developing the promising fighter on its own - something almost unbelievable given the lack of experience in creating fighters among Indonesians.

The next unexpected turn was the presentation in November 2013 of the year by Korean Aerospace Industries of a model of a single-engine version of a promising fighter. The logic was something like this: Korea already has a single-engine training FA-50 Golden Eagle of its own design, so why not use the experience gained to create a new fighter?


Of course, the “flying school desk” and the multi-purpose stealth are fundamentally different aircraft that require different technical solutions. They soon realized this in South Korea, after which they forgot about the single-engine version, as about a nightmare. However, there were no less questions from this.

Four with plus or three with minus?


On October 2, 2019, Defense-aerospace reported that the Department of Defense Procurement Programs of South Korea issued Korean Aerospace Industries permission to produce the first flight model of the promising KF-X fighter. The assembly of the car should have begun before the end of October. By the way, shortly afterwards, a full-size model of a promising fighter was presented at the ADEX arms exhibition in Seoul.

He, in general, confirms the basic conceptual solutions. From the point of view of aerodynamic layout - it is almost a complete "copy" of the F-22. However, as already noted above, the car will be significantly smaller than its overseas counterpart. We are talking about a fighter with two engines General Electric F414. 16,9 meter long and wing span 11,2 meter. The maximum take-off mass of the fighter will be 25,4 tons. The aircraft will be able to fly at speeds up to Mach 1,8-1,9. The promising fighter will receive 10 suspension points for missiles, bombs and various hanging containers. It is planned to create both a single and double option.


The most interesting thing is that the Korean "stealth" is hardly noticeable in essence. At least in the first stage. The Block I version will not have internal weapons bays: this, by the way, is clearly visible on the example of the shown layout. However, Korean Aerospace Industries do not lose optimism and believe that in a later version of the machine, in order to maintain radar stealth, the main armament can be placed inside.

The relatively small fuselage, as well as the location of the chassis and air intakes, make two assumptions. Either a) the internal armament compartments will be very small (significantly smaller than on the F-22 and F-35), or b) they will not be at all. By the way, in the images presented, the production car carries four MBDA Meteor missiles, partially sunk in the fuselage. Previously, a similar solution was applied by European engineers in the development of Eurofighter Typhoon. By the way, on 22 on November 2019, the French edition of La Tribune, in the material “MBDA monte à bord de l'avion de combat sud-coréen, le KF-X”, wrote that the Korean Ministry of Defense chose the MBDA Meteor rocket to equip the KF-X.


The Koreans want to develop a new fighter in the 2026 year, however, given the difficulties inherent in the creation of modern technology, this period can be mentally postponed to the 2030 year or even later.

And here a completely logical question arises. Was it worth the South Koreans to invest in this project in order to actually receive their own Eurofighter by the 2030 year? Despite the fact that the Europeans themselves by that time would approach the rearmament of their Air Force on the sixth-generation fighter NGF (Next Generation Fighter), created as part of the large-scale FCAS program (Future Combat Air System). The same probably applies to the United States with its F / A-XX program. Well, China will have a fleet of fifth-generation Chengdu J-20 fighters, and perhaps even bring to mind its fellow J-31 (but generally the sixth generation is also quite actively talked about in China).

It turns out that the South Koreans can get a plane that is outdated at the beginning of development. Moreover, the experience gained during its development can hardly be applied in other areas - by that time the aircraft manufacturers of the USA, Europe and China could make more than one revolution.

In a broader sense история with KF-X once again shows that the development of modern fighters has become so complicated, risky and expensive that only global superpowers or a number of powerful countries of the world, united in the framework of the program, can win on this path. For obvious (primarily political) reasons, not everyone can do this and not always.
Author:
79 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 2 December 2019 05: 39
    +1
    I remember the proposed scheme of containers at the top of the fuselage, the so-called overhead garroth arsenal, for the F15, it seems, with the firing of rockets or planning ammunition up. May come from hopelessness.
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 2 December 2019 05: 44
      +6
      Yes, it’s cool, it’s even more fun to roll over to the top with your belly to start - but stealth)))
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 2 December 2019 05: 48
        -2
        Why not? Ships launch rockets up, and nothing. )
        1. Siberia 75
          Siberia 75 2 December 2019 08: 56
          +3
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Why not? Ships launch rockets up, and nothing. )

          Size matters )
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 2 December 2019 08: 57
            0
            Well, "Sidewinder" and not "Ax". ))
            1. UAZ 452
              UAZ 452 2 December 2019 20: 52
              +2
              That is, you can think about placing vertical launchers on airplanes?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 3 December 2019 04: 00
                +1
                Of course not, we can only talk about longitudinally oriented ammunition. I brought an article below, take a look.
              2. tima_ga
                tima_ga 4 December 2019 23: 45
                0
                Yes there is finally no place, the plane is small. Do not cram anything inside, even from below, even from above (in fantasy order)
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 2 December 2019 09: 50
        0
        Even down the rocket is fired by a special device. But here the bomb from above is somehow unclear how to fold from an arbitrary position.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 2 December 2019 10: 09
          0
          It was about cluster (and not only), but always planning or rocket munitions. But this, it seems, did not go further than the concept, but the idea, by the way, is not bad.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 2 December 2019 10: 19
            +2
            Somehow I found an article on the top location:
            http://otvaga2004.ru/kaleydoskop/kaleydoskop-air/5-6-pokoleniye-9/
            But I then read about it in the 80-shaggy year, either in the "ZVO", or in "Teznik and Armament"
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 2 December 2019 11: 31
              +2
              Was it worth bothering with STELS technology if there were no weapon compartments in the aircraft body? In general, the logic of the creators of this aircraft is not clear.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 2 December 2019 11: 34
                +2
                There is ... a gun! You fly invisibly and balls! )))
              2. Herman 4223
                Herman 4223 3 December 2019 18: 45
                0
                The main contribution to the visibility of the aircraft makes its glider. The glider is the largest element of the aircraft, and the main reflection of the signal comes from it. The Koreans made an inconspicuous glider, part of the missiles drowned half in the fuselage inside. But they did not bother with the internal compartment. Made easier. The internal compartment is an additional volume of the aircraft and an extra mechanism. In general, the car in its concept is not bad. If she appeared by the year 20 as originally planned, she would find her buyer in the world. The Hindus probably wanted her.
                1. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 3 December 2019 19: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Herman 4223
                  The main contribution to the visibility of the aircraft makes its glider. The glider is the largest element of the aircraft, and the main reflection of the signal comes from it.

                  When planes made using the STELS technology open the wings behind which their weapons are located, they immediately become visible on ordinary locators, and here all the weapons are on the external sling, and it will be clearly visible from any angle.
                  1. Herman 4223
                    Herman 4223 3 December 2019 19: 40
                    0
                    If you illuminate the plane from above or below, the illumination will be much stronger than from the wings. Just because there the area of ​​the reflected surface is several orders of magnitude larger. Open sashes, of course, also contribute, but far from the main one.
            2. URAL72
              URAL72 2 December 2019 14: 57
              +1
              Look at the jaguar.
        2. kupitman
          kupitman 2 December 2019 12: 04
          0
          Outer loop and bomb throws
  2. Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 2 December 2019 05: 55
    +5
    The fifth generation is very expensive, not all of them can even afford to re-equip it, not even to develop and produce it.
    Even the United States is not fully rearming for the fifth generation. 4 and 4+ will be in operation for a long time, for South Korea to have their own aircraft for the development of technologies and production is a good option (given that they will have the fifth generation - F-35A), it is not clear why they use the contours of the aircraft to reduce visibility for the aircraft this stealth will not have.
    1. Siberia 75
      Siberia 75 2 December 2019 08: 59
      +2
      Despite the fact that the Europeans themselves by that time would approach the rearmament of their Air Force on the sixth generation fighter NGF

      Is it possible that someone is seriously talking about "sixth-generation European fighters"
    2. Bobrick
      Bobrick 2 December 2019 19: 31
      +1
      All the same, it’s worth reducing visibility, the detection range of the aircraft is reduced to 1,5–2 times (by the example of a comparison of the 4th generation with the 3rd).
  3. Rwmos
    Rwmos 2 December 2019 06: 08
    +1
    What the hell is he to them in 2024, if they plan to buy the Fu-35 by that time?
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 2 December 2019 06: 16
      +4
      Trite money is not enough to completely rearm on the F-35. Yes, you also need to consider the cost of operation - it’s much cheaper to maintain your plane.
      1. Rwmos
        Rwmos 2 December 2019 06: 22
        +1
        And its development is more expensive than the purchase. Despite the fact that 60 will be bought. Just an example - the cost of the F-35 program is equal to the price of 550 F-35, here and there - official, i.e. understated data. Even the question is not worth it - what is cheaper - buy a finished product, or develop one! 550 fighters - enough even for China, not small Korea
        1. Sergey_G_M
          Sergey_G_M 2 December 2019 06: 59
          +3
          The American has a lot of money, for some reason I’m sure that the Koreans will spend an order of magnitude less on the development of their fighter. Yes, and dependence on one supplier is not a good thing; note your aircraft they are arming with the European MBDA Meteor missile, and not the American one. Plus support for its manufacturer and the development of its own technologies.
          All countries that have achieved sufficient technological development are trying to produce their own aircraft (China, Japan, France, England, etc.), despite the fact that they could buy from the Americans (and partially buy), and with us it is a matter of security and our own technological development.
          1. Rwmos
            Rwmos 2 December 2019 07: 09
            -2
            The United States has a lot of money, but not enough brains - because they again failed the other day the army tests of the F-35. For a long time, the time has come for corporations - in fact, no country in the world is now able to solo build anything like a fighter. The Russian Federation crippled India’s exit from the FFA, India was not able to build even the 4th generation single-engine itself. so as not much inferior to others. SAAB is engaged in cosmetics fighter 80s. Rafik French of the 80s, too - in 2011 they announced that they were turning off. Somehow they fly, albeit badly - only Eurofighter - the consortium built yes F-35. but the latter - precisely through F, How and what can the Koreans build solo - is doubtful to me.
            1. Sergey_G_M
              Sergey_G_M 2 December 2019 07: 25
              +8
              With the brains in the USA it’s normal, but expensive because part of the brains worked to absorb this money)) again, lobbying money must be taken from somewhere))
              In China, they are building without international consortia, the problem is with the engines, but I think they will solve it over time.
              Russia didn’t cripple Russia's output, India doesn’t have any useful technologies for the project, the money that we could get from them would speed up the development, yes, no more.
              And the fact that the Koreans are building solo is not a fact, perhaps in cooperation on electronics, avionics, an engine with Europeans, or something else.
              1. Alt-right
                Alt-right 2 December 2019 23: 11
                0
                This money would not only speed up development, but also help reduce the cost per unit! The larger the series, the more opportunities to reduce the price tag. The lower the price tag, the more you can buy for the same money. The notorious "quality of budget development" has not yet been canceled!)
              2. LastPS
                LastPS 27 December 2019 00: 53
                0
                I feel that they themselves will only master the glider and part of the electronics. American engine, French rockets, radar, too, most likely they will take someone. The example of the FA-50 mentioned in the article clearly illustrates this approach. In general, the development of such an aircraft is quite a normal idea. Seriously, they still have five with phantoms flying. And so they will replace most of the fleet with their development. Plus, I think that stealth capabilities will be added in the process, maybe they’ll stick some kind of container under the fuselage, here’s the situation. Yes, he will be inferior to the 35th in many ways, but he will be better than the 4th to the usual ones, and in many tasks he will be able to not inferior to him.
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 2 December 2019 06: 47
    +1
    In which the threat from the fourth generation fighters will be very conditional in many respects: at least if the Korean pilots will not "climb" into the close maneuver battle. By the way, there have been almost no cases of the latter over the past decades.

    Here they plan and predict everything in advance! And the battle, the real situation, and not note fantasies, make a lot of adjustments to everything and always!
    1. UAZ 452
      UAZ 452 2 December 2019 20: 56
      +2
      Which does not eliminate the need for planning. But a plan that cannot be corrected in time is not a plan, but a dogma. Here they are, no doubt, harmful and dangerous.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 2 December 2019 21: 11
        0
        All methods are good, they are needed when applied in a complex.
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 3 December 2019 08: 58
      +1
      will "climb" into close maneuverable battle. By the way, there have been almost no cases of the latter over the past decades.

      it is not clear what the author wanted to say with a phrase. If he dreams of a battle in visual visibility using cannon weapons, then yes, there wasn’t. If we are talking about close-range missile combat, then: firstly, they are almost always associated with the energetic evolution of a machine in space, and secondly, there were at least one such battle. The use of the MiG-21-93 of the Indian Air Force, the R-73 missile on the Pakistani F-16, already indicates that the combat distance did not exceed 35-40 km, i.e. Max. missile range. But in reality, it was unlikely to exceed 20 km (the maximum permissible launch range of the SD on a maneuvering target in those conditions)
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 December 2019 09: 06
        0
        Quote: Ka-52
        it is not clear what the author wanted to say with a phrase.

        But in a battle, real, it is not known how it will turn out. It is not possible to foresee any instructions, tactics of everything, everything.
  5. smaug78
    smaug78 2 December 2019 09: 31
    0
    I love the treatment of photos performed by charlatans ...
  6. EvilLion
    EvilLion 2 December 2019 09: 48
    +1
    In terms of size, the car was supposed to be larger than the French Dassault Rafale and the pan-European Eurofighter Typhoon, but smaller than the F-22 and F-35.


    This is already from the category of rzhu-ni-magu. You can not build on modern. at the technological level, a multifunctional stealth fighter in a dimension smaller than that of the F-22 and Su-57.

    The engine from F / A-18E / F with the same weight, promises the same performance characteristics. It may even be worse if there are losses in the airframe geometry due to a decrease in the RCS. Although, when hammering on deck-based, you can raise the dynamic performance, and the decrease in take-off and landing characteristics, which are awesome to compensate for the deck ships with automation, still even the "Superhornet" is from the 90s.

    In general, a country that had only the lightest fighter on the border with UB models can get a fairly modern functional machine. Definitely more interesting than the Chinese miscarriage J-31. Another thing is whether they can, they have a lot of money, but in 2001 Russia launched a much more advanced PAK FA, which has already been ordered for serial production. Plus, whether the purchase of another F-35 batch will not be shoved, which will be faster anyway, but what about imports, so the 414th engine is also imports, and not the freshest one.
    1. Private-K
      Private-K 2 December 2019 14: 00
      +2
      F35 is not needed for the South Koreans. They generally do not need an airplane with such performance characteristics.
      They need a light single-engine fighter with a short range, UHT (= high maneuverability), 1,9M supersonic, good-quality avionics. The bogey RL "invisibility" is only harmful. In general - something like Gripen, but with UHT. It would be possible to create an international consortium of South Korea-Sweden-Indonesia-Brazil and, on the basis of Gripen, make something like the Eurofiter-Typhoon.
      1. Alt-right
        Alt-right 2 December 2019 23: 27
        0
        Quote: Private-K
        F35 is not needed for the South Koreans.

        Still as needed! North Korean "telegraph poles" and all sorts of radars there have not yet been canceled, as well as the need to suppress them!
        Their 5th generation, if any, will not be a highly "multifunctional" machine. It is possible that this will be just a strong addition to their F-15 fleet, in the manner of the American F-15 and F-22 "bundles". In addition, according to Wikipedia, then they have only 15 F-60s!
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 3 December 2019 09: 12
      0
      You can not build on modern. at the technological level, a multifunctional stealth fighter in a dimension smaller than that of the F-22 and Su-57.

      precisely because at least the internal compartments for armament will not allow it to be made smaller.
      Although, when driving on deck-based, you can increase the dynamic performance, and a decrease in take-off and landing characteristics, which are awesome to compensate for deckers by automation

      unrelated dependence. The takeoff and landing characteristics are affected by the specific wing loading. It is even better for modern "land" MFIs than for deck ships of the 90s.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 December 2019 09: 27
        -1
        Well, because of the difficulties of take-off and landing on short decks, deck aircraft have a very large wing, from which the characteristic features of the F / A-18 are obtained: low max speed, because the wing creates great resistance, excellent maneuverability, much better than a log of type F-16, decent carrying capacity, very good take-off and landing characteristics. This is not a champion plane, like the F-15, but it’s quite convenient and stands up for itself when meeting with enemy fighters, it’s also good for air defense in a small country. No, if you compare with the Su-35S, then, of course, they started to design it in 2005, it has a newer and more advanced engine, it is larger and can have both a large mass fraction of the power plant and lower requirements for carrying capacity, i.e. K. 8 tons - this is so much, and therefore lower requirements for strength, that is, less weight. And vice versa, the deck has a hook, reinforced landing gear, and in general it flops onto the deck very unnecessarily, that is, the plane turns out to be heavier than an equal-sized land passenger.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 3 December 2019 10: 46
          0
          because the wing creates a lot of resistance

          the wing does not create resistance by itself. And the concept of "big" has nothing to do with it. The wing geometry plays a role: shape, section. Different wing shapes create inductive resistance of different strengths. It also affects flight performance. The wing area of ​​the F-22 is quite large, but its wing loading is one of the best. And besides, in modern MFIs of the Su-57 and F-22 type, not only the planes, but also the fuselage itself, are responsible for the lifting force. And the load on the wing is as we remember the ratio of the weight of the aircraft to the S of its bearing surfaces.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 December 2019 12: 22
            0
            In fact, it is the wing that is the main source of drag in flight. The best wing load is the one that is smaller. They increase it because of the need to reduce resistance to achieve high speed, and each stage of increase is accompanied by a definition. changes in aviation in general, for example, a complete departure from unpaved airfields at some point.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 3 December 2019 14: 48
              0
              In fact, it is the wing that is the main source of drag in flight.

              Does anyone dispute this?
              The best wing load is the one that is smaller. Increase it due to the need to reduce resistance to achieve high speed

              Not certainly in that way. An increase in the specific load on the wing (due to a decrease in the wetted surface) is a way to increase aerodynamic quality, that is, the possibility of cruising flight with minimal drag.
              But the speed and load on the wing here is different. For high speed, the inductive resistance of the wing is less important. But the profile resistance, depending on the thickness and curvature of the wing, is just the opposite.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 3 December 2019 14: 57
                0
                The highest aerodynamic quality is possessed by high-altitude cars, like, U-2. The wing load is the weight / wing area, that's all. No matter what wing it is. Moreover, it is obvious that the opposite, an increase in the wing load with an increase in aerodynamic quality, is permissible from an engineering point of view. If the wing gives a large lifting force, then the area can be made smaller.
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 4 December 2019 06: 56
                  0
                  If the wing gives a large lifting force, then the area can be made smaller.

                  there is no free cheese. You always have to sacrifice some characteristics for the sake of others. If you begin to reduce elongation, the inductive resistance will increase. If you lower the chord, you get a problem with torsional rigidity. If you eliminate the influxes, you will get problems with maneuvering at large angles of attack and with directional stability.
                  There are no more revolutions; there are compromises. Recent wing revolutions are associated more with material science, such as composite wing
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 3 December 2019 12: 59
            0
            Quote: Ka-52
            in modern MFIs such as Su-57 and F-22, not only the planes, but also the fuselage itself are responsible for the lifting force.

            By the way, I came across data that the lifting power of the Su-27 hull is one and a half times greater than that of the F-15 hull.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 3 December 2019 12: 18
          +1
          "maneuverability, much better than the F-16 type log," ////
          -----
          Is it the first time I've heard that someone called the F-16 a "log"? belay
          But the Soviet Su-27 pilots (patrols in the Baltic) complained that if the F-16 "sits on its tail", it is difficult to break away ... you have to be an ace.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 December 2019 12: 24
            0
            F-16 without afterburner simply can not stay on the tail of the hacked-in Su-27 maximum. At the same time, when maneuvering, the Su-27 reaches overloads somewhere up to 7g, F-16 only up to 4g. A log, it is a log. A small single-engine log with worse maneuverability, even in its class.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 3 December 2019 15: 13
              0
              "Small single-engine log with worse maneuverability" ////
              ----
              Accordingly, does the MiG-21 fall into the same category of "small single-engine logs"? smile
              In fact, two engines are set when there is not enough traction for one. What makes the whole plane heavier.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 3 December 2019 16: 58
                0
                In fact, the MiG-21 gets there. Unless, of course, we compare it with the "phantom" that carried very necessary equipment to the figurine, the crew of 2 people flew faster, since they were not going to shoot any MiG-21, its target was to be heavy bombers. Even against the MiG-23, the MiG-21 has no chance. However, its range is ridiculous. There is nothing good, except for the price and extreme simplicity in the MiG-21, and fortunately, they did not replace it, moving on to serious aircraft.

                From the point of view of weight, two engines are worse than one, it’s obvious, they just put them, usually on very large machines, in which the mass fraction of the cabin, guns with bullets to it, and other standard systems is much smaller than that of the small fry, which allows to increase the mass the share of fuel, power plant and other nishtyakov. What is clearly visible on the example of the F-2 with an empty weight of 16 tons, and this figure in newer versions is not so big, and the plane has overgrown with cancer of conformal tanks. And the F-7.5C, which having 15 of the same engines as the F-2, weighs not 16 tons, but only 15 with something, and at the same time has a range of up to 12 km compared to the typical 3000 km in small fry. In general, cool and respectful to me, in contrast to the F-2000, who was re-trained in light bombers.
            2. Lozovik
              Lozovik 5 December 2019 04: 43
              0
              Quote: EvilLion
              In this case, the Su-27 when maneuvering goes overload somewhere up to 7g

              Where is such nonsense written?

              Quote: EvilLion
              F-16 only up to 4g. A log, it is a log. A small single-engine log with worse maneuverability, even in its class.

              wassat
              1. surok1
                surok1 26 February 2020 07: 56
                0
                7g in my opinion, this is the standard for a fighter. Sincerely.
          2. Ka-52
            Ka-52 3 December 2019 14: 52
            0
            Is it the first time I've heard that someone called the F-16 a "log"? belay
            But the Soviet Su-27 pilots (patrols in the Baltic) complained that if the F-16 "sits on its tail", it is difficult to break away ... you have to be an ace.

            F-16 can compete with the Su-27 only at small angles of attack. With increasing angles of attack, Flanker will certainly lose drying in maneuverability. And the point is not in the aces.
            1. Koluj
              Koluj 30 January 2020 10: 59
              0
              [quote = Ka-52][quote] Flanker will certainly lose drying in maneuverability. And the point is not in the aces. [/ Quote]
              Nothing that is the same thing?
  7. bars1
    bars1 2 December 2019 09: 55
    0
    Quote: RWMos
    RF crippled India's exit from FFA

    Well, enough already to replicate a bike about FGFA!
  8. Aviationism
    Aviationism 2 December 2019 12: 14
    -1
    “Quasi-communist China, heading for world domination”

    This author, like all Americans, needs to read Chinese White Paper on China's world doctrine. In it, China strongly criticizes the dominance of countries instead of peaceful cooperation.
    If the author is Russians, the friendship between Russia and China should be dear to him.
    The repetition of American groundless fakes in Russian media does not help the interests of the Russian and Chinese peoples.
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 December 2019 12: 22
    +2
    Their plane is against North Korea.
    And what happened is enough.
    South Korea has no plans to butt with either China or Japan. In this case, their new aircraft would be really outdated.
    Their Golden Eagle training jet is excellent. Mini F-16.
    I regret a bit that Israel chose the Italian, and not the Korean, as a training aircraft. The Italian Yak is also good, but the Korean is very close to the 4th generation.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 3 December 2019 12: 26
      0
      Do China or Japan take Koreans into account?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 3 December 2019 13: 00
        0
        I don’t think so. In potential showdowns, China versus the US-Japan bloc, South Korea, is likely to be neutral.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 3 December 2019 13: 07
          0
          6 years ago, homeless people on the Kiev Maidan also caused only laughter. And no one would have thought that in six months the bloodshed would be higher than the roof. What makes you think that Koreans in 20 years will not have to fight with the Chinese?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 3 December 2019 13: 13
            0
            "Why do you think so?" - your approach is interesting. recourse
            It can be assumed that in 20 years ...
            New Zealanders will iron Icelanders. laughing
            Why? - Just a wild fantasy, not supported by anything ... and with Yu. Korea-China.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 3 December 2019 14: 59
              0
              Iceland is far from New Zealand, and China is close to Korea. At the same time, everyone in East Asia hates the Japanese.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 3 December 2019 15: 08
                +1
                But what did you write? :
                "that Koreans in 20 years will not have to fight the Chinese"
                Where are the Japanese in your quote? smile
  10. Basarev
    Basarev 2 December 2019 16: 28
    -1
    What do we care about Koreans? They will be able to create their own fighter by the year 30, this can be believed. And will we be able to bring to the Su-57 series by this year? And about the sixth generation fighter, even thinking sadly.
    1. UAZ 452
      UAZ 452 2 December 2019 20: 59
      +1
      What is the matter? Everyone knows the saying about smart people who learn from the mistakes of others. But in order to know about the mistakes of others, you need to at least carefully look around. Otherwise, you can break your head about the rake that your neighbor has already stepped on.
    2. Alt-right
      Alt-right 2 December 2019 23: 39
      0
      Quote: Basarev
      What do we care about Koreans? They will be able to create their own fighter by the year 30, this can be believed. And will we be able to bring to the Su-57 series by this year? And about the sixth generation fighter, even thinking sadly.

      The first production Su-57 should enter service this year. Plus 11 flight prototypes, which will be "brought to the level of production machines." And that one already has the first squadron!
      And even a full-fledged run-in (including flights) with "product 30" is already underway!
      There can be only two questions: 1) what about the realities of production capacities and finances. 2) The quality of the "stealth" coatings.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 3 December 2019 09: 46
        0
        Nobody will bring prototypes, they will either be written off for wear and put in a couple of museums, or they will be converted for the next test.
        1. Alt-right
          Alt-right 3 December 2019 12: 44
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          Nobody will bring prototypes, they will either be written off for wear and put in a couple of museums, or they will be converted for the next test.

          Who told you that? This sounds especially stupid given the fact that the latest prototypes were made as pre-production cars. By the way, you can read about this even on Wikipedia. This time!
          Secondly, even on the same Wikipedia there is such an infa: on July 19, 2017, the president of PJSC UAC Yuri Slyusar announced the start of the transfer to the military of an installation party of 12 fighters in 2019. Moreover, according to him, the aircraft will be transmitted with the engines of the first stage, except for the 11th and 12th aircraft, which will exactly correspond to the technical appearance of the production aircraft [81].
          Do you know what "prototypes" will do in this case? In the worst case, pilots will be trained on these machines. But I am inclined to think, for example, that there will be combat use in this case!
          So, in general, you are pumping in vain. hi
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 3 December 2019 13: 05
            0
            In the yard, the 2019th year, the assembly of the first of the first two production cars ends. Why are you writing a two-year-old prophecy that has not come true?

            Not prototypes were made like serial machines, but the technical appearance of the last two prototypes was taken into serial production. The first prototype in January will be 10 years from the first flight, while it is far from the fact that there is at least a theoretical possibility to convert it on the model of the first production vehicles. Geometrically, there may be such differences that only pull out part of the devices and stick it into the other fuselage. Prototypes for that and prototypes that can differ radically from each other. Even serial cars of early releases may vary, which, as far as I know, was the case with the Su-34, which was sold out in production from 2006 to 2010. And the Indians in the late 90s were generally given to use 18 Su-30s, which are technically impossible to convert to Su -30MKI, then these EMNIP machines hit Uganda.

            In addition, the design bureau conducts research work continuously, for example, it also includes 2 prototypes of the Su-35, which are 901 and 902. With the advent of serial machines, they stopped dragging them to air shows. And the prototypes of the Su-57 are used for exactly the same thing, they are remade for the intended program, they are executed, then they can be attracted to something else. Any new gadget on the plane must be tested.
            1. Alt-right
              Alt-right 3 December 2019 13: 20
              0
              Quote: EvilLion
              Any new gadget on the plane must be tested.

              It is, but it also doesn't prove otherwise! In any case, even if there are variations in the timing and amount of "delivery" to the military (we are very fond of moving the timing "to the right"), then at least one can be sure that the machines from the "second stage prototypes" will be in service anyway! On some of them even the item 30 will stand.
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 3 December 2019 15: 05
                0
                Again. Prototypes:
                a) May be critically different from serial machines, so that their refinement is impossible.
                b) Prototypes are intensively used in tests, including and after starting the machine in series.
                c) Prototypes are stifled. And their repair due to design differences may be meaningless. They will remove what is possible in the spare parts, and the worn-out glider will be disposed of.

                Sometimes they are simply put on conservation in their existing form. In particular, the Americans recently pulled out one of the early F-22s, which required refinement for use.
  11. maden.usmanow
    maden.usmanow 2 December 2019 17: 03
    +1
    After all, their future is at stake: America is the only real ally that can really help.



    At least someone understands this
  12. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 2 December 2019 23: 34
    0
    South Koreans want their own KF-X - let them do it. Q: Does South Korea make its own engines?
  13. ydjin
    ydjin 3 December 2019 02: 26
    0
    Quote: kupitman
    Outer loop and bomb throws

    Equip the pilot with a sling, even as David fires at Goliath! lol
  14. Pecheneg
    Pecheneg 22 January 2020 13: 30
    0
    They cooperate with Turkey, and voila ... zilch. Faced with a clear threat from North Korea and China, Southerners should forget their claims to Japan. Together, they are God-given allies in this region.
  15. Whalebone
    Whalebone 11 February 2020 15: 38
    0
    The only possible real adversary to the South Caucasus is the northern neighbor. Which lacks modern aviation and high-quality missile defense / air defense. If there is a serious kneading between the brothers, everything that shoots will go into action. Given the size of the DPRK, the southerners need not expensive IBs of 5,6,7 generations, but hundreds of Tomahawks, OTRK, and strike drones. And of course, the most advanced missile defense / air defense system. Nevertheless, I hope that the war between the Koreans will not come and we will still see a single state. A strong RK will balance the balance of power in a region where neighbors have centuries-old wounds, resentment, and some have a thirst for revenge.
    1. surok1
      surok1 25 February 2020 10: 35
      0
      That's just the Americans retreated.))
  16. kutuz
    kutuz 13 February 2020 23: 23
    0
    "One thing remains unchanged - the South Korean fighter, which they wanted to get by 2020, has not been, and still is not." - this is very similar to the story with Su57.
  17. surok1
    surok1 25 February 2020 10: 34
    0
    Also, after all, without complaints, the plane. If only it would be like modern. On economic spurt, they decided that they could do it. Euphoria.