The fanboy has spoken.

 

lol

 

 

Yes, the Aviation Expert has spoken .

Some numbers leaked by a printed(sorry, this article is not available on online) Korean military magazine on latest KFX A2A mission configuration under consideration.

 

- Base aircraft : Either heavily modified F/A-18C or shortened F/A-18E.

- Take-off weight : 16 ton

- Combat Radius : 300 nm on internal fuel.

- Armament : 4 missiles in internal weapons bay.

- Engine : F414-EDE x 2

- Base aircraft : Modified F/A-18C or shortened F/A-18E.

This is like the fourth source confirming Boeing's front-runner status. Typhoon option is dropped at the moment. 

Hornet(!!!!) in addition with Super Hornet is considered, the reason for considering Hornet is weight reduction in order to achieve high thrust/weight ratio necessary for supercruise and target A2A combat performance. As previously mentioned, They are investigating which option would be less risky in order to achieve both LO status and supercruise, as both approach require heavy modification anyway.

 

Design study's focus is on A2A performance and not A2G performance.

 

Where are you reading this crap slowman?  Comic books?

 

I think people here are correct to raise doubts about EF supercruise performance.

 

You have to remember Slowman, that what is posted on the "eurofighter nothing comes close" is really designed to capture and reuse as many of the keywords associated with the F22.

 

The EF can supercruise, it does this at certain but not ALL altitudes, engine performance and drag being the key considerations. The EF can't make 1.5 "clean" so you add ANY weapons (even a useless 4 AMRAAMS, given that you would generally want to be able to fire 2 per target). and that does drop to <1.2 and again, at certain altitudes. The pilots (read their accounts) like to be up near its operational ceiling to maximise kinetic advantage and detection range (especially for PIRATE), as far as I am aware most supercruise performance demonstrations take place at 35 000 feet or so (not 60+000) and the configuration of the plane is rarely announced.

 

Why would the EF be "rated" with 4xAA missiles? How would you then be able to determine what the effect of those 4 semi-recessed Amraams were doing? What terminology would you use to define the aircraft when it was without those amraams? - Do you suppose they do what you did, and add inverted commas? Perhaps they call it "cleaner than clean" configuration.  Do you think it would be wise for an airfract (even assuming what you said was true) to rely solely on mid-long range A2A missiles for a combat mission?

 

Anyway, this thread is verging on massochism as far as I can see - Slowman, you're not being rational.

 

 

I will try to be more specific on exactly what's going on with KFX as details are being leaked from reliable sources.

 

Actually there are currently two models studied under simulation in the above mentioned report.

 

Option 1 : Delta-wing single engine(F110-GE-132) fighter with take-off weight of 14,560 kg for 300 nm A2A mission

Option 2 : F/A-18E based twin engine(F414-EDE) fighter with take-off weight of 15,649 kg for 300 nm A2A mission

Option 1 doesn't exactly look like any existing fighter, and this is why there has been confusions about it between the sources, with some calling it it looks like single-engine Rafale or others calling it mini F-35. My guess is that this is an expanded Gripen, given Saab's strong bid on the project and that Saab would likely be retained for some avionics and networking(one aircraft guides missile fired by another aircraft) work even if Option 2 is selected.

 

Option 2 is indeed the modified Super Hornet that has been put through heavy weight reduction and possibly shrunk to hit the weight target of 16 tons for clean(no drop tank, 4 missiles internally carried) A2A mission profile.

 

Both options come with internal weapons bay, with Option 1's bay being larger due to its single-engined nature. Option 2's bay is restricted to A2A missiles.

 

Recession-minded Korean administration wants to push Option 1 for being cheaper and having higher tech transfer rate and domestic content, while Korean Airforce is insisting on Option 2 because this one is an A2A optimized supercruiser that could engage J-14 and F-3 expected past 2020.

 

This is the most detailed summary of what KFX looks like right now