Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Saab Offers Supercruising Stealth to South Korea
Softwar    7/8/2008 4:19:17 PM
Saab Offers Supercruising Stealth to South Korea Aviation Week & Space Technology 07/07/2008 , page 32 South Korea’s combat aircraft requirement draws out advanced proposals from Western fighter houses A Saab proposal to co-develop a stealth fighter with South Korea is raising the prospect of an Asian-European aircraft emerging to compete with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning. The South Korean project to build an advanced combat aircraft alternatively offers to fund developments of the Eurofighter Typhoon or to help sustain Boeing’s waning fighter business—but there is also a strong chance that the ambitious program will collapse into yet another F-35 order. Saab is pitching a new design for a supercruising stealth fighter to South Korea, as well offering the possibility of joining the Gripen next-generation program (AW&ST June 30, p. 42). Boeing is putting forward developments of the F-15, including reviving a 1990s concept without tail fins, and it has also offered a new fighter design. EADS is pushing developments of the Typhoon beyond the Tranche 3 standard, and also flagging the opportunity of participating in its combat drone project. It may also have submitted a clean-sheet-of-paper fighter concept. Lockheed Martin meanwhile is telling Seoul that the F-35 Lightning will meet its needs. That’s not surprising, since it has no business interest in supporting South Korean ambitions to co-develop a stealth fighter, which would surely become an F-35 competitor. The diverse range of offerings from the four manufacturers reflects uncertainty in South Korea itself over combat aircraft development. The air force wants an advanced fighter, but various factions in the government, industry and military are debating whether the country should fill that requirement by buying off the shelf or by taking part in development of a new aircraft or major derivative. The country has two substantive fighter requirements, F-X Phase III for 60 aircraft and then F-XX for 120. It also has a parallel domestic stealth fighter development program, KFX. The F-XX requirement calls for fifth-generation aircraft, so the hope is that KFX will fill that need through a joint program between South Korean and foreign industry, with the latter carrying up to 30% of the development cost. But KFX is up for review this month by the administration of new President Lee Myung-bak. It may be canceled or restricted to co-production or assembly of an existing aircraft, boosting Lockheed Martin’s hopes of an order for the F-35. An intermediate possibility would be South Korean involvement in less advanced developments of current production aircraft. The manufacturers presented their ideas at an air force seminar in Seoul on June 26. Saab has circulated two series of designs for South Korea, for single and twin aircraft, recent iterations of which have been designated P305 and P306, respectively. Its presentation at the seminar showed only the twin-engine design, probably reflecting South Korean views on how large an aircraft is needed. The air force’s Warfare Development Group has described the KFX as having a capability between that of the F-15 and F-16. By “capability” it must mean weight and thrust class, since a new stealth aircraft would be much more capable than even updates of the 1970s designs. Saab gave no specifications for its design but the external weapons shown on a drawing suggested an aircraft length of 17-18 meters (56-59 ft.). Span is much less than the length, possibly about 12 meters. If those rough estimates are correct, then the Saab stealth fighter would be at least as large as the Typhoon. Saab shows single- and tandem-seat versions of the design. Inlet configuration is similar to the F-22’s, and the tail fins are canted. The trailing edge of the main-plane is swept forward, again like the F-22’s, but the leading edge looks significantly less swept. A gun is mounted abreast the left inlet duct. The manufacturer promotes the aircraft as a balanced multirole design offering broadband stealth, supercruise, “range and endurance,” integrated sensors, avionics and weapons, and situational awareness through the human-machine interface. It also claims attractive “low life-cycle cost, growth potential [and] exportability,” while dismissing “extreme stealth” as “suitable for tailored platforms.” Internal weapons stowage seems to be limited, since Saab says the bays are optimized for the air superiority role, although it still describes the aircraft as multirole in high-threat scenarios. External stores would be carried for low-threat scenarios. One of the three bays is behind the pit and between the inlets, and the other two are in the lower corners of the fuselage under the wing. With domestic development, “upgrades and changes to the aircraft can be implemented according to Republic of Korea Air Force priorities without interference by [the] seller’s government, etc.,” Saab ar
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
dwightlooi       8/8/2008 11:04:05 PM


If it incorporates the very latest in AESA technologies (most likely) and they do achieve a measure of stealthiness that surpasses everything other than the F-22 and F/A-35 (might as well call it that), then this new twin-engined platform could be the nightmare that many other aircraft manufacturers never wanted to see become reality. The potential is there, if SAAB and Korea can pull it off, to outstrip the (anticipated) sales of even the JSF, much to the dismay of countless component suppliers (who'd be foolish not to jump on the KFX program if offered the chance).
 
Why will such a platform outstrip JSF sales? I mean, if they can pull off something like that, it'll be a very good aircraft no doubt, but it will be inferior to the JSF and probably more expensive. A twin will make it less desirable to the majority of customers due to the reduced efficiency, increased mass and higher acquisition & operating costs. It's RCS is inferior as stated and the very latest AESA is probably no better than the APG-81 in the F-35 as it IS the most advanced AESA. Most importantly, this platform will not enjoy the planned 2000+ unit buy from the USA alone.
 
So... I'll like to know what's the logic behind the reasoning that it'll outstrip JSF sales.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       8/10/2008 2:55:25 PM





If it incorporates the very latest in AESA technologies (most likely) and they do achieve a measure of stealthiness that surpasses everything other than the F-22 and F/A-35 (might as well call it that), then this new twin-engined platform could be the nightmare that many other aircraft manufacturers never wanted to see become reality. The potential is there, if SAAB and Korea can pull it off, to outstrip the (anticipated) sales of even the JSF, much to the dismay of countless component suppliers (who'd be foolish not to jump on the KFX program if offered the chance).



 


Why will such a platform outstrip JSF sales? I mean, if they can pull off something like that, it'll be a very good aircraft no doubt, but it will be inferior to the JSF and probably more expensive. A twin will make it less desirable to the majority of customers due to the reduced efficiency, increased mass and higher acquisition & operating costs. It's RCS is inferior as stated and the very latest AESA is probably no better than the APG-81 in the F-35 as it IS the most advanced AESA. Most importantly, this platform will not enjoy the planned 2000+ unit buy from the USA alone.

 

So... I'll like to know what's the logic behind the reasoning that it'll outstrip JSF sales.



WRT any reduced efficiency and cost of operating twins over single-engine designs: how many F/A-18 (A-D model) customers were there (Spain, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Finland, Kuwait come to mind), all of whom could've bought cheaper F-16s instead?
It's going to come down to payload capabilities over the ranges the customer desires. Costs of operation could easily come second to payload/range/radar capability.
 
WRT this theoretical KFX's costs being more than the JSFs: based on what?
you can't speculate/prove any more it'll be more expensive than I can speculate/prove it'll be cheaper.
I'm just basing my estimates off the closest competition this aircraft would have: it's going to have to come in under the sticker price of a Rafale or Typhoon (that's a no-brainer), or offer superior capabilities to justify a higher price.
It'll pretty much have to have to at least match the F/A-18E/F/G series, just to attract even one customer (SKorea).
So it'll have to be on par/approaching the JSF's payload capabilities, ranges, and while it certain probably won't achieve US stealth standards (set by F-22 and F-35), it'll need to exceed any other platform's low observability to win customer interest, but again come in under the F-35's price tag to win buyers.
 
WRT to AESA capabilities: by the time this aircraft is even remotely ready for its prototype/pre-production status
(minimally 5 years, 10 more realistic, but they just might surprise us: everything can't always be gauged by how long it takes for the US to get the ball rolling),
AESA sets will be better than what you can buy now
(radar tech isn't suddenly going to stall because everyone else believes the F-22 and F-35 are the pinnacle of fighter design and they feel there's no longer any point to develop radar any further. If solely on the grounds of trying to develop a radar to exploit those 2 aircrafts' LO weaknesses, radar tech will progress, and it will be power-efficient AESA by design, not power-hungry mechanically-steered parabolic tube sets).
These latest "refit" kits that offer scalable AESAs for anything that has the necessary volume and power generation capabilities will be the base standard that new fighter radars of 10 years from now will have to be capable of matching.
 
WRT outstripping JSF sales.
Have you read the thread "F-35 Flight Testing Update" that Softwar started?
The JSF program has not been flawless. Typical of just about every major US leaps-and-bounds weapons program,
there are countless delays, cost overruns, Congressional interference, technical glitches, and other unexpected happenstanc
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics