SinoDefence Forum

Semi-Lobster · 01-08-2009

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rototypes.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flight Global

South Korea orders KAI F/A-50 light attack fighter prototypes
By Siva Govindasamy

South Korea has asked Korea Aerospace Industries to develop a prototype of a light attack version of its T-50 advanced jet trainer, with a production contract likely to be awarded after the aircraft has been tested by the nation's air force.

Under the 400 billion won ($306 million) contract, KAI will upgrade four T-50s to the F/A-50 standard and deliver them to the South Korean air force by 2012. It then expects the service to order around 60 F/A-50s for delivery from 2013 to replace its ageing Northrop F-5s, and to eventually buy up to 150 of the type.

KAI has been pushing Seoul to finance the F/A-50's development for several years as it wants to keep its T-50 production line open beyond 2012, when the last South Korean aircraft currently under contract will be delivered. Its air force has ordered 82 T-50s, including 50 advanced jet trainers, 22 armed A-50s and 10 for its aerobatics display team. The service could order another 70 trainer and weaponised variants, say sources, and the T-50 is also in contention in several international tenders.

Tenders were issued last year by KAI to suppliers of radar warning receivers, precision-guided bombs, countermeasures dispensers, advanced tactical datalinks and weapons management systems for the F/A-50. Known armaments will include bombs equipped with Boeing Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits and Raytheon's AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile.

The F/A-50 is also likely to use an EL/M-2032 radar supplied by Israel's Elta Systems. The radar selection has been a bone of contention with Lockheed Martin, which helped to develop the T-50 and had wanted KAI to use its own APG-67(V)4 on the F/A-50. Seoul had preferred Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems' Vixen 500E active electronically scanned array, but is barred from sharing the T-50's source codes with non-US companies. That led to it choosing the Israeli radar, which will be installed on the F/A-50 by a US company, meeting US government and Lockheed conditions.

KAI and Lockheed are jointly marketing the T-50 outside South Korea, with the aircraft locked in fierce competition with Alenia Aermacchi's M-346 in Greece, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. The companies are also promoting the aircraft in other European and Asian countries with advanced trainer requirements. Industry sources say the F/A-50 will also be offered to countries that require light attack aircraft after 2013.

So in the end they decided to go for the Israeli EL/M-2032 rather than Lockheed's APG-67v4 or even Northrop-Grumman's SABR and seems indicative that Korea doesn't want its fighter programme to be pushed around by it's American partner like what happened with the Japanese F-2 and the often repeated date of 2013 is mentioned once again to enter service. Given that the T-50 already exists, is in ROKAF service and is a proven design that already has proven weapons capabilities (the A-50 light attack variant), ~60 F/A-50s operational by 2013 is rather reasonable barring anything unexpected.

Titanium · 01-08-2009

Quote:

Seoul had preferred Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems' Vixen 500E active electronically scanned array, but is barred from sharing the T-50's source codes with non-US companies. That led to it choosing the Israeli radar, which will be installed on the F/A-50 by a US company, meeting US government and Lockheed conditions.

This part really intrigue me since reading this report sometime back.

what exactly is the source code of the plane, that needs to be shared when installing different radar??

What is so special in T-50, which cannot be shared with Selex(non-american), but perfectly okay with IAI!!

what will this have implication for LCA, JF-17 etc which don't have their own radar/ intend to have third party radar ??

n

Semi-Lobster · 01-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium

This part really intrigue me since reading this report sometime back.

what exactly is the source code of the plane, that needs to be shared when installing different radar??

What is so special in T-50, which cannot be shared with Selex(non-american), but perfectly okay with IAI!!

what will this have implication for LCA, JF-17 etc which don't have their own radar/ intend to have third party radar ??

n

They're probably talking about Selex's SELEX S&AS subsidiary, which, according to the Selex website ' is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK company and operates under a Special Security Agreement (SSA) granted by the US Defence Security Services for a company under foreign (non-US) ownership. This enables the company to have facility and personal security clearances and undertake US classified contracts.' As for Elta, there is probably a considerable amount of US involvement with the radar which is why its 'ok' to sell the the powerful EL/M-2032 but non-AESA, which would make it less objectionable to share with South Korea. The implications for the Tejas I guess is most US companies are not willing or cannot gain the clearance to export AESA radar or any other 'sensitive' equipment, anytime soon, although the Tejas and JF-17 were never really intended to operate with AESA anyway so its not really an issue.

Eitherway, South Korea's is looking for an affordable, indigenous (with US help) replacement for their aging F-4 and F-5s, this will at least lower the productions costs by using an older, mechanical radar rather than an electronic one. Afterall, South Korea's main defence concern is North Korea, a country with an incredibly mediocre air force with the most potent aircraft in its inventory being a handful of MiG-29As and S' and SAM's such as the old but stil lrather capable S-200 and number will count for a lot since the South Korean government intends to by 150 or more of F/A-50s.

Titanium · 01-08-2009

I understand that, my original query being what sort of "source code" of the plane needs to be shared with radar vendor??

Why would a UK company be no no, but israeli firm ok!

Thanks

Semi-Lobster · 01-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Titanium

I understand that, my original query being what sort of "source code" of the plane needs to be shared with radar vendor??

Why would a UK company be no no, but israeli firm ok!

Thanks

Selex 'operates under a Special Security Agreement (SSA) granted by the US Defence Security Services for a company under foreign (non-US) ownership.' which means that while it is able to work with advanced, and highly secure programs with the US government, it is also under agreement with the US Defence Security Services, who can dictate what Selex can do with its co-American partners. AESA radar is certainly something the American government is still very protective of while Elta's EL/M-2032 is a mechanical pulse-doppler radar which is less 'sensitive'.

As for 'what sort of "source code" of the plane needs to be shared'. That's obviously a secret or else they wouldn't have blocked it!

I'm curious as to where the F/A-50 will go, will it keep its current dimensions? Its certainly too light to take over all the F-4D/E's roles, I think it will make an excellent replacement for the F-5E/F. Last year South Korea's miltiary exports were over $1 billion for the first time. Perhaps the F/A-50 could be actively marketed to other US-aligned Pacifc Rim countries as a replacement for their F-5s?

Semi-Lobster · 01-15-2009

http://www.gdatp.com/news/2009/NR09_03.htm

Quote:

General Dynamics Awarded Production Contract for A-50 Gun Systems

January 12, 2009

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP), a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), has been awarded a contract by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) for production of up to 82 A-50 20mm gun systems.

Manufacturing will be performed at General Dynamics’ Saco, Maine, facility, and the program will be managed by General Dynamics’ Burlington, Vt., facility. S&T Dynamics, LTD of South Korea, the designated Korean Industry Partner (KIP) for the program, will produce the ammunition containers for these weapons systems under a subcontract arrangement with General Dynamics. Deliveries will begin in October 2010.

Steve Vander Kraats, A-50 gun system program manager, said, “The A-50 Gun System was developed by General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products specifically for the T/A-50 light trainer/attack aircraft being produced by KAI. The system provides the relatively smaller T/A-50 aircraft with 20mm Gatling gun capabilities comparable to that of larger fighter aircraft.”

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, located in Charlotte, N.C., provides a broad range of system solutions for military and commercial applications. The company designs, develops and produces high-performance armament systems; defensive armor solutions; aerospace components; mobile shelter systems; and is a leading U.S. producer of biological and chemical detection systems. More information about General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products can be found on the Internet at www.gdatp.com.

General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Va., employs approximately 91,200 people worldwide. The company is a market leader in business aviation; land and expeditionary combat systems, armaments and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and information systems and technologies. More information about the company is available on the Internet at www.generaldynamics.com.

Hm, interesting that they developed a new 20mm cannon just for the T/A-50 series which I guess we can later expect on the F/A-50.

Semi-Lobster · 01-15-2009

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-trainer.html

Quote:

Poland considers T-50 and Finnish Hawks for trainer deal
By Bartosz Glowacki

Poland hopes to acquire 16 lead-in fighter trainers for delivery from the third quarter of 2010, with the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-50 and Patria-modified BAE Systems Hawk 51 designs in contention.

Finnish-owned Hawks have previously been considered as a temporary solution ahead of Poland's selection of a new advanced jet trainer, but defence minister Bogdan Klich says Patria's upgrade to the type "fulfils the basic requirements of the Polish air force", and is a "serious offer". The aircraft could remain in service until 2025, say air force officials.

President Lech Kaczynski and armed forces chief of general staff Gen Franciszek Gagor visited South Korea last month, and Warsaw is waiting to receive a detailed T-50 offer from KAI. The South Korean aircraft "is the most modern and dedicated to [Lockheed] F-16 pilot training, with a good price", says Klich, adding: "We know Korean partners are very interested in entering the Polish market."

The jet trainer purchase is expected to advance no later than mid-2010 without a formal tender, due to the need to replace PZL Mielec TS-11 Iskras in use at the Polish air force academy in Deblin by 2012.

The air force will also have 28 of its PZL-130 Orlik turboprop trainers modernised to a TC-II standard, featuring a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6-25C engine and a new wing, extending their use until at least 2018. Sixteen will receive Garmin avionics for primary training, while 12 will get glass cockpits to prepare students for operations of the F-16. Poland's final three of 48 F-16C/Ds were delivered to Poznan-Krzesiny airbase on 11 December 2008.

Meanwhile, Poland's defence ministry has awarded PZL Mielec a contract worth around 635 million zlotys ($200 million) to supply a further 12 M-28B Bryza transports by 2012, and to deliver a flight simulator and training for 36 personnel at Deblin. Ten of the aircraft will feature new avionics equipment including a Rockwell Collins glass cockpit scheduled to undergo flight testing this year, plus self-defence equipment and radar warning receivers supplied by Denmark's Terma. The other two will be configured for VIP duties.

While the Hawk 51 may 'meet' Polish requirements, I don't really see the advantage of buying refurbished, second-hand aircraft, some of which are over 30 years old (since the aticle said the sale was of Hawk 51s specifically rather than the newer Hawk 51As) compared to a newly built aircraft, especially since trainers generally experience very long service lives. Also, given that Poland already operates the F-16 and I assume Lockheed and General Dynamics would prefer 'their' newly built T-50s to go along with them which could affect Poland's final outcome. Also currently Patria is currently in a state of dissaray, after a scandal involving corruption charges in Slovenia. Patria's Hawk 51s might be considered 'tainted' by this as well.

Mu Shu Tortilla · 01-17-2009

I think "source code" refers to the code in the aircraft's data bus. Each component must be able to communicate on this bus, implying it's language must be compatible. There must be something very advanced in that code that cannot be shared with certain parties.

Titanium · 01-18-2009

Maybe you are right here, but haven't the system architecture nowadays decoupled between airframe(anything to do with flying) and avionics ala Gripen and Rafale??

Quote:

Gripen NG takes advantage of the latest ARINC 653 integrated modular avionics standard that provides for the separation of critical functions onboard the aircraft. ARINC 653 sets out new design rules for safety, security and the integration of both common and user-specific capabilities. Most significantly it allows critical and non-flight critical application software to be kept completely apart. With many current avionics systems almost every avionics change forces the user to reverify the entire aircraft each time, to ensure that flight safety functions have not been affected.

http://www.nyteknik.se/multimedia/ar...080_25358a.pdf

I was under the impression it is norm rather than exception in new aircraft.

Miragedriver · 05-13-2010

The T-50 Golden Eagle is an excellent design and appears (in my opinion) to be reminiscent of the F-16. Information from “Flight Global” and “manufactures data” indicate that aircraft features a digital fly-by-wire control interface (reportedly triple redundant). The aircraft appears to have an excellent visibility, and reports indicate that it is very maneuverable.
With a powerful radar (too bad the APG-67 was not selected) in an enlarged radome, some AMRAAM’s this aircraft could pack a powerful punch and surprise enemy forces in its first encounter. The F404 turbofan is a well proven engine and generates approximately 79kN ( 18,000 lbs) of thrust. This is the same engine which powers the f-18, F-117, F-20 and the almost built SAIA-90. County’s that are having a difficult time purchasing equipment from China (for political reasons), may find this aircraft a great replacement for the venerable F-5 and A-4 (as was mentioned in another post).
At mach 1.4 this platform would be an excellent replacement for my country’s aged Mirage III and A-4 fleet. However, with the current economic crisis we will most likely get the second hand discards from 1st worlds air forces.
Question for “Semi-Lobster”: How do you feel that this aircraft compares to the JF-17? It seems that a single-seat fighter version of the T-50 could be more versatile and of better quality that the JF-17. After all if the Israel’s are looking at a purchase, it must be a good platform.

yehe · 05-13-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miragedriver

The T-50 Golden Eagle is an excellent design and appears (in my opinion) to be reminiscent of the F-16. Information from “Flight Global” and “manufactures data” indicate that aircraft features a digital fly-by-wire control interface (reportedly triple redundant). The aircraft appears to have an excellent visibility, and reports indicate that it is very maneuverable.
With a powerful radar (too bad the APG-67 was not selected) in an enlarged radome, some AMRAAM’s this aircraft could pack a powerful punch and surprise enemy forces in its first encounter. The F404 turbofan is a well proven engine and generates approximately 79kN ( 18,000 lbs) of thrust. This is the same engine which powers the f-18, F-117, F-20 and the almost built SAIA-90. County’s that are having a difficult time purchasing equipment from China (for political reasons), may find this aircraft a great replacement for the venerable F-5 and A-4 (as was mentioned in another post).
At mach 1.4 this platform would be an excellent replacement for my country’s aged Mirage III and A-4 fleet. However, with the current economic crisis we will most likely get the second hand discards from 1st worlds air forces.
Question for “Semi-Lobster”: How do you feel that this aircraft compares to the JF-17? It seems that a single-seat fighter version of the T-50 could be more versatile and of better quality that the JF-17. After all if the Israel’s are looking at a purchase, it must be a good platform.

The F/A50 are merely a trainer transformed into a light attacker, the Koreans made the aerodynamic as close to a fighter as it could be, but still,anyone take a look at it will know its a trainer, it will never be as capable as a dedicated fighter like the JF17 in terms of air combat, it can take less G force than the JF17, the afterburner with F404 are also less powerful than the RD93 afterburner, in other sense when armed with weapon both should have similer range and speed, however I am not too sure about the FA50 as most statistic we got about it are the trainer version which are proberbly based on unarmed or lightly armed load, it got less wingspan and length than the JF17, The FA50 offersfew or no quality edge over the JF17, the design are quite conventional with not much of innovative highlights as a trainer should be, but then again so is the JF17 except for the DSI intake, but at least its designed as a fighter, the FA50 will never be a real fighter, it can carry a couple AIM9 for air defence, thats proberbly all, its main role will be a light attacker.
But anyways, the FA50 wont be cheap, even the trainer version cost more thant he JF17, when installed with advanced radar and firecontrol systems, the pricetag I would expect to go up even more.
My conclusion is that the FA50 is not bad at all but not worth it, its a good program to start with to boost the capability of the Korean indiginous aviation defence industry with the help of the US and other countries, to gather initial knowlege, thats why the Koreans are willing to pay for it.

Lion · 05-13-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miragedriver

The F404 turbofan is a well proven engine and generates approximately 79kN ( 18,000 lbs) of thrust. This is the same engine which powers the f-18, F-117, F-20 and the almost built SAIA-90. County’s that are having a difficult time purchasing equipment from China (for political reasons), may find this aircraft a great replacement for the venerable F-5 and A-4 (as was mentioned in another post).

Usually countries having political difficulties with China but not western countries will opt for second hand F-16 or Gripen. Golden eagle is redundant IMO. In fact, its the other way round. They are plenty of countries having problem with US but not China and potential of JF-17 is far greater.

But I have heard Iraq Air Force interested in purchasing Golden Eagle but if they are just solely interested in trainer role. China K-8 is a better choice.
And not surprisingly, the rival to Golden Eagle is second hand F-16. If they need a combat aircraft, F-16 fits the criteria better.

yehe · 05-14-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lion

Usually countries having political difficulties with China but not western countries will opt for second hand F-16 or Gripen. Golden eagle is redundant IMO. In fact, its the other way round. They are plenty of countries having problem with US but not China and potential of JF-17 is far greater.

But I have heard Iraq Air Force interested in purchasing Golden Eagle but if they are just solely interested in trainer role. China K-8 is a better choice.
And not surprisingly, the rival to Golden Eagle is second hand F-16. If they need a combat aircraft, F-16 fits the criteria better.

K8 is not a better choice, but certainly a cheaper one, L15 now might be a better AND cheaper choice.

Miragedriver · 06-11-2010

Thank you for the reply. I can see how the Golden Eagle could end up costing more than a JF-17. With the higher labor costs in Korea and Japan (The Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 ended up costing are $100 million per unit, and that was in 2004 prices).
There are some aircraft that have made the transition from trainer to fighter, such as the T-38 to F-5 to F-20. But these are few and far between. I agree with you that with the U.S. now selling surplus F-16 the prospect of converting the T-50 would not make sense. However it’s nice to know that your advance trainer can be used as LCA in the event of hostilities.

Pointblank · 06-11-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by yehe

K8 is not a better choice, but certainly a cheaper one, L15 now might be a better AND cheaper choice.

Not exactly, the primary combat aircraft of a new Iraqi Air Force will compose mostly of Western aircraft, most likely American types. And since American influence will continue to play a hand on the new Iraqi Air Force, we can assume that any future advanced trainer for the Iraqi Air Force will most likely be Western types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miragedriver

Thank you for the reply. I can see how the Golden Eagle could end up costing more than a JF-17. With the higher labor costs in Korea and Japan (The Japanese Mitsubishi F-2 ended up costing are $100 million per unit, and that was in 2004 prices).

Most due to developmental issues along the way.

SinoDefence Forum

South Korea's KAI F/A-50 Golden Eagle Light Fighter Program

South Korea's KAI F/A-50 Golden Eagle Light Fighter Program

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

Similar Threads

vBulletin Tweet Poster