Thanks for the link DWI!
 |
| Don't get excited by the weapons, get pumped up about the optics..you're looking at an AAV that is able to see at distance in the dark, able to locate threats in all conditions etc... |
 |
| Looks like the S. Koreans aren't after full stealth in their next gen fighter. |
 |
| This will be the next big thing in armor. Medium tanks will become the next "must have" item in the motor pool |
The picture of the single tail jet really looks like the rear end and wing platform of an F16 with a modified nose of a F35. Almost everything aft of the inlets could be from the F16 which has been licensed built in Korea, grafting the nose of something resembling the LO/AESA of a F35 like front end should be well within the capabilities of South Korea, would be technically feasible and not too expensive.
ReplyDeleteSouth Korea could produce be a real good 4.5 Gen fighter with decent LO, good stepping stone for a new fighter too, could even be exportable and have a relatively good price with well known maintenance costs since you would keep so much in common with F16. South Korea could even tote it as the little cheaper brother to the F35! I bet LMT would do everything in it's power to kill this idea....
NICO
Delete> The picture of the single tail jet really looks like the rear end and wing platform of an F16 with a modified nose of a F35.
That's a modified F/A-50, stretched here and there.
> grafting the nose of something resembling the LO/AESA of a F35 like front end should be well within the capabilities of South Korea, would be technically feasible and not too expensive.
And it does not meet the ROC of both Korean and Indonesian Air Forces, and the vendor is demanding the air forces to lower their ROCs.
> South Korea could produce be a real good 4.5 Gen fighter with decent LO, good stepping stone for a new fighter too
There is no money for two fighter jet programs. There can be only one.
The single-engine jet is a vendor proposal called the F-50 ADV, a modified F/A-50 although it is actually bigger than an F-16. The proposed power plants are a 33,000 lbs variant of F110 and the F119(Yup, that F119), and backed by Lockheed Martin which agreed to grant a platform data reuse permission if Korea bought the F-35(Although the T-50 project generated engineering data is the property of the Korean government, using it for a new project other than a T-50 variant requires Lockheed's consent and Lockheed is using this as a bargaining chip). It does not meet the ROC of the Korean Airforce(requires twin engine) and the Indonesian Airforce(requires 600 nm combat radius).
There are two twin jets, one is the official government proposal(identifiable by the IF-X marking to indicate the Indonesian government's blessing) and one is the vendor proposal(Which has only the KF-X marking). These two are lookalikes and you have to look hard to tell them apart.
I do wonder about medium tanks. As main battle tanks grow in size, cost and weight, it would appear that medium tanks would then take on the role of the old 'universal tank'. I would think that these medium tanks would in time also grow in size, cost and weight too, much like how destroyers have grown today.
ReplyDeletewell its pure craziness that MBTs now weigh almost 80 tons fully decked out. we once considered that to be a super heavy tank. now, we only have one size so its been relabeled. the future is a return to the universal tank or as i prefer the infantry support vehicle. the original role of the tank. back to the future anyone?
DeleteOnly the Leo 2 A6 and the extremely up armored Challenger 2 weight anything close to 80 tons. Challenger 2 up-armored is 72 tons and Leo 2 A6 is 70-71.
DeleteA M1A2 weight about 66 tons and a Leclerc weight about 58.5 tons.
T-90MS is 48.5 tons, and MBT-2000 is 49 tons.
A tank doesn't have to weight 70+ tons to offer good protection, with new composite armors, APS systems, and new ERA.
60-65 tons seems the norm with 4 man western tanks, and 46-50 seems the norm with 3 man Russian and Chinese ones.
i think your numbers are off. the M1A2 TUSK II only weighs 66 tons? i think you're off...way off.
Deleteoh and the Leopard 2A7 Urban is also much heavier (i believe, i haven't paid much attention to it). and the Brits have done some serious work to the Challenger...i don't know what they call the upgrades but slat armor, rws, additional optics, jamming systems...it ain't a light weight either....and i don't know if they added additional belly armor
DeleteI was reading about the M103 a few weeks back. The Marines had a role for that then. I wonder if such a role still exists? I do think that the Marines do need some heavy armour. Was the choice of the M103 political expediency then? Using army 'cast offs' in the name of saving?
Deletei think it was a mix of politics and the fear of Soviet heavies. from what i read their was major concern about facing the Stalin Heavy Tank and the common anti-tank infantry weapons had little or no effect. we're talking about bazookas and 106 recoilless rifles. they practically bounced off the armor of that beast.
DeleteThe problem is that the K21 is an Infantry Fighting Vehicle and was not designed to withstand 120 mm round hits, so it is not survivable against enemy main battle tanks even if it is equipped with a 120 mm gun as the vendor proposes.
ReplyDeletetanks were originally designed to provide fire support to infantry. only later did they evolve into primarily killing other tanks. the idea of a universal or infantry support vehicle is a return to the tanks roots.
DeleteYes, but then this support tank runs into a real tank and is opened up like a tin can. Meanwhile ,the real tank can easily fire 120mm or 125mm HE or beehive rounds out of it's cannon and can withstand most man portable AT rockets, barring lucky hits with an RPG-29 on the top or rear armor.
Delete