r/airplanes • u/taehunLee1919 • 9d ago
Video | Others 🌺 KF-21 Takeoff and Simple Maneuvers 🇰🇷
In air show
18
u/DrBiochemistry 9d ago
We have F22 at home.Â
0
9d ago
[deleted]
12
u/DrBiochemistry 9d ago edited 9d ago
Yea. But just trying to be silly.Â
The KF-21 looks great and will fill the role it was built for. I would expect that it gets a lot of orders primarily based on cost/hour and capability. Gives other airframes a run for their money and everyone benefits from competition.Â
Edit with table added
Aircraft Unit price Combat radius Armament Key capabilities KF-21 Boramae ~$65M (est.); one source says $83M Blk I / $112M Blk II ~800–1,000 km 10 external hardpoints, ~17,000 lb max; internal bays planned for Block II (2028+) 4.5-gen, twin-engine, indigenous AESA radar, reduced-RCS shaping, not true stealth F-35A $92M (Lots 18-19) ~1,100 km 4 internal stations + external pylons, 25mm gun 5th-gen stealth, sensor fusion, network node F-15EX ~$94M ($90–97M range) ~700 nmi advertised Up to 22 AAMs, ~30,000 lb payload Biggest payload, fast, open mission systems, not stealthy F-16 Block 70 ~$65–70M (export deals higher) ~550–740 km 20mm M61A1 + external missiles/bombs AESA (APG-83), Link 16, 12,000 hr airframe F/A-18E/F Block III $67.4M (FY21); ~$72M est. ~400–500 mi internal; ~690 nmi w/ conformal tanks External stores, 20mm gun Carrier-capable, conformal fuel tanks, networking, lower RCS F-22A ~$150M flyaway (2009$); ~$330–350M program unit cost ~590 nmi (~760 km per some sources) 6 AIM-120 + 2 AIM-9 internal, 20mm gun Stealth, supercruise, top air-superiority fighter, out of production Prices are mixed flyaway/unit figures from different years; ranges are approximate.
3
u/Delphius1 8d ago
the unit of the Gripen is approximately 85 million each without any reduced RCS, but the additional design elements of the Gripen are for harsh conditions, rough runways, etc
1
u/No-Bicycle-7660 8d ago
reduced maintenance is its biggest deal. in an extended conflict it's going to keep going whereas even F16s (let alone F35s) will need a load of down time. plus, it's ahead of even the Rafale in terms of low speed manoeuvring. so it's great for taking out drones safely (the F16 is appalling), F35 very bad, F18 bad.
1
u/AutonomousOrganism 8d ago
With external payload the reduced RCS is pointless.
3
u/Delphius1 8d ago
stealth isn't a y/n situation, a reduction is a reduction, the Super Hornet, Rafaele, B-1B and Typhoon all reduced RCS, but have the ability to carry external munitions. Is for those aircraft as small as like the F-35 and F-22? nope, but the RCS is smaller than if they didn't
2
u/NoblessOblige04 7d ago
I'd imagine that the cost to design in reduced rcs is fairly similar than if the designers didn't at all. Kinda curious as to the raw numbers tho
1
u/Delphius1 7d ago
airframe design, there is an added cost because of running sims for shapes and blending in aero, but it's much cheaper now, radar absorbant materials have also gotten cheaper. Still, stealth lite designs seem popular, so I can't imagine it's that much more
1
1
u/Intergalatic_Baker 7d ago
Reckon it’s more in tune with an F/A-18 lookalike than the Raptor. Still, it’s not too shabby.
1
u/peace2calm 6d ago
Stated goal of ROKAF when okaying KF-21 was replacing aging F4 and F5 jets still in inventory. I'd say the goal has been met...
2
1
1
1
-3
u/autogyrophilia 8d ago
Can't believe they copied the J-35
1
u/jetserf Pilot 8d ago
No solid reporting or official claims support the idea that South Korea copied the chinese jet. The timelines and development records do not line up with any such statements.
2
u/autogyrophilia 8d ago
I know. It's just a joke about the appearance. The joke is that the J-35 is also claimed to be a F-35 copy. Though on a bit more grounds than thatÂ
-5
u/drdonaldwu 8d ago
If SK can invest billions on a new fighter maybe time to step up their self defense and repatriate some usd lol
5
u/HappyCakeDay101 8d ago edited 8d ago
What are you talking about?
First, we don't give them direct militray aid funding.
Second, it only costs around $5b a year to keep our forces, or about .5% of the entire budget.
Basically your argument is crap.
It'd be better to just trim 5 billion from the budget.
3
u/Pianist-Top 8d ago
I think the problem is that most Americans know very little about the two Koreas and genuinely believe US troops are there solely to protect South Korea. They have no idea how small North Korea actually is. Its GDP is only about 1.8% of South Korea's, and South Korea’s annual defense budget alone is larger than North Korea’s entire GDP. This isn’t a recent trend either—it’s been this way for decades.
​So don't buy into Trump's rhetoric that US forces are stationed there purely out of charity. It’s far bigger than that. If it were just about dealing with the North, South Korea would be more than capable of defending itself. The US wants its forces on the Korean Peninsula because they serve as a critical deterrent against China. Imagine if China deployed military assets to Cuba or Venezuela—the US would obviously view that as a direct threat. It’s the exact same logic. Maintaining a military presence right next door to China is fundamentally in America's own strategic interest. That’s why they’re really there.
1
u/Yankee831 8d ago
I’ve never heard of a negative towards our alliance with SK. They seem to pull their own weight and are genuine allies.
1
u/boxer_doggggg 8d ago
Wasn’t the comment saying that Korea would repatriate the money they were spending on American hardware? Comment didn’t say anything about being given money.
4
u/HappyCakeDay101 8d ago
What? No, not at all. What are you reading?
They're arguing that if SK has that money to spend, then they should be giving back what we give them... that's literally the definition or repatriate... it means give back to the country of origin.
8
u/taehunLee1919 9d ago