Well so far the info that I got stated that KF-X will be mass produced by 2020 and the main target to be replaced are the F-5. In sense base on that info, ROKAF will maintain their F-5 fleet untill 2020. In which sense if that strategy happen, ROKAF will not have fighter gap.
The info so far still stated that the contract will be awarded by 2011 or early 2012, and the work on prototype begin on 2012, in which it's hoped by 2015 the first prototype will be ready and other 4 prototype (plan for 5) in 2016. The negotiations seems now getting on 4 prototype build by KAI, and 1 by FI in here. If Turkey join, and perhaps TAI will get 1 prototype while KAI might be reduce to 3 (this's my speculations if Turkey join).
The questions who will be interested. Not many countries have ambitiions for developing their home grown Fighters Manufacturing capabilities. India already have one, Pakistan already developing FC-17 with China help, none of the Asean countries except Indonesia interested. That's left with very few options and Turkey is one of them.
My concern with spesialised COIN was that TNI AU do not have huge budget. Now, they want to bet their fleet with Flankers, and KF-X program will take huge lot of future allocations for TNI-AU. With that in mind, and with their plan for UAV sq, and TNI-AD increasing number of MI-35 and MI-17, I in my oppinion think that the burden of COIN can be take by UAV and Armed Choopers like MI-35. It will not be all fit alternatives, but it's more suitable for TNI-AU conditions especially on budget issue.
Life cost cycle for Russian choopers like MI-35 and MI-17 from my understanding is quite cheap, relative to light fighter.
So far for light attack (and can double as LIFT) the leading contenders are T/A-50 and YAK 130.
Does Indonesia want two seater light attack fighters? [which rules out JF-17.] What is the point of buying a subsonic light attack fighter? Is the life cycle costs and operational cost per mile flown higher for supersonic light attack fighters than for subsonic light attack fighters? Why would the subsonic YAK 130 even be considered versus supersonic F/A 50s, weaponized L-15s, JF-17s, Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master?[Presumably the weaponized L-15 is better than a weaponized JL-9 Mountain Eagle]
Indonesia's policy of buying many different models with similar capabilities is bizarre. Instead of buying yet another platform [YAK 130], why not buy used F-16 as a bridge until KF-X? Maybe because Indonesia feels that old used F-16s are too expensive to maintain? Perhaps this is the thinking behind considering the T 50, which is similar in maintenance requirements and method of design/contruction to F-16s and the KF-X.
In the interests of aircraft model consolidation, perhaps the Indonesian Air Force would be best off not considering adding new models such as the YAK 130 at all. Rather choose some combination of the following:
-used F-16s [downside is high operational costs and limited shelf life. Positive side is similar operations/maintenance to existing Indonesian F-16s, KF-X]
-T-50 or F/A 50 [downside . . . expensive CAPEX relative to JF-17 or weaponized L-15. Positive side is low operational cost per mile flown for new airframes and similar operations/maintenance to existing Indonesian F-16s, KF-X ]
-additional new or used Sukhoi Su-27s
-additional new or used Sukhoi Su-30s
I would also suggest considering the BAE Hawk 132 since Indonesia already has so many BAE Hawk 209s. However, I don't understand the rationale for buying subsonic light attack fighters with slight multifunction capacity versus paying up for F/A 50s, weaponized L-15s, JF-17s, Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. If you fly a supersonic light attack fighter with slight multifunction capability at subsonic speeds, is it really more expensive to operate per mile flown [inclusive of depreciated acquisition and capital cost] than subsonic light attack fighters?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To change the topic to the KF-X. Many countries are interested in a cheaper aircraft with similar operational requirements as an F-16 that is moderately better than a F-16IN [most advanced version of F-16 being marketed to India.] One obvious example is Iraq. Iraq is already probably buying 18 F-16IQs [more than that in future traunches]:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/iraqi-air-force-air-defense-8609-5/
Iraq is also best friends forever [bff] with South Korea and Turkey. Iraq would also probably like to court Indonesia. Becoming the 4th full partner of the KF-X would be a great way to assuage Iraqi egos and self images of grandeur. It isn't like Iraq will not have enough money a few years from now.
If not Iraq, why not Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand?
Saudi Arabia is flush with cash and feels very threatened by Iran. Imagine the boost to Saudi ego that comes from being a manufacturer and technology owner of an advanced 4.75 Gen improvement on the F-16 block 60?
UAE might be too wedded to the F-16 block 60 since they already own tech for it and get royalties from F-16 block 60 sales.
Kuwait obviously feels very threatened by Iran.
Brazil is flush with cash. Embraer brings a lot of valuable technology to the table. Brazil also needs new Gen 4.5 fighters.
Why would Malaysia and Singapore not want to own gen 4.75 tech? Maybe OPSSG could explain.
Maybe Thailand is too wedded to the Saab JAS 39 Gripen to join? [Which then begs the question of whether Thailand would want to join Sweden in developing a more advanced version of the Saab JAS 39 Gripen.]
Japan probably has enough Mitsubishi F-2 [94] to meet her short term needs. F-2 already is an advanced permutation of the F-16. A more advanced version of the F-16 would probably be attractive to Japan. However, for KF-X to interest Japan, its R&D budget would have to probably be increased to $20 billion to build a more advanced aircraft. If so, then the Mitsubishi ATD-X project could be merged with KF-X. But you Ananda, are saying that South Korea isn't interested in building an advanced fighter?
India would also be a potential partner with KF-X provided its development budget was increased [which again, Ananda, you are saying is out of the cards.] If India chooses the F-16IN for its 126 MRCA fighter procurement; then India and Japan collaborating on the 5th Gen Mitsubishi ATD-X project makes a lot of sense. I think that merging Mistubishi ATD-X project with India's Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft project makes a lot of sense in general. Note that India's pursuing two different Gen 5 fighters, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft and the Sukhoi/HAL Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA, which is based on PAK 50.) India and Japan need each other to manage shared perceptions of China.
India will have plenty of advanced 4.5 Gen aircraft with its 126 MRCA competition and 272 Su-30MKIs. Plus India has its own F/A 50 equivalent [HAL Tejas.] It is hard to imagine India buying another 4.5 Gen or even 4.75 Gen fighter. On the other hand, India is likely willing to spend many tens of billions of dollars on Gen 5 fighters.
One way or another, I don't think $6 billion is sufficient for the KF-X development budget. Additional funding needs to be found. Am I right to think that additional development spending is correlated with reduced life cycle costs and improved aircraft quality? I am not clear on the life cycle costs of the KF-X, for example compared with F-16IN or F-16 block 60.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would be very interested in learning more about the life cycle costs of Mi17s and Mi35s.
Imagine Mi17s are very cheep since they are still manufactured with abundant spare parts and trained maintenance personal. But does anyone have life cycle cost estimates or cost of operation per mile flown estimates?
Are new Mi35s still manufactured? What is their spare parts situation? Availability of trained maintenance personal?
The Afghanistan Air Force [AAF] is looking for countries to volunteer Mi35 trainers [pilot trainers and maintenance personal trainers.] Indonesia is already sending trainers for the Afghan National Police. Indonesia sending Mi35 pilots and maintenance mechanics would be very valuable for Afghanistan. Afghans don't want Russian trainers. Afghans want Indian trainers but Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and America don't [suspect Indian Mi35 trainers will show up eventually.] This leaves Afghanistan dependent on a small number of Eastern European trainers and some Americans who don't know the Mi35 very well. Not sure if Indonesia will agree to send Mi35 trainers.
If new Mi35s are still manufactured, and if the spare parts situation is manageable, imagine they would be a good choice for the Indonesian Air Force. [For the Afghan Air Force too.]
Any metrics on Mi35 life cycle costs and operational costs per mile flown?
. However I'll try my best:
