Fair use rationale for Image:KFX.jpg[edit]

Image:KFX.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4.5 Generation[edit]

This new article http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/05/205_44789.html from the Korea Times flat out states that the KFX will be an advanced 4.5 generation fighter aircraft rather than a 5th generation aircraft which is what the older article claimed. We should remove the comparable aircraft section completely. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, but this project is still in development, so we don't if final project be 5th or 4.5th generation. It's more likely South Korea will purchase F-35 or F-22 instead of making their own, however it's still open project.--Korsentry 08:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
The focus of the project has been shifted instead to produce a F-16 Block 50 class aircraft according to these articles. http://www.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?sec=sisa1&idxno=2009072414004260622 http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4202866&c=ASI&s=AIR http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/113_49176.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.178.120 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Block 50? Why not Block 60? -The Bushranger (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I was wondering. AESA, datalink, and all those listed performance improvements compared to the Block 50 should place it higher than even the Block 60. Perhaps they are just using the Block 50 standard for simplicity, as it is more common and thus, a more widely understood "benchmark." Just my thoughts though. You'll have to ask the ROKAF to be completely sure. =)
It seems to me that if the KF-21 Boramae gets internal weapons bays as proposed, then it will definitely be a 5th gen aircraft. And a very impressive one to boot, especially with the air-to-air ordnance that it can carry. But South Korea, you need to invest in multiple active and passive methods to keep these aircraft survivable on the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.76 (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

50k pounds of thrust?[edit]

Is there some translation error here? The 40k pounds of thrust from the Pratt & Whitney F135 is considered to be extreme for a jet fighter engine and the Koreans really want to add 25% on top of that? Hcobb (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rush it to the OR[edit]

Where exactly is the original research? I spot like two refs per sentence here. Hcobb (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entire specifications section, including the crew. I actually meant to tag only that specific section however. If there is no solid evidence on the specifications then simply leave them empty, more information will come eventually. -Nem1yan (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on KAI KF-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indonesian government involvement[edit]

I think we should be careful about placing Indonesia into KAI's K-FX program as they're only investor and first hand purchaser not really involved in development in technologically way, there's no way Indonesia will get fully optional K-FX, what they're getting is very basic level of K-FX. Calling I-FX is totally wrong, Indonesia only invested less than 10% so far. Which is not acceptable when considering Koreans are doing all the hard works. --Korsentry — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now known as KF-21 Boramae[edit]

Indonesian Defense Minister leaked the name as KF-21 "Boramae" Farbne (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[citation needed] —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the unveiling, skip to 32:27 

Farbne (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait I can't post the link Farbne (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay search up "KF-X unveiling Farbne (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] Farbne (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ 한국형 전투기 KF-X 시제기 출고식 - [끝까지 LIVE] MBC 중계방송 2021년 04월 09일, retrieved 2021-04-09

National Origin[edit]

Due to the continued vandalism of some users who do not provide appropriate sources, i have added references proving that the KF-X development program is a national project in South Korea. However, some users continue to add Indonesia to the National Origin on a continuous basis, without a source. The topic of the National Origin is repeating a pointless editorial war, even though it should be based on sources. Quotes that do not have an appropriate source for the National Origin should be deleted.

Gasiseda (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gasiseda, I have not looked at the change you are proposing yet (I'll do that shortly). However, having a content disagreement with an other editor is NOT vandalism. See specifically WP:VANDAL. Accusing people you disagree with vandals is not helpful. Focus on content and sources. I renamed that section to make it neutral. --McSly (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The KFX development program is a state-run project of the Korean government, and the development and research of KF-21 is led by the Agency for Defense Development and KAI, with about 225 domestic companies, 10 government-funded research institutes and 15 other universities participating. Although the KFX development program is a project led by the Korean government, the addition of Indonesia to the National Origin can be misleading.
I provided 6 sources quoted from Korean media. However, the revised version of the source I provided was constantly returned. Therefore, I think the 6 sources I provided and the phrase "The KF-X development program is one of South Korea's largest national projects" should be added to the Design and development section. Also, I think it is appropriate that the phrase for Indonesia, which does not have an appropriate source in the national origin, should be deleted and it should be written as follows. Please judge whether the 6 sources I provided are appropriate.
|national origin= South Korea[1][2][3][4][5][6] Gasiseda (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Yang Huidon (17 May 2015). "[객원칼럼] 아껴두었던 그 이름, 보라매". Gyeongnam Ilbo. Archived from the original on 15 July 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
  2. ^ "한국형 전투기 개발 계획： KF-X 사업(보라매사업)". National Assembly Research Service. 10 September 2015. Archived from the original on 15 July 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022. p. 33
  3. ^ Park Gihyeon (28 December 2015). "軍 최대 국책사업 'KF-X', 오늘 닻 올린다!". Yonhap News Agency. Archived from the original on 15 July 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
  4. ^ Choi Taebeom (21 January 2016). "KF-X 일정 공식발표 "2026년 개발완료"…향후 과제는". Asia Today. Archived from the original on 15 July 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
  5. ^ Kim Yeongran (1 June 2021). "[TOP CEO 192] 안현호 한국항공우주산업(주) 대표이사 사장". CEO News. Archived from the original on 15 July 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
  6. ^ Lee Seokjong (7 July 2022). "KF-21 첫 시험비행의 성공을 기원하며". Korea Aerospace Industries. Archived from the original on 15 July 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
Ok. I'm still not sure what's the point of all this. You are adding 6 sources to justify the Korean involvement in the project. Except, that was never disputed and it's already sourced in the article. So your change there does not add anything. The addition of the "citation needed" tag next to Indonesia, quite frankly, borderlines on bad faith editing. We have a full section in the article detailing Indonesia's involvement with multiple sources. On top of that, the aircraft prototype has the Indonesian flag painted on its side [1] (50 seconds in the video). So that part is not disputed either.
If you think that adding "The KF-X development program is one of South Korea's largest national projects" is useful, sure I think you can add it although you should probably add some context to explain how this is significant. --McSly (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. What I mentioned earlier and the sources are for the reliability of the article. In recent years, perhaps more than a year or two, the contents of the "National Origin" and "Manufacturer" have often changed. I do not simply want the word "Indonesia" added to or removed from the "National Origin" and "Manufacturer".
All I want to do is correct this pointless situation of repeated corrections and undids to articles that contain quotes that do not provide adequate sources. I don't think any act of helping this article would be justified if I judged that providing sources to improve the credibility of the article and to stop the editing war was malicious. Gasiseda (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However on the other hand, little that general public know that among those domestic companies & institutions, Indonesia is also involved as backers, industries & investors, through US institutions. From 60 Korean govt-20 private sectors-20 Indo govt structure, Indonesian business is also involved in the Korean & US private sector. In fact the project commenced when in January 2010, a notable Indonesian American businessman, longtime friend of Korean business, introduced them to Indonesian aerospace industry, which later supports the birth and realization of this project. So I think both national origin & country involvement should list both, however since it's operating under KAI, the manufacturer could stay KAI only for now. In fact, involvement should also include US. Inukabear (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because Indonesia helped in some investment, doesn't give the aircraft an Indonesian origin, the project in total sense originated in S.Korea and Indonesia joined later. Also Indonesian Aerospace hasn't manufactured it yet. If it does later, then it can be added but not now. Also, has the Indonesian Aerospace provided any part to the prototype? I'm not sure about this one. SReader2101 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources we have clearly state that both countries and both manufacturers are involved [2]. So this is what we need to report. In term of split between the 2, this can be explained in the body of the article. Last thing, this is the prototype phase. It's possible that most if not all the parts are made by KAI. This may not be the case anymore when actual production starts. That doesn't change what our sources say about the respective involvement of the 2 countries and manufacturers. --McSly (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is similar to F-35 case. F-35 was also a multi-national development and funded. Kadrun (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two countries aren't "multi-national". In the F-35's case, the UK should probably be included, as they are the only first-level partner. However, we'd spend all our time removing all the other partners from the list, so we don't; it's an editorial decision, just like this one is. Also, "national origin" is being interpreted far too literally here. It doesn't mean the first place that thought of it, but the main nations involved in its development. Like it or not, Indonesia meets that definition per the cited sources. If 8 or 10 other countries sign on as partners, then we'd have a case for following the F-35 article's example. But not yet. BilCat (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Test flight[edit]

Test flight 19 July 2022, ref 7 dated April 2021 (bottom first para) , nice article today japantimes.co.jp "South Korea's homegrown KF-21 fighter takes to the skies for first time" 20 July 2022

Japantimes.co.jp Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BriteCloud[edit]

Does anyone know if there are any plans to add the BriteCloud decoy to the KF-21? It would be a very sensible and cheap addition because BriteCloud decoys can be fitted to standard chaff dispensers. 2.25.65.76 (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GBU-39 SDB (Block 2 improvement)[edit]

Does "GBU-39 SDB (Block 2 improvement)" refer to SDB II Stormbreaker or something else? 2.25.65.76 (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is Wikipedia so damn hard to edit (correctly)?[edit]

Wikipedia needs a WYSIWYG interface. 2.25.65.76 (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specifications (single seat aircraft)[edit]

Is there any other type of the KF-21? Is there a twin-seat variant? 2.25.65.76 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does 보라매 actually mean?[edit]

What does 보라매 actually mean? According to the article, 보라매 means "young hawk" or "fighting hawk". But according to Google Translate it means Boramae (very unhelpful) and according to DeepL it means "vulture". Does anyone know the scientific Latin name for 보라매  ? 2.25.65.76 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it translates as Goshawk, being the Eurasian goshawk which is the symbol of the ROKAF. Apparently a young goshawk that hasn’t yet molted is called boramae 보라매 in Korean: [3]. Mztourist (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and your reasoning seems plausible re goshawk, but without knowing the scientific Latin name, it's impossible to work out which exact bird this is. As for your comment that "Apparently a young goshawk that hasn’t yet molted is called boramae 보라매 in Korean", that would back up the "young hawk" translation in the article. Do you know how 보라매 is pronounced btw? Does it sounds like "boramae"? Also, how is "boramae" pronounced?! Is it "boramay" with the stress on the first syllable and with the middle letter "a" being pronounced as a schwa (i.e. the "uh" sound that the letter "a" makes at the end of the word "China")? 2.25.65.76 (talk)
I just found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force which states: "The Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) KF-21 Boramae (Northern Goshawk)...". According to Wikipedia, the northern goshawk has been split into two species, the Eurasian goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) & the American goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus). Also according to Wikipedia, the "Eurasian goshawk" you mentioned is "Accipiter gentilis". So the bird in question is definitely "Accipiter" and I'd be inclined to think that "Accipiter gentilis" is the bird in question, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. It's definitely a type of goshawk though. Thanks for that info - very useful. 2.25.65.76 (talk)

Korean long-range air-to-ground guided missile (Block 2 improvement)[edit]

What specific missile is this referring to? What is its name? 2.25.65.76 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories