Talk:KAI KF-21 Boramae

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

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

Here's the unveiling, skip to 32:27

Farbne (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 (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)

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)

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)

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)

The sources we have clearly state that both countries and both manufacturers are involved . 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)

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)

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)

The national origin of major defense projects can often be a complex subject, particularly in an era of global collaboration. The KF-21 Boramae, a next-generation fighter aircraft developed by South Korea, is no exception. While Indonesia's involvement in the program is a matter of public record, a closer examination of the technical and financial contributions reveals that it is inaccurate and misleading to label the aircraft's origin as a joint South Korea/Indonesia project. The overwhelming evidence points to the KF-21 Boramae being a definitively South Korean aircraft.

The primary reason for this distinction lies in the distribution of technical development and decision-making authority. South Korea, through its primary aerospace company, Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), has maintained total control over the aircraft's design, development, and system integration. This is not a collaborative design effort where both nations' engineers worked in tandem to shape the final product. Instead, Indonesia's participation has been strictly limited to an auditing role, providing oversight but having no substantive influence on the critical decisions that dictate the aircraft's performance and capabilities. In the complex world of modern aerospace engineering, the country that directs the project from its conceptualization to its final production is the one that holds the technical origin.

Furthermore, the financial contributions to the program underscore the heavily one-sided nature of the partnership. While a joint project might imply an equal or near-equal division of costs, the KF-21 Boramae program saw South Korea bearing an overwhelming majority of the financial burden. Initially, the agreement stipulated an 80-20 split, with South Korea funding four-fifths of the project. However, Indonesia's share later decreased further, cementing South Korea's status as the overwhelming financial backer. This is a common arrangement in multi-national defense projects. For example, the F-35 Lightning II program had the United Kingdom as a Tier 1 financial contributor, funding a substantial portion of its development. However, the F-35 is not considered a British aircraft; it is universally recognized as an American one. This precedent establishes that a significant financial contribution does not grant a nation co-origin status.

Finally, the argument that the KF-21 Boramae could be produced in Indonesia or contain some Indonesian parts in the future does not justify a change in its national origin. Licensed production and foreign components are standard practices in the global defense industry. The American F-16 Fighting Falcon, for instance, has been manufactured under license in numerous countries, but its American origin has never been in question. The KF-21’s origin is based on its design and development lineage, not where it may be assembled in a future block.

In conclusion, it is a mischaracterization to describe the KF-21 Boramae as an aircraft of dual national origin. This is not to say that Indonesia has no contribution, but to clearly state that the KF-21 cannot be considered of Indonesian national origin. Based on the fact that South Korea was solely responsible for the technical development and design, bore the vast majority of the financial costs, and holds all of the decision-making authority, the KF-21 is indisputably a South Korean aircraft. It is only fair to recognize the country that single-handedly brought this advanced fighter to life. Terrylee814 (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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: . Mztourist (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

india has denied the interest in the kf 21 aircraft, do not attempt to spread misinformation on any conflict too. https://thedefensepost.com/2025/08/06/india-kf21-boramae-jet/ 117.230.151.139 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The article also clearly states the Indian Air Force's response. Terrylee814 (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Requesting user Terrylee814 to not spread any rumors by wannabe defence websites nor on any conflicts as they have been proven false or is simply a misinformation. https://thedefensepost.com/2025/08/06/india-kf21-boramae-jet/ 117.202.92.149 (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I've made sure to discuss both arguments and present both sides in my comments. I'm not trying to spread misinformation, but rather provide a balanced perspective. It's also necessary to mention it for anyone who wants to check who brought it up and who denied it. Terrylee814 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Avionics lignex1.jpg
• Center fuselage kf21 KAI.webp
• Ew suite lignex1.jpg
• F414 hanwha kf21.webp
• KF-21-first-air-to-air-refueling DAPA.jpg
• KF-21과 가오리-X.png
• Kf-21ea aad png 2024.webp
• Kf-21ex photo by kai 2025.webp
• Kf-21ex photo by kai.webp
• Kf-21n photo by kim min seok 2022.jpg
• Kf-x nationalinterest.jpg
• Kf21 eo tgp hanwhasystems.jpg
• Kf21 nighttime a2a refueling dapa.png
• Kf21 prototypes dapa.jpg
• Tab01-aesa-img hanwha kf21.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)