Forum: General F-35 Forum

How about an 8-12-round SDB pack on the center-fuselage station?? Something semiconformal/conformal and sleek.

F-16.net Sponsor

South Koreans get jiggy with it. You be the judge judy....

F-35 Likely To Fail Korean Air Force Requirements, Advantage Eurofighter Our Bureau Feb 7, 2012

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensen ... urofighter

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force’s key requirements — the ability to carry weapons externally and fly at Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour) or faster, according to the Korean Times.

In a report published on Tuesday, the Korean Times quoted a source as saying, “The maximum speed of the F-35 Lightning II, which is still under development, is Mach 1.6, the bare minimum the Air Force has stated as a mandatory requirement”.

The report said that the USAF variant F-35’s fate will depend entirely on its ability to fly as fast as advertised.

From June through September, before announcing its selection in October, the [South Korean?] Air Force is scheduled to carry out testing and evaluations on the F-35 and its two rivals, Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle and EADS’s Typhoon. The winner of the FX-III project, the third and final phase of Korea’s advanced fighter jet procurement project, will deliver 60 high-end aircraft from 2016 for around 8.29 trillion won ($7.26 billion).

Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin’s director of the Korea F-35 Campaign, acknowledged that the external carriage may come as an option for Korea.

“Lockheed Martin did not cancel it, the U.S. government prioritized it,” Howard said, explaining why doubts have been raised over the development of the F-35’s external hard points.

“The F-35 is designed to carry weapons internally. That’s what it does, and that’s why it is stealthy.” He said.

Howard added that if Korea insists on the F-35 to have an external carriage, his company is willing to customize it. However, he argued that the F-35’s primary attribute, the ability to penetrate into the enemy’s territory without being detected, will be significantly compromised if Korea chooses to mount weapons externally."
____________________________

Perhaps clarification awaits here: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 04306.html

[Exclusive] F-35 may fail to meet key requirements

"...“Lockheed Martin has boasted that its aircraft is capable of carrying weapons not only internally, but also externally on its six external missile pylons,” he said. “But it will be physically impossible to complete the development of the external pylons by the time the F-35 is delivered to Korea.”

Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin’s director of the Korea F-35 Campaign, also acknowledged that the external carriage may come as an option for Korea.

“Lockheed Martin did not cancel it, the U.S. government prioritized it,” Howard said, explaining why doubts have been raised over the development of the F-35’s external hard points.

“The F-35 is designed to carry weapons internally. That’s what it does, and that’s why it is stealthy.”

He argued that the F-35’s primary attribute, the ability to penetrate into the enemy’s territory without being detected, will be significantly compromised if Korea chooses to mount weapons externally.

“If you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy. That’s not normally how you are going to operate F-35s,” he said."

He did note that if Korea insists on the F-35 to have an external carriage, his company is willing to customize it.

“It is only a question of prioritization of weapon certification,” he argued.

“If there are requirements for the external carriage of different weapons, it is not a hard thing because all of the capabilities are there.”

Other industry officials, however, refuted Howard’s claim, saying the development of external pylons not only reduces the aircraft stealth capabilities, but also requires a fundamental change in the aircraft design, [QUE?] which the USAF is not willing to pay for."

I guess the Koreans just want a fast bomb/missile truck.

The customer is always right. If external carriage at M1.6 from day 1 is a requiement written in stone, then so be it. A pity though if this trumps all the other advantages the jet offers.l

"Other industry officials, however, refuted Howard’s claim, saying the development of external pylons not only reduces the aircraft stealth capabilities, but also requires a fundamental change in the aircraft design, [QUE?] which the USAF is not willing to pay for."

What the ? Everyone knows the reduction in stealth requirement with external pylons, so why is that pushed. And then "fundamental changes" in design. Unless I am mistaken that is pure and utter BS?

The more I read things in the MSM these days, the more I see that there are no Journalists anymore but only opinionists.

The subtext is that everybody has dropped out of the Korean competition because of the requirements. Boeing pulled out with the Silent Eagle (actually it does not look like that program will even occur) and the Russians with the T-50.

It would be the height of irony if the worst fighter in the competition (The Eurofighter) wins because everybody else pulls out.

I'm thinking the South Koreans might revise their requirements. Or at least they should. Curious though about the F-35 hardpoints. Is the JSF program delaying the certification of the external hardpoints to sometime later than US services IOC?

External 500lb LGBs and 9Xs are part of SDD. The rest will come in Blk4/5. This is what the plan has been for a while as IOC jets will mainly be needed for strike in denied space and there will be plenty of F-16s/F-15s around for bomb-truck duty.

This move actually makes sense. Given the nature of their primary threat (N. Korea), I see little reason for them to replace their F-4s/F-5s with the latest and greatest; better to wait until something more advanced needs replacing, by which time they will have a clearer picture of the Chinese threat and the F-35's capability. Pretty much any multi-role fighter on the market (even their own FA-50) will do for now. As for the "stealth" requirement, if the F-35B makes it into service, I'd say it's a dead lock for the South Korean Navy (probably the Japanese Navy as well) to answer recent developments in China. Such would be a better allocation expensive VLO capability, but that won't be for several years at least.

Some question? Would their 4th generation jets have been loaded ever that much with for example more two 2000 lbs bombs? Suppose most F16’s seldom or does not fly in a configuration with more than such a bomb load?

In a discussion someone revered to an article, even most F15 pilots did not fly with more than 1.2 or mach 1.3.

Does a Typhoon fly mach 1.6 with such a heavy bomb load?

alloycowboy wrote:

The problem with the F-18E is it is a naval fighter so it has a 7G turn limit not to mention its smallish combat radius.

Super Hornets regularly pull 8gs or more at air shows. They have soft limits, to preserve airframe life for naval operations. If the aircraft were to only be operated from land bases, then this wouldn't be as big of a factor. 9gs should be no problem, if needed.

popcorn wrote:

I wonder if the SE met the mandated RCS requirement?

There is no RCS requirement. Stealth is not required and not evaluated to make things fair for non-stealthy competitors. By the same token, twin engines and Mach 1.8+ flight performance is not required either for the sake of F-35(They were required in F-X I and F-X II contests). If the original requirement was strictly applied, then the only jets that would make it were F-22 and PAK-FA.

This is the reason why Saab decided to jump in the ring, having realized that the mandatory requirements were downgraded enough so that even Gripen NG had a chance now.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Besides, the JSF will be around for a while, meaning a purchase by Korea is all but inevitable.

What they buy this year will be the last imported fighter jet for the next 20 years as the government shifts its attention to the KFX program.

So if F-35 doesn't sell in Korea this year, then that's it. No second chances.

popcorn wrote:

So the Koreans want to keep the Typhoon in for "leverage"?

The current ROC document was written for the Typhoon.

Quote:

Too bad we don't know the evaluation critera and how much weight each carriesin the overall evaluation.

No. 1 is tech transfer.
No. 2 is price.
No. 3 is the local content percentage.

Performance doesn't matter as much as all are considered good enough. Heck, stealth is not even evaluated anymore.

hb_pencil wrote:

Boeing pulled out with the Silent Eagle (actually it does not look like that program will even occur)

Silent Eagle is in the contest. The original article claiming its demise was debunked.

The Silent Eagle's enemy isn't F-35, but the US DoD. Boeing was betting on winning the deal through a comprehensive tech transfer package, made possible because the Silent Eagle was offered on the DCS term and not the FMS as usual. But the word is leaking out that the US State Department is changing the sales term to FMS because of their concern for Boeing's aggressive tech transfer terms on which Boeing didn't need the US DoD's consultation and only needed a direct approval from the US Congress.

A small order of F-15SE backed by a larger order of Gripen NG probably makes the most sense from a strategic point of view.

madrat wrote:

A small order of F-15SE backed by a larger order of Gripen NG probably makes the most sense from a strategic point of view.

Splitting orders between two types doesn't make financial sense, because of the high cost associated with building the support infrastructure for the selected type. The Silent Eagle currently enjoys a $1 billion cost advantage over other types because the support infrastructure for it is already in place, and selecting the Silent Eagle also lowers the cost of operation for existing F-15K units as well due to parts localization on the negotiation table.

Only a compelling reason can overcome that $1 billion disadvantage, and EADS is pitching the proposed parts commonality between some 250 KFX units and 60 Typhoon units as the economic justification for the selection of their model, that extra $1 billion is an investment into future, not a waste.

Only Lockheed Martin is the odd man out in this race, as F-35 doesn't enjoy the economy of scale offered by the Silent Eagle(120 units for ROKAF), and the Typhoon(310 units for ROKAF)

So if the F-35 meets its first defeat in fighter contests, it will likely be in Korea, where the general reception toward it is cold and F-35 is the punching bag for the local press.

Parts commonality between two or more different aircraft?? Now where have we heard that before... Confused

Maybe the Koreans are reconsidering the M1.6 and external carriage requirements?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kor ... 966/#rokaf

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 remains an option as an off-the-shelf, “5th generation” fighter. Korea’s relaxation of stealth and internal weapon carriage requirements has certainly helped its competition. On the other hand, DAPA looks set to overlook the F-35’s inability to meet its requirements of external weapons carriage, and of Mach 1.6+ speed with those external weapons. If DAPA places enough weight on stealth, the F-35 could still be the default winner.

The only question for Lockheed is whether the threat of North Korean missile barrages makes their F-35B Short Take-Off/ Vertical Landing variant part of the bid, now that the design is off of program probation at the Pentagon. The combination of STOVL capability, USMC compatibility, and stealth could make it a compelling choice for the ROKAF. Even as the program’s lateness, likely near-term production cuts, and resulting cost hikes for early buyers, give potential buyers pause.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

We just lost a land called Korea!