Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 17:29
by maus92
"A top procurement official issued an ultimatum to U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin Thursday over its refusal to allow Korean pilots to conduct test flights of its F-35 fighter jet.

“Seoul may eliminate the F-35 from its fighter jet acquisition competition if Lockheed Martine does not comply with our demands,” Oh Tae-shik, head of the program management agency at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), told The Korea Times.

“Lockheed Martin has yet to give an answer on whether the company will allow us to assess the performance of the F-35 by using a chase plane or a remote performance measuring device.”"

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 14053.html

RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 20:14
by aceshigh
WTF? Who are they to demand anything, when even partner nations have yet to fly the jet. "Remote performance measuring device" - my a$$. :doh:

RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 20:27
by neptune
Gee, you would think that after getting in the waiting line with the other allied partners, a 2012 demand for flying the a/c is certainly laughable. :lol: After the Brits and Dutch (three this year 2012 and two next year 2013) get their trainers, it will be interesting to see the "pecking order" for getting a ride in the training a/c. With production and deliveries not arriving to the first US squadrons untill next year (LRIP 4/ 2013), none of the partners will be waiting around for a ride during the next few years. LRIP 5/ 2014 will fill out the first US squadrons to strength for each service. The the little IOC "thingee" that is still undefined (published). LRIP 6/ 2015 is the earliest arrival for the "FIRST" a/c for Italy (4) and Australia (2). And ....l"remote performance measuring device" must be a LM sales video. :wink:

RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 20:38
by SpudmanWP
"Remote performance measuring device" = Telemetry transmitter

RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 20:43
by spazsinbad
OLD NEWS anyway - face saving protest from South Koreans due b/s agitation. See this effort starting here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-120.html

Re: RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 22:30
by redbird87
aceshigh wrote:WTF? Who are they to demand anything, when even partner nations have yet to fly the jet. "Remote performance measuring device" - my a$$. :doh:


Are you really that naive to the ways of the business world? Your statement suggests it. Would you expect ANY government or customer to budget $100+ million per unit without having thoroughly tested the aircraft with a few of their own top people in the field? I suppose they should just take LM's word for it and make defense / budgetary plans based on that?

Re: RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 23:37
by aceshigh
redbird87 wrote:
aceshigh wrote:WTF? Who are they to demand anything, when even partner nations have yet to fly the jet. "Remote performance measuring device" - my a$$. :doh:


Are you really that naive to the ways of the business world? Your statement suggests it. Would you expect ANY government or customer to budget $100+ million per unit without having thoroughly tested the aircraft with a few of their own top people in the field? I suppose they should just take LM's word for it and make defense / budgetary plans based on that?


Well, quite a few partners have done exactly that. Would you call all those governments "naive to the ways of the business world?" :lol:

Re: RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2012, 23:45
by hb_pencil
redbird87 wrote: Would you expect ANY government or customer to budget $100+ million per unit without having thoroughly tested the aircraft with a few of their own top people in the field? I suppose they should just take LM's word for it and make defense / budgetary plans based on that?


Isn't that how virtually all major defence programs start?

RE: Re: RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 00:19
by munny
All the partner nations have been buying 2 for test and evaluation. If they want to fly it, they do the same.

RE: Re: RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 00:42
by popcorn
I wish they would just decide one way or the other, enough drama already. If the Koreans really believe that being being stuck with warmed over previous generation technology for the next 30 years is in their best interests while their rivals adopt the new fighter paradigm, good luck to them.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 01:55
by neptune
popcorn wrote:I wish they would just decide one way or the other, enough drama already. If the Koreans really believe that being being stuck with warmed over previous generation technology for the next 30 years is in their best interests while their rivals adopt the new fighter paradigm, good luck to them.


Amen! :)

Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 02:47
by weasel1962
Would it be possible that the Koreans are concerned that the actual "US profile" aircraft may have "goodies"/features that the simulator won't have? I'm guessing even partner nation a/c may have certain additional features. If so, I can understand LM/US's refusal to allow test flights on actual aircraft.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 03:41
by spazsinbad
South Koreans appear to ape the Canuks - "the 'process' is wrong!" - however.... All done on this thread:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-120.html

Seoul to rely on simulators to evaluate F-35 for F-X III contest Greg Waldron Singapore 14 June 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... st-373006/

"...Pilots from the USAF, the US Navy, the US Marine Corps, the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, Italy, Israel and Japan have extensively flown the high-fidelity simulator and verified it is the best tool to evaluate F-35 capabilities," Lockheed says. "All of the international nations who have selected and ordered the F-35 have evaluated its capabilities using the manned tactical simulator."..."

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 04:14
by SpudmanWP
The DoD is more than happy to allow a SK pilot to go through the flight training program and THEN fly the F-35. The problem is that SK want to put a pilot in a F35 and decide a winner before this Fall. That is simply not enough time to get a properly trained pilot and finish the evaluation cycle, by that time.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 08:06
by svenphantom
What does Korea have to get? The Typhoon which they denied them access to fly some capabilities. The superficial F-15SE and their joke of a program. A fighter that is not flying due to cracks and very questionable in its capabilities. My only bet is the F-35 or the Eurofighter. How silly of them to act this way to fly one of the most advanced(if not THE most advanced) before most countries that have put effort into the program and how their competitors are doing the same thing.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 08:31
by archeman
Is it possible for Korea to join the T-50 program or is that closed to new partners?

Does anyone have an idea how much 'skin' Korea would have to throw into the F-35 game to get one of their test pilots through checkout and into a seat for an evaluation? I can't imagine they would try to force them to actually make an airframe purchase just to qualify for flight.
I could see financial compensation to the program office for training time, equipment fit and slight schedule shuffling.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 09:28
by checksixx
Why in God's name would they want to 'get into' the T-50 program?? I'd much rather put my eggs in the basket of an aircraft that is at least in production!!

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 10:45
by munny
archeman wrote:Is it possible for Korea to join the T-50 program or is that closed to new partners?


Russia won't sell the T-50 to Korea.... it would be like US selling the F-35 to Iran or Syria.

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 12:56
by redbird87
svenphantom wrote:What does Korea have to get? The Typhoon which they denied them access to fly some capabilities. The superficial F-15SE and their joke of a program. A fighter that is not flying due to cracks and very questionable in its capabilities.


New F-15s are coming off the assembly line with cracks?

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 14:02
by sufaviper
redbird87-

Well according to the investigation of the 2007 in-flight break up, there was severe undercut which resulted in rapid crack growth and the loss of aircraft.

But I believe svenphantom was making a reference to T-50 cracking.

Also to date, the F-15SE doesn't exist.

Sufa Viper

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 18:26
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:The DoD is more than happy to allow a SK pilot to go through the flight training program and THEN fly the F-35. The problem is that SK want to put a pilot in a F35 and decide a winner before this Fall. That is simply not enough time to get a properly trained pilot and finish the evaluation cycle, by that time.

The training time would depend on what they are actually doing in the jet, and the skill level of the pilot. A fully rated F-16 test pilot would be in the best position to transition to a F-35. They do use F-16s at Eglin for F-22 pilot familiarization & training, before flying a F-22 Raptor. With all the simulator (evaluation) time, the Korean evaluation pilots should be able to fly a F-35 in 2-3 months, then confirm their simulator result.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 18:55
by SpudmanWP
If you are evaluating a Fighter for a competition then you will be pushing that jet to its limits. For this, you need the full suite of training to handle in-flight emergencies, handling qualities, etc.

This is not something for a new transition pilot to try.

Also, even at 2-3 months it is not enough time. They want all the information before a final decision is made in the fall.

How long did the Indian evaluation take once flights started? Weeks? Months?

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 20:46
by geogen
From what I interpret from the media reports, and I could be wrong, is that SK is not necessarily demanding an actual physical test flight by one of it's pilots. They are reportedly satisfied with a SK pilot in a pursuit plane to track the F-35's full performance (most likely made by a company test pilot), or even reportedly accept tracking the F-35's full performance via remote viewing using performance tracking devices.

I think the issue therefore isn't so much that LM won't accept SK to test-fly the F-35 with the current time-frame in mind, but rather the F-35 itself being 'STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT' and thus Not being quite able to necessarily perform to Korean satisfaction, at this point in the testing phase.

For example, it might not be sufficient that the development Jet has merely been 'pushed to 9G and pushed to M1.6'.

That could be the concern then, that SK would be undertaking a major and speculative procurement without yet having sufficient confidence in the actual flight performance capability?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 21:28
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:If you are evaluating a Fighter for a competition then you will be pushing that jet to its limits. For this, you need the full suite of training to handle in-flight emergencies, handling qualities, etc.

This is not something for a new transition pilot to try.

Does South Korea not have any qualified test pilots?
The MTP [CTF Pilot] was a current and qualified FCF pilot and loads test pilot for the mishap test mission. He accomplished F-22 transition academic and simulator training at Tyndall AFB, Florida from August 2007 to October 2007. The MTP’s training consisted of 93 hours of academic instruction and 16 hours of simulator missions.

This was a top F-16 test pilot going into a F-22. The report didn't mention the actual flight time, but an educated guess would around 20 hours flight time. I can't imagine a F-35 requiring significantly more training, especially with extensive simulator experience.

SpudmanWP wrote:Also, even at 2-3 months it is not enough time. They want all the information before a final decision is made in the fall.

How long did the Indian evaluation take once flights started? Weeks? Months?

I don't think MMRCA competition is an example of best procurement practices. The time spent on flight tests would depend on the goals of those tests.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 21:36
by SpudmanWP
They wanted a man in the plane and were denied. They then asked for telemetry devices and an answer has not been given in that regard.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 21:48
by SpudmanWP
neurotech wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:If you are evaluating a Fighter for a competition then you will be pushing that jet to its limits. For this, you need the full suite of training to handle in-flight emergencies, handling qualities, etc.

This is not something for a new transition pilot to try.

Does South Korea not have any qualified test pilots?
He would need months of F-35 specific simulator training before they would be allowed into the cockpit of an F-35, especially if they are basing their fighter procurement decision on it. This would be the same for the F-22 or any other high-end single-seat jet.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 22:06
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:They wanted a man in the plane and were denied. They then asked for telemetry devices and an answer has not been given in that regard.

That suggests that Lockheed and the JPO are considering it carefully instead of denying the request. Does anyone know the details on this "telemetry device"? Some of the F-35s at Edwards have telemetry already. This can be received by ground control and probably directly to the chase flight test engineer in the rear seat as well.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 22:20
by SpudmanWP
Correct, LM/JPO/DoD has not denied the Telemetry device at this time.

It all depends on what they want (a LM device or a MoD device) and what specific data they want to see.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 23:22
by redbird87
sufaviper wrote:redbird87-

Well according to the investigation of the 2007 in-flight break up, there was severe undercut which resulted in rapid crack growth and the loss of aircraft.

But I believe svenphantom was making a reference to T-50 cracking.

Also to date, the F-15SE doesn't exist.

Sufa Viper


Yes, but when was that aircraft built? 70s or 80s I'm quite positive. Now that this potential weak spot in the longeron has been well documented, does anyone think an F-15 rolling off the production line today would have the same issue? And has this or any similar issue ever been observed in one of the newer F-15 E models, which were built to last twice as long as the A-Ds? The point was, sven phantom's comment on the F-15 breaking up was ridiculous in context with this new purchase issue.

And before I get piled on, I'm not saying the F-15E or SE or KE or whatever AESA version they would buy, with the latest avionics and weapons, is as good the F-35 at penetrating contested airspace. Still, if you are going to call something a joke, does that mean you are ignorant enough to think it wouldn't be much better than anything the North Koreans could throw at them in the next 20 years? Remember, the bulk N. Korea's air force is still Mig 21s and 23s with only a few Mig-29s (with deplorable maintenance records). The newest AESA F-15 variants coming off the line with AWACS support are a joke vs this elite force? I think not. Of course, I suppose it's possible money is going to start growing on trees in N.K. and they will have a fleet of 5 generation fighters any month now.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2012, 23:49
by SpudmanWP
SK not only has to deal with NK, but potentially NK's northern neighbor.

There is also the issue of NK's IADS which an F-15K would have severe problems with.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 00:41
by redbird87
SpudmanWP wrote:SK not only has to deal with NK, but potentially NK's northern neighbor.

There is also the issue of NK's IADS which an F-15K would have severe problems with.


No arguments there, I just wanted to quash the new F-15 "crack prone" and "joke of a program" silliness.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 02:52
by rkap
Aceshigh WTF? Who are they to demand anything, when even partner nations have yet to fly the jet.

Why not? They are the customer. They probably are just as confused as most about the F35.
Originally promoted as mainly a sneaky first strike platform that should have a 4 to 1 advantage over 1980 aircraft. South Korea to start with has no interest in a sneaky first strike platform - something to Counter-strike with yes. Like many they are saying will it be able to intercept and will it be any good as a fighter against 4++ and possibly 5 gen optimised in the fighter role. It does not matter so much with Japan - a larger airforce and country that needs to replace its Phantoms now used in the Anti Ship role and ground attack. That is what Japan is replacing with the F35. A logical move - buy 48 F35's at say $110m each [more or less the same price as a 4+]. If it is not good enough in the Air to Air role and as an interceptor they will build there own or build or modify something else under lisence. You can't blame Korea asking the same questions when it has to last 20-30 years. Are they supposed to believe LM and supposedly a few US Pilots as reported on this forum?

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 03:08
by shingen
"South Korea to start with has no interest in a sneaky first strike platform "

Other than being faced by a huge number of SAMS and interceptors equipped with mechanically scanned arrays, exactly what the F-35 makes obsolete.

Your grasp of how VLO works and what it is for is pretty weak.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 03:40
by geogen
SpudmanWP wrote:They wanted a man in the plane and were denied. They then asked for telemetry devices and an answer has not been given in that regard.


Interesting. Thanks for that follow-up regarding no answer given yet, with respect to a 'telemetry device' used to track performance data.

So would your info also confirm or not, that LM/JPO has denied a ROK pilot from tracking the F-35's test performance envelope while in a pursuit jet? Or has there been no specific answer on that as well?

Perhaps SK is merely trying to confirm and validate the true performance envelope of the jet they are willing to consider as a major and unprecedented procurement?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 03:43
by rkap
georgen
I think the issue therefore isn't so much that LM won't accept SK to test-fly the F-35 with the current time-frame in mind, but rather the F-35 itself being 'STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT' and

You hit the nail on the head. The F35 is not ready to be tested in all areas and will not be until all the modifications are in place. Korea has not asked to fly it. They just want to verify with either a chase plane or other means its actual flight performance. Russia did not offer the T-50 when Korea asked. I read somewhere it will not be offered outside Russia or India until probably around 2025. Now held up because of the cracks found when fitting a drag shute to No1 when preparing it for high angle of attack tests last August. They say No4 airframe will be modified to overcome the problem and have the composite nose cone and radar installed and hopefully be ready for testing this year sometime. No 2 and 3 are still being used for tests but nothing too dramatic. The airforce is still hopefull of getting there 14 pre-production aircraft by 2015. Koreas only option from Russia now is the SU35s previously offered.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 03:53
by rkap
shingen South Korea to start with has no interest in a sneaky first strike platform "

Do you have a reading problem.
I said South Korea has no interest in a FIRST STRIKE platform.
By that I mean they would not be the one to ATTACK FIRST.
There main interest is in defense. That first of all requires a good interceptor and air to air fighter.
I agree if they were attacked the F35 would be good to counter Strike weapon with its Stealth.
Learn to read.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 03:54
by geogen
Thanks for the reply rkap and btw, it's 'geogen, not geoRgen' ;)

Regarding a revisit of the Su35, that's plausible I guess, so might be an offer or request for offer of the Rafale? (lower RCS than the Typhoon?).

Personally, I think RoK should scrap the whole project and shoot for an interim mix of improved F-15K+ (with APG-82 superior surveillance AESA, next-gen Sniper/Litening SE pod, AEA/escort jamming kit and JASSM-ER) and additional FA-50, while accelerating the evaluation of new KF-X requirements (into a split requirement for manned and unmanned joint-ventures?), new opportunities, and strategy.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 07:04
by popcorn
rkap wrote:
shingen South Korea to start with has no interest in a sneaky first strike platform "

Do you have a reading problem.
I said South Korea has no interest in a FIRST STRIKE platform.
By that I mean they would not be the one to ATTACK FIRST.
There main interest is in defense. That first of all requires a good interceptor and air to air fighter.
I agree if they were attacked the F35 would be good to counter Strike weapon with its Stealth.
Learn to read.

No military planner worth his salt would remove the option for preemptive strike from his list of options to meet possible future contingencies. No one can possibly predict all possible threat scenarios that could arise in the future. The ability to strike first, availing of the element of surprise, has been proven time and again to be an effective strategy.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 16:09
by lamoey
I agree with popcorn 100% on this. RoK could expect NK to be in Soul before they could stop the avalanche, so a preemptive strike is very likely to be high on the list of defensive options. What a deterrent it will be for NK to know that their old air defence kit will be mostly redundant. That, of course, could force an NK strike before the F-35 are ready for action.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 17:42
by arkadyrenko
I'm surprised at the anger being directed at South Korea for attempting to do some due diligence. The fact that the other partner nations joined the program before the F-35 was constructed is immaterial for the South Korean decision. In fact, one should applaud the South Koreans for trying to verify the manufacturers claims before committing to the program.

Finally, what prevents the South Koreans from buying a 4+ gen fighter now, waiting 5 years, and then entering the JSF program? At that point, the program will have dealt with most of its developmental issues, one hopes, and so the South Koreans will get the fighter absent developmental problems.

The presence or non-presence of the F-35 is not going to change the North Korean's military opinion of the situation. It won't provide much of a game-changer for campaign. Its deep strike is being replicated by South Korean cruise missiles and the deep deep strike, to the Capital and North, was probably always going to be part of the US target set. Odds are, in a war, the F-35 would be forced to go in the non-stealthy mode just to maximize weapons per sortie.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 20:07
by SpudmanWP
I have no problem with providing Sk with Telemetry data, IF the correct IP & security protections can be put in place.

btw, the F-35 is appropriate for much more than a First Strike weapon for SK. In any battle with NK it would be used for deep strike strategic & Tactical attacks against CnC, Supply, Transportation, and other assets that would severely hamper the invaders ability to resupply and coordinate attacks in the south. It would also automatically gather and distribute huge amounts of intel that it picks up as it fly's around.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 22:22
by arkadyrenko
There would be no shortage of missions for the F-35 in the case of an inter-Korean war. But that doesn't make it necessary at this particular point in time. Given the size of the South Korean military budget, it probably makes sense to try and maintain a balanced force (across 4, 4+, 5 gen.) fighters instead of going all in to the 5th gen right now. Also, the North Korean military threat doesn't demand an immediate jump in military capability.

I think the South Koreans would be better served waiting a few years before buying the F-35, let the program get developed by the US and partners, then join in when it works. In the meantime, the South Koreans can get some 4+ gen fighters, more than adequate for a host of strike missions, and also try to get a stealthy recon UAV. Getting recon UAVs is probably more important at this time than the F-35, as it will enable strikes by stealthy and non-stealthy fighters. E.g. recon UAV searches for TELs north of the border, when one is found the South Koreans vector in SLAM strikes via F-15Ks or F-35 strikes, or even South Korean ballistic missiles. Use UAVs to minimize threat to aircrews and maximize loiter time in the threat zone.

In about 5 - 10 years, the pace of North Korean development, glacial as it is, will probably necessitate a heavy stealth force, especially if their airforce gets a foreign aided recapitalization program...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2012, 23:13
by shingen
rkap wrote:
shingen South Korea to start with has no interest in a sneaky first strike platform "

Do you have a reading problem.
I said South Korea has no interest in a FIRST STRIKE platform.
By that I mean they would not be the one to ATTACK FIRST.
There main interest is in defense. That first of all requires a good interceptor and air to air fighter.
I agree if they were attacked the F35 would be good to counter Strike weapon with its Stealth.
Learn to read.



It's difficult to follow the logic of your posts because it isn't really there.

I'm not sure why you state the F-35 is a first strike platform. The only context in which I've seen the term first strike is nuclear or decapitation.

The F-35 is not a "first strike" platform because it can be picked up by long wavelength radars, which NK has. That eliminates hitting the leadership in a "first strike."

The F-35 cannot carry the big time bunker busters, at least in VLO configuration, so I'm not sure why you state that the F-35 is a first strike platform unless it's some term that you saw on APA.

The NK air force is decrepit and therefore the SK air force does not need to compromise strike for DCA capability. Their main need is for strike.

In a China scenario they will need strike and maybe maritime strike as well as DCA and OCA.

Japan just placed F-35 above all others when they have some of the same needs and opponents as SK.

So. please try and explain what logic there is to your line of argument.

I know you like hot rods but it seems that air forces disagree.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 02:06
by neurotech
Does anyone have ideas on what performance criteria the Koreans are concerned about?
Do they require specific test points during a chased demo flight?
The F-35 has proven a large part of its flight envelope during test flights so far.
e.g Is there concerns over weapons/missile deployment during supersonic flight?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 02:34
by batu731
Let them stick to F-15, they seem to be pretty happy with the F-15K, and Boeing need a client for their F-15SE.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 05:21
by geogen
batu, in my personal view, it's probably the most prudent and feasible decision to go with an interim F-15K+ option and then fully re-evaluate the KF-X requirement and schedule.... and potential dual-platform mix such a KF-X requirement might entail. That would likely be the most economical, reliable and seamless approach.

But with respect to the 'F-15SE' per se, it's probably not a real-life option as currently envisaged. For one thing... many, many years and extensive funding would likely still be required to develop the canted V-tail into a mature piece of the design concept.

Boeing could have better proposed the F-15SE when it did, and accelerated in-house development as part of the strategy, sure... but the reality is that they might be better off offering a compromised advanced capability as reliable interim next-gen solution.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 08:50
by SpudmanWP
Geogen, with all due respect, your answer to EVERYTHING in an "interim 4th gen+" solution. This is why you are were elected to the ABJ board.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 10:58
by popcorn
geogen wrote:batu, in my personal view, it's probably the most prudent and feasible decision to go with an interim F-15K+ option and then fully re-evaluate the KF-X requirement and schedule.... and potential dual-platform mix such a KF-X requirement might entail. That would likely be the most economical, reliable and seamless approach.

But with respect to the 'F-15SE' per se, it's probably not a real-life option as currently envisaged. For one thing... many, many years and extensive funding would likely still be required to develop the canted V-tail into a mature piece of the i sadesign concept.

Boeing could have better proposed the F-15SE when it did, and accelerated in-house development as part of the strategy, sure... but the reality is that they might be better off offering a compromised advanced capability as reliable interim next-gen solution.


Why should the Koreans spend on more F-15Ks when, in their own words, it's "outdated"?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 03458.html


DAPA officials warned that Boeing may enter the FX-III race after minor upgrades to the F-15K, such as installing Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars, but the airplane’s stealth capability remains a crucial factor in deciding which new fighter jets will be purchased. “Boeing may compete in the FX-III race without having to complete its development of the CWB or canted vertical tails, but it should bear in mind that Korea is eyeing to acquire advanced jets, rather than outdated ones,” a senior DAPA official said.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 11:00
by popcorn
..

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 12:33
by Conan
SpudmanWP wrote:Geogen, with all due respect, your answer to EVERYTHING in an "interim 4th gen+" solution. This is why you are were elected to the ABJ board.


As long as it's got an evolved targetting pod though. Can't address next gen threats with an existing Litening or Sniper XR pod, no sir. One simply can't have a leased 4.7775++ Gen fighter for your interim TACAIR RECAP plan without a slightly improved targetting pod...

Yep, incrementally improving current fighters to deal with next generation low observable fighter threats and advanced IADS at a cost of billions (and obtaining a lease on them if possible) whilst evaluating your requirements for the next 25 years until the FX-XX Mk 2 comes along is by far the most sensible plan.


:roll:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 16:15
by redbird87
As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase? Is it Air Interdiction in the case of NK attack (bridges, SEAD, supply lines)? Airfields? Is it to strike NK's deeply dug-in artillery and C2 nodes? How important is pure air-to-air capability for this purchase? How important is CAS?

North Korea presents a unique challenge. The location of its massive hardened artillery is known by the south. Its undoubtedly well defended by multiple layers of SAM coverage. To actually kill this arty, deep penetrating bombs that really aren't in the F-35s internal (LO profile) arsenal are needed. And we are talking A LOT of artillery here. So the question is, can the F-15E (and F-16s), with jamming and SEAD, get the job done with acceptable (sustainable) losses? I don't know the answer to that. It seems to me though that a High-Mid mix of F-35s to provide deep SEAD and the F-15Es to do the heavy lifting would be the best solution.

For Air Interdiction missions, such as hitting NKs forward supply centers, bridges, columns of men and equipment on roads, which would be better? This work is going to be close to the FLOT (front). Therefore, the ability to penetrate multiple layers of air defense stealthfully isn't as critical. Precise, real-time data on target location is the key here. If this is achieved, the speed and pay-load of the F-15E make it a really good platform for this kind of work. So it becomes a C4ISR question. If loitering around and searching for targets is going to be the norm, the F-35's stealth and sensors give it a huge advantage. It's light payload are it's disadvantage. The F-15E's best attack profile for this kind of work is to be directed to a known target and use is tremendous low-level speed to attack and egress quickly. Loitering in search mode are not in its best interest. So again, it seems like the two platforms working in concert, data-linked together, would be the best bet.

For true CAS, neither is good. I give the nod to the F-15E though. Two engines, more payload, faster egress. Two sets of human eyes too which helps.

For pure air to air, again it depends on the mission. The F-35 should be tremendous in the offensive counter air role. This is not a good mission for the F-15 over North Korea due to the SAM threat. For defensive counter air, the F-15E is still very formidable. With AWACS support, it's probably more suited to the that job than the F-35. Unless that is, you are going to strap outboard missile onto the F-35. Then you could argue back and forth but it would largely be a wash.

Someone mentioned maritime patrolling earlier. Again a wash IMO. The Navy raves about the Super Hornet's ability to conduct maritime patrol duties due to how its AESA excels at providing a great picture of the surface environment. The F-15E's AESA (assuming SK gets the latest version) is even more powerful. Plus, again, there are advantages to having two humans in the cockpit and having a greater payload. There is no doubt the F-35 could perform this mission as well, but its stealth advantage really isn't needed here.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 18:33
by southernphantom
Redbird, I find myself agreeing with you. I think it would be more intelligent to replace the F-4Es with F-15K+ or what have you, and acquire a few squadrons of mature F-35s in the near future. The F-35s kick down the door, and the Beagles step on whatever survives.

On another note, I'd replace the hopelessly obsolete F-5s with F-4s as the Phantoms are replaced by F-15s. The RoKAF would look like this: F-15K, F-15K+, KF-16, and some F-4s. The latter two would be replaced at a later date by KF-X or F-35. My logic is that KF-16s are reasonably good, and F-4Es are excellent bomb trucks once the IADS has been knocked down.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 23:42
by slowman3
My two cents on the current situation of Korean F-X tender.

The F-35 simply doesn't fit well with the Korean air warfare philosophy, which relies on 100 km+ stand-off strikes instead of F-117A/F-35 style stealthy infiltration strikes. Which is why the ROKAF invested heavily in development and production of glide bombs, in both locally developed 500 lbs KGGB and Boeing-developed 2,000 lbs JDAM-ER for the ROKAF requirements.

The ROKAF warplan calls for the suppression of the entire North Korean SAM capability within 3 days, and this cannot be achieved by the F-35As carrying two JDAMs and making 3 sorties a day; they need something like the F-15s loaded with 12 KGGBs or 20 SDBs making 6 sorties per day. This is possible because some 85% of North Korean targets including all of Pyongyang are accessible by the sea, where the KGGBs and JDAM-ERs could be released some 25 miles away from the North Korean coastline at a high altitude. This is why the ROKAF required that the F-35 be able to carry external ordinances and whu a jet with no internal ordinance capability was OK but no external ordinance capability was disqualified. Accordingly, the F-35 doesn't really fit the ROKAF's mission profile well and even a Typhoon maybe better suited to the ROKAF's airwar plan than the F-35 does.

The second issue is that the ROKAF requirements are budget and delivery-schedule critical. Unlike Japan, the DAPA buying the jets for the ROKAF is inflexible about the pricing; $7.9 billion for 60 jets is the hard ceiling and any bid that goes over $7.9 billion is disqualified. Considering how Lockheed Martin's Japan bid was $8 billion for 42 jets before the price estimation went up, the F-35 bid already went over the price hard ceiling and is automatically disqualified. The winning bidder also deliver 10 combat ready jets in 2016 and 12 a year thereafter to complete the delivery by 2020, a delivery schedule that the F-35 obviously cannot meet. The joke of town is that Lockeed Martin would have had a better luck with an F-16 Block 70 with a Silent Hornet style weapons pod than the F-35 in the Korean F-X III contest.

The third issue is the lack of technology transfer. Lockheed Martin vice president already confirmed to Korean press that Lockheed Martin's offset package included sub-contract work for the F-35, but spoke nothing about the technology transfer needed for the KFX. Which is once again a big no no in the eyes of DAPA officials. Lockheed Martin representatives didn't hide the fact to press that they were counting on the so called "US-Korea" military alliance to win the bid, not based on the quality and the strength of their bid package. Which is an odd thing to say because that only works as a "tie-breaker", and does not make an uncompetitive US-based bid win over a competitive non-US bid.

Anyhow, things are looking really bad for the F-35's chances in Korea. The DAPA officials concluded that Lockheed Martin's bids was unworkable and they wanted to drop the F-35 from the contest to speed up the bid evaluation process(Evaluating two candidates is faster than three candidates) but feared a lawsuit from Lockheed Martin, so they will make the final call after the bid re-submission. If the DAPA concludes that both Typhoon and F-35 bids are still uncompetitive, then they will skip the candidate evaluation process and immediately open a price and terms negociation with Boeing, whose bid is said to have met both the price and technology transfer requirements. So the presumtive winner of Korea's F-X III is the Silent Eagle, and only a much more competitive bid from either the EADS CASA and Lockheed Martin will change that.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2012, 23:54
by slowman3
One more thing to add about the F-35 test evaluation. The DAPA says their test terms are non-negotiable; either Lockheed Martin accept their term or the DAPA will not test the F-35 at all. Which is that Lockheed Martin either let the Korean test pilot monitor the F-35 in the chase plane in the air, or let them have access to telemetry data collected at the ground station while doing maneuvers requested by the ROKAF test staffs.

The DAPA is playing a hardball because they are willing(actually wanting) to drop the F-35 from the contest.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 00:40
by SpudmanWP
How could they have wanted to drop the evaluation phase yet say that LM must accept their terms?

Oh yea, more of Slowman's "facts" without sources.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 00:56
by slowman3
SpudmanWP wrote:How could they have wanted to drop the evaluation phase yet say that LM must accept their terms?


Well, read my post thoroughly.

"If the DAPA concludes that both Typhoon and F-35 bids are still uncompetitive, then they will skip the candidate evaluation process and immediately open a price and terms negociation with Boeing,"

1. If Lockheed Martin does not accept the DAPA's testing term, then LM is disqualified and dropped from the contest.

2. If EADS CASA, which has met other conditions but the price, fails to submit a bid at $7.9 billion in the bid resubmission, then the Typhoon too is dropped.

3. With both the F-35 and the Typhoon dropped, then the DAPA can proceed with a direct negotiation with Boeing. BTW, this "Will immediately begin negotiation with Boeing" statement came from the head of DAPA.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 01:28
by SpudmanWP
I stopped reading through your post because it stated a lot of "facts" without any sources.

My eyes were drawn to the bolded sections, as was your intent.

btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day? It can hold 8x SDB/SPEAR3s internal and much more external once the IADS suppressed in the target area. With IADS not an issue (at least from the release point), an F-35A can carry 32 SDB-class bombs, 8-10 JSOW-class bombs, 6x2k JDAM class bombs, or 2x5k bunker busters (along with 4x2k JDAMS, JSOWS, or BRU-61s). In every class the F-35 out carries the F-15 (especially the F-15SE). Since the SK airfields are so close to NK targets (less than half the internal fuel range), the extra drag of externals will not cause the need of IFR.

On the sortie numbers, the USAF sortie rate is based on a 590nm combat range. Since Pyongyang is less than half that range (and the border less than 1/4 of that) from most SK airfields, the effective SK F-35A sortie rate would be much higher.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 01:54
by popcorn
Not to be redundant, but the Koreans themselves consider the F-15K outdated. No one knows the threats and envisioned missions better than they and to their mind, they need the capabilities, notably stealth, in their new platform. Makes no sense at all to buy more Eagles. Now, in reality, the current legacy fleet won't disappear overnight with the arrival of the new jets, the latter should evenhelp improve their effectiveness. But it is clear that the ROKAF must make the investment in the new platform.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 02:33
by geogen
Some good critical and deeper analysis above on this topic.

To Spud: not sure if the 8x SDB config is planned for block III? Maybe cleared down the road for block IV buys? And if F-X III included a STOVL variant, that of course would likely imply 4x SDB/SPEAR internal carriage.

To Redbird: some very interesting views and thinking. I'm curious if you contemplate integrating a future VLO UCAV platform into the 'mix', eg, an F-15K+ co-working with semi-autonomous UCAV assets, those which could be doing most of the 'loitering'? I guess my view at the moment is that due to the completely changed circumstances in the F-X III realities (ie, schedule slips, uncertainty in performance and reliability, price uncertainty, uncertainty with F-15SE development work, etc, etc) that the fundamental strategy be cancelled and revised with an entirely new recap strategy.

Additionally, I'd be curious as to your opinion with respect to a 'split' KF-X strategy to possibly include a Two-phase (2 phase) approach: 1) transfer of tech / joint-development of a UCAV as part of Phase I (accelerated acquisition) and 2) a joint-developed manned 5th gen platform as part of a Phase II? Something like that. In that case, a concession might have to be accepted given the possible strategic realities at hand and accept something along the lines of a souped-up F-15K+ with latest COTS equipment as a fall-back? If anything, such F-15K+ could at least be incrementally retrofitted later with the CWB add-on capability (eg, F-15SE-lite).

To Slowman: interesting input and perspective. One might also consider in the SEAD requirements and contingencies to include intensive utilization of SLAM-ER and of course high use of HARM ordnance to counter/saturate hostile IADS threats? If so, then these are obviously externally launched and the F-15K/F-15K++ platform is already cleared for such ordnance loadout = more platforms suited to operate in such a deterrence capacity.

Lastly, somewhere in this discussion of 'revising F-X III' should arguably be: the new FA-50! Isn't that a new-bird on the block which can at least begin replacing F-5/F-4 as part of a stopgap role??

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 02:42
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day? It can hold 8x SDB/SPEAR3s internal and much more external once the IADS suppressed in the target area. With IADS not an issue (at least from the release point), an F-35A can carry 32 SDB-class bombs, 8-10 JSOW-class bombs, 6x2k JDAM class bombs, or 2x5k bunker busters (along with 4x2k JDAMS, JSOWS, or BRU-61s). In every class the F-35 out carries the F-15 (especially the F-15SE). Since the SK airfields are so close to NK targets (less than half the internal fuel range), the extra drag of externals will not cause the need of IFR.

Can the F-35 carry a 5k GBU-28? I thought the idea was to replace it with a newer 2k bunker buster, that does the same damage as a 5k GBU-28
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16122.html

Are you sure the F-35 out-carries the F-15E/F-15K? The F-35 may have internal bays but I'm pretty sure the F-15E can carry more ordinance by weight.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 03:31
by spazsinbad
5,000lbs on stations no.3 and no.9 according to graphic in (remembering some lesser capacities as shown for F-35B variant):
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ ... ept_06.pdf (5.8mb)

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 03:46
by arkadyrenko
Here's a fun issue though, the North Korean air defense net poises an unique threat to stealth aircraft. A combination of many many time critical targets, far more than the opening night of Desert Storm, with an extremely dense network of flak weapons and what is assumed to be a very survivable, if not technologically advanced, SAM network.

This poses a serious issue to the idea that someone will be able to do SEAD missions. There literally will not be enough time and enough aircraft, in all likelihood, to do any serious SEAD in those opening hours / days of the war. And, ironically, area flak may be pretty good against stealth aircraft, as it doesn't care if you're stealth or not.

In that situation, the f-35's stealth may not matter after the first few sorties against the primary radar sites, as the main threat will be enemy flak concentrations. If that's the case, then F-35 stealth won't be as big of a factor for the South Koreans. Though, one could also argue that on the other hand, the lack of SEAD missions makes the stealth more necessary.

Whichever way you look at it, the immediate need for the F-35 isn't so apparent, given the state of the North Korean military. Hence the fact that the South Koreans may feel justified in driving a hard bargain. (Plus Boeing will probably give them almost anything for a military contract).

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 03:59
by popcorn
arkadyrenko wrote:Here's a fun issue though, the North Korean air defense net poises an unique threat to stealth aircraft. A combination of many many time critical targets, far more than the opening night of Desert Storm, with an extremely dense network of flak weapons and what is assumed to be a very survivable, if not technologically advanced, SAM network.

This poses a serious issue to the idea that someone will be able to do SEAD missions. There literally will not be enough time and enough aircraft, in all likelihood, to do any serious SEAD in those opening hours / days of the war. And, ironically, area flak may be pretty good against stealth aircraft, as it doesn't care if you're stealth or not.

In that situation, the f-35's stealth may not matter after the first few sorties against the primary radar sites, as the main threat will be enemy flak concentrations. If that's the case, then F-35 stealth won't be as big of a factor for the South Koreans. Though, one could also argue that on the other hand, the lack of SEAD missions makes the stealth more necessary.

Whichever way you look at it, the immediate need for the F-35 isn't so apparent, given the state of the North Korean military. Hence the fact that the South Koreans may feel justified in driving a hard bargain. (Plus Boeing will probably give them almost anything for a military contract).


If the F-35 strikes from BVR altitudes and distances, all the flak in the world won't matter short of a golden BB and we all saw how that turned out in the skies, over Baghdad. Presumably, your flak guns will use radar, just like the SAMs.. just the thing a VLO design is good at defeating.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 04:42
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:5,000lbs on stations no.3 and no.9 according to graphic in (remembering some lesser capacities as shown for F-35B variant):
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ ... ept_06.pdf (5.8mb)

I was asking specifically about the GBU-28 being qualified, not if the pylon could theoretically handle 5000 pounds.

Also, Is there any BRU for strike fighter aircraft that can handle 2x2000lb bombs? Even the B-52 carries 3xGBU-30s on a pylon.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 04:54
by spazsinbad
I don't see GBU-28 on the 'external weapons carriage' list also in the [colour] graphic above from this PDF: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/T ... ayward.pdf

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 05:19
by madrat
arkadyrenko wrote:Here's a fun issue though, the North Korean air defense net poises an unique threat to stealth aircraft. A combination of many many time critical targets, far more than the opening night of Desert Storm, with an extremely dense network of flak weapons and what is assumed to be a very survivable, if not technologically advanced, SAM network.


The artillery wall between the lines prior to the invasion during GW1 was time sensitive and they were snuffed out pretty fast. And that was before the sophistication of joint services mission planning and the instantly-dynamic flexibility for targeting.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 05:37
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:I don't see GBU-28 on the 'external weapons carriage' list also in the graphic above.

Exactly. I'd seen that chart before and doubted Spudman's claim of F-35 carrying a GBU-28.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 10:25
by popcorn
Forget the GBU-28. A state-of-the-art jet deserves a state-of-the-art bunker buster, one that packs the wallop of the GBU-28 in a 2000-lb form-factor that will fit inside the F-35 internal weapons bay.. the HVPW.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 2f95adba34

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 11:06
by eagleowl
slowman3 wrote:My two cents on the current situation of Korean F-X tender.

The F-35 simply doesn't fit well with the Korean air warfare philosophy, which relies on 100 km+ stand-off strikes instead of F-117A/F-35 style stealthy infiltration strikes. Which is why the ROKAF invested heavily in development and production of glide bombs, in both locally developed 500 lbs KGGB and Boeing-developed 2,000 lbs JDAM-ER for the ROKAF requirements.

The ROKAF warplan calls for the suppression of the entire North Korean SAM capability within 3 days, and this cannot be achieved by the F-35As carrying two JDAMs and making 3 sorties a day; they need something like the F-15s loaded with 12 KGGBs or 20 SDBs making 6 sorties per day. This is possible because some 85% of North Korean targets including all of Pyongyang are accessible by the sea, where the KGGBs and JDAM-ERs could be released some 25 miles away from the North Korean coastline at a high altitude. This is why the ROKAF required that the F-35 be able to carry external ordinances and whu a jet with no internal ordinance capability was OK but no external ordinance capability was disqualified. Accordingly, the F-35 doesn't really fit the ROKAF's mission profile well and even a Typhoon maybe better suited to the ROKAF's airwar plan than the F-35 does.

The second issue is that the ROKAF requirements are budget and delivery-schedule critical. Unlike Japan, the DAPA buying the jets for the ROKAF is inflexible about the pricing; $7.9 billion for 60 jets is the hard ceiling and any bid that goes over $7.9 billion is disqualified. Considering how Lockheed Martin's Japan bid was $8 billion for 42 jets before the price estimation went up, the F-35 bid already went over the price hard ceiling and is automatically disqualified. The winning bidder also deliver 10 combat ready jets in 2016 and 12 a year thereafter to complete the delivery by 2020, a delivery schedule that the F-35 obviously cannot meet. The joke of town is that Lockeed Martin would have had a better luck with an F-16 Block 70 with a Silent Hornet style weapons pod than the F-35 in the Korean F-X III contest.

The third issue is the lack of technology transfer. Lockheed Martin vice president already confirmed to Korean press that Lockheed Martin's offset package included sub-contract work for the F-35, but spoke nothing about the technology transfer needed for the KFX. Which is once again a big no no in the eyes of DAPA officials. Lockheed Martin representatives didn't hide the fact to press that they were counting on the so called "US-Korea" military alliance to win the bid, not based on the quality and the strength of their bid package. Which is an odd thing to say because that only works as a "tie-breaker", and does not make an uncompetitive US-based bid win over a competitive non-US bid.

Anyhow, things are looking really bad for the F-35's chances in Korea. The DAPA officials concluded that Lockheed Martin's bids was unworkable and they wanted to drop the F-35 from the contest to speed up the bid evaluation process(Evaluating two candidates is faster than three candidates) but feared a lawsuit from Lockheed Martin, so they will make the final call after the bid re-submission. If the DAPA concludes that both Typhoon and F-35 bids are still uncompetitive, then they will skip the candidate evaluation process and immediately open a price and terms negociation with Boeing, whose bid is said to have met both the price and technology transfer requirements. So the presumtive winner of Korea's F-X III is the Silent Eagle, and only a much more competitive bid from either the EADS CASA and Lockheed Martin will change that.


While slowman can be an a$$ is is biased all the stuff he posted is atleast partially true from the korean news he fails to link.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 11:13
by spazsinbad
Are you able to link to Korean News then?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 11:48
by eagleowl
spazsinbad wrote:Are you able to link to Korean News then?
Ill try to get as much of what he said.

Actually I will use this

http://www.dapa.go.kr/internet/informat ... iness_plan

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 15:39
by slowman3
SpudmanWP wrote:btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day?

That's the USAF requirement. It is highly unlikely that Lockheed Martin would push beyond that in terms of sortie rate.

6 sorties/day for F-15 is what the ROKAF does in war drills right now.

It can hold 8x SDB/SPEAR3s internal

Not for the Block 3F offered to Korea. All discussions pertaining to the F-35's Korean bid should be restricted to Block 3F because that's what's being offered.

an F-35A can carry 32 SDB-class bombs

The weight of 32 SDBs not counting pylons is 8 tons, which exceeds the F-35's max weapons load.

popcorn wrote:No one knows the threats and envisioned missions better than they and to their mind, they need the capabilities, notably stealth, in their new platform.

That's the job left for the KFX, not to F-X III candidates. Right now, what the ROKAF needs is a bomb truck able to make a WW2 style bombing with guided weapons, not a platform to take out a couple of nuclear sites.

But it is clear that the ROKAF must make the investment in the new platform.

They just cannot wait. They cannot allow their fleet count to decrease while waiting for F-35; they must have something that will be able to deliver lots of bombs from 2017 and onward.

geogen wrote:Lastly, somewhere in this discussion of 'revising F-X III' should arguably be: the new FA-50! Isn't that a new-bird on the block which can at least begin replacing F-5/F-4 as part of a stopgap role??

F/A-50 is for CAS, not SEAD.

arkadyrenko wrote:This poses a serious issue to the idea that someone will be able to do SEAD missions.

The ROKAF's sole job for the first 3 days of war is SEAD. They will put every resource they got on taking out the SAM capability from high altitude, then take time to take out AA guns when SAMs are gone. The destruction of strategic targets will be done by thousands of ballistic/cruise missiles during this 3 day period, not by the airforce jets.

(Plus Boeing will probably give them almost anything for a military contract).

The worst thing about the Silent Eagle is that the US diplomatic pressure that Lockheed Martin is counting on doesn't work("Buy American"), it being a US jet. The US DoD was aware of this problem and try to turn the Silent Eagle into an FMS sale, which the DAPA rejected and threatened to disqualify both and the Boeing was able to make the offer as DCS(No US DoD intervention). So the Silent Eagle has everything going for it; the lowest price of three, a good enough offset package, and the immunity from the US pressure(The US government cannot protest for Korea choosing a US jet. All they can say is "We welcome the decision").

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 15:44
by wrightwing
redbird87 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:SK not only has to deal with NK, but potentially NK's northern neighbor.

There is also the issue of NK's IADS which an F-15K would have severe problems with.


No arguments there, I just wanted to quash the new F-15 "crack prone" and "joke of a program" silliness.


The T-50/PAK FA was what was being spoken of with regard to cracks, not the F-15.

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 16:09
by wrightwing
rkap wrote: Why not? They are the customer. They probably are just as confused as most about the F35.
Originally promoted as mainly a sneaky first strike platform that should have a 4 to 1 advantage over 1980 aircraft.


The F-35 wasn't designed to have a 4 to 1 advantage over 1980 aircraft. It was designed to have that sort of advantage against 4+ Gen aircraft in A2A, and an even bigger advantage in A2G.

South Korea to start with has no interest in a sneaky first strike platform - something to Counter-strike with yes. Like many they are saying will it be able to intercept and will it be any good as a fighter against 4++ and possibly 5 gen optimised in the fighter role. It does not matter so much with Japan - a larger airforce and country that needs to replace its Phantoms now used in the Anti Ship role and ground attack. That is what Japan is replacing with the F35. A logical move - buy 48 F35's at say $110m each [more or less the same price as a 4+]. If it is not good enough in the Air to Air role and as an interceptor they will build there own or build or modify something else under lisence. You can't blame Korea asking the same questions when it has to last 20-30 years. Are they supposed to believe LM and supposedly a few US Pilots as reported on this forum?
Nobody is buying 48 F-35s at $110m apiece. Only the initial buys of LRIP aircraft are being bought right now, at those sorts of prices, and the other figures that are out there include spares, trainers, infrastructure, etc... over the life of the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 18:18
by SpudmanWP
neurotech wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I don't see GBU-28 on the 'external weapons carriage' list also in the graphic above.

Exactly. I'd seen that chart before and doubted Spudman's claim of F-35 carrying a GBU-28.
There are many weapons that you will not see on that chart that will be used by the F-35. The primary driver behind this capability is UAI. That chart was created before UAI came into being.

slowman3 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day?

That's the USAF requirement. It is highly unlikely that Lockheed Martin would push beyond that in terms of sortie rate.

6 sorties/day for F-15 is what the ROKAF does in war drills right now.
So the ROKAF pushes the F-15 beyond the USAF requirement but you think they will not do the same with the F-35?

slowman3 wrote:
It can hold 8x SDB/SPEAR3s internal

Not for the Block 3F offered to Korea. All discussions pertaining to the F-35's Korean bid should be restricted to Block 3F because that's what's being offered.
SDB is Blk3 IOC, that means 8 internal. Take a look at any F-35 weapons chart, they all show SDB as an IOC weapon.

slowman3 wrote:
an F-35A can carry 32 SDB-class bombs

The weight of 32 SDBs not counting pylons is 8 tons, which exceeds the F-35's max weapons load.
A fully loaded BRU-61 weighs 1460 lb x 8 BRUs and that comes out to 11,680 lbs, well under the F-35's 18,000 lb weapons load. Throw in the fact that these F-35s will be taking off with maybe a 3/4 fuel load and this is a no-brainer.

http://www.cobham.com/media/58974/bru-6 ... 1-0209.pdf

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 19:58
by geogen
To Slowman:

The F/A-50 would appear to have underestimated growth potential to expand into a more comprehensive light-multi-role capacity, beyond any CAS-limited TA-50, eg. Give it a few years to mature and tested and evolved (eg AESA and further ECM growth), and it's likely to be a worthy, economical and reliable replacement for at least some of the F-5/F-4 platforms. And when you talk about a specific requirement to ensure 'maximal platforms' being able to employ maximal a2g ordnance in suppression of anything hostile firing at you, it would seem to be a credible complement to the F-X II/III mix by default? I'd personally ponder a revised high-low F-X III mix to include F-15K++ and 'evolved' next-gen FA-50 + new class munitions to offset loss of VLO stealth advantage.

To Spud:

I'm not sure if RoK would be a potential operator of the SDB II, but it's apparently still not intended for F-35 integration until block IV. Maybe RoK would accelerate that development for special requirement, who knows. Also, how are you getting 32 SDB? I assume with dual-BRU-61 configuration for 2 of the wing stations? Could F-35 even be cleared for such dual-BRU-61? Let's wait for external-wing clearance for a single rack of increment I SDB first, before counting our small-bombs?

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2012, 21:02
by SpudmanWP
SDB2 is Blk4, bud SDB is Blk3 IOC.

32 SDBs could be carried via a dual BRU-61 carriage for the 5k inner wing station The latest Smart BRU-69/A MPBR has dual BRU-61s as an objective load. That puts it at 8 BRU-61s (2 internal and 6 external) with only the 5k station having two.

Since we are talking about potential future use, I feel fine in postulating possibilities. ;)

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2012, 14:06
by wrightwing
slowman3 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:btw, Why do you limit the F-35 to two JDAMs and 3 sorties a day?

That's the USAF requirement. It is highly unlikely that Lockheed Martin would push beyond that in terms of sortie rate.


This assumption is based upon what exactly?



The weight of 32 SDBs not counting pylons is 8 tons, which exceeds the F-35's max weapons load.
You may want to check your math. 32x250=8000(or 4 tons).


They just cannot wait. They cannot allow their fleet count to decrease while waiting for F-35; they must have something that will be able to deliver lots of bombs from 2017 and onward.


It's not as if all of the current aircraft in the S. Korean Air Force will be scrapped in 2017. They have no higher urgency than any other air force, and any other option would include 4th Gen aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2012, 17:07
by Lieven
:: Slowman3 has been banned for excessive trolling ::

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2012, 17:31
by shingen
Slowman blk4 is currently under development with a new IP, new email and improved features.

Stealth trolling
Capability to post broken links that allegedly back up his points
Ability to stop SK from buying F-35 and picking anything else instead, preferably a hot rod.

Capability 3 is being developed in conjunction with Carlo Kopp and Bill Sweetman but is the biggest technological reach for the 4th iteration of this failed program.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2012, 18:54
by RyanCollins
shingen wrote:Slowman blk4 is currently under development with a new IP, new email and improved features.

Stealth trolling
Capability to post broken links that allegedly back up his points
Ability to stop SK from buying F-35 and picking anything else instead, preferably a hot rod.

Capability 3 is being developed in conjunction with Carlo Kopp and Bill Sweetman but is the biggest technological reach for the 4th iteration of this failed program.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2012, 03:04
by weasel1962
Based on Spaz' diagram post, it appears only 6 SDB BRUs can be carried. 2 internal + 4 external. The 2 outer + centre pylons appear to be weight limited. This will make 24 SDBs (compared with the theoretical 7x4=28 max on the F-15). Having said that, munition numbers + targeting limitations should render these discussions moot. No one will use that many in an NK fight.

24 a/c x 24 SDBs x 6 sorties = 3,456 SDBs a day per sqn. Even the USAF will only have 12k SDB-IIs.

The bigger question in my mind on whether the F-15 or F-35 should be acquired is the requirement to penetrate radar air space. Looking at the geography, neither a/c will be used to directly go thru the DMZ. More likely using a coastal hook. I would agree that the F-35 doesn't represent as big an advantage from a tactical sense. The F-15Ks already have longer ranged SLAMs+12x GBU-54s. From a risk angle, the F-15s probably represent a lower risk program with higher local offsets. Also, the NoKs don't have and do not appear to "will have" a fighter force that cannot be tackled by a F-15. Continuing the F-15 at this stage may make sense. The ROK can still select the F-35 later when there's a need + when it has proven reliability in service.

LM does have a marketing trump card. F-15 sales offerings have been stopped in favor of F-35s a la Israel (when they sought the SE). F-35 foreign sales have a direct impact on USAF cost. Obama might do the same.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2012, 06:24
by archeman
Putting aside for a moment aircraft X vs Y, I think they were saying they just wanted to fly the F-35.
I didn't see anyone bite on an earlier question so I'll try again.
Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?
I can't imagine they would try to force them to actually make an airframe purchase just to qualify for an eval flight.
I could see financial compensation to the program office for training time, equipment fit and slight schedule shuffling but why more than that?

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2012, 09:48
by neurotech
archeman wrote:Putting aside for a moment aircraft X vs Y, I think they were saying they just wanted to fly the F-35.
I didn't see anyone bite on an earlier question so I'll try again.
Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?
I can't imagine they would try to force them to actually make an airframe purchase just to qualify for an eval flight.
I could see financial compensation to the program office for training time, equipment fit and slight schedule shuffling but why more than that?

At least 100 simulator hours, 6 training flights in the aircraft. This would qualify for the basic F-35 checkout. They'd probably want the pilot to fly additional training before allowing the pilot to go past 5Gs & 450 kts (student limits). Most F-35 test pilots have F-16 flight time, and a Korean test pilot probably would.

One possibly stumbling block is they don't yet have an approved conversion course for F-35 pilots. The "students" so far are either Operational Test Pilots or highly experienced squadron instructors.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/ ... -F16D-web/

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2012, 20:52
by neptune
archeman wrote:..Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?...?


It's not going to happen! :(

The US and the UK have flown the aircraft.

Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Australia, Norway have "yet" to fly the aircraft and have issued purchase orders for 19 a/c to LM, thru LRIP 7.

LRIP 3 is due this year (2012) with 2 UK "Bees" and 1 Dutch "Aay" to be delivered.

BK-1 was flown by Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti.

Pilots; USAF-13, USMC-7, USN-3, RAF-2, LM-10, BAE-3 and US Govt??-1? about 40ish. :)

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2012, 02:11
by neurotech
neptune wrote:
archeman wrote:..Does anyone have a good guess or information about what it might take for a representative of a real potential program participant nation test pilot to get to fly an F-35 for the purpose of supporting a purchase decision?...?


It's not going to happen! :(

The US and the UK have flown the aircraft.

Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Australia, Norway have "yet" to fly the aircraft and have issued purchase orders for 19 a/c to LM, thru LRIP 7.

LRIP 3 is due this year (2012) with 2 UK "Bees" and 1 Dutch "Aay" to be delivered.

BK-1 was flown by Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti.

Pilots; USAF-13, USMC-7, USN-3, RAF-2, LM-10, BAE-3 and US Govt??-1? about 40ish. :)

Who was the US Gov pilot?

Did any other partner request to fly the jet early? Except for Australia, the 4 counties who have yet to fly have F-16 pilots who could transition somewhat easily. Australia has at least one F-22 exchange pilot, who potentially could transition to a F-35 early.

Speculating for a second, I think the resistance from RoK has to do with KF-16 licensing or the F/A-50 capabilities being contractually restricted by Lockheed.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2012, 02:53
by spazsinbad
F-35 Pilot Roster as mentioned 40 at moment:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... ry_style=3

Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2012, 03:43
by maus92
weasel1962 wrote:
LM does have a marketing trump card. F-15 sales offerings have been stopped in favor of F-35s a la Israel (when they sought the SE). F-35 foreign sales have a direct impact on USAF cost.


The Saudis just bought a bunch of new F-15s and upgrades for their existing fleet.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2012, 06:52
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:F-35 Pilot Roster as mentioned 40 at moment:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... ry_style=3

Thanks.

The "US Gov" test pilot is LTC Vince Caterina, USAF(ret), and it sounds like he's retained as a consultant after retirement from the Air Force.

Re:

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2012, 11:57
by weasel1962
maus92 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
LM does have a marketing trump card. F-15 sales offerings have been stopped in favor of F-35s a la Israel (when they sought the SE). F-35 foreign sales have a direct impact on USAF cost.


The Saudis just bought a bunch of new F-15s and upgrades for their existing fleet.


Slightly different. The Israeli concerns are paramount and the F-35 for the Saudis would have eliminated any qualitatitve edge the Israelis would have enjoyed. No such issue with ROK. Having said that, Boeing already got an export clearance go-ahead to offer the SE so I'd agree that may be moot. Doesn't stop LM from lobbying Obama to put the F-35 first though. It could end up a political decision.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2012, 16:18
by spazsinbad
New Marine begins F-35 check flights July 06, 2012

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/wi ... first.html

"Marine Lt. Col. Roger Hardy, Defense Contract Management Agency F-35 Lightning II acceptance pilot, prepares for his first of six F-35A check out flights at the 33rd Fighter Wing. The AV-8B Harrier pilot is the first military member to qualify in flying operations at the wing who isn't assigned to Eglin. He currently works at the DCMA office, Lockheed Martin, Ft. Worth, Texas, to provide government oversight/inspection of contractor aircraft operations; ensuring safe and effective joint strike fighters are operationally ready before they are delivered to the Department of Defense."

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2012, 09:54
by spazsinbad
FARNBOROUGH: First F-35 student set to receive qualification today By: Dave Majumdar 11 July 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ay-374190/

"...Marine Lt Col Roger Hardy should be completing his final qualification sortie on the F-35 at Eglin AFB in Florida today, says Marine Col Arthur Tomassetti, the vice-commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing. Once he is qualified, Hardy will be the first non-test pilot, non-initial cadre pilot to qualify in for the fifth generation fighter.... he will assume his role as the Defense Contract Management Agency's first F-35 acceptance pilot.

Hardy's job will be to ensure every F-35 coming off the production line meets its specifications in the air."

Not worth jumping unless interested.

RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2012, 08:54
by spazsinbad
OK the next shoe to drop is when the SKs select the F-35A but hey - youse knew that all along eh... :D

S. Korea approves bid proposals for three fighter jets By Kim Eun-jung 17 July 2012

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.HTML

"SEOUL, July 17 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's arms procurement agency said Tuesday it has approved bid proposals by three foreign defense companies for a multi-million dollar fighter jet project and will start flight tests from next week.

The F-15 Silent Eagle (SE) by U.S. firm Boeing, the F-35A by another American company Lockheed Martin, and the Eurofighter by Europe-based multinational defense group EADS are in the running to win the deal worth upward of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion). South Korea plans to purchase 60 fighter jets by 2021 to replace the Air Force's aging fleet."

That's all folk.

Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2012, 19:33
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:[..."...Marine Lt Col Roger Hardy..... Once he is qualified, Hardy will be the first non-test pilot, non-initial cadre pilot to qualify...he will assume his role as the Defense Contract Management Agency's first F-35 acceptance pilot...Hardy's job will be to ensure every F-35 coming off the production line meets its specifications in the air."...


@SpudmanWP

I have never been near a new plane, only newer (lower @ 1,000s hours) ones.

1- Where does the acceptance pilot fit into the scheme, after LM's first flight.

2- Will the newly minted pilots in the squadrons ferry their new planes from FW to Eglin, etc.?

3- Does a new plane smell like a new car? :wink: :lol:

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2012, 20:57
by SpudmanWP
Um, I think you meant @Spaz.

RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2012, 21:43
by spazsinbad
I don't work for LM and I don't know any answers except those found via Google on the intercrap. :D

S. Korea approves bid proposals for 3 fighter jets By Kim Eun-jung 17 July 2012

http://balita.ph/2012/07/17/s-korea-app ... -eun-jung/

"SEOUL, July 17 — South Korea's arms procurement agency said Tuesday it has approved bid proposals by three foreign defense companies for a multi-million dollar fighter jet project and will start flight tests from next week....

...The Defense Acquisition Program Administration said Air Force evaluators will conduct flight tests and enter into negotiations with company officials from Monday.

After the process, South Korean officials plan to visit production facilities of Boeing, EADS and Lockheed next month for data-gathering and simulator tests, the DAPA said...."

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2012, 14:51
by rkap
redman87
As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase?

Also slowman3 - following.
Your comments sum the situation up well for SK.
Many seem to see the role of an Airforce always operating in the Strike role along the lines of say the Iraq invasion. Use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft etc. to take out all the enemies SAMS and Communications etc. - then take out anything else at your leisure - then attack with ground forces with minimum losses. That is not what SK wants an airforce for primarily. 24 hours after the first strike and they would have a million troops pouring over the border and another 1 million quickly on the way. An airforce can't handle that ever in rugged timbered terrain. NK making use of there advantage - numbers on the ground. [That's how Vietnam was won by North Vietnam against the South - today would be no different if it happened all over again. The F-35 would be no more use-full than the USAF was then even with F-35's. Not much use at all.] SK basically needs an aircraft that allows them to take out the dated NK airforce quickly if attacked by the North and then the ability to deliver as much tonnage as possible from then on. They don't need F-35s to take out artillery on the border or SAMs unless they want to attack. That's is not there intention as far as I can see. Plenty of better ways of doing that. Cruise missiles or use stand off weapons with the small distances involved.
A really up to date F15 to suit there purposes or even the Eurofighter. Price will be the final decider but the F15 has an advantage since they already operate them.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 19:32
by firstimpulse
rkap wrote:
redman87
As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase?

Also slowman3 - following.
Your comments sum the situation up well for SK.
Many seem to see the role of an Airforce always operating in the Strike role along the lines of say the Iraq invasion. Use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft etc. to take out all the enemies SAMS and Communications etc. - then take out anything else at your leisure - then attack with ground forces with minimum losses. That is not what SK wants an airforce for primarily. 24 hours after the first strike and they would have a million troops pouring over the border and another 1 million quickly on the way. An airforce can't handle that ever in rugged timbered terrain. NK making use of there advantage - numbers on the ground. [That's how Vietnam was won by North Vietnam against the South - today would be no different if it happened all over again. The F-35 would be no more use-full than the USAF was then even with F-35's. Not much use at all.] SK basically needs an aircraft that allows them to take out the dated NK airforce quickly if attacked by the North and then the ability to deliver as much tonnage as possible from then on. They don't need F-35s to take out artillery on the border or SAMs unless they want to attack. That's is not there intention as far as I can see. Plenty of better ways of doing that. Cruise missiles or use stand off weapons with the small distances involved.
A really up to date F15 to suit there purposes or even the Eurofighter. Price will be the final decider but the F15 has an advantage since they already operate them.


IIRC, after a few weeks of Linebacker (I and II) operations, the Vietcong immediately ran to the negotiation table. Airpower is more than capable of taking out masses of infantry, regardless of what's covering them. And these days you don't need a fleet of F-105s and B-52s to do it.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 20:43
by hb_pencil
rkap wrote:
redman87
As someone else asked, what are SK's needs visa-vie this purchase?

Also slowman3 - following.
Your comments sum the situation up well for SK.
Many seem to see the role of an Airforce always operating in the Strike role along the lines of say the Iraq invasion. Use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft etc. to take out all the enemies SAMS and Communications etc. - then take out anything else at your leisure - then attack with ground forces with minimum losses. That is not what SK wants an airforce for primarily. 24 hours after the first strike and they would have a million troops pouring over the border and another 1 million quickly on the way. An airforce can't handle that ever in rugged timbered terrain. NK making use of there advantage - numbers on the ground. [That's how Vietnam was won by North Vietnam against the South - today would be no different if it happened all over again. The F-35 would be no more use-full than the USAF was then even with F-35's. Not much use at all.] SK basically needs an aircraft that allows them to take out the dated NK airforce quickly if attacked by the North and then the ability to deliver as much tonnage as possible from then on. They don't need F-35s to take out artillery on the border or SAMs unless they want to attack. That's is not there intention as far as I can see. Plenty of better ways of doing that. Cruise missiles or use stand off weapons with the small distances involved.


Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.

:roll:

Furthermore, considering the ROKAF's mission capability rate for F-15K is 82% versus 98% for the F-35A (projected in the SAR), and delivery rates you get a very close theoretical maximum for delivery over 100 sorties.
F-35 1764000lbs (maximum 18,000 lbs)
F-15E 1886000lbs (maximum 23,000 lbs) @ 82%

Certainly the F-15's rate may increase in time of war:
2070000lbs @ 90%


However given a large part of the problem is the unavailability of spares, that might not be possible. This raises another point, one must consider how big the logistical trail will be for operating a large twin, versus a smaller single. This is particularly relevant when anecdotal evidence by maintainers suggest the F-35 is significantly easier to repair than the F-15. If I'm a ROK defense planner and I'm considering what allows me to drop the maximum tonnage over North Korea in a real war time environment, I'm probably going to go with the F-35... even without considering the flexibility that stealth and avionics offer.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 23:11
by jeffb
HB_Pencil wrote: This raises another point, one must consider how big the logistical trail will be for operating a large twin, versus a smaller single.

Small correction: an empty F-35 is heavier that an empty F-15 so it's actually a large twin vs an even larger single.

The F-35 has been designed to allow quick and easy replacement of equipment modules, this is most likely what leads to the (projected) 98% mission capability rate. That said, the modules don't magically fix themselves once they come off the plane so I'd question whether it will actually be 'easier to repair' or just 'easier to get back in the air' once they develop a problem. Assuming of course that the your equipment module supply line can keep up. Where will they be repairing the modules? Will that happen locally or do they need to send them back to the depot?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 23:27
by delvo
hb_pencil wrote:Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.
I've seen this a few times before around here, and I seem to not be getting something. Not counting 4 hardpoints meant for AMRAAM/Sidewinder (total 1300 pounds)...

2500·4 + 5000·2 = 20000

Does 18000 come from using not the absolute limits for what it could carry but the actual weights of the common current weapons it would be likely to carry right now?

Slightlyover2000·4 + slightlyunder5000·2 ? 18000?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 23:28
by delvo
hb_pencil wrote:Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.
I've seen this a few times before around here, and I seem to not be getting something. Not counting 4 hardpoints meant for AMRAAM/Sidewinder (total 1300 pounds)...

2500x4 + 5000x2 = 20000

Does 18000 come from using not the absolute limits for what it could carry but the actual weights of the common current weapons it would be likely to carry right now?

Slightlyover2000x4 + slightlyunder5000x2 ? 18000?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 23:31
by delvo
hb_pencil wrote:Yes, because the F-35 is extremely limited with "only" 18,000 lbs payload.
I've seen this a few times before around here, and I seem to not be getting something. Not counting 4 hardpoints meant for AMRAAM/Sidewinder (total 1300 pounds)...

2500x4 + 5000x2 = 20000

Are you referring not to the upper limits but to the sum of some likely combination of specific weapons that are each a bit below the limit?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2012, 23:44
by johnwill
Hardpoint capacity may include the suspension equipment (pylons, launchers, etc.), so the 18,000 lb might be maximum weapon weight.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2012, 00:57
by SpudmanWP
Did Delvo catch the multi-post bug from Popcorn?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2012, 01:42
by spazsinbad
Meeting the Korean Defense Challenge: The View from 7th Air Force 23 July 2012

http://www.sldinfo.com/meeting-the-kore ... air-force/

"In an interview this month with Lt. General Jan-Marc Jouas, Second Line of Defense had a chance to discuss the challenges of defense in the Korean Peninsula. This area remains a key driver for U.S. forces in the Pacific, and any consideration of how to strengthen alliances in the Pacific must start with South Korea. This is especially important given the coming transfer of command within South Korea which will elevate the South Korean role....

...SLD: How will the coming of F-35s to South Korea affect the template?

LT. GENERAL JOUAS: U.S. overseas basing decisions are not yet determined; however, any deployment of F-35s to the Korean peninsula will clearly modify the template, including the Marine Corps F-35B.

The Seventh Air Force relationship with the Marine Corps is the best I’ve ever seen. Their aircraft will be dedicated to the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) at some point, but before then, they will be used as part of our air campaign to the greatest effect that we can deliver.

The F-35A, B, and C will give us greater flexibility, and greater options in terms of where and how we can operate.

We will integrate the F-35 with F-16s, F-15Ks, F-15Es, F-22s, and other airplanes in a way that will enhance and increase everybody’s capability, much in the same way that we currently see the F-22 and the F-15 integrating and increasing their capabilities. Our targeting, and the effects that we will seek, will be adjusted by the fact that we have F-35s.

SLD: Lt General Deptula often makes the point that the F-22 and the F-35 is not really an F but is an ISR platform in a new way. How do you look at these developments?..."

Best to read the entire article at URL above.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2012, 22:37
by hb_pencil
jeffb wrote:
HB_Pencil wrote: This raises another point, one must consider how big the logistical trail will be for operating a large twin, versus a smaller single.

Small correction: an empty F-35 is heavier that an empty F-15 so it's actually a large twin vs an even larger single.


Uh, isn't the empty weight of an F-35 27,000lbs and the F-15E 31,000? And that doesn't include the latter's need to load external tanks pylons to carry ordinance or reach its range specs?

jeffb wrote:The F-35 has been designed to allow quick and easy replacement of equipment modules, this is most likely what leads to the (projected) 98% mission capability rate. That said, the modules don't magically fix themselves once they come off the plane so I'd question whether it will actually be 'easier to repair' or just 'easier to get back in the air' once they develop a problem. Assuming of course that the your equipment module supply line can keep up. Where will they be repairing the modules? Will that happen locally or do they need to send them back to the depot?


That's the devil in the details. The F-35's support system being set up as a two level approach, with much of the component repair being pushed to the depot.

The efficacy of this system depends on a number of factors; location of the depot, the complexity of the part, number of spares on hand, ect. Certainly in the general war scenario outlined above "easier to get back into the air" is a more pressing concern. Facing that scenario, a state like Korea probably would need to invest in a greater number of spares held at the front lines in order to avoid serious disruptions of their maintenance operations. Consolidating it to a two level system certainly has its advantages and disadvantages.

The US military has considered the F-35's logistical footprint and its ability to generate sorties, as these are part of the KPP. Being able to easily transport the F-35's components has always been a key interest of individuals involved (like the ability to carry the F135 in the Navy's transport aircraft.)

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2012, 02:36
by Conan
hb_pencil wrote:Uh, isn't the empty weight of an F-35 27,000lbs and the F-15E 31,000? And that doesn't include the latter's need to load external tanks pylons to carry ordinance or reach its range specs?


I used to do that, include "facts" in debate with JeffB, but it is blindingly obvious that he doesn't really care for facts and would rather just make (easily located) facts and figures up from thin air to support "his" arguments...

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2012, 06:12
by jeffb
Conan wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Uh, isn't the empty weight of an F-35 27,000lbs and the F-15E 31,000? And that doesn't include the latter's need to load external tanks pylons to carry ordinance or reach its range specs?


I used to do that, include "facts" in debate with JeffB, but it is blindingly obvious that he doesn't really care for facts and would rather just make (easily located) facts and figures up from thin air to support "his" arguments...


Conan, seriously?

Image

F-15C empty weight 28000lbs.
F-15E empty weight 31700lbs.

I did mean the F-15C, mia culpa. I imagined that you were speaking of the F-35A which as you can see from the diagram above is 29036lbs. In the appendix of the QLR (A-28 ) there's a weight history chart for the F-35A which had its weight in Oct 2011 as 29161lbs. Last time it was even close to 27000 was back in '04.

So technically, an empty F-35A is heavier than an empty F-15C and the B and C variants are heavier than an empty F-15E.

Edit: CV version empty weight 34586lbs 10/10/2011 ( A-29 ). Phew.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2012, 07:14
by spazsinbad
For good reason the F-35C is heavier empty, larger wing, beefed up structure and undercarriage so no PHEW required perhaps. No date on the weight chart so here is a dated LM weight/stats chart dated 12 June 2012:

https://ex.democracydata.com/243F8CB0E1 ... cc798e.pdf

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2012, 08:53
by jeffb
Damn. Spent half-an-hour looking for something recent and wound up back at the Ahern report. And even those newer numbers are dodgy Spazsinbad because the propulsion figures are low (well lower than we've heard elsewhere).

This is the thing that gets me though, who writes up these fact sheets? Who tells them that the weight this month is 34800lbs? Why is the 32072lbs number wrong anyway? Did they plan to use material A in some particular part, discover that A wouldn't work for some reason and that the only alternate was to use lead?

I thought this was supposed to be a science. :wtf:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2012, 09:13
by spazsinbad
'jeffb' agree - it is frustrating but if you had indicated where your figures came from initially that would help a lot. There are many graphics about weight or whatever from many, many PPT briefings now over the years.

Also there has been a discusion about 'weight' and what the entails on this forum. Is the empty weight completely empty or 'wet weight' that includes oil, hydraulics or whatnots? There are official definitions but whatever. NATOPS are always good in this respect - because weight is important to get back with the max. landing weight if feasible - and computers/pilots will calculate it down to the last pound if necessary.

________________

STROLL Down this page for some weighty shenanigans:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... pty#221371

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2012, 23:29
by spazsinbad
I wonder if they want fries with their dessert: "“The Saudis have about 74 state-of-the-art jet fighters sitting in the desserts of the country rusting away. They’ve never been flown and they’ve just done another 60 billion dollar deal with the US. That’s just to cement their political and military alliance.” What aircraft are these? Do the Saudis have an AMARC equivalent? Anyway... Surprise Surprise (I only read headlines).... :D

[Special feature] History suggests U.S. may be pressuring South Korea on F-35 deal Jul.29,2012
&
South Korea may be making a mistake in purchasing flawed, untested plane By Stuart Smallwood

"Global arms trade analysts say South Korea and other countries may be considering the increasingly-troubled Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter F-35 due to heavy political pressure from the United States...."

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_ ... 44679.html

YANKEE GO HOME! :D One for the CANUKs maybe: "Stuart Smallwood is a journalism graduate from the University of King’s College in Canada and an Asian Studies MA candidate in Seoul"

Only bother going to read it if interested in pure speculation.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2012, 07:21
by 1st503rdsgt
If performance and costs were the ONLY determining factors in fighter sales and procurement, every major air force in the free world would be flying a mix of F-22s and JAS-39s by now.

Of course, if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2012, 08:12
by spazsinbad
[Viewpoint] Korea’s next-generation fighter By Michael Green 13 Aug 2012
"Decisions on top-end fighter aircraft send very strong signals about how serious a nation is regarding its national defense and alliance relationships."

http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/ ... id=2957775

Last Paragraph: "...One way to think about this decision is to imagine what the Rokaf will look like in 10 or 20 years. Will it be flying a fighter that is second to none in the region, interoperable with the United States, and cost-effective to sustain and operate in its middle age? This is no small decision."

An interesting overview at the URL.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2012, 03:56
by popcorn
Just buy the F-35 to keep up with the Tanakas and build an indigenous Gen 4+ in greater numbers to complement it and for the export market.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2012, 06:00
by stereospace
spazsinbad wrote:YANKEE GO HOME! :D

Amy Chua wrote a book a few years back, World on Fire, about simmering tensions and resentments in societies. In an interview I saw with her, she discussed anti-Americanism in that context. She said all over the world the refrain was the same, Yankee Go Home! But take me with you!! Please! :P It's a complicated world out there.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2012, 06:12
by stereospace
This may be a bit off topic, but if the Norks invade the RoK, I honestly believe we'd save A LOT of innocent lives if we just nuked the bastards right in their tracks. Twenty-five 300kt hydrogen bombs, with the first five or ten in the tunnel openings, would put a real damper in the offensive. Probably save a million lives in process.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2012, 21:30
by cywolf32
Are you serious?? A delusional dictator does not justify the killing of millions who can hardly feed themselves let alone read this now. Get real man. North Korea is in no position to do anything but posture and bluff. And the people suffer for it sadly.

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2012, 18:11
by wrightwing
IF we were to resort to nukes, I can assure you, that we wouldn't use 25 300kt warheads.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2012, 03:08
by jeffb
stereospace wrote:This may be a bit off topic, but if the Norks invade the RoK, I honestly believe we'd save A LOT of innocent lives if we just nuked the bastards right in their tracks. Twenty-five 300kt hydrogen bombs, with the first five or ten in the tunnel openings, would put a real damper in the offensive. Probably save a million lives in process.

At first glance it might look like your saving lives but there really is no "cheap" way of doing these things (Iraq being the standout example, should have finished at mission accomplished, unfortunately it didn't).

If you were going to use 25x300kt weapons then you might also want to think up a good explanation to give the Chinese, South Koreans and Japanese when the massive cloud of radioactive fallout starts falling on their territory (depending on which way the wind is blowing that week). Hopefully something more comprehensive than "Oops". Given that you're using that many weapons you could probably expect some fallout in Alaska, Canada and the US as well so, hello lawsuits.

The other thing is that a study was done a few years ago that made it's way into Scientific American describing the impacts of a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. It turns out that so much dust gets raised into the high atmosphere by even a limited exchange that it can result in significant drops in sunlight reaching the surface (~5% IIRC) for years with direct knock-on effects on global agricultural output. Hello more lawsuits.

Nukes - really not the cheap option.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2012, 03:47
by johnwill
But does that solve the global warming problem?

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2012, 04:33
by spazsinbad
Everyone and Everything will glow in the dark afterwards so that will decrease energy use at least.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2012, 13:58
by jayraptor
The F-35 should be good in maneuverability, climb rate, combat radius, aerodynamic and stealth. But it's just too expensive to buy and to maintain. When they said easy to repair with modules, do they mean the entire module require replace and the damage part could not be fixed on the spot like BMW? Looking at much of its unnecessary electronics including opening/closing canopy, touch screen with most mechanical parts that would last long removed, it's nothing more than maintaining an expensive BMW rather than tough reliable American car. Probably these unnecessary gadgets are fitted there for LM to make huge profit via maintenance like BMW draining cash from rich buyers pocket.

The newer F-15s will be good enough for SK to fend off NK invasion force. F-35 is only there as supplement and for special deep interdiction mission only. Not even ideal suitable to replace entire fleet of F-15s and F-16s or else will drive the air force bankrupt in maintaining the stealth layer and sophisticated luxury gadgets. When comes to war, there is always high risk of facing scarcity, you don't expect to have the trained engineers to be on standby at all time, sometimes would require to reload and refuel then get back up in the air without maintenance. Mechanical parts are always more reliable and last longer than electronic gadgets. You don't need computer to open the hatch for you. F-16, I could load up 12 AGM-65 enough to blow up 12 tanks. F-35 with internal load of 2 JDAMs, how many tanks could it destroy? If it is fitted with external weapons, isn't it a bit heartache if it took some hits on the wings and the stealth panels ain't cheap to replace.

Also, there's no radar that could detect stealth aircraft at the moment. Back in Serbia, no 1 thought the poor Serbians would have the capability to track and shoot down F-117A and after the successful attack, US stopped all stealth B-2 and F-117 from participating the war forever thinking that Serbia has the new experimental radar. Who knows, maybe the Russians are making 1. If they already had radars that could detect stealth aircrafts, those who spent entire banks cash to buy large numbers of F-35s, wonder how will they feel? Strip the heavy stealth panel layers away and weapon bay doors?

The S300/400 long range SAMs (SA-10/12), are they effective enough to detect low flying aircrafts on terrain masking? If no, that means F-15/16 could still perform SEAD alongside AH-64 Apache to clear way for the bombers. I don't think the Mach6 capable S300/400 long range missiles could maneuver better than smaller SA-17 missiles. Also, SAMs could be jammed and spoofed easier than air to air missiles. Also, F-15 and F-16 now have upgraded RWR capability.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2012, 14:50
by Conan
1. There are plenty of radars that could detect an F-117 or a B-2A an F-22A or yes, an F-35. It's the range at which they can do so however that is the issue. The low observability measures built into these designs are intended to reduce reflected radiation that can be detected by a radar, not eliminate it entirely.

2. The USAF has not stopped using F-117 (up until it's "retirement" in 2008 or so) or the B-2A post the F-117 shoot down in Serbia. It didn't even stop using them over Serbia. Hundreds more missions were flown there between the shootdown in March and the end of the operation in June 1999.

3. No-one has created a radar or system that makes low observable technology obsolete and no-one WILL any time soon. The reason is because this technology like the weapons v armour debate continues to evolve. Furthermore detecting a low observable platform is only one thing that needs to be done. One of the strongest capabilities of a fast mover, is that they move. Fast. So what use is detecting an aircraft if you can't track this aircraft? If you can track an aircraft you then have to be able to provide a firing solution against it.

When you consider all that, plus all the elements of the equation (jamming, standoff weapons other systems and capabilities) you'll consider the sort of "stealth is obsolete" argument is as simplistic and ridiculous as it sounds.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2012, 15:17
by mk82
Good points Jayraptor....yes, we should flying Sopwith Camels because they very mechanical :D. In addition to Conan's points, the F16 is actually a very electronic jet. In fact it was known as the electric jet. Sure it had its share of teething problems early on but they are not exactly falling out of the sky in great numbers are they? F16s have things called LRUs which can't exactly be fixed with pig iron and a hammer on the flightline. Good regular maintenance is key to maintaining an aircraft's flight worthiness and mission readiness regardless how "electronic" an aircraft is. Hmm...the Indian Air Force Mig 21s are quite "mechanical" based on your standards but the accident/mishap rate of these birds are not exactly stellar. That is enough for me, I have gone way off topic.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 13:47
by jayraptor
Dear Conan,

In fact, since the F-117 was first shot down, USAF immediately halted all F-117 and B-2 sorties, at first have doubt whether Serbians had acquired any sort of high tech sensor that could detect stealth. Please check again. Only later after intel found out and Serbians gave away the reason, US allowed only B-2 to fly in at high altitude beyond reach of SA-6. Reason why Serbs could down the F-117 because Americans are so lazy to plot new course and would use the same path that they think safe again and again. Stealth aircrafts especially F-117 with generation 1 stealth layer could be detected and tracked by normal GCI and mobile radar when at less than 5Nm away.

If I were the US Minister of Defense, I would order stealth F-22/35 and at the same time conventional variant F-22/35. Main factors to look at:
1) the price per unit, if too expensive to own and maintain, you don't expect 200 F-22 and 900 F-35 to replace the entire USAF/USN/USMC fighters arsenal of more than 2000 combat aircrafts to watch over US and allies? Then the additional existing pilots that don't have plane to fly, are they going to lose their jobs?
2) Stealth aircrafts carry limited weapons internally and would beat the purpose if carried weapons externally and risk losing/damaging expensive aircrafts.
3) Stealth layers ain't cheap per piece, that is why F-22 limited to Mach 2 while F-35 limited to Mach 1.6 as damage to its surface due to windforce would be costly. Would drive America bankrupt. Also added much weight to the aircraft, that is why F-22 and F-35 are that heavy. Internal weapons bay also helps added the weight.
4) Putting 100% hope on stealth aircraft is like back in Vietnam where they thought having gun is pointless and stick only to missiles. Can the F-22 or F-35 intercept targets at over 100Nm well? AIM-120D, is it flying at Mach 4+ or Mach 5+? Do you expect it to intercept incoming bombers and cruise missiles? How many air to air missiles could they carry?

Ever wonder why there are more crashes involving the existing F-15/16/18? Because they are aging and the structure/frame if being flown too many times would require lots of major patch job and over certain period, would be beyond repair. Alternative is to have numbers of non-stealth F-22 and F-35 without the stealth layers or having less layers for low RCS and removed the internal bay. It will make the conventional F-22 and F-35 way more agile, lighter and faster. Also would cost less to operate and able to destroy more aircrafts, tanks, cruise missiles, etc. The external loads allow you to carry larger long range Mach 5/6 air to air missiles replacing AIM-54. Besides, the F-22 has track range of over 160Nm, search range 200Nm, at least could put it to good use.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 14:03
by jayraptor
Dear Mk82,

Sopwith Camel did not even pass proper law of Physics, Mig-21 is not even perfect design physically neither. The thing with LM is they are giving too much unnecessary electronic gadgets with intention to increase their own pocket money rather than for good. Imagine you own hightech car having Electric Power Steering, electric powered boot, electric powered bonnet, electric seat, computer controlled autostop and autopark, etc. Electric power steering EPS tend to overheat causing your car could not turn if it happen, also without battery, you might not able to turn the wheel when your car battery died on middle of the road when driving at 60mph, are you going to hit whatever in front if you could not even step on the brake? If you managed to pull aside, because the bonnet/hood and boot/trunk require battery power to open, you can't and happen to be middle of the night with your cellphone in the trunk. Car rear seat has no splitfold, does it mean you are totally helpless?

I don't mind having high tech radar, jammer, RWR, etc as these are helpful in increasing your survival. But what does computer controlled hatch got to do? Help you feel more luxurious? So luxury that there's the case where the pilot could not grab the oxygen assist resulted in crash? Check YF-23, it uses reliable F-15's cockpit so that you have less worry. Those switches are proven to last 10 years if well taken care of. Electronic computer touchscreen, it could die without symptom or sign, just like that. If you never owned a car or even if you do, you don't have problem throwing much money to maintain, I doubt you will understand a word I say.

Also, it is entirely wrong to let only 1 single contractor to supply aircrafts for Air Force, Navy and Marine. No competition means that monopoly contractor would more likely take things for granted and getting greedy till they only care about profit. Since the F-22 and F-35 are so expensive, why not revive the F-23 and F-32 that seems to prioritize practicality and at the same time wanted to meet the 5th generation fighters requirement? Give them a chance as we don't want to see another passionate manufacturer like Mc'D dies. Understand?

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 14:17
by spazsinbad
"Understand?" No. Please explain.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 16:01
by stobiewan
spazsinbad wrote:"Understand?" No. Please explain.


I'm counting the minutes til the immortal phrase "Russia:STRONG" is uttered.

:)

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 17:11
by JetTest
Clearly, the world would be a pretty boring place if we all always agreed about everything, but it is moronic posts like those above that silence any intelligent conversation and drive people away from this forum. They are so ridiculous as to not warrant a reply. Maybe if they are ignored he will go away.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 20:21
by mk82
Trying not feed these ridiculous posters you mention about JetTest but man Jayraptor got some real gems...Sopwith Camel not obeying the "proper" laws of physics??? I wonder why the Sopwith Camel needs wings then, it must have some magical antigrav device to let it do barrel rolls :p. Can the F22 and the F35 intercept bombers and cruise missiles? Hmm...the F22 has superb performance, a working radar and can fire and guide high performance missiles to turn any bomber or cruise missiles into hair, eyeballs, teeth and scrap metal. I bet the F35 could do that as well with proper tactics and weapons even though it does not have F22 performance. The AMRAAM especially the D variant is not to be sniffed at lightly either. "Conventional" F22s and F35s???? That is pretty pointless going through the expense and trouble of designing a VLO platform and then making a "conventional" and more vulnerable version of the platform. I could go on and on but it will get boring quickly. I will like to smoke what the J-man has been using, must be good s*** :D.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2012, 20:41
by mk82
Oh yeah, breaking news. Cars have been pretty "electronic" for a while now. Here is the kicker...highly "electronic" cars today are more reliable than a 1970s mechanical car especially in terms of engine reliability in adverse conditions. ECU is a wonderful thing. Ancilliary electronics have come a long way in terms of reloabiloty...get with the times J man. Enough of this s***. Time to get back on topic.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 08:05
by jayraptor
Dear Mk82,

Sopwith Camel is only good during its time but still is not perfect flying machine. One strong gusting wind and storm is good enough to blow it away where it'll loose control and crash. If you say the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18, physically they are good with ability to go all weather day and night without losing control like the Sopwith Camel. The F-22 and F-35 are good but because of someone with bad intention and ethic to dig big cash, they aren't that good in terms of price, maintenance, practicality and reliability. Also, it is wrong to put 110% faith in stealth that you will be safe from detection. If you do that especially when you are with ministry of defence, you are nothing different from the predecessors that removed the internal gun from F-4s with reason that the missiles are good enough to splash any incoming bogeys. When comes to war in Vietnam, the missiles missed at that high rate, and when ran out of missile, they could not do anything but to flee or wait for the MIGs to run out of gas.

Cars with electronics that are reliable are those with ECU electronics concealed in vacuum tight casing, together with the Multiplexer and basic active safety ABS, ESP, BA, Traction Control, etc. But still, they only last 10 years if the environment and surrounding ain't that bad. High tech sophisticated electronics like hybrid Invertor onwards, auto-park, auto-brake, EPS, they tend to have issues even within 3 years. Go find out more before you jump blindly to conclusion.

Dear JetTest,
Do you know the meaning of Freedom of Speech and Consumer Rights? If you don't, you should migrate to North Korea. Stick to topic, this is about Korean's rejection of F-35 and replacement for aging fighters. Are you working for Lockheed or something that you are to prevent others from posting WHAT IF situation with the advantages and disadvantages?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 08:32
by spazsinbad
'jayraptor' asks us to: "...Stick to topic, this is about Korean's rejection of F-35 and replacement for aging fighters...." Hmmm. Topic of this thread (headline) is: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35. Has South Korea rejected the F-35? News to me.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 09:05
by hb_pencil
jayraptor wrote:Do you know the meaning of Freedom of Speech and Consumer Rights? If you don't, you should migrate to North Korea.


Common misconception: forums are not governed by free speech rules. Your ability to speak is completely at the pleasure of its owner. Usually that is regulated by the rules of the forum.

When you're being called out for being a troll by multiple people, its best you start reconsidering your posting behavior. ITs a possibility that you might have to take your god given right to speak somewhere else.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 10:35
by Conan
jayraptor wrote:Dear Conan,

In fact, since the F-117 was first shot down, USAF immediately halted all F-117 and B-2 sorties, at first have doubt whether Serbians had acquired any sort of high tech sensor that could detect stealth. Please check again. Only later after intel found out and Serbians gave away the reason, US allowed only B-2 to fly in at high altitude beyond reach of SA-6. Reason why Serbs could down the F-117 because Americans are so lazy to plot new course and would use the same path that they think safe again and again. Stealth aircrafts especially F-117 with generation 1 stealth layer could be detected and tracked by normal GCI and mobile radar when at less than 5Nm away.


Dear Jayraptor, as confident as you presently are, I'm sure it won't be any trouble for your to please provide a single credible link that proves that the USAF immediately ceased all F-117 and B-2 operations between March and June 1999, post the infamous F-117 shootdown?

Especially considering the dubious "damaged" F-117 incident was widely reported as having occurred AFTER the initial F-117 shoot-down?

Such would not be possible if your assertation were correct...

Lets stick to the thread topic

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2012, 11:19
by mk82
Hey J-man, lets stick to the thread topic. I am happy for you to start a new thread on the unrelated issues you recently posted in this thread and I am looking forward to vigorously debate those issues/ideas on a new thread.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 00:58
by southernphantom
Good Lord, I clicked on this thread after a few weeks' absence expecting some news on the RoKAF F-35 affair, and found this... :? :?

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 02:48
by mk82
Southernphantom, its unfortunate that there are always new posters with ridiculous and often moronic ideas coming out of the woodwork derailing the thread. You should check out J-mans posts on other threads...comedy gold :D. Seriously, I have learnt my lesson, better ignore these wacky posters to get the thread back on topic.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 07:07
by jayraptor
Dear all,

Agree, get back to topic. Besides, since this is still part of military forum, it is fine to debate, question, doubt, think of, etc anything about military.

"jayraptor' asks us to: "...Stick to topic, this is about Korean's rejection of F-35 and replacement for aging fighters...." Hmmm. Topic of this thread (headline) is: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35. Has South Korea rejected the F-35? News to me."

My comment : South Korea and any other countries that are US allies would not reject the F-35 after all as there aren't many option available. Even if the F-35 might not become their primary fighter fleet, they do prefer to have numbers of F-35 rather than not. For South Koreans, they would need a dozen F-35s at least for high risk missions that require to fly past enemy lines of defenses without being detected to destroy high importance vital or strategic targets such as the regime's hideout, radar stations, C&C, supply line, etc.

Whereas when comes to invasion, for weapons platform role, it will be handled by F-15K and F-16C/Ds. Most countries even US prefer to use F-16C/Ds for strike missions (CAS/Down & Dirty/Nest attack) mainly because of it's cheaper (less heartache if got shot down), smaller (making it harder to hit by AAAs) and consumes less fuel (lower operating cost). The F-15E despite being a better attack aircraft, US would use it for distance attack & quick stike rather than using it for search and destroy mobile targets that would require to loiter around danger zone. The B-1B is supposed to replace B-52 entirely but because of practical running cost in terms of fuel consumption and maintenance, the B-52 is still in use and turns out the SAC flew B-52s more than B-1B and B-2 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Besides, Korea, it is evident that the UK and the few NATO countries would still operate the EF2000 for long range air to air intercept and ground attack role more than F-35s. Same thing, it's all about cost and practicality. Unless Lockheed decides to sell more affordable conventional low RCS variant, NATO would replace the aging F-16s and F-4s with conventional F-35s.

Dear Conan,
It was reported on the news generally. What else could commoner military fans like us could dig out other than reading news and articles. Besides the stealth aircraft incident, there was 1 incident involving AH-64 crashed over Yugoslavia theater and they halted all AH-64s operation until the cause of crash is confirmed before allowing them to resume operations.

Dear Mk82,
If you would like to buy a new car, aren't you supposed to find out the disadvantages of that car model before you decide to buy? Same thing when comes to buying military assets especially when you have limited funding and you are smaller NATO country. When you are buying weapons from others since you do not manufacture the weapons on your own, buying the wrong fighters or if the specs was not up to your expectation, you will have to stick to them till you have save enough cash to replace them. Tomorrow is always a mystery, who knows you might end up offending unfriendly neighbor and they would throw everything they got at you. You won't have time to purchase new fighters if you found out that the maintenance is not practical in time of emergency.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 11:34
by mk82
Fair point J-man, if you are a smaller NATO country with a limited defence budget and don't really need VLO stealth, the F35 will be a "luxury" acquisition as you understand it. A few smaller European nations have decided that the F35 is the best fighter aircraft to acquire in terms of cost vs capability and ability to interoperate with allied forces especially with US armed forces. Time will tell if they were right. Mind you though, alot of their current fast jets are highly dependent on electronics (EF 2000, F16 MLU, Tornado) and they have not been hangar queens in terms of electronic/avionic problems. Whether Lockheed has really improved the maintanability of radar absorbent coatings/structure since the F22, only time will tell when F35 is subjected to wear and tear and tempo of an operational jet in the combat arm of the air force. To be fair, Lockheed has made many significant changes to their radar absorbent coating/structure technology to try to improve the durability and maintainability of radar absorbent coating/structure of the F35, especially the C version which will be in harsh marine environments. If you are inclined, search the interweb or old threads on F35 RAM/RAS.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 11:48
by spazsinbad
'mk82' said above: "...Whether Lockheed has really improved the maintanability of radar absorbent coatings/structure since the F22, only time will tell when F35 is subjected to wear and tear and tempo of an operational jet in the combat arm of the air force. To be fair, Lockheed has made many significant changes to their radar absorbent coating/structure technology to try to improve the durability and maintainability of radar absorbent coating/structure of the F35, especially the C version which will be in harsh marine environments. If you are inclined, search the interweb or old threads on F35 RAM/RAS."

'mk82' the 3 models A/B/C share the same 'fibermat RAM' structure, not just for the C model. The robust stealth material is well described in this forum. Remember the B model will be at sea and at expeditionary airfields also. It is not that 'time will tell' but that it has been explained clearly how robust this stealth material is already. It needs to be physically damaged by harsh treatment to have the stealth properties in any way impaired. 'J-man' is just rehashing old bollocks as far as I know. No need to repeat it. Thanks.
_______________

Sometimes searching this forum on one word can be tedious so here are some (easy for me repeatable) quotes about F-35C (and of course the others) stealth signature maintainability:

F-35C STEALTH ON THE CARRIER DECK MEANS HIGH PERFORMANCE, LOW MAINTENANCE

http://www.jsf.mil/news/documents/20080 ... ARRIER.rtf

"....The F-35 achieves its Very Low Observable stealth performance through its fundamental design, its external shape and its manufacturing processes, which control tolerances to less than half the diameter of a human hair. Special coatings are added to further reduce radar signature.

The package is designed to remain stealthy in severe combat conditions, and tests have validated that capability. After obtaining baseline radar cross section (RCS) measurements from a highly detailed, full-scale Signature Measurement Aircraft (SigMA), a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman engineers intentionally inflicted extensive damage – more than three dozen significant defects – on the model. The damage represented the cumulative effect of more than 600 flight hours of military aircraft operations. RCS measurements taken after the damage showed that the stealthy signature remained intact.

“Even operating in harsh carrier-deck conditions, the F-35C will require no special care or feeding. In fact, its stealth adds very little to the day-today maintenance equation,” O’Bryan said. “We’ve come a long way from the early stealth airplanes, which needed hours or even days of attention and repair after every flight. The F-35 not only avoids that intensive level of upkeep, it will require significantly less maintenance than the
nonstealth fighters it is designed to replace.”
________________

Production techniques gear F-35 for stealth

http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_w/p ... July48.pdf

"...In addition to machining advances that allow LM to achieve high manufacturing tolerances, advances have also been made in the composition of the radar-absorbent structure (RAS) of the aircraft. This Linhart said, is "completely different" from earlier RAS materials in the way it is resistant to chipping, even in the face of bird-strikes...."
______________________________

Lockheed Gives a Peek at New JSF Stealth Material Concept by Amy Butler May/17/2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 80e3609ae1

"It is called "fiber mat," and Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin says it is "the single, biggest technological breakthrough we've had on this program." He says that a new process to blend stealth qualities into composite material avoided the need for stealthy appliqués and coatings. Using a new process, Lockheed officials are curing the stealthy, fiber mat substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Burbage. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with Aviation Week in Fort Worth. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs. The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators...."
_________________

New Stealth Concept Could Affect JSF Cost By Amy Butler - May 17, 2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

"FORT WORTH — As the debate rages about Joint Strike Fighter life-cycle cost, Lockheed Martin officials are raising a previously unheard point to bolster their low-price claims — a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat. Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%. Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified...."
____________________

Composites Machining for the F-35
Aug? 8/3/2010 Article From: Modern Machine Shop, Peter Zelinski, Senior Editor

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles ... r-the-f-35

“...Lockheed Martin’s precision machining of composite skin sections for the F-35 provides part of the reason why this plane saves money for U.S. taxpayers. That machining makes the plane compelling in ways that have led other countries to take up some of the cost. Here is a look at a high-value, highly engineered machining process for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft....

...The F-35 features “supportable” VLO. That is, the VLO on this plane comes with very low maintenance cost. Stealth aircraft of the past couldn’t make that claim. Because radar detects sharp edges, even small mismatches between exterior parts on past VLO planes were smoothed out using epoxy. The epoxy would dry, harden and separate in the field—meaning it had to be frequently inspected and replaced.

By contrast, adjacent parts of the F-35 match so fluidly and precisely that no epoxy is needed...."

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 16:00
by JetTest
Spaz, the patience you and some others display here for fools is amazing! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 16:12
by spazsinbad
It is more for my benefit.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 16:27
by count_to_10
Jay could conceivably be fishing for sensitive information, I suppose.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 17:16
by JetTest
Certainly not a native English speaker, for whatever that's worth.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 18:43
by cywolf32
These inarticulate posts are ad nausiem and contribute nothing more than "what if" scenarios of no importance. Legacy acft cannot and will not enjoy what the F-35 offers. It is not a single service, single type platform. Its design and construction is not something for simple discussion.Wrap your head around that first then reply with something worth of discussion.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2012, 22:40
by spazsinbad
Here is one of the previous threads I could not find late last night. Oh well. There are some good graphics which round out the text about stealth:

UK's first F-35 flies [the IRONIC 'B' Model] :-) stroll down

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=221682

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2012, 02:33
by Conan
jayraptor wrote:Dear Conan,
It was reported on the news generally. What else could commoner military fans like us could dig out other than reading news and articles.


Well then it should be very straight forward to provide us with some supporting evidence for your claims, a single link to one of those generally reported articles would suffice.

A bit of Google-fu and pasting of the link here, isn't too much to ask is it?

Besides the stealth aircraft incident, there was 1 incident involving AH-64 crashed over Yugoslavia theater and they halted all AH-64s operation until the cause of crash is confirmed before allowing them to resume operations.


So you're equating a temporary grounding of a completely separate platform for safety reasons, to the total cessation of all military operations of your two most important strike aircraft in the middle of a reasonably intense NATO operation, because of a unique occurrence that was caused not by some special sensor, but rather extremely poor mission planning and routing and a huge amount of luck on behalf of the enemy?

And on this basis countries might become hesitant in purchasing low observable aircraft in future?

Hmmm....

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2012, 07:57
by jayraptor
Dear Mk82 and spazsinbad,

Thanks for getting back to topic and thanks for the info. US stealth technology has already proven effective in the F-117 and B-2. Only thing is that the 1st generation stealth panel layer could be detected if being directed by radar at less than 5Nm away. Generation 2 stealth panel in F-22 and F-35 should be way better. My opinion in comparing Europeans made vs American made, the US aircrafts have to undergo extreme test under hot/cold extreme weather in the Mojave and North Dakota to make sure they are reliable and durable. European European fighters such as EF2000, they only tested in limited European weather and temperature, whether their parts could withstand other climate, weather and temperature i a question mark for me. Unless they are willing to send test prototype to Arab desert to have them proven. No offense but true and I guess this is why customers prefer US made fighters. Besides, spare parts price and availability, US made still cheaper.

However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers. F-16, EF2000, Rafale don't think they are that superior than Su-35BM in terms of radar and weapons range. Their radomes house medium size mid-end radar with track range current new radar not so sure, around 60-80Nm track range and search range 100Nm? Just enough for them to track targets at maximum effective range of AIM-120C5/C7? F-14/15 and Flankers family fitted with large high-end radar with track range >143Nm and search range 160-190Nm meaning that they could track targets at long range and fire the AIM-54, AIM-120D and Meteor without AWACs assistance.


Dear Conan,
The articles I read came from military magazines and newspapers back in late 90's. I don't keep them with me. I don't get the info from Google. I'm not against stealth technology but just as safety pre-caution, any air force should not rely on 1 single thing completely and forgo the rest. There are still missions and sorties that your targets are sitting ducks or defenseless but because of their large numbers, you need mobile weapon platforms to carry as many missiles and ordnance as possible to take them down before they could harm your allies, people or cities. If you have only 12 F-35s that could fly at that time, if all of them stealth variant carrying only 4 AIM-120C7s, your enemy sent in 60 cheap inferior Mig-23s and Tu-22 Blinders that charge towards your city at supersonic speed hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. They know it's suicidal to go against your F-35s but they only wanted to kill your people ignoring your missiles and focus on bombing the city. Even if all 48 AMRAAMS hit 100% without a single F-35 loss, can you finish off the remaining 12 with guns? Please note that NATO do not have many SAMs launchers like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc have. Mostly operate short range Shahine, Rapier, Roland, hand-held launchers, etc. Patriots only some of them have? Also, there is protocol where you are not allowed to fire on enemy bogeys until the are near your border or already entered your country. A conventional F-35 could carry full bag of 12 AMRAAMs and with the AESA radar, it could track several targets and launch the AMRAAMs simultaneously with few AMRAAMs left to kill whatever left after the 1st wave.

Dear cywolf32 and JetTest,

Are you military fans like the rest? At least they do post healthy comments and who knows, some of us could end up becoming owner of a country. Psychopath farmboy Hitler with lots of nasty experience when he was young, any1 thought he could become the fuhrer and lead the entire Germany? No. Abraham Lincoln, no one knows he would become the US president. Same goes to several leaders be it good or bad, you can't expect what will happen tomorrow. Also, if nobody allowed to question the F-35, do you think Lockheed could get the feedback? If there is no competitor such as Boeing/Northrop to come up with F-32 for sale, do you think Lockheed will be kind enough to lower the selling price? Less variant and choices of fighters to look at, buy, etc, won't you feel bored? Back then, there are A-10/F-14/15/16/18 that come up in few years time, reading mags are fun. Even air combat sims. Today, everything is almost dead, buy magazine, there's only F-22 and F-35. PAK-FA, J-10/12 from the East, aircraft development is almost quiet as it's dead.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 08:40
by spazsinbad
'jayraptor' did you have a hand in this?

U.S. approves use of chase flights, telemetry to test Lockheed's F-35A By Kim Eun-jung 2012/08/29

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.HTML

"SEOUL, Aug. 29 (Yonhap) -- The U.S. government has approved South Korea's request to perform chase flights and use a wireless data transfer system to test Lockheed Martin's F-35A, one of three fighter jets bidding for a multi-billion dollar project, a senior Seoul official said Wednesday.

American aerospace giant Lockheed is competing with fellow U.S. firm Boeing and Europe-based multinational defense group EADS to win the state-funded fighter jet deal worth upward of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion). South Korea plans to purchase 60 fighter jets by 2021 to replace the Air Force's aging fleet."

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 14:14
by SpudmanWP
How is this any different than looking at the tapes after it lands (as they do now)?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 15:12
by spazsinbad
It is a face saving exercise for the South Koreans because a fuss was made about an assumption made at beginning about simulators that was questioned by others. See my claim on the first page of this thread and go here - 2nd entry on this page:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-120.html

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 15:20
by JetTest
Jay, the USG does not develop aircraft with any thought of making magazines and video games more interesting, and airframes do not decide what aircraft to develop. They respond to USG requests for proposals for specified systems and requirements, that is what drives the direction of engineering and development of new aircraft. Boeing does not own the X32, the USG owns that design as it was developed on a USG contract. It is not up to Boeing to decide to complete any further development. Boeing was in a fair competition and could not successfully deliver a winning proposal within the constraints of the competition, get over it. There will be no F32, stealth, conventional (as you call it), US, foreign or otherwise. What about that do you not understand? You can dream about "what if" all you want but stop posting your dreams as if they were realistic proposals. And an aside, LM, as well as all participating suppliers, are continually working to reduce cost for the entire F35 program.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 15:35
by jayraptor
Korea eventually needs stealth fighters anyway and there is no other choice available. What else, stick to F-35 purchase. They'll need them to strike vital/strategic targets deep behind enemy lines anyway.

JetTest,
Since developing aircrafts alone is costly nowadays especially when there are less buyers today compared to back then. You wanted to sell F/A-18E/F, you need to pass through the filters from US Congress strict restrictions. Next, the smaller countries are mostly on tight budget and would consider and think twice even thrice before buying. Even if they wanted to buy, it'll be in small numbers and end up could not cover up the R&D cost.

Less honest country that could barely afford might end up last minute cancellation like Mikoyan/Gurevich selling Mig-29SMT to Algeria case. The purchase was cancelled when almost delivery forcing Russian Air Force to swallow the purchase at highly discounted price. Selling military is not easy nowadays. Arms embargo/sanctions/restriction kills manufacturers business. Example, Iraq's invasion on Kuwait, even Russia and China imposed arms embargo on Iraq, preventing any military sales. Saddam was broke in terms of cash but not in exchange of crude fuel. Sukhoi, Mikoyan, Vympel, Mil etc would not mind selling their products in exchange of fuel aka black gold.

Unless Korea willing to allocate the budget to fund the Boeing's X-32 conversion to F-32 project, otherwise, Boeing will not develop the F-32 and sell to Korea.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 15:54
by bigjku
jayraptor wrote:
The articles I read came from military magazines and newspapers back in late 90's. I don't keep them with me. I don't get the info from Google. I'm not against stealth technology but just as safety pre-caution, any air force should not rely on 1 single thing completely and forgo the rest. There are still missions and sorties that your targets are sitting ducks or defenseless but because of their large numbers, you need mobile weapon platforms to carry as many missiles and ordnance as possible to take them down before they could harm your allies, people or cities. If you have only 12 F-35s that could fly at that time, if all of them stealth variant carrying only 4 AIM-120C7s, your enemy sent in 60 cheap inferior Mig-23s and Tu-22 Blinders that charge towards your city at supersonic speed hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. They know it's suicidal to go against your F-35s but they only wanted to kill your people ignoring your missiles and focus on bombing the city. Even if all 48 AMRAAMS hit 100% without a single F-35 loss, can you finish off the remaining 12 with guns? Please note that NATO do not have many SAMs launchers like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc have. Mostly operate short range Shahine, Rapier, Roland, hand-held launchers, etc. Patriots only some of them have? Also, there is protocol where you are not allowed to fire on enemy bogeys until the are near your border or already entered your country. A conventional F-35 could carry full bag of 12 AMRAAMs and with the AESA radar, it could track several targets and launch the AMRAAMs simultaneously with few AMRAAMs left to kill whatever left after the 1st wave.



I think this is a misconception that needs to be dealt with. It is a pretty silly theory that anyone is going to toss away several squadrons of fighters in an effort to scatter some bombs across the landscape with obsolete fighters? To bomb effectively with a few platforms you need precision weapons or you need nuclear bombs. If we eliminate the second option that generally means we need a fairly modern platform to really do a great deal of damage.

More than that on a practical level who has whole squadrons of fighters they can just afford to throw away? Who has pilots lining up to be sacrificed in huge numbers? How does this help the other side win the actual war?

So I might get a dozen through in your scenario. Great news on day 1. But what about day 2? What about day 10? The whole point of an Air Force with manned aircraft is that it can come back again the same day and the next day and the day after that. Even going beyond that no one operates like that anymore really. The Russians don't have legions of old fighters to throw at anyone that are in flying condition. They are actively shrinking the air force to focus on more capable models that they won't throw away by the dozen to make some glory run like you envision. The Chinese are doing largely the same thing. No one sees any point in keeping around useless aircraft anymore.

What sort of effects would this have on your force to see it gutted like that? Is anyone going to fly aggressively on day 2?

On a more operational level how are you going to marshal 5 squadrons of fighters for such an operation without attracting notice? Particularly against the US or NATO that will have AWACS and a huge number of other assets watching your airspace and ground operations and communications? Putting together that kind of package takes time. Who is to say you don't get bushwacked by a half-dozen Raptors as you try to get the whole force airborne and aligned for your thunder run? What stops the other side from putting more than a dozen fighters in the air when they see you doing this?

More than that within a couple of years you could carry 6 AMRAAMs internally on the F-35. You could hang pylons on the thing and carry at least 10-12 AMRAAM's if you really felt it was necessary (it won't be for most missions). You are really creating a false problem honestly.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 16:32
by Conan
jayraptor wrote:
Dear Conan,
The articles I read came from military magazines and newspapers back in late 90's. I don't keep them with me. I don't get the info from Google. I'm not against stealth technology but just as safety pre-caution, any air force should not rely on 1 single thing completely and forgo the rest. There are still missions and sorties that your targets are sitting ducks or defenseless but because of their large numbers, you need mobile weapon platforms to carry as many missiles and ordnance as possible to take them down before they could harm your allies, people or cities. If you have only 12 F-35s that could fly at that time, if all of them stealth variant carrying only 4 AIM-120C7s, your enemy sent in 60 cheap inferior Mig-23s and Tu-22 Blinders that charge towards your city at supersonic speed hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. They know it's suicidal to go against your F-35s but they only wanted to kill your people ignoring your missiles and focus on bombing the city. Even if all 48 AMRAAMS hit 100% without a single F-35 loss, can you finish off the remaining 12 with guns? Please note that NATO do not have many SAMs launchers like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc have. Mostly operate short range Shahine, Rapier, Roland, hand-held launchers, etc. Patriots only some of them have? Also, there is protocol where you are not allowed to fire on enemy bogeys until the are near your border or already entered your country. A conventional F-35 could carry full bag of 12 AMRAAMs and with the AESA radar, it could track several targets and launch the AMRAAMs simultaneously with few AMRAAMs left to kill whatever left after the 1st wave


Thank you for making this forum far stupider.

So some country is able to mass 60 operational MiG-23's and TU-22's but "our" country can only mass 12 F-35's?

Which country is this? Even Israel has announced an intention to purchase 20 F-35's and in a time of extreme emergency they'd all be scrambled for defence of a country...

Furthermore your ridiculous scenario doesn't allow for the external weapons carriage capability of the F-35, which could if necessary carry 12x AMRAAM in total, plus a pair of external AIM-9x or ASRAAM for 14 missiles in total.

The F-35 is unlikely to need it's full low observable capability to successfully engage 40 year old MiGs...

How do the numbers look there for such a ridiculous idea?

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 16:38
by JetTest
Jay, what do you not understand about this? Korea cannot decide to fund Boeing to complete the F32 even if they wanted to. The USG owns the data and has complete authority. If the USG does not want it done, it will not be done regardless of anyone else wanting to fund it and buy it. It is dead. Based on your mindless rumblings you clearly have no idea what so ever about what is involved in an aircraft development project or international military sales, much less operational use. Come back in several years, after you finish high school, college, and get a few years experience in the real world.

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2012, 17:24
by neurotech
JetTest wrote:Jay, what do you not understand about this? Korea cannot decide to fund Boeing to complete the F32 even if they wanted to. The USG owns the data and has complete authority. If the USG does not want it done, it will not be done regardless of anyone else wanting to fund it and buy it. It is dead. Based on your mindless rumblings you clearly have no idea what so ever about what is involved in an aircraft development project or international military sales, much less operational use. Come back in several years, after you finish high school, college, and get a few years experience in the real world.

Anyone remember the Northrop F-20 Tigershark? Aerodynamically it was an good jet, but the wrong jet for the wrong role, and politics killed it. . The F-20 was not funded by DoD, although they were basically the sole sales agency through FMS, and even with the famous Chuck Yeager endorsing the jet, didn't save it. This contrasts with the that F-5 was DoD supported, and funded specifically as an export fighter.

The F-16 became a successful jet because it evolved into a strike fighter. The Northrop YF-17 was a better design than the F-20, but it wasn't selected by the USAF and and neither jet become a production fighter on the basis of export requirements, even though it would have been great export fighter.

Of course, the YF-17 became the F/A-18 with Navy support, but the F/A-18 was not an internal Northrop/McDonald-Douglas project by any means.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 06:20
by jayraptor
Conan wrote:Thank you for making this forum far stupider.

So some country is able to mass 60 operational MiG-23's and TU-22's but "our" country can only mass 12 F-35's?

Which country is this? Even Israel has announced an intention to purchase 20 F-35's and in a time of extreme emergency they'd all be scrambled for defence of a country...

Furthermore your ridiculous scenario doesn't allow for the external weapons carriage capability of the F-35, which could if necessary carry 12x AMRAAM in total, plus a pair of external AIM-9x or ASRAAM for 14 missiles in total.

The F-35 is unlikely to need it's full low observable capability to successfully engage 40 year old MiGs...

How do the numbers look there for such a ridiculous idea?


Did I mention US in the first place? It could be 1 of US allies in the example. Even if it is the US, does it mean that the US could always outnumber their enemies in another country? Aren't the US special forces were outnumbered by Somalian rebels in Mogadishu? Also in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were incidents where enemies outnumbered US troops? So what are you're saying is totally ignorant.

JetTest,
Everyone knows that Boeing could not proceed to convert X-32 to F-32 alone to sell. Boeing/Northrop, several other contractors and Congress would have to give the greenlight.


Hi Neurotech,
The F-20 is designed to replace F-5E as cheap affordable fighter that would compete with BAe Hawk, Alphajet, AMX, etc in light fighter category. It is meant for poorer customers that could not afford proper fighter like F-16. It was cancelled because someone with authority thought it's a waste of time coming up with cheap sub-standard fighter especially made in the US. Some less reliable sources even said the EU competitors objected the F-20 as it could hamper their sales.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 06:49
by Conan
jayraptor wrote:Did I mention US in the first place? It could be 1 of US allies in the example. Even if it is the US, does it mean that the US could always outnumber their enemies in another country? Aren't the US special forces were outnumbered by Somalian rebels in Mogadishu? Also in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were incidents where enemies outnumbered US troops? So what are you're saying is totally ignorant.


Please show where I mentioned the USA in any of my recent comments, I did however mention Israel.

However, if you would like to refer to another of your "late 90's magazines" and please show us one single instance of the USAF being "outnumbered" in TACAIR over the last 60 years in ANY operational environment, I'm all ears...

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 17:56
by 1st503rdsgt
jayraptor wrote:Hi Neurotech,
The F-20 is designed to replace F-5E as cheap affordable fighter that would compete with BAe Hawk, Alphajet, AMX, etc in light fighter category. It is meant for poorer customers that could not afford proper fighter like F-16. It was cancelled because someone with authority thought it's a waste of time coming up with cheap sub-standard fighter especially made in the US. Some less reliable sources even said the EU competitors objected the F-20 as it could hamper their sales.


Do you really want to place the F-20 in comparison with the Hawk, Alphajet, and AMX? Go ahead, I dare you. You obviously haven't read anything about the F-20, why it was developed, what its competition was, or why it was cancelled.

"Someone in authority"?

Image

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 21:26
by wrightwing
jayraptor wrote: Generation 2 stealth panel in F-22 and F-35 should be way better.

The F-22 and F-35 don't have stealth panels bolted/painted on. Their shape combined with their skins, are what result in their reduced RCS. You'd have to build them out of something else, to build a "conventional" model.


However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.
What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 21:47
by archeman
.

jayraptor

However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.

What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?


Your not thinking far enough out of the box wrightwing. You have to get waaaayyyy out of the box to get there. Perhaps you could just buy F-35s, run down to the hardware store and return with some Led based paint. A few hours and some used paint rollers later presto -- conventional F-35s!!!

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 22:03
by neurotech
jayraptor wrote:Hi Neurotech,
The F-20 is designed to replace F-5E as cheap affordable fighter that would compete with BAe Hawk, Alphajet, AMX, etc in light fighter category. It is meant for poorer customers that could not afford proper fighter like F-16. It was cancelled because someone with authority thought it's a waste of time coming up with cheap sub-standard fighter especially made in the US. Some less reliable sources even said the EU competitors objected the F-20 as it could hamper their sales.

The GD YF-16 & Northrop YF-17 and F-20 were all designed as cheap affordable fighters. Initial F-16 Block 1/5/10 jets were designed as light BVR fighters, and compared to the F-4/F-14/F-15 they were. The other jets you mention are basically Lead-In Fighter Trainers, they didn't have anything beyond basic "gun" radar. They could be pressed into combat by a 3rd rate AF, but they were trainer jets.

What killed the F-20 were 4 factors, basically;
- Carter administration rules were 'waviered' for many of the smaller countries to buy the F-16/J79 and subsequently standard F-16s that would otherwise buy the F-20.
- The F-20 had 2 high profile crashes during demonstration/practice flights.
- The F-20 flyaway cost wasn't substantially cheaper than a F-16 Block 1/5/10 which had better avionics, and greater production volume.
- The USG didn't want to sell F-20s because it could push down F-16 production numbers and increase the F-16 unit cost.

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 22:04
by wrightwing
archeman wrote:
.

jayraptor

However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.

What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?


Your not thinking far enough out of the box wrightwing. You have to get waaaayyyy out of the box to get there. Perhaps you could just buy F-35s, run down to the hardware store and return with some Led based paint. A few hours and some used paint rollers later presto -- conventional F-35s!!!


How much would it cost to modify the F-35 into an A-35 for CAS/COIN, bolting on armor, and replacing the F-135, with a tilt rotor set up? You could use the internal bays for more fuel, as you wouldn't need to worry about the RCS, and maybe stretch, widen, and increase the height, so you could carry troops/supplies. Or do you think that the A-32 would be superior in this role? :shock: 8)

Was that far enough outside the box? :P

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 22:06
by Prinz_Eugn
However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.
What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?


The same countries who bought the F-16/79, duh.

EDIT: looks like I need to refresh the page before writing a comment...

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 22:50
by archeman
wrightwing wrote:
archeman wrote:
.

jayraptor

However, I still prefer to have conventional F-35s in additional choices for buyers.

What buyer would choose a conventional F-35 over a stealthy F-35?


Your not thinking far enough out of the box wrightwing. You have to get waaaayyyy out of the box to get there. Perhaps you could just buy F-35s, run down to the hardware store and return with some Led based paint. A few hours and some used paint rollers later presto -- conventional F-35s!!!


How much would it cost to modify the F-35 into an A-35 for CAS/COIN, bolting on armor, and replacing the F-135, with a tilt rotor set up? You could use the internal bays for more fuel, as you wouldn't need to worry about the RCS, and maybe stretch, widen, and increase the height, so you could carry troops/supplies. Or do you think that the A-32 would be superior in this role? :shock: 8)

Was that far enough outside the box? :P


he he he
You got there --- and beyond!!!

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 23:51
by southernphantom
I'd be all for an up-armored CAS F-35 with additional internal fuel, in the form of a design study to see if there'd be a point in owning 200 or so.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 00:08
by popcorn
southernphantom wrote:I'd be all for an up-armored CAS F-35 with additional internal fuel, in the form of a design study to see if there'd be a point in owning 200 or so.


Not worth it IMO. A-10s proved vulnerable to SAMs 2 decades ago and the lethality of defenses,has got even better since then.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 01:24
by count_to_10
southernphantom wrote:I'd be all for an up-armored CAS F-35 with additional internal fuel, in the form of a design study to see if there'd be a point in owning 200 or so.

You are probably better off modifying a V-22 for CAS.

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 02:09
by alloycowboy
At the risk of being redundant the whole point of the F-35 is to fly at high altitude and out of the range of the air defence systems and to use its EOTS (electro-optical targeting system) to engage ground targets. (See video) The idea of flying CAS low and slow with aircraft like the A-10 is a bit out dated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPc8UlkqYr8&feature=plcp

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2012, 02:19
by count_to_10
alloycowboy wrote:At the risk of being redundant the whole point of the F-35 is to fly at high altitude and out of the range of the air defence systems and to use its EOTS (electro-optical targeting system) to engage ground targets. (See video) The idea of flying CAS low and slow with aircraft like the A-10 is a bit out dated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPc8UlkqYr8&feature=plcp

"Best defense, not be there."

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2012, 01:49
by spazsinbad
South Korean pilots visit Boeing, Lockheed jet fighter plants By Andrea Shalal-Esa 27 Sep 2012

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid ... J320120927

"WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - South Korean test pilots are visiting Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 plant in Fort Worth, Texas, this week after a similar trip this month to Boeing Co's F-15 plant in St. Louis amid signs that Seoul will delay a decision in its $7 billion-plus fighter competition until early 2013.

Lockheed spokesman Mike Rein said South Korean officials were evaluating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter proposal submitted by Lockheed in South Korea's 8.3 trillion won competition for 60 new fighter planes. He gave no further details.

Seoul had expressed disappointment that its pilots would not be allowed to fly the F-35 fighter, which has only one seat. Lockheed officials said the plane was still in development, and Japanese pilots had not been allowed to fly it either during their competition last year.

Instead, South Korean pilots were being given access to a sophisticated F-35 simulator and rides in chase planes as Lockheed test pilots showed off the capabilities of the F-35 Lightning II, according to two sources familiar with the plans, who asked not to be named....

...South Korean pilots are moving ahead with their evaluation of the competing warplanes, but industry executives and aerospace analysts have said they do not expect Seoul to pick a winner until after the country's presidential election in December. A contract award was initially expected in October....

...John Pike, an analyst with globalsecurity.org, said it made sense for Seoul to wait until after the election to announce its decision, instead of taking a chance that the contract award could be reversed by a new government.

He said he expected Seoul to pick the more advanced Lockheed fighter, noting that last year Japan chose Lockheed to build a fleet of 42 F-35 planes and that China has developed its own stealth fighter.

"At the end of the day, the Japanese did not want to be a generation behind. They did not want to be the last major military power without a stealthy aircraft, and I think the Koreans are going to go the same way," Pike said...."

MORE about the alsorans at the jump.

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2013, 04:15
by spazsinbad
Seoul faces tough choice in fighter procurement Lockheed Martin hints at less than $125m price tag for Korea, confident of F-35’s delivery time

http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130327000898

Have not heard from Korea for a bit so go read it if interested.

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2013, 04:55
by neptune
This may all be decided by the D. As. north of the parallel. Apparently our state dept. will "let" him have more stroke than LM, go figure?

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2013, 05:16
by spazsinbad
Another one for the money...

NavWeek: Keeping Asian Waters Pacific 29 Mar 2013 Michael Fabey
"...Examples of highly capable aircraft now being acquired by the Navy, CRS also notes, include F-35C carrier-based Joint Strike Fighters, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, E-2D Hawkeye early warning and command and control aircraft, the Navy carrier-based Unmanned Combat Air System (N-UCAS program) demonstrator program, and the follow-on Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system.

But the secret to prevention in the region may reside not in what the U.S. does deploy, but what others think may or may not be deployed.

“Countering China’s naval modernization effort can also involve stating publicly (while withholding classified details) the U.S. Navy’s ability to counter improved Chinese maritime forces,” CRS says. “Such public statements could help prevent Chinese overconfidence that might lead to incidents, while also reassuring regional allies, partners, and neutrals.”...

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 4b043e9a1f

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 14:59
by Conan
South Korea's F-35 and F-15 Silent Eagle DSCA requests are up.

F-35

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/ ... _13-10.pdf

$10.8b for the entire F-35 package.

F-15

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/ ... _13-11.pdf

$2.48b just to turn an F-15E/K/SG variant into a "Silent Eagle".

That's $40m per aircraft over and above the cost of the standard new-build Strike Eagles.

I think I hear "Slowman" crying over his beer...

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 16:44
by HaveVoid
Pardon my ignorance, but I seem to be a bit confused. Is Boeing simply proposing modifying the ROKAF's existing F-15Ks to Silent Eagle standard? The quoted 2.48 Billion seems low for 60 F-15SE new builds, but maybe I'm missing the point here...


HV

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 17:43
by SpudmanWP
Is Boeing simply proposing modifying the ROKAF's existing F-15Ks to Silent Eagle standard?
No.

The Airframe, engines, avionics, etc are covered under a Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) contract and do not require a DSCA notification. There will be 60 new airframes covered under the DCS contract.

Only some of the equipment requires a DSCA notification.

Boeing may be using this tactic to obfuscate the bid numbers.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 18:08
by maus92
Looks like the Korean F-35s are about $180M UPC, including 15 years of contractor support, but not military construction.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 18:28
by spazsinbad
A few big ticket items [FMS in a building + reprogram centre building at least with costs] included in the F-35 bid. I'll look for the Oz/UK/other? reprogam centre cost...

Korea – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft 03 Apr 2013
"WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion...."

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/ ... _13-10.pdf

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 18:33
by bigjku
Can we all basically agree that the F-35 is going to be sold for a price that is basically the same as any advanced F-15's, Tranche 3 Eurofighters or not yet designed and built Gripen NG's at this point? It just seems like all the price points are converging towards $100-$150 million at this point depending on what all options you pack in. Sure if you are the USN buying F-18E's in a multi-year buy you can get a better price. But so long as the US government moves ahead with the F-35 I don't see anything else out there beating it as far as the performance/price balance goes.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 18:37
by spazsinbad
Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability — F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition
“...2.63 Mission data reprogramming for Australian, Canadian and United Kingdom F-35 aircraft is to be conducted at a yet-to-be-developed Australia–Canada–United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL). The ACURL is currently planned to be located at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, USA, and operated collaboratively by approximately 20 personnel from each of the ACURL partner nations, with the support of approximately 50 US personnel. The ACURL’s acquisition and sustainment costs are to be split equally between the ACURL partner nations.99

99 The United States will operate its own reprogramming laboratory for its own significantly larger F-35 fleets.

2.64 At the time of the audit, the NACC IPT was collaborating with Canada and the UK to develop a Statement of Requirements for the JSF Program Office to design and construct the ACURL. The NACC IPT was also developing a Statement of Requirements for Australian in-country reprogramming for unique capabilities not provided by the ACURL. The remaining elements of the situational-awareness system, such as F-35 sensor suite integration, dis-played data fusion, and development of the Helmet Mounted Display system, remained under close managerial scrutiny by the JSF Program Office....
&
“...4.8 As of 2008, the Partner Reprogramming Laboratory was estimated to cost some US$500 million (then-year dollars), and was scheduled for development between 2009 and 2017. Each partner nation committed US$610,000 as its share of costs for the first two years, with cost shares for remaining years yet to be determined. By June 2012, AIR 6000 spend under the Partner Reprogramming Laboratory Annex was US$620,000.

4.9 The Partner Reprogramming Laboratory for the Commonwealth partner nations (namely the UK, Canada and Australia) is to be known as the Australia–Canada–United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL). A recent Non Advocate Review by the JSF Program Office has reaffirmed the requirement for reprogramming laboratories, and the JSF Program Office has initiated a design review process that will lead to a refined cost basis. The outcome of this activity, and therefore the final ACURL costs, will not be known until mid-2013. As at August 2012, the latest estimated cost of the ACURL was US$600 million....”

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Au ... 0OCRed.pdf (4.7Mb)
__________________

Repeated earlier here:

F-35 ACURL Mission data reprogramming Oz, UK & Canada? 27 Oct 2012

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... url#233904

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 23:07
by neptune
bigjku wrote:Can we all basically agree that the F-35 is going to be sold for a price that is basically the same as any advanced F-15's,....


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ea-384180/

Boeing's F-15SE Silent Eagle offering is a somewhat more complicated bid because it is a hybrid of a direct commercial sale and government-to-government US foreign military sale (FMS). As such the DSCA notification to Congress is only for certain equipment that would have to be sold to South Korea to support the Silent Eagle sale.

Equipment that would be sold under the auspices of the US government FMS programme include 60 Raytheon-built active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) radars, but it is not specified if those are APG-63 (V)3 or APG-82 sets. Additionally, the F-15SE sale would include 60 digital electronic warfare systems (DEWS), 60 Lockheed AN/AAQ-33 Sniper targeting pods, 60 Lockheed AN/AAS-42 infrared search and track systems and other ancillary hardware. The estimated cost of the FMS portion of the sale would be $2.41 billion according the DSCA.

"We do feel we have the lower cost, better value bid here," a Boeing official says, but the company did not say how much the direct commercial sale portion of their bid would cost. In a written statement, Boeing adds: "We are confident our Silent Eagle offering is best suited to address F-X requirements."

While he does not rule out the possibility that South Korea will opt for the Typhoon, Raymond Jaworowski, an analyst with Forecast International, says the contest will most like come down to a battle between the F-35 and the Silent Eagle. "The F-15 and the F-35 are the frontrunners," he says. "South Korea has previously bought US fighter aircraft and it seems likely that's the way they'll go for this buy."

In the Silent Eagle's favour is the fact that South Korea already has the older F-15K Slam Eagle in service. "The commonality factor will come into play," Jaworowski says. "On the other hand, the F-35 is more and more becoming the dominant fighter on the market." Other factors that play in the F-35's favour are the fact that Japan has already ordered the stealthy fifth-generation jet and growing threats in the region.

But given the state of the South Korean tender, "I think at this point it's too early to predict between the F-35 and the F-15," Jaworowski says.

I haven't looked to see if the F-15SE total adds up to more than a F-35??.. and I'm reasonalbly certain that if they awarded to Boeing they wold be included in the "Fly-by-Wire" design that Boeing is providing for the Saudi order.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 23:18
by maus92
What exactly is a "reprogramming center." Does it require a special structure, or can it be located in an existing building - sounds like a bunch of workstations in an office environment (probably with access control.) A FMS is usually installed in warehouse sized structure.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2013, 23:24
by hb_pencil
maus92 wrote:What exactly is a "reprogramming center." Does it require a special structure, or can it be located in an existing building - sounds like a bunch of workstations in an office environment (probably with access control.) A FMS is usually installed in warehouse sized structure.


Basically that's what it is. We have one here in Canada for our CF-18s... just a bunch of computers, maintenance room.... ect.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 00:05
by spazsinbad
I'll reckon ACURL for $600 million buckaroonies is going to be in a comfy secure office room. I would get the Chinese to build it - will save them a lot of messing about later. :D

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 00:15
by neptune
maus92 wrote:What exactly is a "reprogramming center." Does it require a special structure, or can it be located in an existing building - sounds like a bunch of workstations in an office environment (probably with access control.) A FMS is usually installed in warehouse sized structure.


http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123202151

I like this little insight; job description for a "worker Bee" :)

http://www.avianation.com/aviation_jobs ... 1172379349

Yes, more or less.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 00:27
by popcorn
Conan wrote:South Korea's F-35 and F-15 Silent Eagle DSCA requests are up.

F-35

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/ ... _13-10.pdf

$10.8b for the entire F-35 package.

F-15

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/ ... _13-11.pdf

$2.48b just to turn an F-15E/K/SG variant into a "Silent Eagle".


That's $40m per aircraft over and above the cost of the standard new-build Strike Eagles.

I think I hear "Slowman" crying over his beer...


If so, that's pretty expensive pig lipstick. Maybe a similar cost to transform a SH into a uberSuperHornet?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 01:42
by spazsinbad
Great link to the Eglin 'reprogrammers' 'popcorn'. I had no real idea what these chaps might do. There is another similar? but different story about an Edwards unit being at Eglin? I must admit I don't follow the giant USAF shenanigans at all. :D For those interested here is a snippet about 'what it takes' construction-wise:

"... the 513th Electronic Warfare Squadron stood up as a first step toward preparing Airmen, Sailors and Marines with the latest electronic warfare data for all three variants on the 5th generation aircraft.

"We are not supporting only one variant of the F-35, we are supporting all," said Col. Kevin J. McElroy, 53rd Electronic Warfare Group commander. "One team, one fight, one guidon."

The squadron, currently manned by 32 technicians and engineers, will grow to 130 personnel at full strength. The squadron will operate the $300 million United States Reprogramming Laboratory, which tests all aspects of the Joint Strike Fighter's electronic warfare capability. Fifty percent of the total personnel will be Airmen, while the other half will consist of Navy and Marine personnel....

...The laboratory is still under construction with a projected completion date of summer 2010 and hardware will arrive a year from now, the colonel said. Until that time, the squadron is performing a plethora of tasks as they become the "one-stop organic shop" for F-35 data.

"Our engineers are currently developing threat models and 5th generation mission data for the F-35," Colonel Welde said. "Our technicians are undergoing maintenance training as well as prepping the lab with power supplies, network connectivity and data storage devices. Next year, when the F-35 hardware is integrated and the lab is fully operational, the squadron will be able to successfully develop, test and deliver the critical mission data for JSF warfighters."..."

http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123202151

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 02:21
by weasel1962
Does the ROK need the F-35A? The NKs don't have strategic depth as the Chinese border is only 300+ km from the DMZ. East to west is ~200km. The requirement for stealth penetration isn't that great plus the NKs don't exactly have fighters that can match an F-16, much less an F-15K. SLAM-ERs enable fighters to reach their targets even without entering NK airspace.

imho, an F-35A buy could be triggered more by chinese intervention concerns. It wouldn't address the TBM risk, particularly to airfields though.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 03:57
by neptune
weasel1962 wrote:Does the ROK need the F-35A? The NKs don't have strategic depth as the Chinese border is only 300+ km from the DMZ. East to west is ~200km. The requirement for stealth penetration isn't that great plus the NKs don't exactly have fighters that can match an F-16, much less an F-15K. SLAM-ERs enable fighters to reach their targets even without entering NK airspace.

imho, an F-35A buy could be triggered more by chinese intervention concerns. It wouldn't address the TBM risk, particularly to airfields though.


Agreed W62 NK is a cake walk, but the "hordes" over the border would require a better response both tactically as well as EA/EW and the F-35A will bring that in spades compared to the limited EA/EW capability of the Eagle. Having SK flying and collecting data with their ISR systems will be enviable but greatly appreciated if not, enjoyed by the other allies. The existing Eagles are necessary but SK must upgrade them with AESAs to allow their missiles to be tasked by the F-35A mission systems.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 06:38
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Great link to the Eglin 'reprogrammers' 'popcorn'. I had no real idea what these chaps might do. There is another similar? but different story about an Edwards unit being at Eglin? I must admit I don't follow the giant USAF shenanigans at all. :D For those interested here is a snippet about 'what it takes' construction-wise:

"... the 513th Electronic Warfare Squadron stood up as a first step toward preparing Airmen, Sailors and Marines with the latest electronic warfare data for all three variants on the 5th generation aircraft.

"We are not supporting only one variant of the F-35, we are supporting all," said Col. Kevin J. McElroy, 53rd Electronic Warfare Group commander. "One team, one fight, one guidon."
squadron, currently manned by 32 technicians and engineers, will grow to 130 personnel at full strength. The squadron will operate the $300 million United States Reprogramming Laboratory, which tests all aspects of the Joint Strike Fighter's electronic warfare capability. Fifty percent of the total personnel will be Airmen, while the other half will consist of Navy and Marine personnel....

...The laboratory is still under construction with a projected completion date of summer 2010 and hardware will arrive a year from now, the colonel said. Until that time, the squadron is performing a plethora of tasks as they become the "one-stop organic shop" for F-35 data.

"Our engineers are currently developing threat models and 5th generation mission data for the F-35," Colonel Welde said. "Our technicians are undergoing maintenance training as well as prepping the lab with power supplies, network connectivity and data storage devices. Next year, when the F-35 hardware is integrated and the lab is fully operational, the squadron will be able to successfully develop, test and deliver the critical mission data for JSF warfighters."..."

http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123202151


Have to credit Neptune,for the links Spaz..

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 06:43
by popcorn
weasel1962 wrote:Does the ROK need the F-35A? The NKs don't have strategic depth as the Chinese border is only 300+ km from the DMZ. East to west is ~200km. The requirement for stealth penetration isn't that great plus the NKs don't exactly have fighters that can match an F-16, much less an F-15K. SLAM-ERs enable fighters to reach their targets even without entering NK airspace.

imho, an F-35A buy could be triggered more by chinese intervention concerns. It wouldn't address the TBM risk, particularly to airfields though.


SAMs have to be considered,the greater threat and LO will help mitigate the threat.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 07:18
by geogen
neptune,

An hypothetical F-15K++/F-15SE-lite (assuming the outward canted tail does not become part of the development phase) would likely have sufficient ISR and EA/EW capabilities contributing to 'good enough' Battlespace awareness and command functions. Remember, everything associated with both the 'DEWS suite' and either APG-63(3) or APG-82 are designed and planned to be continuously upgraded as the updated technology matures and as requirements demand them, just as the F-35's systems are as well.

The potential and likeliness would also be for an APG-82 radar to enable even superior ranged A2G tracking and situational awareness, than the APG-81. That system capability alone could be determined a game-changer once the IOT&E phase is completed and successful by next year as currently expected. The V3 however is reportedly able to receive sufficient multi-mode upgrade capabilities to meet requirements and it would not be surprising to at least see the existing F-15K fleet receive the (V)3 retrofit.

That said, Boeing is reportedly confident they can beat the 'estimated' F-35 Procurement contract quote and also worth considering is that the current expected F-35 contract 'estimate' is likely to be contingent on the assumption that there will be NO further order restructurings and deferments for at least the remainder of the decade. Any such additional 'restructuring' in FY unit orders though, e.g., the highly ambitious FY15 order year for the USAF remaining as is, will likely continue to factor into the ever uncertain (assumed) calculus, wrt future F-35 cost estimates.

The one irony in this 'contest' no doubt is with the 'F-15SE' relying heavily on Lockheed's Sniper pod (the next-gen 1k FLIR SE variant expected within 2-3 yrs?) and IRST! Wow. One can almost sense the temptation by LM to increase integration costs 200-300% for F-15SE variants claiming this technical difficulty or that.

Lastly, imho it's arguably the F-15SE which coulda/shoulda been offered/requested by Japan (they offered joint-development funds for an export version of F-22) and a souped up F-18E/F with roadway and austere operational abilities been offered/requested by RoK?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 07:44
by weasel1962
popcorn wrote:SAMs have to be considered,the greater threat and LO will help mitigate the threat.


I'm not so sure SA-2, 3s and 5s are effective against F-15/16s. Bekaa valley comes to mind.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 08:14
by popcorn
weasel1962 wrote:
popcorn wrote:SAMs have to be considered,the greater threat and LO will help mitigate the threat.


I'm not so sure SA-2, 3s and 5s are effective against F-15/16s. Bekaa valley comes to mind.

They will be taken seriously by war planners and they do pose the greater threat than manned aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 08:38
by geogen
Which is why there will no doubt be a continued, prudent, heavy investment in an assorted, modernized 'mix' of self-protected and SEAD capabilities and perhaps even to include more ground based (quick-reactive) suppressive measures as well? And moreover, in the future, there's also probably going to be more and more demand for these UCAV things, accordingly, as part of said 'mix'... no?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2013, 19:22
by neptune
[quote="geogen"]neptune,

An hypothetical F-15K++/F-15SE-lite ......quote]

The die is cast, Australia and Japan have chosen the F-35 and Singapore is showing interest, as well. Having the latest ISR capability in the trade routes of SE Asia is necessary to the allies in the development of the on-going updates for the EA/EW systems. Whether it is an Australian Growler, USN Growler/ Prowler, USAF Rivet Joint, etc. the datasets that are developed and integrated in a timely fashion are invaluable. The F-35 ISR capability should trump any 4th gen platform that only carries a subset of the system requirements. The trade routes are monitored by both aviation and surface military assets of all trading countries and are accessible in their transit and training modes. The ISR platforms can take advantage of these and make the latest intelligence contribution when or if a "Go to War" is required.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2013, 06:19
by spazsinbad
EADS Offers to Produce 48 Out of 60 Fighter Jets in Korea Updated: APR 05, 2013 Emily Fwang
"Multi-national European defense firm EADS which is locked in a bidding race with U.S. companies to supply South Korea with 60 fighter jets has offered to produce 80 percent of them in Korea, if its Eurofighter wins the deal.

This according to Korea's military sources and company officials on Friday.

Officials from the European firm say their proposal would create about 20-thousand jobs and help Korea learn key technologies essential in developing its own fighter jets.

Korea is also considering buying Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter or Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle fighter.

Korean defense officials say they will select the winner of the multi-billion dollar contract later this year."

That is it.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2013, 13:25
by bigjku
spazsinbad wrote:EADS Offers to Produce 48 Out of 60 Fighter Jets in Korea Updated: APR 05, 2013 Emily Fwang
"Multi-national European defense firm EADS which is locked in a bidding race with U.S. companies to supply South Korea with 60 fighter jets has offered to produce 80 percent of them in Korea, if its Eurofighter wins the deal.

This according to Korea's military sources and company officials on Friday.

Officials from the European firm say their proposal would create about 20-thousand jobs and help Korea learn key technologies essential in developing its own fighter jets.

Korea is also considering buying Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter or Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle fighter.

Korean defense officials say they will select the winner of the multi-billion dollar contract later this year."

That is it.


Just like the ones that were put together in Saudi Arabia.

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2013, 13:53
by spazsinbad
Delivery schedule to affect fighter buy 21 Apr 2013 Kim Tae-gyu
"The delivery date will likely be a key factor in deciding who will provide Korea’s next-generation fighter jets, a military procurement official said Sunday.

The selection is due in June, eight months later than originally scheduled, meaning delivery will be delayed, which could harm the Air Force’s fleet management.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said Sunday that it will ask the three bidders whether they will be able to meet the delivery date of between 2016 and 2020.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle and the Typhoon Eurofighter manufactured by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) are competing to win the 8.3 trillion won ($7.7 billion) F-X project bid to supply 60 advanced fighter jets.

“As the decision on who would win the contract was delayed to this year, we were worried that the timeline for delivery may have been compromised. We are scheduled to talk about the delivery time once more after inking provisional contracts, hopefully in May,” the official said

According to another military source, there are fears that the actual delivery time may be delayed to between 2017 and 2021 because the purchase decision was delayed by more than half a year.

The decision was delayed because of domestic criticism that local pilots were not given an opportunity to test all the three fighter jets ahead of the purchase that is to replace aging F4s and F5s....

...Representatives from Lockheed Martin and EADS said they have no problem meeting the 2016 deadline if they win the bid...."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 34335.html
South Koreans seem to obsess over nothing much at all :wtf:

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2013, 14:43
by firstimpulse
spazsinbad wrote:South Koreans seem to obsess over nothing much at all :wtf:


And the Canadians/Aussies are different? :lol:
Seems like someone just wanted to give an update to the fighter competition, but there wasn't enough new content to give an update- so they just made a story about an eight month delay.

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2013, 20:56
by spazsinbad
Yes the Australians are different. Thanks for pointing out how cool we are about it all (given our experience with the F-111 saga).

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2013, 22:09
by firstimpulse
Point taken. :oops:

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2013, 21:15
by spazsinbad
OOOOOooooo Now Yer Talkin'....

Will Korea barter F-35 for T-50? 09 May 2013 By Kim Tae-gyu
"WASHINGTON - Will Lockheed Martin ask Korea to pick the firm’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as its next-generation fighter jet in return for helping the country sell its T-50 Golden Eagle to the United States?

In a roundtable meeting between President Park Geun-hye and U.S. business representative, Lockheed Martin Chairman Marillyn Hewson made the promise for the T-50 manufactured by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI).

“As Lockheed Martin invested in the production of the T-50, the company said that it will help KAI win the U.S. Air Force’s trainer procurement project,” said Cho Won-dong, Park’s senior secretary for economic affairs....

...Korea is looking to purchase 60 fighter jets at a cost of 8.3 trillion won ($7.7 billion) to replace its aging F-4s and F-5s. It is scheduled to make a final decision next month....

...The first export order for the T-50 was received in 2011 from Indonesia for 16 aircraft worth $400 million."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 35445.html

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2013, 22:06
by gtx
That's actually an interesting (and IMHO quite valid) scenario. Sth Korea selects F-35, LM promotes the T-50 as the T-38 replacement (which they probably would have anyway). Everyone wins. :D

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2013, 22:10
by gtx
Latest presentation re F-35 and Sth Korea.

Thanks to ELP...though only bother with little ol' Eric's analysis if you want a laugh. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2013, 22:22
by spazsinbad
LRIP schedule from the Korean Brief PDF previous page: download/file.php?id=17532

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2013, 10:12
by spazsinbad
Republic of Korea - F-35 Aircraft Weapons 23 May 2013
"The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress May 21 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Republic of Korea (ROK) for F-35 aircraft weapons and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $793 million.

The Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of F-35 aircraft weapons. These aircraft weapons include the following:
• 274 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
• 6 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Guidance Sections
• 530 Joint Directed Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits, BLU-109/KMU-557C/B (GBU-31) w/SAASM/AJ
• 4 JDAM BLU-109 Load Build Trainers
• 6 MK-82 Filled Inert Bombs
• 4 BLU-109 Inert Bombs
• 1312 FMU-152A/B Fuzes (FZU-63 Initiator)
• 542 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs
• 530 BLU-109 2000LB Penetrators
• 780 GBU-12 Bomb
• 4 GBU-12 Dummy Trainers
• 154 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Tactical Missiles w/DSU-41
• 33 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM)
• 7 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) CATM Guidance Units
• 14 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Tactical Guidance Units

Also included are containers, missile support and test equipment, provisioning, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical support, and other related elements of program support. The estimated cost will be $793 million.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The ROK continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale will provide the ROK with aircraft weapons for the F-35. These aircraft and weapons will provide the ROK with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The ROK will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and strengthen its homeland defense. Additionally, operational control (OPCON) will transfer from U.S. Forces Korea/Combined Forces Command (USFK/CFC) to the ROK’s Korea Command (KORCOM) in 2015. This upgrade will enhance the capability needed to support OPCON transfer...."
http://www.asdnews.com/news-49221/Republic_of_Korea_-_F-35_Aircraft_Weapons.htm

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2013, 21:24
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Republic of Korea - F-35 Aircraft Weapons 23 May 2013
"The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress May 21 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Republic of Korea (ROK) for F-35 aircraft weapons and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $793 million.
...


Looks like we may soon be ready for a new thread on Korea Buys F-35s :D

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2013, 21:34
by SpudmanWP
In all fairness, they announced virtually the same package for the F-15SE.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2013, 00:23
by southernphantom
Most, if not all, of that equipment will be compatible with the F-15K and KF-16 fleet. This should be interesting.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2013, 12:50
by spazsinbad
Korea to Accelerate $ 7.5 billion fighter Procurement, Final Selection in June 31 May 2013 Our Bureau
"South Korea’s Defense Acquisition and Procurement Agency (DAPA) Thursday said that bidding process for the $7.5 billion next-generation fighter procurement project will begin at the start of June instead of midway through the month.

“We plan to let bidders tender offers about a week earlier,” a DAPA official said....

...Our first goal is to buy 60 fighter jets within the budget. As we are scheduled to make the final selection by the end of June, we may not have enough time for negotiations if we start receiving offers from mid-June,” the official said. “In addition, an earlier schedule will quiet criticism on the most-expensive procurement deal in our history.” He added that DAPA had already informed the bidders of the schedule change...."

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8414/K ... on_in_June

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2013, 23:35
by popcorn
Hopefully we won't have much longer to wait and the Koreans by July. I like the F-35's chances.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 39.xml&p=1
South Korea Nears F-X Phase 3 Decision

If there is one misconception about South Korea's F-X Phase 3 fighter competition, due to be decided this month, it is that the requirement is aimed mainly at bolstering defense against North Korea. On the contrary, say senior government officials in Seoul, at least as strong a reason for buying 60 advanced fighters is South Korea's perceived strategic competition with Japan, China and Russia—probably in that order.

“Our neighbors are upgrading their fighter technology, so we must do so, too,” says one government official. A second official, with deep insight into the country's defense requirements, goes further: The 60 Boeing F-15Ks that South Korea has from the F-X Phase 1 and 2 programs last decade already offer enough aerial strike power for dealing with North Korea. While more big fighters would be useful if war on the peninsula broke out, the real point of the Phase 3 competition is that Japan is buying Lockheed Martin F-35As, China is developing the J-20, and Russia is working on the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA), says that official. Even in F-X Phases 1 and 2, North Korea was considered only part of the problem, he adds...

...Crucially, South Korean F-35As would not rely on a Japanese maintenance base, says an industry official. Lockheed Martin's offer of technology transfer had better match what the company has given Japan, says a government official. “South Korea won't put up with second-best anymore,” he says...

...To the extent that South Korea is worried more about Japan, the F-35A is strongly placed in the competition. A simple example illustrates why: It would be intolerable to South Koreans to hear that their F-15SEs or Typhoons while patrolling near the Liancourt Rocks had been bounced by Japanese F-35As that they had failed to detect....

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 00:05
by maus92
popcorn wrote:
...To the extent that South Korea is worried more about Japan, the F-35A is strongly placed in the competition. A simple example illustrates why: It would be intolerable to South Koreans to hear that their F-15SEs or Typhoons while patrolling near the Liancourt Rocks had been bounced by Japanese F-35As that they had failed to detect....


Interesting to imagine a F-35 vs. F-35 encounter... The question then becomes will one F-35 be able to detect another, and somehow parlay that into an advantage?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 00:18
by spazsinbad
'maus92' do I assume that first we have to imagine that potentia mutual enemies will be purchasing the F-35? And who might these buyers be?

Addition - to be clear - the mutual future potential enemies have to have purchased the F-35 to become enemies of one another, to then, in some future scenario, have their F-35s ranged against one another.

I'll give an outrageous hypothetical fantasy example: In far future, after South Korea and Japan buy F-35s, NORTH Korea invades and takes over South Korea successfully to then immediately use what is left of the South Korean F-35s in raids against Japanese F-35s. HoKay?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 00:18
by SpudmanWP
There are several ways that one F-35 could detect another:
1. EOTS
2. EODAS
3. ESM

As to using that to an advantage… simple, first look, first shoot, first kill.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 00:27
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:'maus92' do I assume that first we have to imagine that potentia mutuall enemies will be purchasing the F-35? And who might these buyers be?


From Popcorn:

"A simple example illustrates why: It would be intolerable to South Koreans to hear that their F-15SEs or Typhoons while patrolling near the Liancourt Rocks had been bounced by Japanese F-35As that they had failed to detect...."

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 00:55
by spazsinbad
See my addition to above. We are talking about F-35 against F-35 are we not?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 01:22
by popcorn
To my knowledge, the US has pretty much supplied the latest weaponry to both countries so the "putting up with second-best.." comment puzzles me a bit. In the past, admittedly, Japan has had earlier access to advanced US tech. So it's really up to the Koreans if they miss on this opportunity to keep up with the Tanakas.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 01:23
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2013, 04:06
by spazsinbad
Seoul to start bidding for fighter jet next week 04 Jun 2013 By Kim Eun-jung
"SEOUL, June 4 (Yonhap) -- South Korea is set to start the bidding process next week to pick a contractor to provide 60 advanced fighter jets for the country, an official at the state procurement agency said Tuesday....

...It is not yet known for how long the bidding will last, but officials say it would take at least two to three weeks considering past cases.

Once the bidding ends, the DAPA will sign a preliminary deal with one of the bidders and conduct an assessment of the jet that would replace the Korean air force's fleet of F-4 and F-5 combat jets, the official said....

...Lockheed Martin proposed producing some parts, including horizontal tails, vertical tails and the center wing box, in local factories, and also hinted at helping the T-50 trainer built by Korea Aerospace Industries bid for a U.S. Air Force contract."

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 0315F.HTML

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 09:45
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:Hopefully we won't have much longer to wait and the Koreans by July. I like the F-35's chances.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 39.xml&p=1
South Korea Nears F-X Phase 3 Decision
Interesting note at the article's end... "With Bill Sweetman in Washington." I suppose BS didn't want his name at the top since it wasn't an out 'n out hit piece.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 19:52
by gtx
I see that idiot slow man (by name and nature) waded in with his usual comments.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2013, 21:01
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:I see that idiot slow man (by name and nature) waded in with his usual comments.


Even Bill Sweetman is leaning toward the F-35 winning there and slowman still thinks the whole world is wrong except him :lol:

I'm going to rub it in his face if the F-35 wins. Can't wait.

Not a lot of comments there for some reason... must be the quietest avweek story I have seen in a while...

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2013, 03:33
by spazsinbad
This slow saga is getting decidedly underwhelming.... Maybe it is just me?

Seoul to begin bidding for fighter jets next week 13 Jun 2013 By Kim Eun-jung
"SEOUL, June 13 (Yonhap) -- South Korea is set to start the bidding process next week to pick a contractor to provide 60 advanced fighter jets for 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion) for the country, the Defense Acquisition Program and Administration (DAPA) said Thursday.

As negotiations are in their final stages after months of deliberation, Seoul will need to select either the Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle, Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet or the European Aerospace Defense and Space Company (EADS)'s Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon.

The bidding will last for 11 days, starting from June 18, and once it is completed, the DAPA will assess the three jets before making a final decision, a DAPA official said."

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2013, 03:50
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:This slow saga is getting decidedly underwhelming.... Maybe it is just me?

Seoul to begin bidding for fighter jets next week 13 Jun 2013 By Kim Eun-jung
"SEOUL, June 13 (Yonhap) -- South Korea is set to start the bidding process next week to pick a contractor to provide 60 advanced fighter jets for 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion) for the country, the Defense Acquisition Program and Administration (DAPA) said Thursday.

As negotiations are in their final stages after months of deliberation, Seoul will need to select either the Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle, Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet or the European Aerospace Defense and Space Company (EADS)'s Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon.

The bidding will last for 11 days, starting from June 18, and once it is completed, the DAPA will assess the three jets before making a final decision, a DAPA official said."


how much longer is this going to take? suspense is killing me!

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2013, 16:27
by stobiewan
XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:This slow saga is getting decidedly underwhelming.... Maybe it is just me?

Seoul to begin bidding for fighter jets next week 13 Jun 2013 By Kim Eun-jung
"SEOUL, June 13 (Yonhap) -- South Korea is set to start the bidding process next week to pick a contractor to provide 60 advanced fighter jets for 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion) for the country, the Defense Acquisition Program and Administration (DAPA) said Thursday.

As negotiations are in their final stages after months of deliberation, Seoul will need to select either the Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle, Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet or the European Aerospace Defense and Space Company (EADS)'s Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon.

The bidding will last for 11 days, starting from June 18, and once it is completed, the DAPA will assess the three jets before making a final decision, a DAPA official said."


how much longer is this going to take? suspense is killing me!


Compared to how the Brazilian competition ran or how India's went, this is moving at breakneck speed :)

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2013, 04:39
by popcorn
Now would be a good time for KJU to throw a tantrum..

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/bus ... 13638.html

BUSINESS S Korea opens bidding on $7.3 billion fighter jet deal
SEOUL: South Korea formally opened bidding Tuesday on a $7.3 billion deal to provide 60 advanced fighter planes, with three aviation giants vying for what is the Asian nation's largest defence contract to date.

US companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin and the European aerospace consortium EADS are in the running, and all have prefaced their bids with various sweeteners to try and edge out their rivals.

South Korea's Defence Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), which will assess the bids, has made it clear that it cannot exceed the 8.3 trillion won ($7.3 billion) budget approved by parliament..


:)

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2013, 07:55
by lookieloo
I wouldn't start making plans to crow in Slowman's face just yet. The F-35 may be at a disadvantage with a hard cost-ceiling.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2013, 11:32
by treebeard
It appears that all competitors have problems with the hard cost-ceiling.

Competitors' price tags exceed Seoul's fighter jet budget
By Kim Eun-jung

SEOUL, June 21 (Yonhap) -- Two American aerospace companies and one European firm vying for South Korea's fighter jet procurement have failed to propose prices below the 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 million) budget in this week's initial bidding, officials said Friday, leading to another round of bidding.

[..]

For three days from Tuesday, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) carried out a total of 20 bidding sessions but none of their proposals were accepted due to their proposals above the budget, officials said.

The state procurement agency has officially said they are looking for affordable yet highly-capable aircraft, but it was widely expected that the companies would propose prices that exceed Seoul's budget and adopt a wait-and-see approach during the sessions.

If prices proposed by three firms exceed the budget approved by the parliament last year, the acquisition plan needs re-examination by the finance ministry, which handles state budget allocations.

Unlike the two other companies that offer aircraft through direct commercial sales, Lockheed Martin, which sells the F-35 through the foreign military sales program by the U.S. government, did not submit either a fixed price or a maximum price during the bidding, a DAPA official with knowledge of the bidding process said.

If F-35A is selected, experts say the South Korean government will have to pay prices equivalent to those offered to the U.S. Air Force each year from 2017 to 2021, sparking speculation over a potential rise in price for the stealth jet which has been plagued with cost overruns.

Once the process is completed, DAPA will assess the three jets before making a final decision in a meeting slated for early next month, according to officials.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 0315F.HTML

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2013, 19:28
by spazsinbad
What a lot of HOOhaa this is - even the budget can be increased - OMG!.... :D

All 3 bidders fail to meet budget Second bidding starts Tuesday 21 Jun 2013 By Kang Seung-woo
"All three companies vying for the supply of F-X III fighters to Korea have reportedly placed bids that exceed Korea’s procurement price.

Lockheed Martin with its F-35 Lightning II, Boeing with the under-development F-15 Silent Eagle and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) with its Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon are in the competition.

The budget for 60 aircraft is 8.3 trillion won, but according to Yonhap News an official involved in the final bid stage said all three have quoted prices beyond Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA)’s budget.

DAPA declined to confirm the report.

The delayed bidding for the fighter replacement program started Tuesday. DAPA is scheduled choose a winner at the end of June should it receive an affordable offer.

DAPA is standing firm on its available budget.

The Typhoo and the Silent Eagle will be purchased through direct commercial sale (DCS), while the F-35 will be sold on the foreign military sale (FMS) program, in which Washington would broker a contract between Seoul and Lockheed Martin. Currently, the U.S. Air Department is participating in the bidding instead of Lockheed Martin.

As the F-35 is being manufactured and simultaneously tested, the U.S. government has turned down DAPA’s calls to offer a fixed price and if the F-35 is selected to replace the aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s, its price will be decided each year according to the supply price to the U.S. Air Force.

Meanwhile, the Naeil Shinmun, a local evening daily, said the Finance Ministry rejected a request for more money to finance the project.

If the contract exceeds the entire program budget, DAPA can ask the ministry to increase the budget up to 20 percent.


The F-35 stealth jet is seen as the front-runner in the three-way race, but the Defense Security Cooperation Agency expected in April that a potential FMS of 60 F-35s would cost an estimated $10.8 billion, although Lockheed Martin said the final cost of an F-35 program for Korea will go down.

Korea plans to start bringing in the new fighter jets from August 2017. "

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 37885.html

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2013, 20:13
by neurotech
treebeard wrote:It appears that all competitors have problems with the hard cost-ceiling.

I don't think the F-15SE is going to be much cheaper, considering no production orders have been received. Remember the EPAF F-16s were purchased at a cost of $6m unit cost ceiling, but the extras cost a bit more...

The other thing is that Korea produces F-15 and F-16 components for both Korean and US production, including composites, so perhaps a generous offset deal could be arranged by LM to make it work out under the cost ceiling.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2013, 22:32
by gtx
I find this bit interesting:

Currently, the U.S. Air Department is participating in the bidding instead of Lockheed Martin.


Does this mean that if the F-35 wins it isn't the evil Lockheed Martin to be blamed but rather their lackey, the U.S. Air Department? :lol: I hope the likes of ELP etc remember that...

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2013, 23:00
by lookieloo
treebeard wrote:It appears that all competitors have problems with the hard cost-ceiling.
Did not see that coming, but I probably should have.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2013, 23:24
by slowman5
I can now report back with a confidence that the F-35 will not win the Korean contest.

You maybe aware from above news reports that no bid can win unless the winning bidder's price is within budget. Right now, only Boeing and EADS are actually price bidding, while the US DoD representatives aren't because it is against the FMS regulation to offer a bid where the US DoD would lose money on. Accordingly the US DoD officials have submitted an estimated price schedule for 2017~2021 time period in place of a price bid and has abstained from the bidding process, leaving Boeing and EADS to duke it out among themselves.

The DAPA officials speaking off the record state yesterday that both Boeing and EADS's prices have dropped significantly from the initial $9+ billion bids and are confident that they should be able to hit the budget of $7.9 billion before the end of this month, so that they can declare a winner. The ROKAF appears to have a Plan B in case of the F-35 defeat, as they will now seek to buy Glower-class EW jets shortly after a jet other than the F-35 wins.

The F-35's only chance is if there are no bids priced at $7.9 billion at the end of this month, at which point the Treasury would increase the budget to $9.5 billion which is more to the US DoD's liking, but you can be sure Boeing won't let the bidding go to that stage where the F-35 would suddenly have a better than 50% chance of a win.

The prospective F-35 defeat in this tender will have tremendous implications for the JSF program, as JSF partners sitting on the fence decide to bail out and switch to their own open bid contests.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2013, 23:26
by slowman5
spazsinbad wrote:What a lot of HOOhaa this is - even the budget can be increased - OMG!.... :D


This is only if there are no bids within budget. Then the budget can be increased by 20% to $9.5 billion, which is what the US DoD maybe hoping for right now.

But you can bet Boeing which has a 80% historical win probability in Korean tenders won't let things go to that stage and end the bidding contest with a final tender of $7.9 billion.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2013, 23:36
by lookieloo
slowman5 wrote:I can now report back with a confidence that the F-35 will not win the Korean contest.
Wow, he's been banned 4 times already?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2013, 23:52
by slowman5
Based on the current analysis, the ROKAF is going with 60 Silent Eagles or Typhoons with certain number of EW jets, just like Australia.

This is the combat jet composition that other air forces will be looking at very closely after the Korean contest. Boeing is eager to win this contest even at a loss because they would make the money back with follow-up Growler sales, and present this Australian + Korean purchase decisions to other nations as viable and realistic alternatives to all F-35 buys, reduced RCS jets + EW jets in a 3:1 ratio.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 01:15
by neurotech
slowman5 wrote:Based on the current analysis, the ROKAF is going with 60 Silent Eagles or Typhoons with certain number of EW jets, just like Australia.

This is the combat jet composition that other air forces will be looking at very closely after the Korean contest. Boeing is eager to win this contest even at a loss because they would make the money back with follow-up Growler sales, and present this Australian + Korean purchase decisions to other nations as viable and realistic alternatives to all F-35 buys, reduced RCS jets + EW jets in a 3:1 ratio.

The South Koreans are not likely to order the Growler anytime soon. The RAAF Growlers will use ALQ-99s from the US Navy inventory. It's going to be at least 5 years before the RAAF have an operational Growler. The Next Generation Jammer might be a possibility for Korea in 2020 timeframe.

It is possible that Boeing could offer a Growler-Lite F/A-18F where AGM-88s destroy SAMs without needing the ALQ-99s. This would be easier to support, although not always practical.

If the situation in North Korea degrades further, then those very expensive F-22s deployed to Alaska, Hawaii and Japan would be able to suppress NK Air Defenses in short order. Navy EA-18Gs can also fire JSOWs using ALQ-218s for positioning the hostile radar. Another option is sending targetting to F/A-18Fs on their wing, so they can fire the JSOWs.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 03:18
by SpudmanWP
If non F-35s require EW jets at a 3:1 ratio.... then don't they have to figure in the cost of the EW jets as part of the program?

This is part of the inherent cost savings of 5th gen VLO assets which is much less supporting assets to get the job done.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 04:05
by neurotech
In actual combat, I very much doubt they maintain the 3:1 ratio. It'd say its 8:1 if that. Remember the USAF doesn't have any EF-111s in service, and the Navy/Marine EA-6B numbers are declining.

Flight Global state 74 Growlers in service, with 52 on order, as of 2013 World Air Force directory, and 79 Prowlers. How many strike fighters are there in the US service inventory? Over 1500 combined USAF/USN/USMC if the F-16s, F/A-18s, and F-15Es are included.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 04:08
by neptune
[quote="neurotech.... It's going to be at least 5 years before the RAAF have an operational Growler. ....[/quote]

"The $1.5 billion EA-18G Growler purchase includes the aircraft, required mission and support systems, training, and ongoing support to effectively develop and operate a Growler capability. Defence plans to achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2018."

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 04:34
by neurotech
neptune wrote:
neurotech wrote:.... It's going to be at least 5 years before the RAAF have an operational Growler. ....


"The $1.5 billion EA-18G Growler purchase includes the aircraft, required mission and support systems, training, and ongoing support to effectively develop and operate a Growler capability. Defence plans to achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2018."

Yes, I knew about the 2018 IOC for the RAAF Growlers. I did say "Operational" right?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 05:18
by XanderCrews
slowman5 wrote:This is the combat jet composition that other air forces will be looking at very closely after the Korean contest.


for all of your stupid rantings, the most bizarre, and the one I still don't understand is why you think that whatever Korea does has any impact outside Korea.

If the F-35 doesn't win then it doesn't win, but its a huge stretch to suddenly think that korea not getting something means that other nations suddenly start leaving the program in droves. If they wanted growlers or typhoons they could have bought them already. they aren't new and have been around for years.

slowman5 wrote:Based on the current analysis, the ROKAF is going with 60 Silent Eagles or Typhoons with certain number of EW jets, just like Australia.


So one second F-35s are two costly and the next minute Korea is buying not just 60 units of one type of aircraft, but even more of another type? So they are changing the rules of the contest you are always crowing about?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 07:11
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:So one second F-35s are two costly and the next minute Korea is buying not just 60 units of one type of aircraft, but even more of another type? So they are changing the rules of the contest you are always crowing about?
Well the contest is getting a bit weird. South Korea is starting to act like a crazy, high-maintenance girlfriend nowadays. One thing they haven't factored in is the future of Chinese economic coercion. The Europeans are a bit more susceptible than us (might not find that KF-X cooperation so forthcoming); but that doesn't exclude the possibility that if they don't become part of the F-35 program now, they may well find it inaccessible later (remember Taiwan and the F-16C).

I can't really fault them for trying to extract the best offers they can, but the fact that none of the competitors came up with suitable bids is a pretty good indication that they are being unreasonable. If they're playing a silly game force the F-35's price down, it's going to backfire on them because LM already has enough orders to keep them busy for years; Boeing and EADS are desperate enough to promise anything, but I doubt the F-35 bid is going much lower (if at all).

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 08:14
by neurotech
lookieloo wrote:If they're playing a silly game force the F-35's price down, it's going to backfire on them because LM already has enough orders to keep them busy for years; Boeing and EADS are desperate enough to promise anything, but I doubt the F-35 bid is going much lower (if at all).

They have other things they can negotiate on. Production of components in Korea as an offset deal with LM. Having BAE upgrade the KF-16s maybe wasn't the smartest strategic move, because if they had gone with LM, then the upgrade price could be negotiated with the order for F-35s later on.

Another area they can negotiate on is technology transfer for the T-50 & F/A-50 program. There is the possibility of further T-50 sales, including to the USAF, and other exported countries.

I do agree that this is getting a bit weird. I've said ti before... when it comes to 4th & 5th gen fighters, there are many factors involved, but the price differences shouldn't be the biggest factor, assuming the F-16C Block 50++ or F-16V and F/A-18F Block III are still in production in FY2018. No matter which aircraft is selected, the Unit cost will be between $80m - $100m in FY2018. I have to say that IF the F-35A is available in FY2020 for Korea, it will be the better of the 3 aircraft, capability wise.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 11:40
by slowman5
SpudmanWP wrote:If non F-35s require EW jets at a 3:1 ratio.... then don't they have to figure in the cost of the EW jets as part of the program?

They can't because that wouldn't be fair to other competitors.

XanderCrews wrote:for all of your stupid rantings, the most bizarre, and the one I still don't understand is why you think that whatever Korea does has any impact outside Korea.

Well, General Bogdan was testifying at the Senate that the JSF program needed a Korean contest win to mitigate the full impact of sequester.

It is basically a chain reaction;

A win in Korean contest => increased F-35 volume(All units would be delivered from LRIP phase) => A quicker F-35 cost drop => more sales to JSF partners and non-partners.

A loss in Korean contest => F-35 production volume feels the full impact of sequester => the F-35 price stays high => more JSF partners threaten to switch to open bid contests.

The fate of Rafale comes to mind. Had the Rafale won in Korea, then they would have won Singapore, and the Rafale would be in a different position than it would be today.

lookieloo wrote:One thing they haven't factored in is the future of Chinese economic coercion.

Korea isn't Taiwan.

if they don't become part of the F-35 program now, they may well find it inaccessible later (remember Taiwan and the F-16C).

Items that must be secured are bought in no-bid contracts. When an item is placed on an open bid contest, they are accepting the fact that they may not get the specific item they are eyeing depending on the outcome of bid evaluation.

If they're playing a silly game force the F-35's price down, it's going to backfire on them because LM already has enough orders to keep them busy for years;

Really? that's news to us, since the F-35 is bought in annual lots.

Boeing and EADS are desperate enough to promise anything, but I doubt the F-35 bid is going much lower (if at all).

Well then either Boeing and EADS wins. Remember that this is an open bid contest, and a bid with no price simply cannot win and the selection of a bid with no price is outright illegal.

neurotech wrote:Having BAE upgrade the KF-16s maybe wasn't the smartest strategic move, because if they had gone with LM,

That is the rule of open bid contests; they only consider the value of packages on the table, no other consideration is given, certainly not the "Diplomatic Considerations" that most other nations give in weapons selection. For no-bid negotiations that can be a factor, but not in open-bid contests where they have a legal obligation to be fair to all bidders.

Another area they can negotiate on is technology transfer for the T-50 & F/A-50 program. There is the possibility of further T-50 sales, including to the USAF, and other exported countries.

Actually the F-35 bid would have received a huge score boost in offset category if the US DoD offered to buy certain number of T-50s in return.(The same request was made to Spain offering the Typhoon). Both nations rejected the request.

but the price differences shouldn't be the biggest factor,

That's the rule that they have with open bid tenders; bids that exceed budget cannot be considered without a budget boost from treasury, and the F-35 price estimates that the US DoD submitted currently exceeds the budget by some 30%.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 12:06
by wrightwing
The Silent Eagle, Growler, Typhoon, and Rafale, are all more expensive than the F-35, require more support aircraft, and are less survivable. I'd be very surprised to see any of these picked.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 15:37
by Conan
neurotech wrote:The South Koreans are not likely to order the Growler anytime soon. The RAAF Growlers will use ALQ-99s from the US Navy inventory. It's going to be at least 5 years before the RAAF have an operational Growler. The Next Generation Jammer might be a possibility for Korea in 2020 timeframe.


Only the mid-band ALQ-99 pods for RAAF's Growlers are coming from the USN. Low and High band I believe can still be manufactured and that's where RAAF's are coming from...

It is possible that Boeing could offer a Growler-Lite F/A-18F where AGM-88s destroy SAMs without needing the ALQ-99s. This would be easier to support, although not always practical.

If the situation in North Korea degrades further, then those very expensive F-22s deployed to Alaska, Hawaii and Japan would be able to suppress NK Air Defenses in short order. Navy EA-18Gs can also fire JSOWs using ALQ-218s for positioning the hostile radar. Another option is sending targetting to F/A-18Fs on their wing, so they can fire the JSOWs.


The US wouldn't even clear AGM-158 JASSM for South Korea. I get the feeling Growler won't either, but as you say it isn't really relevant.

I strongly suspect young Slowman hasn't the faintest idea of what is happening in the South Korean competition. How many times has he said in this very forum that the F-35 has already lost, been excluded from the competition and so on, only for everyone else to learn from CREDIBLE sources within days, that everything he said was completely incorrect?

Hell, he even gets owned on Ares Blog now. Corrected by his own countrymen no less on his own beloved program particulars...

Watching him fumble around pretending he has a clue is hilarious.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 16:47
by Lieven
lookieloo wrote:
slowman5 wrote:I can now report back with a confidence that the F-35 will not win the Korean contest.
Wow, he's been banned 4 times already?

Actually 5 times now.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 16:53
by neurotech
I changed a few of the quote tags to attribute the right poster.
slowman5 wrote:
lookieloo wrote: Boeing and EADS are desperate enough to promise anything, but I doubt the F-35 bid is going much lower (if at all).

Well then either Boeing and EADS wins. Remember that this is an open bid contest, and a bid with no price simply cannot win and the selection of a bid with no price is outright illegal.
They wont "give" them F/A-18F Block IIIs for "no price", but the USN could EDA some F/A-18F Block Is for political reasons, and replace them with Navy Block II+/Block III jets. The US "gave" the Isrealis and Jordanians EDA F-16s before.

Boeing still has some latitude for price negotiations. LM probably has little room with direct price changes without irritating the partners, however the DoD/LM could conceivably buy a couple of F-35As and "loan" them to Korea. I don't think LM has any corporate owned F-35s currently, but Boeing do have a couple of corporate owned/operated F/A-18E/Fs for Block III tech demonstrator use and other programs. A couple of F-16As were loaned and operated by Boeing as part of the QF-16 program.
slowman5 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Having BAE upgrade the KF-16s maybe wasn't the smartest strategic move, because if they had gone with LM,

That is the rule of open bid contests; they only consider the value of packages on the table, no other consideration is given, certainly not the "Diplomatic Considerations" that most other nations give in weapons selection. For no-bid negotiations that can be a factor, but not in open-bid contests where they have a legal obligation to be fair to all bidders.
Seriously? Even in so called "open-bid" competitions, I'm sure back-room negotiating goes on.

McDonnell Douglas got busted in the late 80s for bribery in a Korean competition, and they weren't the only ones over the years. The question is the what degree these back room deals change things.
slowman5 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Another area they can negotiate on is technology transfer for the T-50 & F/A-50 program. There is the possibility of further T-50 sales, including to the USAF, and other exported countries.

Actually the F-35 bid would have received a huge score boost in offset category if the US DoD offered to buy certain number of T-50s in return.(The same request was made to Spain offering the Typhoon). Both nations rejected the request.

neurotech wrote:but the price differences shouldn't be the biggest factor,

That's the rule that they have with open bid tenders; bids that exceed budget cannot be considered without a budget boost from treasury, and the F-35 price estimates that the US DoD submitted currently exceeds the budget by some 30%.
Really? Remember the F-16A EPAF deal, $6m plus extras. One area where the DoD might have discretion is in training and support expenses. That is all added to a FMS purchase budget. I'm sure LM will find a way to make it work, because of the political stakes.

The WSUC is not the only the only factor, and the UFC sure isn't. Part of the reason why the F-16A was so successful was the price, and the weapons compatibility. The engines were available from the F-15 program and already in service. The weapons (AIM-7, AIM-9, M61A1 etc.) were already in service in the F-4 and F-15. Does this look familar?
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24179.html

I realize the Typhoon is cleared for the same weapons (AIM-9s, AIM-120s), but you don't think they'll ask for Missiles etc. to be included in the deal. To achieve HOBS shots in a 4.75th gen configuration, I very much doubt the AIM-9X will be cleared early for the Typhoon, or the AIM-120D data-link for the Typhoon either. What this means is that Korea would have to purchase new missiles to get the full combat performance from the Typhoon.

@Conan: I know its only the mid-band ALQ-99 components, but that is important to combat effectiveness. Basically nobody is going to get a full EA-18G/ALQ-99 suite without going to USN Inventory, that was my point.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 17:43
by XanderCrews
Lieven wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
slowman5 wrote:I can now report back with a confidence that the F-35 will not win the Korean contest.
Wow, he's been banned 4 times already?

Actually 5 times now.


8)

Nice!

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 18:09
by XanderCrews
Conan wrote:
I strongly suspect young Slowman hasn't the faintest idea of what is happening in the South Korean competition. How many times has he said in this very forum that the F-35 has already lost, been excluded from the competition and so on, only for everyone else to learn from CREDIBLE sources within days, that everything he said was completely incorrect?

Hell, he even gets owned on Ares Blog now. Corrected by his own countrymen no less on his own beloved program particulars...

Watching him fumble around pretending he has a clue is hilarious.


He has always made the story up in his mind and then taken random "facts" to try and make correlation equal causation. I don't know if he has a wild imaganiation, is a total troll, or is just plain stupid. maybe a little bit of everything.

My favorite slowman story was on another forum, when talking about Korea's future indigenous fighter, he said that Korea needed to build its own fighters because F-16s needed to return all the way back to the united states for repair, and it took one year for them to get back to korea. Shocking by itself really, but even more so when you realize that Korean F-16s are made in Korea! :lol:

He gets banned nearly everywhere he goes. and never provides sources its always a "take my word for it, because me" which might work if he was ever right about anything.

LM ups the ante:

http://rokdrop.com/2013/06/18/lockheed- ... -f-35-jet/

T-50s are also in the mix but I don't have any details...

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 18:48
by neptune
Lieven wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
slowman5 wrote:I can now report back with a confidence that the F-35 will not win the Korean contest.
Wow, he's been banned 4 times already?

Actually 5 times now.


Does it enevitably have to lead to six?

I look to this site for facts, references and opinions not gossip. :)

How can we help?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2013, 09:17
by lookieloo
Lieven wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
slowman5 wrote:I can now report back with a confidence that the F-35 will not win the Korean contest.
Wow, he's been banned 4 times already?
Actually 5 times now.
For all the good it'll do. The guy is simply everywhere with his simplistic "nuh-uh' arguments and blatant fabrications. If you tell a lie/obfuscation big enough, and disseminate it widely enough, it will eventually get enough traction to gain reputability and widespread acceptance. (See omnipresent citations of Sweetman/ELP's blog/APA/POGO-the-clown. Similar mindset to 9/11 truthers.)

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2013, 15:14
by Conan
neurotech wrote:
@Conan: I know its only the mid-band ALQ-99 components, but that is important to combat effectiveness. Basically nobody is going to get a full EA-18G/ALQ-99 suite without going to USN Inventory, that was my point.


No dramas. Wasn't aware you knew that RAAF were getting some brand new ALQ-99's to go with the no longer in production mid-band pods. Most don't and assume that every ALQ-99 pod is the same...

Out of interest, RAAF's acquisition of HARM and AARGM for Growler was announced today...

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2013, 19:03
by neurotech
Conan wrote:
neurotech wrote:
@Conan: I know its only the mid-band ALQ-99 components, but that is important to combat effectiveness. Basically nobody is going to get a full EA-18G/ALQ-99 suite without going to USN Inventory, that was my point.


No dramas. Wasn't aware you knew that RAAF were getting some brand new ALQ-99's to go with the no longer in production mid-band pods. Most don't and assume that every ALQ-99 pod is the same...

Out of interest, RAAF's acquisition of HARM and AARGM for Growler was announced today...

Anything involving EW/EA/ELINT is nuanced and details are hard to come by.

I still get some tidbits regarding the program, but no longer involved. There has been talk that a few countries (Brazil, ROK, Japan, and Australia) being interested in escort jamming capability, but the NGJ isn't available, and a NGJ-Lite hasn't been given the green light by NAVAIR. As the Australians have found out, converting a F/A-18F to a EA-18G is more than wiring, but the USN Block II jets aren't wired for Growler-Lite configuration either. Some of the F/A-18F Block I LRIP jets had some of Growler wiring, and a few are back with Boeing for further test programs.

It's well known that F-16s and F/A-18s have self-protection jammers. AN/ALQ-214 is one such system on newer jets, combined with the AN/ALE-55 towed decoy, might have been enough to save Capt. O'Grady from being shot down from a surprise missile. The claim that RoKAF would have to buy 1 to 3 ratio EA jets, is insane. In the US Navy, its usually a 2-4, sometimes 6 EA-18G on detachment only with a carrier.

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2013, 21:20
by spazsinbad
'Conan' said above: "...Out of interest, RAAF's acquisition of HARM and AARGM for Growler was announced today..." And here is an earlier story about RAAF training for same:

Royal Australian Air Force purchases Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Training Capability 18 Jun 2013
"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The U.S. Navy signed an agreement with the Australian Government on May 31 to provide its High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) training capability as part of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) acquisition of the EA-18G Growler.

The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreement with Australia for an AARGM training capability marks the first FMS sale involving the weapon. The AARGM is the U.S. Navy’s medium-range air-to-ground missile for suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses.

“The RAAF’s procurement of an AARGM training capability is another step in the direction of achieving commonality between RAAF and U.S. Navy aircraft, mission planning and maintenance capabilities in order to maximize interoperability in a coalition environment,” said Capt. Brian Corey, Direct and Time Sensitive Strike Program Manager.

AARGM addresses current capability gaps in areas where the U.S. Navy deploys and operates its existing Air-to-Ground Missile, the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile. Specifically, AARGM defeats multiple countermeasures that have been developed by U.S. adversaries since HARM was deployed in the 1980s.

The weapon will be carried on the U.S. F/A-18C/D, F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and Italian Air Force Tornado Electronic Countermeasures/Reconnaissance (ECR) aircraft. Currently, Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 squadrons are operating with AARGM.

The RAAF plans to add the HARM and AARGM training capability to their EA-18G aircraft. The Navy and industry partner Alliant Tech Systems (ATK) plan to deliver the capability to Australians in 2015 to support EA-18G flight testing. Australia announced the decision to acquire 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft in 2012."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=5393

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2013, 16:20
by XanderCrews
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 0315F.HTML

everyone overbid again.

Remember when Slowman kept saying the F-35 was out because the other two competitors wouldn't exceed the allocated funding? Lulz

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2013, 18:51
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote: http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 0315F.HTML

everyone overbid again.
Admittedly, I'm not all that knowledgeable about the nuts-n-bolts of these kind of deals. Is this normal, or is Korea starting to make itself look ridiculous?

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2013, 18:53
by lamoey
They seem to have two choices. Increase budget or decrease expectations

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2013, 19:55
by XanderCrews
lamoey wrote:They seem to have two choices. Increase budget or decrease expectations


Thats what it is looking like. I wonder how they arrived at that price cap anyway? an F-15K is over 100 million in FY2006 dollars. so an improved silent eagle would be even more pricey and Tiffies are not cheap either. All I can think of is they were hoping the companies would get competitive and start selling at a loss, but it looks like everyones bottom line is well beyond korea's funding. so increase the spending or start looking for lighter fighters

interesting F-15K thing I found while googling the price.

http://www.socialphy.com/posts/news-pol ... years.html

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2013, 22:03
by gtx
Maybe simply reduce numbers...at least initially.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 00:31
by delvo
I don't foresee the manufacturers of Eagles, Typhoons, or Lightnings going cheaper than they have. At this rate, Korea's going to drop its expensive wish-list, go for the most bang it can get for fewer bucks, and end up at Rafales... which I really don't think would be bad for what they need... sort of like those countries that have skipped Eagles and gone with just Falcons over the years.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 00:36
by popcorn
They should with this as a reality TV show.. reminds me of Storage Wars.
Just buy the SU-35 and be done with it. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 00:39
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:They should with this as a reality TV show.. reminds me of Storage Wars.
Just buy the SU-35 and be done with it.

You'd have to follow around the reporters and various out-of-the-loop commentors, since the real meat of the issue is all classified.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 00:54
by spazsinbad
If I was a participant is this competition I would disqualify South Korea! :D (Look at thread title)

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 01:00
by XanderCrews
delvo wrote:I don't foresee the manufacturers of Eagles, Typhoons, or Lightnings going cheaper than they have. At this rate, Korea's going to drop its expensive wish-list, go for the most bang it can get for fewer bucks, and end up at Rafales...


assuming the rafales are cheaper in the first place :?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 01:06
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:If I was a participant is this competition I would disqualify South Korea! :D (Look at thread title)
I suppose that's possible. How much is participation in this farce costing the competitors each week?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 01:51
by popcorn
Expectant fathers-to-be anxiously waiting outside the FX 3 delivery room. :lol: Doesn't the 4th guy from the left look like Loren Thompson? LOL

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 07:49
by wrightwing
gtx wrote:Maybe simply reduce numbers...at least initially.


That drives the cost up even more.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2013, 21:51
by gtx
It drives up the unit cost as well as the eventual total cost (if they buy more later on) but not necessarily the short term immediate cost.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2013, 01:48
by spazsinbad
South Korea extends bidding on $7.3 bln fighter jet project-media 29 Jun 2013 (Reporting By Jane Chung; Editing by Michael Perry)
"(Reuters) - South Korea has extended bidding on a $7.3 billion (8.3 trillion won) fighter jet project after a second round of bidding ended on Friday with three aviation makers offering prices above the estimated cost, South Korea's news agency said.

South Korea opened the bidding on June 18 to import the country's 60 next-generation fighter jets between 2017 and 2021 and has since carried out about 30 bidding sessions, yet the offers were over the budget, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency said citing the state's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) officials....

..."The bidding ended, and an additional bidding will resume on July 2," said Baek Yoon-hyeong, spokesman for the defence acquisition agency, according to Yonhap...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/ ... 4P20130629

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2013, 02:22
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:South Korea extends bidding on $7.3 bln fighter jet project-media 29 Jun 2013 (Reporting By Jane Chung; Editing by Michael Perry)
"(Reuters) - South Korea has extended bidding on a $7.3 billion (8.3 trillion won) fighter jet project after a second round of bidding ended on Friday with three aviation makers offering prices above the estimated cost, South Korea's news agency said.

South Korea opened the bidding on June 18 to import the country's 60 next-generation fighter jets between 2017 and 2021 and has since carried out about 30 bidding sessions, yet the offers were over the budget, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency said citing the state's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) officials....

..."The bidding ended, and an additional bidding will resume on July 2," said Baek Yoon-hyeong, spokesman for the defence acquisition agency, according to Yonhap...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/ ... 4P20130629


3rds the charm

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 13:01
by spazsinbad
South Korea has done a great job of disqualifying itself from this competition. Nice one.

Bidding for next generation fighter jets likely to end in failure 04 Jul 2013 By Kim Kyu-won, staff reporter

"Mixed signals on budget and air force’s preference for F-35 mean companies all making maximum price bids

It is becoming more likely that the bidding for the third next-generation fighter project being run by the South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will end in failure. Sources say that all three of the companies that have taken part in the price bidding, which has been underway since June 18, submitted amounts that exceed the total budget of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.27 billion). Experts advise that, if the project is to be wrapped up successfully, the three companies must be motivated to compete with each other.

According to DAPA and the companies involved, from the start of bidding on June 18 through July 3, not a single company has bid less than 8.3 trillion won maximum. “We are planning to continue the bidding indefinitely, for as long as we deem it is necessary,” a senior offical with DAPA said on condition of anonymity.

However, it appears very unlikely that any of the bidding companies will make an offer of less than 8.3 trillion won. The biggest reason for this is the shadow cast by the F-35A.

DAPA has stated that any company that places a bid below 8.3 trillion won can be selected. However, the Republic of Korea Air Force favors the F-35A, which is produced by Lockheed-Martin. DAPA has not made it clear whether it would necessarily accept a bid by one of the other two companies if the F-35A bid is not less than 8.3 trillion won.

“If there are two companies that bid below 8.3 trillion won, the final selection will be made by the Defense Project Promotion Committee after a comprehensive assessment of the two,” the DAPA official said. “If there is only one, the committee will make the decision.”

Experts believe that if the bidding for the third next-generation fighter project is to be concluded at an appropriate price within the year, DAPA must have the ability to disregard the air force’s desire to purchase the F-35A. “There’s no reason to pin all of our hopes on the F-35A,” a national defense expert said on condition of anonymity. “The only way that we can induce price competition among the companies is going into this with the idea that it’s okay if we don’t purchase the F-35A. If it turns out we really need the F-35A, we can always buy it later.”

Another view is that the government must make clear that it will choose whichever jet manufacturer offers a bid that falls within the scope of the government’s budget.

“The thing is that all three of the companies’ fighters have the required operational capacity,” said Lee Hui-u, director of the Integrated Logistics Support Research Institute at Chungnam National University. “If the government lets it be known that it is willing to choose any one of the three that meets the budget, the companies will then have to match the price. The companies can compensate for the loss through armaments or operational and maintenance fees.”

Complicating things further is the fact that, at the moment, it cannot even be established whether a bidding price has been submitted for the F-35A. The US government placed the bid for the F-35A on behalf of Lockheed-Martin through its Foreign Military Sales program. Even if a price was submitted, this price is not related to the amount that the South Korean government will actually have to pay later down the line. The South Korean government in fact must pay the amount specified by the US government at the time of payment.

“With the F-35 bid, the US government may have submitted a prediction of what the price will be after development is complete, but the other two countries offered definite prices,” a representative with one of the other companies said on condition of anonymity. “This bidding is completely unfair.”

“We have been asking the US government to provide a definite price, but we have gotten a guarantee,” a source with DAPA said.

DAPA’s ambiguity about the scope of the budget for this project is another reason the companies have not felt it necessary to engage in competitive price bidding. Lately, DAPA has been insisting that it will stick to the 8.3 trillion-won budget for the project. But until only recently, rumors were rife inside the Ministry of Defense and DAPA that the budget might be increased to 9.96 trillion won (120% of the original amount). The fact that the air force’s preferred choice the F-35 is unlikely to be below 8.3 trillion won makes it more likely that the budget will be increased by 20%.

This is why the government needs to clearly indicate whether the budget for the project is 8.3 trillion won or 9.96 trillion won. If the budget goes up to 9.96 trillion won, there will probably not be a single company that will make a bid for 8.3 trillion won.

“If they had definitely stated from the beginning that 8.3 trillion won was the final budget, the companies would have given some serious thought to this price,” said Kim Jong-dae, chief editor of Defense 21+. “Even now, it’s not too late to make clear what the final budget is.”"

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_ ... 94377.html

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 14:51
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:South Korea has done a great job of disqualifying itself from this competition. Nice one.
This part is where the stupidity of their game shows.
Experts believe that if the bidding for the third next-generation fighter project is to be concluded at an appropriate price within the year, DAPA must have the ability to disregard the air force’s desire to purchase the F-35A. “There’s no reason to pin all of our hopes on the F-35A,” a national defense expert said on condition of anonymity. “The only way that we can induce price competition among the companies is going into this with the idea that it’s okay if we don’t purchase the F-35A. If it turns out we really need the F-35A, we can always buy it later.”
It is said that when gold was struck in California, an enterprising shopkeeper in San Francisco immediately purchased every shovel and pickax he could in town, and before anyone knew it, he was the only one with any in stock, able to demand top prices from desperate would-be prospectors.

LM is the only free-world manufacturer of VLO fighters and northeast Asia will soon be rife with the things as Japan, Russia, and China all have firm plans to procure or build such aircraft. Korea's sad attempt at haggling LM is like trying to talk that shopkeeper down by saying you could get by with a wooden spoon from the store across the street.

Also, the other two so-called competitors know that this may well be one of the last sales they make, with little potential for further orders in the long term; so they aren't going to risk a loss or weak profit just to get their foot in a door that they know is going to close anyways. The Korean statement that they could always buy the F-35A later (which they probably would if the JSF lost this time) actually increases EADS's/Boeing's motivation to charge as much as possible while they still can.

As for the bids... I can see EADS offering a certain price, but Boeing hasn't even started on the SE yet (demonstration of bodged-together conformal-weapons-bay doesn't count as new plane); so I don't really see how they could set firm costs.

Finally, the real impediment against price competition here is the small number of orders at stake. Forty planes doesn't offer Boeing or EADS enough cash-flow security to induce a bidding war, and LM has enough on its plate to keep busy for years without Korea. Either way, this idiotic competition is trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 15:12
by XanderCrews


a representative with one of the other companies said on condition of anonymity. “This bidding is completely unfair.”




...Unless we win-- Then its a brilliant decision on the part of the ROK, ROKAF and we look forward to working with them for years to come.


LOL

What counts though is someone made that remark, that way the internet detractors can say "they said it was unfair and the F-35 only won because X Y Z!"


So Slowman was wrong again. What a shocker.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 15:37
by popcorn
So the ROKAF is reported to have a strong preference for the F 35? I just wish someone would leak some of the comparative technical data.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 16:15
by popcorn
Is the USG quoted price public information?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4cdf9244 ... ab7de.html

...The US government, which is slashing its own defence spending amid pressure to reduce the country’s fiscal debt, is acting as broker in the F-35 sale. It has put a price tag of $10.8bn on the order for South Korea, as much as 45 per cent more than Seoul says it wants to spend...

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 16:19
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 17:30
by hb_pencil
popcorn wrote:Is the USG quoted price public information?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4cdf9244 ... ab7de.html

...The US government, which is slashing its own defence spending amid pressure to reduce the country’s fiscal debt, is acting as broker in the F-35 sale. It has put a price tag of $10.8bn on the order for South Korea, as much as 45 per cent more than Seoul says it wants to spend...


Its the nature of the FMS process. You don't buy a weapon from the company; you pay the USG, who buys it for you. The F-15SE seems to have been a DCS purchase; a direct buy from Boeing.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 18:53
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:
popcorn wrote:Is the USG quoted price public information?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4cdf9244 ... ab7de.html

...The US government, which is slashing its own defence spending amid pressure to reduce the country’s fiscal debt, is acting as broker in the F-35 sale. It has put a price tag of $10.8bn on the order for South Korea, as much as 45 per cent more than Seoul says it wants to spend...


Its the nature of the FMS process. You don't buy a weapon from the company; you pay the USG, who buys it for you. The F-15SE seems to have been a DCS purchase; a direct buy from Boeing.

Just for the record, didn't the CF-18 DCS purchase complicate support options? NATOPS flight manuals are USG property and can't be legally shared, without authorization. From what I heard, the UAEAF had a separate weapons and support contract for the F-16E/F Block 60 jets.

When I flew F/A-18E/Fs, we had our own checklist supplements, but we lived by the NATOPS procedures where available. One deviation, later updated in the NATOPS, was emergency APU activation in flight. That one issue was paid for in blood (At least 4 civilian lives and at least one jet). At least one jet in our test group was "saved" when the APU was activated in flight after one engine was damaged and the other degraded. FCS and fuel management electrical system stayed functional enough to control the jet and restart the degraded engine.

With regard to the F-15SE purchase, irrespective of if its FMS or DCS, RoKAF will pay what the USG negotiates it to pay. The R&D costs and the ToT is a 3-way issue between the Boeing/RoK/USG, and is a sensitive topic for negotiations. Boeing can "discount" their R&D reimbursement, but not the USGs R&D reimbursement. Only the DoD can make the decision on R&D reimbursement required.

I have my doubts about the Korean F-15SE vs F-35 debate because the RoK is relatively free of external political impediments to purchasing the F-35. They have a relatively large and "young" fleet of fighters. The problem with all the debate over which jet to buy, is there is nothing cheap about a 4.5 gen+ fighter. My bet is that they'll go back to their parliament and get more funds, and then negotiate a offset and/or financing deal with US.

Its theoretically possible the Koreans could do what the Australians and Dutch are doing, and buy (or even lease) 2-4 F-35s for training, and then defer the decision. One somewhat likely possibility is that this is all a poker play negotiation to relax restrictions on the KF-16 & T(F/A)-50 technology level, and get the USAF and other allies to buy the TA-50 advanced trainers. IMHO I personally like the F/A-50 (LWF) aircraft, providing the UFC/WSUC/PUC stays low.

PS: To bypass the paywall;
https://www.google.com/search?q=Defence ... a+contract

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2013, 21:27
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:Just for the record, didn't the CF-18 DCS purchase complicate support options? NATOPS flight manuals are USG property and can't be legally shared, without authorization. From what I heard, the UAEAF had a separate weapons and support contract for the F-16E/F Block 60 jets.


Depends on what you mean by "support." Obtaining spares and parts? no, I've never heard of any issues from back then. Did it have implications for our flight operations? yes, but for a lot of reasons that aren't really relevant to South Korea. The fact they operate the F-15 already avoids a lot of the issues we faced. Its also of a type not currently used by the US services... which means there is even less of a reason to go with them. The DSCA notice basically covered everything that was worth going through FMS for the F-15SE

neurotech wrote:I have my doubts about the Korean F-15SE vs F-35 debate because the RoK is relatively free of external political impediments to purchasing the F-35. They have a relatively large and "young" fleet of fighters. The problem with all the debate over which jet to buy, is there is nothing cheap about a 4.5 gen+ fighter. My bet is that they'll go back to their parliament and get more funds, and then negotiate a offset and/or financing deal with US.

Its theoretically possible the Koreans could do what the Australians and Dutch are doing, and buy (or even lease) 2-4 F-35s for training, and then defer the decision. One somewhat likely possibility is that this is all a poker play negotiation to relax restrictions on the KF-16 & T(F/A)-50 technology level, and get the USAF and other allies to buy the TA-50 advanced trainers. IMHO I personally like the F/A-50 (LWF) aircraft, providing the UFC/WSUC/PUC stays low.


There isn;t much point to buy one or two fighters now unless you intend to go all the way, or you're a partner nation. Its not really useful insurance policy at about $100 million a pop.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2013, 08:35
by popcorn
Looks like the SOKORs believe offense is the best defense.
The F-35 would be the best suited among the 3 contenders to support such a strategy.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... tem-2020-0

S. Korea aims to establish missile destruction system by 2020

SEOUL, June 11 (Yonhap) -- South Korea plans to establish a pre-emptive missile destruction system by 2020 to guard against growing missile and nuclear threats from North Korea, the defense minister said Tuesday.

The "kill chain" system is designed to detect signs of impending missile or nuclear attacks and launch pre-emptive strikes that eliminate the threat. The system involves spy satellites, surveillance drones for monitoring and attack systems, including missiles, fighter jets and warships...

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2013, 15:06
by count_to_10
It's seemed to me for a while that South Korea could probably do quite well with a large number of cruise missile bases stationed outside of artillery range from the DMZ.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2013, 15:55
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:It's seemed to me for a while that South Korea could probably do quite well with a large number of cruise missile bases stationed outside of artillery range from the DMZ.


Definitely a part of the force mix. Other targets/scenarios may call for more precision, bunker busting effects, etc. best achieved via aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2013, 21:00
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:Looks like the SOKORs believe offense is the best defense.
The F-35 would be the best suited among the 3 contenders to support such a strategy.



That certainly changes the equation from the "we need a bomb truck to kill arty" F-15 to an infiltrating LO F-35. .

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2013, 01:23
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:
popcorn wrote:Looks like the SOKORs believe offense is the best defense.
The F-35 would be the best suited among the 3 contenders to support such a strategy.



That certainly changes the equation from the "we need a bomb truck to kill arty" F-15 to an infiltrating LO F-35. .


Indeed, if all they wanted to do is kill arty, any 4G could get the job done, just buy more of what they have in inventory. Which is why I don't buy this lowest bidder wins rationale, which really only makes sense if all 3 option are equal which we know is not the case. Buying based on lowest price and the lowest common denominator is the bargain basement approach to national security.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2013, 22:48
by spazsinbad
Korea can’t find fighter jets that are affordable 09 July 2013
"The bidding process for Korea’s largest-ever procurement project was halted temporarily as weeks of price negotiations failed to produce an affordable price tag for new fighter jets.

“Since June 18 to Friday, we had 55 rounds of price-bidding with three contenders,” Baek Yoon-hyeong, spokesman of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, said Sunday. “But none of them came within our budget limit. It is meaningless to continue the bidding under these circumstances.”

Korea kicked off its next-generation fighter jet project, code-named F-X III, last year. Three global builders competed to win the 8.3 trillion won ($7.21 billion) deal, through which Korea will purchase 60 new jets.

The contenders are the F-15 Silent Eagle by Boeing, the F-35 Lightning II by Lockheed Martin and the Eurofighter Typhoon of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS). The Defense Acquisition Program Administration started the final stage of the project last month, asking the three builders to participate in the price bidding. They already wrapped up most of the processes last month, including submission of their offset packages.

According to a source, one of the three bidders presented a price tag close to the Korean government’s budget, but the Defense Acquisition Program Administration remained firm that it will not go over the budget under any circumstance.

“We will review the process closely and decide what we will do with the project,” Baek said.

The procurement agency is contemplating whether it will go ahead with the current competition by holding more bidding rounds with the three contenders or if it will restart the bidding with new standards.

A source from the procurement agency told Yonhap News Agency yesterday that the decision of the project’s fate will be announced later this week. If the Defense Acquisition Program Administration decides to restart the project with new standards, it will further delay Korea from replacing its aged fleet of fighter jets.

Korea initially wanted to make its selection by June and introduce the new fighter jets in 2017. Under the current criteria for the evaluation, the life cycle cost will be considered 30 percent, suitability for the role 33.61 percent and operational compatibility 17.98 percent. The offset factors would account for the remaining 18.41 percent.

If the government decides to end the bidding with no winner and restart the process with revised standards, it is possible that the importance of the life cycle cost will be increased in the evaluation criteria to pressure the bidders to lower the prices, observers said."

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... id=2974263

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2013, 08:25
by Corsair1963
If, you want cheap you will get cheap.........

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2013, 15:19
by popcorn
They should do a 40-year TCO analysis. :)

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2013, 19:50
by gtx
I wonder how long before one, or more, of the contenders simply asked: "how much can you spend? We will then tell you how much that wil buy you."?

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2013, 09:47
by popcorn
More non-news.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-388108/

Price haggling delays South Korea F-X III decision

South Korea's F-X III competition for 60 fighters appears to have temporarily broken down over pricing.

Seoul's official news agency, Yonhap, quotes Defence Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) spokesman Baek Yoon-hyeong as saying that bids for the requirement have come in over budget, despite 55 separate price bids during three weeks in June...

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2013, 12:10
by popcorn
I guess they got the message after the 55th failure..

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 0315F.HTML

S. Korea to re-examine fighter jet project
yonhapnews.co.kr - 7/11/2013

By Kim Eun-jung SEOUL, July 11 (Yonhap) -- South Korea will stop the current bidding for fighter jets and revise the project as high price tags have made the chance of selecting a satisfactory contractor slim, a senior official said Thursday.

The move comes after the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) carried out 55 separate biddings with three defense groups to buy 60 advanced jets with an 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) budget, but the procedure was put on hold last week due to their expensive price tags.

Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle, Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet and the Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon from the European Aerospace Defense and Space Company (EADS) participated in the bidding sessions from June 18 to July 5 to win Seoul's largest arms import deal.

"The DAPA plans to stop the current bidding and re-examine the project," a senior DAPA official said, requesting anonymity. "Whether to restart the procurement plan from scratch or make changes to requirements will be discussed."

Changes to the number of jets to be bought or increasing the state budget needs the DAPA to open a new project and get approval from the finance ministry. The state procurement agency will formally announce its decision in a meeting presided by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin next week, the official said.

The DAPA has sought for affordable yet highly capable aircraft, but it had been widely expected that potential suppliers would propose prices that would exceed Seoul's budget.

Unlike two other companies that sell aircraft through direct commercial sales, the U.S. government representative placed the bid for F-35s on behalf of Lockheed Martin under the foreign military sales (FMS) program, which didn't specify a fixed price, according to multiple sources. Boeing and the EADS offered a definite amount for their jets.

The government-to-government FMS condition requires a foreign government to pay the amount specified by the U.S. government for F-35s at the time of payment, which experts cite as one of the factors that affected bidders' unbudging attitude.

As the bidding ended in failure, the plan to replace the aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s with advanced jets starting from 2017 is expected to be further delayed. The procurement agency had initially selected a contractor as early as June.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2013, 16:52
by popcorn
If reports are accurate that Boeing is at just over $200M over the budget and LM is more than a $Billion more, then the former may just decide to,stand firm and wait for the Koreans to ask Parliament for a bigger budget in which case they would still enjoy a price advantage. That's assuming that the beancounters actually decide the outcome.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/2 ... RK20130725

South Korea reopens bidding for 8.3 trillion won fighter jet competition

SEOUL, July 25 | Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:38pm IST (Reuters) - South Korea said on Thursday it will reopen competition for its 8.3 trillion won ($7.43 billion) purchase of 60 next generation fighter jets which had been suspended due to the high prices of bids received.

"We have decided at the defence project committee meeting to resume bidding for the F-X project," a spokesman for the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) told a briefing.

DAPA suspended bidding after none of the entries, Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35, Boeing Co's F-15 and EADS's Eurofighter Typhoon, submitted bids meeting the required price.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2013, 17:10
by haavarla
If funding is the Major problem.. one would think there is only one solution. Why can't SC just do a quick u turn, and order fewer jets. And then get on With this Tender. Its dragging out forever..

I could say the same thing With Brasil.

One thing is 1000% sure, all the different jets price will only increase With time, so what gives..

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2013, 17:11
by haavarla
If funding is the Major problem.. one would think there is only one solution. Why can't SC just do a quick u turn, and order fewer jets. And then get on With this Tender. Its dragging out forever..

I could say the same thing With Brasil.

One thing is 1000% sure, all the different jets price will only increase With time, so what gives..

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2013, 19:55
by gtx
I think it is a case of SK wanting to "have their cake and eat it too" - i.e. get 60 aircraft but only pay what they have budgeted. At the end of the day one side or another will have to give way - either the budget is increased or the requirement is reduced.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2013, 20:29
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:If funding is the Major problem.. one would think there is only one solution. Why can't SC just do a quick u turn, and order fewer jets. And then get on With this Tender. Its dragging out forever..

I could say the same thing With Brasil.

One thing is 1000% sure, all the different jets price will only increase With time, so what gives..


With inflation that is true.

From LM's perspective, more time is probably fine with them, everyday the JSF firms up, Boeing as far as I know is developing the SE at pretty much the same rate, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but how much will be done until SK agrees, I don't know. EADs is probably in the worst straights with the delay

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 06:26
by Corsair1963
You could make a case for slightly less F-35's vs the Typhoon and Strike Eagle. (i.e. 50 vs 60) Which, would be a cheaper options. Plus, the US may throw a carrot and offer to purchase a number of T-50's in exchange.

As a matter of fact a Fleet of T-50 and F/A-50's would be a plus for both countries. The US could use the T-50's for Basic Training and a Number of F/A-50's for Advance Weapons Training. The latter could be used to supplement the USAF Tactical Fighter Fleet in an Emergency.


Just an idea.......

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 07:22
by neurotech
Corsair1963 wrote:You could make a case for slightly less F-35's vs the Typhoon and Strike Eagle. (i.e. 50 vs 60) Which, would be a cheaper options. Plus, the US may throw a carrot and offer to purchase a number of T-50's in exchange.

As a matter of fact a Fleet of T-50 and F/A-50's would be a plus for both countries. The US could use the T-50's for Basic Training and a Number of F/A-50's for Advance Weapons Training. The latter could be used to supplement the USAF Tactical Fighter Fleet in an Emergency.


Just an idea.......

I personally think the T-50 (T/A-50 or F/A-50) will be selected once the Koreans actually say yes to the F-35. It's a better jet performance wise than the Hawk or the M-346. The F404/F414 is proven in US Service, whereas the M-346 uses a two F124 engines that each cost as much as the larger F404 engine. The problem with RR F405 engines in the Hawk is that they have to be maintained under contract (Power by the Hour type BS) because of the way RR handles logistics.

The F/A-50 is basically a scaled down F-16.

The question is if the USAF/USN will buy a smallish number of F/A-50s for aggressor training, to push the Korean F-35 purchase, without committing to the T-X purchase.

The USAF/ANG would have to be hard up for jets to use the F/A-50s in combat.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 09:42
by popcorn
Corsair1963 wrote:You could make a case for slightly less F-35's vs the Typhoon and Strike Eagle. (i.e. 50 vs 60) Which, would be a cheaper options. Plus, the US may throw a carrot and offer to purchase a number of T-50's in exchange.

As a matter of fact a Fleet of T-50 and F/A-50's would be a plus for both countries. The US could use the T-50's for Basic Training and a Number of F/A-50's for Advance Weapons Training. The latter could be used to supplement the USAF Tactical Fighter Fleet in an Emergency.


Just an idea.......


Will Washington openly favor one US supplier over another? Will the Korean bureaucrats give way to the ROKAF's reported preference for the more expensive but more capable,F-35?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 11:02
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:Will Washington openly favor one US supplier over another? Will the Korean bureaucrats give way to the ROKAF's reported preference for the more expensive but more capable,F-35?
Anything can happen, it's a hilarious watch this show. As I predicted, Korea's attempt to haggle us on the F-35's price (via pretending that VLO doesn't matter that much to them) has backfired. Having been so publicly hard-nosed on their budget, they now face a situation where they may be forced to spend every last dime of that $7.3 billion on something little better than what they already have.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 15:44
by popcorn
Well, they can always buy the J-31 if they miss the 5Gen boat with the F-35. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 15:51
by spazsinbad
F-35 to be first to bow out 29 Jul 2013 By Kang Seung-woo [NOBODY CARES AT THIS STAGE}
"Lockheed Martin’s F-35 faces the distinct possibility of being the first to be eliminated in the ongoing bidding for Korea’s next generation fighter program.

The weakest point against the latest U.S. aircraft is that its price may go up significantly because it is still in development.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the arm of the Ministry of National Defense, has told the three candidates to meet the required price of 8.3 trillion won ($7.45 billion) or face an early exit. The bidding is scheduled to resume on Aug. 12 through 16.

Currently, F-35 is vying against Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS)’s Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon.

“When any of three bidders meets the procurement price, DAPA will evaluate all three fighter jets,” DAPA Spokesman Baek Youn-hyeong said at a briefing.

“But despite finishing first in the evaluation, a firm whose bid exceeds the budget will not be signed for the F-X contract.”

He added that a runner-up or a third place has a chance to secure a deal if either of comes to within the given budget.

The U.S. government is unable to guarantee a fixed price because the stealth jet is being tested, so there is speculation that the Lockheed side might sharply push its cost down in the new round of the bidding to win the deal.

But DAPA said that it is highly unlikely.

“If a participant places an inappropriate price to take a contract, it can become a problem afterward, based on the laws of international contracts,” Baek said.

At this point, what the F-35 can do seems to just wish the bidding to be called off and DAPA to increase the budget, as the agency said if there is no entry with price within the project budget after the resumption of the bidding, it will review other options including increasing the budget.

The DAPA announcement is likely to be a major blow to the F-35, which has basked in spotlight as a shoo-in in the competition on the back of its low-observable technology, or a stealth capability, despite its highly-projected price tag.

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in April that a potential foreign military sale (FMS) of 60 F-35 stealth jets and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support, would cost an estimated 12.4 trillion won.

In addition, the U.S. Department of the Air Force, participating in the bidding on behalf of Lockheed Martin under the FMS program, reportedly placed bids ranging from 10 trillion won to 12 trillion won, while Boeing, which sold a total of 60 F-15K Slam Eagles through the first two phases of the F-X requirement, was closest to the DAPA budget with its bid being just 3 percent higher."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 40142.html

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 19:40
by gtx
The weakest point against the latest U.S. aircraft is that its price may go up significantly because it is still in development.


:?: WTF!!!??? :?: If anything, it go the other way!!!

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 20:02
by lamoey
The article is probably written by the same idiot or group that was band several times before trying to bully the price down.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 20:21
by hb_pencil
Its pretty evident that the F-35 does cost more in the timeframe of the F-X competition. That's really only a two to three year window before FRP starts and the per-unit cost of the F-35 drops significantly below the the F-15. Its also important to note that the F-15 has a distinct advantage in korea as it can expand on the current F-15 infrastructure, where the F-35 has to start anew.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 20:45
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:F-35 to be first to bow out 29 Jul 2013 By Kang Seung-woo [NOBODY CARES AT THIS STAGE}
Sounds as if this fellow is getting his updates from SlowMan. That said, the F-35 may indeed bow out first over price issues; but as others have already pointed out, certainly not because the price is likely to go up. If the Koreans have anything to worry about at all, it's that the price will drop significantly after they pay.

Conspiracy theory for the day: Does anyone else think the DoD is making an example of Korea to show what will happen to partners if they withdraw from their commitments now and try to buy FRP planes through FMS later?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 21:11
by hb_pencil
No, I think what's more likely is that by 2020 when Japan is fielding 80+ F-35s at high availability rates Korea is going look at its costly F-15SE fleet and really regret the strictures they placed on F-X competition. I'm sure they will also be desperately trying to fund their indigenous fighter program, only to realize that (as the Japanese have also found out the hard way) these programs are highly costly and won't provide anywhere close to an equivalent capability to the F-35 at the price they could get it at.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 22:00
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:No, I think what's more likely is that by 2020 when Japan is fielding 80+ F-35s at high availability rates Korea is going look at its costly F-15SE fleet and really regret the strictures they placed on F-X competition. I'm sure they will also be desperately trying to fund their indigenous fighter program, only to realize that (as the Japanese have also found out the hard way) these programs are highly costly and won't provide anywhere close to an equivalent capability to the F-35 at the price they could get it at.

This whole argument over purchase cost is rubbish. Fighter jets are expensive. Operating costs is another question, and worthy of more serious consideration.

If Korea wants a low-cost fighter 4.5th gen fighter cheap, they should push the F/A-50 into production. If they want a best value 5th gen fighter, its hard to choose anything but a F-35.

@hb_pencil: I'm sure you understand this, but others don't. For any low volume program (say 65 fighters) every $1bn in R&D effectively adds $15m to the Program Unit Cost. Those $95m F-35s are starting to look cheap by comparison.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 22:03
by lookieloo
hb_pencil wrote:No, I think what's more likely is that by 2020 when Japan is fielding 80+ F-35s at high availability rates Korea is going look at its costly F-15SE fleet and really regret the strictures they placed on F-X competition. I'm sure they will also be desperately trying to fund their indigenous fighter program, only to realize that (as the Japanese have also found out the hard way) these programs are highly costly and won't provide anywhere close to an equivalent capability to the F-35 at the price they could get it at.
Indeed, that seems likely to happen if they continue being so bull-headed. I'm not really sure what they were expecting... if they were hoping the competitors would immolate themselves in a bidding war, they were sadly mistaken.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2013, 22:24
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:No, I think what's more likely is that by 2020 when Japan is fielding 80+ F-35s at high availability rates Korea is going look at its costly F-15SE fleet and really regret the strictures they placed on F-X competition. I'm sure they will also be desperately trying to fund their indigenous fighter program, only to realize that (as the Japanese have also found out the hard way) these programs are highly costly and won't provide anywhere close to an equivalent capability to the F-35 at the price they could get it at.

This whole argument over purchase cost is rubbish. Fighter jets are expensive. Operating costs is another question, and worthy of more serious consideration.

If Korea wants a low-cost fighter 4.5th gen fighter cheap, they should push the F/A-50 into production. If they want a best value 5th gen fighter, its hard to choose anything but a F-35.

@hb_pencil: I'm sure you understand this, but others don't. For any low volume program (say 65 fighters) every $1bn in R&D effectively adds $15m to the Program Unit Cost. Those $95m F-35s are starting to look cheap by comparison.


Its really a question on how accounting operates within Korea and the evaluation system. I assume that purchase cost (while only a portion of the total evaluation), is a must not exceed requirement that is holding everything else up. So if both came under the ceiling, then the other factors evaluated would come into play and the purchase cost would become a secondary factor.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 14:27
by spazsinbad
Fighter project to get additional budget 31 Jul 2013 Kang Seung-woo
"The military has asked for 900 billion won in additional budget for the new fighter program or F-X project, a source said Wednesday.

The source said, “This amount comes on top of 7.5 trillion won that is currently set aside for the purchase of the aircraft.” The total FX budget is set at 8.3 trillion but only 7.5 trillion won is for aircraft purchases with the rest for, among others, armaments.

The request for an increased budget will be formally made after the new round of bidding that is expected to fail to produce a clear winner.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said that no request for additional budget has been made nor has it been considered.

All three competitors failed to meet the given budget in the previous round.

A new round of bidding midway through this month is not likely to close the price gap.

In addition, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II, currently in development, may benefit from it, experts say.

The F-35 is vying against Boeing’s proposed F-15 Silent Eagle and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS)’s Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon.

“Although DAPA has decided to reopen a new round of bidding, it will proceed with the same condition that resulted in a temporary halt (last month). Will there be another factor to push the costs down in companies’ sides?” said Lee Hee-woo, president of ILS Research Institute and former Air Force general.

“In addition, it hinted at increasing the budget unless it finds the final bidder, which will prevent the bidders from moving to within the budget.”

Yang Uk, a senior research fellow at Korea Defense and Security Forum (KDSF), said that the nation’s arms procurement agency set a low price ceiling.

“The DAPA budget is worth about 50 highly capable combat planes. Without lowering the number of jets to be bought, no company will satisfy the procurement price,” he said.

He added that as the budget cannot be upped at this point, the bidding will end in failure.

Starting on June 18, DAPA carried out a total of 55 bidding sessions for three weeks, but all competitors failed to satisfy the government’s budget requirements and as a result, DAPA temporarily suspended the project.

Last week’s meeting, presided over by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, came up with a decision to reopen the bidding in order to avoid further delay of the project.

Meanwhile, another possible delay will help the besieged F-35 catch its breath, the watchers said. If DAPA tweaks the program, it is foreseen to take about two years.

Development of the stealth jet has been delayed due to technical glitches and it is often the competitor’s punch line because critics say it is questionable if the aircraft will be delivered at a time Korea needs them.

“If the bidding is declared a failure, it will work to the F-35’s advantage because they will be given time to solve what critics attack,” Yang said."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 40275.html

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 16:09
by SpudmanWP
They should rename the article "DAPA Blinks".

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 17:58
by XanderCrews
Meanwhile, another possible delay will help the besieged F-35 catch its breath, the watchers said. If DAPA tweaks the program, it is foreseen to take about two years.

Development of the stealth jet has been delayed due to technical glitches and it is often the competitor’s punch line because critics say it is questionable if the aircraft will be delivered at a time Korea needs them.

“If the bidding is declared a failure, it will work to the F-35’s advantage because they will be given time to solve what critics attack,” Yang said."


I agree with this. Time favors the F-35. Is the F-15SE in the running anywhere else? or will it be in the next two years?

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 18:50
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
Meanwhile, another possible delay will help the besieged F-35 catch its breath, the watchers said. If DAPA tweaks the program, it is foreseen to take about two years.

Development of the stealth jet has been delayed due to technical glitches and it is often the competitor’s punch line because critics say it is questionable if the aircraft will be delivered at a time Korea needs them.

“If the bidding is declared a failure, it will work to the F-35’s advantage because they will be given time to solve what critics attack,” Yang said."


I agree with this. Time favors the F-35. Is the F-15SE in the running anywhere else? or will it be in the next two years?

Japan selected the F-35. Saudis went with older F-15SA variants in a 2012 order, but that doesn't completely rule out a later purchase of the F-15SE.

The big concern for Boeing, is that the F-15SE is supposedly being co-developed with KAI, and so if the Korean AF doesn't buy the SE, then Boeing would be funding the R&D until an order is received.

There is also the possibility of a Israeli order for a F-15SE, but that hasn't been formerly requested or approved.

I haven't seen much talk of a Korean F/A-18F Block III+ buy, similar to the the F/A-18BR candidate fighter.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 19:46
by 131stfwfan
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Meanwhile, another possible delay will help the besieged F-35 catch its breath, the watchers said. If DAPA tweaks the program, it is foreseen to take about two years.

Development of the stealth jet has been delayed due to technical glitches and it is often the competitor’s punch line because critics say it is questionable if the aircraft will be delivered at a time Korea needs them.

“If the bidding is declared a failure, it will work to the F-35’s advantage because they will be given time to solve what critics attack,” Yang said."


I agree with this. Time favors the F-35. Is the F-15SE in the running anywhere else? or will it be in the next two years?

Japan selected the F-35. Saudis went with older F-15SA variants in a 2012 order, but that doesn't completely rule out a later purchase of the F-15SE.

The big concern for Boeing, is that the F-15SE is supposedly being co-developed with KAI, and so if the Korean AF doesn't buy the SE, then Boeing would be funding the R&D until an order is received.

There is also the possibility of a Israeli order for a F-15SE, but that hasn't been formerly requested or approved.

I haven't seen much talk of a Korean F/A-18F Block III+ buy, similar to the the F/A-18BR candidate fighter.


Well the F-15SA is a saving grace for Boeing because they get eighteen months to figure out the new fly-by-wire system, which was half the work for the Silent Eagle anyways.

Qatar has been looking at the Silent Eagle for a while now, and Singapore is still a small possibility... not that we would publicly know about the later.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 20:40
by lookieloo
131stfwfan wrote:Well the F-15SA is a saving grace for Boeing because they get eighteen months to figure out the new fly-by-wire system, which was half the work for the Silent Eagle anyways.
I rather doubt it. Dinking around with a modified CFT is one thing, revamping the entire control system is another. No American company is going self-fund a development program that extensive; so until someone sends Boeing some actual cash for the thing, SE remains stuck firmly on paper.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2013, 22:09
by neurotech
lookieloo wrote:
131stfwfan wrote:Well the F-15SA is a saving grace for Boeing because they get eighteen months to figure out the new fly-by-wire system, which was half the work for the Silent Eagle anyways.
I rather doubt it. Dinking around with a modified CFT is one thing, revamping the entire control system is another. No American company is going self-fund a development program that extensive; so until someone sends Boeing some actual cash for the thing, SE remains stuck firmly on paper.

@lookieloo: The F-15SA is scheduled for new digital fly-by-wire. The Royal Saudi Air Force, has already ordered upgraded F-15SA aircraft with FBW, so the cash is arriving.

I do somewhat agree that Boeing is in a tough spot, because its highly unlikely the USAF will order any more F-15s, and the best they can get from the USAF is upgrade contracts, and some support services for the SE program itself (at Boeing expense). Having said that, one of the biggest headaches with the F-22 is the skin maintenance that is expensive and time consuming, so the DoD funding RAM development in the F/A-18E/F and F-15SE programs is justifiable.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2013, 04:51
by 131stfwfan
lookieloo wrote:
131stfwfan wrote:Well the F-15SA is a saving grace for Boeing because they get eighteen months to figure out the new fly-by-wire system, which was half the work for the Silent Eagle anyways.
I rather doubt it. Dinking around with a modified CFT is one thing, revamping the entire control system is another. No American company is going self-fund a development program that extensive; so until someone sends Boeing some actual cash for the thing, SE remains stuck firmly on paper.


Boeing does have the money, Saudi Arabia is entirely funding the new Digital systems. It is because of that why the Silent Eagle would be easier to develop since a lot of the ground work is already being laid out. Add the conformal weapon bays, a little RCS reduction, JHMCS, IRST, and your basically done. Canted tails most likely wont be used. Obviously a considerable amount of development work would still be needed, but Boeing's in a better place now than before.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2013, 06:54
by lookieloo
131stfwfan wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
131stfwfan wrote:Well the F-15SA is a saving grace for Boeing because they get eighteen months to figure out the new fly-by-wire system, which was half the work for the Silent Eagle anyways.
I rather doubt it. Dinking around with a modified CFT is one thing, revamping the entire control system is another. No American company is going self-fund a development program that extensive; so until someone sends Boeing some actual cash for the thing, SE remains stuck firmly on paper.
Boeing does have the money, Saudi Arabia is entirely funding the new Digital systems. It is because of that why the Silent Eagle would be easier to develop since a lot of the ground work is already being laid out. Add the conformal weapon bays, a little RCS reduction, JHMCS, IRST, and your basically done. Canted tails most likely wont be used. Obviously a considerable amount of development work would still be needed, but Boeing's in a better place now than before.
You seem confused about the scale of what Boeing is proposing; this is about building fighters, not making soup. One does not simply add a little of this and a little of that to a 40+ year-old design and end up with something close to the F-35. What one actually ends up with is yet another big, expensive jet with a few extra pieces of equipment for the pilot to keep track of. It won't save them much (if any) money, and they will have few new capabilities to show for it. The Russians have been pulling this trick with their less-knowledgeable 3rd-world clients for years, but I'm rather surprised to see Korea taking it seriously. In any case, a ~2-year delay is most certainly NOT good for Boeing. That pushes things into the 2015 time-frame, and guess what else is happening that year while the SE is still a brochure? (Well, maybe I shouldn't be so cocky about F-35 IOC as sequestration furloughs might push that into early 2016)

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2013, 23:32
by geogen
^^ I actually think he has a pretty good scale of what Boeing is proposing, lookie. He's been avidly following production line developments for years and even has his own website dedicated to latest developments and includes self-produced flight test video.

That said, IOC will likely indeed be an issue for RoK, as (I believe) they are interested in a mature, Block 3F IOC baseline; not a Block 2B IOC in 2016, etc. as the USAF has been proposing. Late 2018 or 2019 is when RoK could probably first achieve their hypothetical F-35 block III IOC.

Although, a certain IOC timeframe would also be speculative for the proposed F-15SE-lite. It would possibly need to be an incrementally-upgraded F-15SE-lite platform as well(?); perhaps receiving some of the RCS reduction add-on and possibly even the Conformal Weapon Bay itself in follow-on integration? And I say 'F-15SE-lite' because, as 131st noted, the canted-tail is apparently no longer part of the design. I've personally felt they should just re-designate the concept as 'Super Eagle', or the Super-K+ and call it even.

That said, The F-35 would definitely have particular capabilities which the F-15K++ could not perform (e.g., EODAS, stealthy comms and computing performance), yet the F-15Super-K would also come employed with capabilities that the the block III F-35 could not perform. For instance, 1) the large aperture IRST coupled with next-gen Sniper SE pod would likely have superior passive targeting capability than the EOTS. 2) the (V)3 radar would likely have greater range than the F-35s kit (although, APG-82 for an F-15++ mod would be superior still). 3.) Two pilots might come in handy for certain missions. 4) superior range and endurance. And 5) proven integration for off-the-shelf Recon pods and ECM pods.

Cost wise -- when comparing an FY16 buy -- the F-15Super-K's Weapon system unit cost/Procurement might even be cheaper (yes, even when including the IRST, SNIPER and MAWS systems) than said LRIP F-35 and also when taking into account likely additional MILCON and infrastructure investment required specifically for the F-35. Stay tuned.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2013, 00:42
by bumtish
Hi Geogen,

F-35As for delivery in 2016 will come from LRIP 8 and be something around late block 2Bs or early 3Is. As for as I know it is only software which is the difference between 2B and 3F, so this should not be an issue. Further, the Koreans will use the first batches for conversion training and tactics development; a full operational standup would happen at ~2018, thus they would go operational with 3I with 3F a few years thereafter.

I also note that lots 5/6/7 are of the these quantities: 32/36/35, yet the price goes down 4% for each lot for a presumed (read that in AW?) $115M for a lot 7 F-35A. The 4% per lot is learning curve effect only! The lots are of similar size. LRIP 8 with 44 ea (so far) will be at least 25% larger than lot 7. Now the production rate effect will begin to kick in as well.

Finally, with a notional IOC of the A in 2016 it will be possible to go to (formal) MYP contracts, the IOC being a requirement for MYP/MYB. This is significant! It will yield serious reductions in price as well (I refer to various senate committee hearings on the subject, discussing various ways to implement F-22 contracts).

Thus, with LRIP 7 F-35As already in the same price band as the F-15Ks ordered previously, the F-35A will drop below in LRIP 8 and markedly in LRIP 9 and onwards when production rates really kick in. On top of further learning curve effects and the shift from LRIP to MYP contracts.

I have a hard time seeing a F-15K+further costs from additional development and gadgetery competing with this on unit procurement costs..

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2013, 06:25
by geogen
Well, it would seem that something will have to give in the F-X3 project, come bidding expected Aug 12-16.

The reported 8.3 Trillion Won procurement price cap currently equates to around $7.365B for 60 aircraft, or around $122.75 million per copy. That's just not enough budget to procure either 60 F-35 (procurement starting FY15 or LRIP-9), or the F-15Super-K (complete with AESA radar, weapon bay, IRST, MAWS) in my view. And I'm assuming the F-15K++ bid will include a complete weapon system; i.e. the actual weapon bay, radar, and other sensors that complete the aircraft.

Furthermore, RoK reportedly requires a FIXED cost (and reliable estimate for life cycle) under this FMS deal and there's just no way anyone can predict truly what an LRIP LOT 9,10 and 11 F-35A will eventually cost -- due to current unpredictable 'estimates' being tied directly to assumed order rates for those respective years. When the orders change, cost will most likely skyrocket from current low-ball Weapon System Unit Cost 'estimates'..

So my personal guess is that the F-X 3 project will need postponement and further review to decide on a restructured requirement and budget, etc. That is, expect either fewer than 60 aircraft to be required under a revised project, or an increased budget. Moreover, one could conceive of a delayed delivery schedule of possibly 2018-2021, instead of 2017-2020 as currently expected. Lastly, RoK wants tech transfer, period, in addition to industrial offsets. So as part of the F-35 'bid' under FMS, there will need to be confirmation of some tech transfer and probable component sub-assembly work, etc, as there is with both Typhoon and F-15 bid.

If 60 aircraft are absolutely determined as requirement however, and a $7.5B'ish fixed procurement cap is the final maximum budget, then it's conceivable too that there could be a 'mix' of say either F-35, Typhoon or F-15 procured, along with more affordable FA-50 to complement any hypothetically revised 60 unit F-K 3 requirement.

p.s. I'm very curious, but suspicious on the reported rumor/news that Boeing's bid will come within 3% under the Fixed price cap noted. If Boeing could truly deliver a total of 60 aircraft under semi-low rate production (including all avionics, sensors and stealthy Weapon bay) to satisfy the K-F 3 capabilities requirement, at a unit Weapon System Cost of around $125m (in then year dollars?), that is one helluva bargain and the USAF/others should also be seriously pondering that too.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2013, 18:56
by hb_pencil
bumtish wrote:Hi Geogen,

F-35As for delivery in 2016 will come from LRIP 8 and be something around late block 2Bs or early 3Is. As for as I know it is only software which is the difference between 2B and 3F, so this should not be an issue. Further, the Koreans will use the first batches for conversion training and tactics development; a full operational standup would happen at ~2018, thus they would go operational with 3I with 3F a few years thereafter.

I also note that lots 5/6/7 are of the these quantities: 32/36/35, yet the price goes down 4% for each lot for a presumed (read that in AW?) $115M for a lot 7 F-35A. The 4% per lot is learning curve effect only! The lots are of similar size. LRIP 8 with 44 ea (so far) will be at least 25% larger than lot 7. Now the production rate effect will begin to kick in as well.

Finally, with a notional IOC of the A in 2016 it will be possible to go to (formal) MYP contracts, the IOC being a requirement for MYP/MYB. This is significant! It will yield serious reductions in price as well (I refer to various senate committee hearings on the subject, discussing various ways to implement F-22 contracts).

Thus, with LRIP 7 F-35As already in the same price band as the F-15Ks ordered previously, the F-35A will drop below in LRIP 8 and markedly in LRIP 9 and onwards when production rates really kick in. On top of further learning curve effects and the shift from LRIP to MYP contracts.

I have a hard time seeing a F-15K+further costs from additional development and gadgetery competing with this on unit procurement costs..


Precisely. Really the competitive F-15SE only exists in a narrow window somewhere between 2015 and 2017. After that the F-35 enjoys FRP with an MYP... the latter's cost savings could be around 5 to 10% if the F-22 is any indication.* After 2018 the manufacturing scale and learning curve start to take hold and the F-35's: more efficiencies are discovered and the overhead is spread across a larger base.


*I don't believe the SAR estimates include MYP savings because #1: its a special contract provision. #2: MYP isn't easily modelable: there is a wide variation in projected and actual costs between programs.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2013, 20:11
by geogen
A narrow window somewhere between 2015 and 2017?? Um, that's precisely when RoKAF will procure it's jets! Within that window! And fwiw, FY18 is currently implied as LRIP too and is RoKAF's currently scheduled final buy year (planning to buy from 2015-2018). So therein is the issue for honest analysis and prudent decision making within the context of RoK's precise requirements. And flat out, the F-15 variant (or Typhoon) might just indeed not only be the cheaper LCC life cycle option, but also more reliable/less risky (considering so much development remains for a mature block 3F F-35) in terms of fulfilling capability requirements.

Now as far as F-35s whole FRP MYB factor is concerned, hypothetically starting in FY19's buy year, let's wait to see what the bigger worldwide recap reality and Program equation is actually looking like in FY16, FY17 and FY18 before we start nailing down Flyaway Costs.

What you note are relevant factors, yes, but the 'actual' unit costs will of course largely be contingent (as stated/implied officially) on maintaining the currently expected 3,000+ total production and very high combined annual production rates (150+/yr ?) expected/scheduled starting in FY19. And those estimates unfortunately just can't be nailed down yet anytime soon.

But back to RoKAF's potential requirements... down the road... who knows; if the finally mature F-35 is actually looking to be a reliable, capable jet and within an affordable cost target, say around 2020-2021, perhaps RoK could assess an affordable new-build block IV (design flaws-fixed et al) as part of any follow-on (manned/unmanned) KF-X type requirement mix??

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2013, 07:31
by spazsinbad
South Korea resumes bidding in jet fighter deal 02 Aug 2013 UPI
"..."DAPA decided to resume the bidding after taking all alternatives into consideration," DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyeong said in a briefing.

"There was a consensus that resuming the bidding under the same condition as the last one is the best option for national interest at this point."

However, DAPA said it will halt bidding again and make an alternative acquisition plan if the bidders fail to produce solutions within the government's budget.

"If no company offers a proposal within the budget, even after the bidding resumes, DAPA will restart the project from the beginning by revising the number of jets or increasing the budget," Baek said...."
[DUH]
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 375438080/

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2013, 17:04
by neurotech
One thing that bugs me about some of the chatter in the media about certain countries procurement, is the media act like they are all just passively buying jets from the factory, and these countries don't know how to develop an aircraft upgrade or manufacturing process. They have engineers, test pilots etc. who are more than capable of evaluating a new radar, or DFCS for a particular jet. Adding resources and test flights to a program could accelerate upgrades for an earlier IOC, if strategically required.

Korea is in the position of having the F-15K in service, and could conceivably upgrade certain components to reduce RCS. Newer F-16 Block 52+ series jets either built with or upgraded using HAVE GLASS technology. Boeing F/A-18E/F jets that come from St Louis have a surprising amount of RAM coatings and panels on them. It is likely, although not reported, that Boeing already have a low-cost, low-risk RCS reduction plan for the USAF F-15C/D/E jets.

I don't think the unit price per se, or the availability of F-35, F-15SE jets is dictating Korean purchase delays as much as political considerations.

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2013, 22:51
by discofishing
131stfwfan wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
131stfwfan wrote:Well the F-15SA is a saving grace for Boeing because they get eighteen months to figure out the new fly-by-wire system, which was half the work for the Silent Eagle anyways.
I rather doubt it. Dinking around with a modified CFT is one thing, revamping the entire control system is another. No American company is going self-fund a development program that extensive; so until someone sends Boeing some actual cash for the thing, SE remains stuck firmly on paper.


Boeing does have the money, Saudi Arabia is entirely funding the new Digital systems. It is because of that why the Silent Eagle would be easier to develop since a lot of the ground work is already being laid out. Add the conformal weapon bays, a little RCS reduction, JHMCS, IRST, and your basically done. Canted tails most likely wont be used. Obviously a considerable amount of development work would still be needed, but Boeing's in a better place now than before.


Where are you getting this information?

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2013, 04:41
by popcorn
discofishing wrote:
131stfwfan wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
131stfwfan wrote:Well the F-15SA is a saving grace for Boeing because they get eighteen months to figure out the new fly-by-wire system, which was half the work for the Silent Eagle anyways.
I rather doubt it. Dinking around with a modified CFT is one thing, revamping the entire control system is another. No American company is going self-fund a development program that extensive; so until someone sends Boeing some actual cash for the thing, SE remains stuck firmly on paper.


Boeing does have the money, Saudi Arabia is entirely funding the new Digital systems. It is because of that why the Silent Eagle would be easier to develop since a lot of the ground work is already being laid out. Add the conformal weapon bays, a little RCS reduction, JHMCS, IRST, and your basically done. Canted tails most likely wont be used. Obviously a considerable amount of development work would still be needed, but Boeing's in a better place now than before.


Where are you getting this information?


I think he's assuming that the Silent Eagle is essentially a F-15SA plus CWBs and possibly some stealth treatments. 1

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2013, 04:43
by neurotech
@lookieloo: Respectfully, How much confirmation do you require?

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... ywire.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-2 ... ree-06520/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-370494/
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... eagle-add/
JHMCS is already available for pilots in F-15Es, and maybe for WSOs too

The canted tail, conformal weapons bay, and all the projected RCS reduction mods have not been fully "implemented" at this time.
http://defense-update.com/20120914_silent_eagle.html

There is some question about the justification of the canted tails, as they require wind tunnel testing, although they do have RCS benefits.

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2013, 04:51
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2013, 15:15
by count_to_10
neurotech wrote:@lookieloo: Respectfully, How much confirmation do you require?

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... ywire.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-2 ... ree-06520/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-370494/
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... eagle-add/
JHMCS is already available for pilots in F-15Es, and maybe for WSOs too

The canted tail, conformal weapons bay, and all the projected RCS reduction mods have not been fully "implemented" at this time.
http://defense-update.com/20120914_silent_eagle.html

There is some question about the justification of the canted tails, as they require wind tunnel testing, although they do have RCS benefits.

Aren't the canted tails only useful for reducing RCS in the side-on aspect? Given the flat sides of the F-15's cockpit and nose, would it really make a relevant amount of difference?

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2013, 19:40
by neurotech
count_to_10 wrote:
neurotech wrote:@lookieloo: Respectfully, How much confirmation do you require?

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... ywire.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-2 ... ree-06520/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-370494/
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... eagle-add/
JHMCS is already available for pilots in F-15Es, and maybe for WSOs too

The canted tail, conformal weapons bay, and all the projected RCS reduction mods have not been fully "implemented" at this time.
http://defense-update.com/20120914_silent_eagle.html

There is some question about the justification of the canted tails, as they require wind tunnel testing, although they do have RCS benefits.

Aren't the canted tails only useful for reducing RCS in the side-on aspect? Given the flat sides of the F-15's cockpit and nose, would it really make a relevant amount of difference?

I don't know for sure, but I suspect you are largely correct. The canted tail would definitely reduce the side RCs, but I suspect it may have a small but "significant" effect on the frontal RCS, as there is are various tail components adding to frontal RCS.

As for the canopy/cockpit RCS, if Boeing wanted to modifiy the canopy/cockpit exterior for RCS reduction, they could, and it wouldn't be a major undertaking, except for wind-tunnel testing. As I've commented before, the F/A-18E/F is RCS reduced (LO) without external stores/ordinance. They can apply similar changes to the RCS of the F-15SE.

I'm not sure how they'll reduce the engine fan/intake RCS without major changes. In the F-22, there is a lot of RAM panels in the intake, and if a panel piece goes into the engine, its significant mishap ($1m+, not current Class-A level, but could be class-E engine contained mishap for legal purposes). I haven't heard of any F/A-18E/Fs or F-35s having an RAM panel ingestion mishaps.

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2013, 19:54
by count_to_10
neurotech wrote:I don't know for sure, but I suspect you are largely correct. The canted tail would definitely reduce the side RCs, but I suspect it may have a small but "significant" effect on the frontal RCS, as there is are various tail components adding to frontal RCS.

As for the canopy/cockpit RCS, if Boeing wanted to modifiy the canopy/cockpit exterior for RCS reduction, they could, and it wouldn't be a major undertaking, except for wind-tunnel testing. As I've commented before, the F/A-18E/F is RCS reduced (LO) without external stores/ordinance. They can apply similar changes to the RCS of the F-15SE.

I'm not sure how they'll reduce the engine fan/intake RCS without major changes. In the F-22, there is a lot of RAM panels in the intake, and if a panel piece goes into the engine, its significant mishap ($1m+, not current Class-A level, but could be class-E engine contained mishap for legal purposes). I haven't heard of any F/A-18E/Fs or F-35s having an RAM panel ingestion mishaps.

I suppose they might be able to do some vertical serpentining the way that the Russians are doing with the PAK-FA, but that would still be a lot of work.
I wonder if their are some interference effects between parallel rudders that show up in frontal cross sections.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 17:28
by slowman.
The threat became materialized. The DAPA's negotiation with the USAF FMS representatives broke down between the bidding suspension and the remaining bidders Boeing and EADS Cassidian have received the assurance that the DAPA would not select the F-35. This was the assurance that two remaining bidders have been waiting for, as remaining bidders did not want to submit aggressive pricing bids in a contest with no realstic hopes of a win because that would affect their future price positions in subsequent international sales negotiations.

Of two bidders, Boeing indicated it would bid on budget. EADS Cassidian's position is less clear, as they are weighing the benefits and risks of an on-budget bid.

So while the F-35 met its first defeat in an international open-bid fighter competition, this may not be the end of F-35's story in Korea yet. The defense ministry just began the process of readying two carriers operational by 2030; these carriers as currently designed are 250 m long Mistal-like LHDs that can operate only F-35Bs, thereby necessitating the FMS purchase of 40 F-35Bs. Of course, this faces obstacles, as the ROK navy is calling for an upgrade to full CTOL/STOBAR carriers in the face of Japanese and Chinese carriers entering service, and a lobby from shipyards that claim they could build regular carriers for only fractions more than the cost of planned LHDs.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... -jets-week

S. Korea to open final bidding for fighter jets this week

"Any aircraft that exceed the 8.3 trillion won budget will not be selected," DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said in a briefing.


haavarla wrote:If funding is the Major problem.. one would think there is only one solution. Why can't SC just do a quick u turn, and order fewer jets.


The DAPA has no authority to change the order quantity. The DAPA must buy the required number of equipment within the approved budget by the parliament. An adjustment of these terms require a new parliamentary authorization.

gtx wrote:I think it is a case of SK wanting to "have their cake and eat it too" - i.e. get 60 aircraft but only pay what they have budgeted. At the end of the day one side or another will have to give way - either the budget is increased or the requirement is reduced.

Or one of desperate bidders bite the bait.

lookieloo wrote:]Sounds as if this fellow is getting his updates from SlowMan.

Actually it is the other way around. I was simply relaying what I was reading off the press as is.

Conspiracy theory for the day: Does anyone else think the DoD is making an example of Korea to show what will happen to partners if they withdraw from their commitments now and try to buy FRP planes through FMS later?

More like there is more pressure on Canada to go open bid.

popcorn wrote:If reports are accurate that Boeing is at just over $200M over the budget and LM is more than a $Billion more, then the former may just decide to,stand firm and wait for the Koreans to ask Parliament for a bigger budget in which case they would still enjoy a price advantage.

Or just cut that $200 million cost overrun and take home the contract. There are many ways to make back that $200 million discount afterward.

XanderCrews wrote:My favorite slowman story was on another forum, when talking about Korea's future indigenous fighter, he said that Korea needed to build its own fighters because F-16s needed to return all the way back to the united states for repair

You are confusing F-35 with F-16. International F-35s do need to go to their designated FACO for service, Japanese FACO in case of Korea which is unacceptable to the ROKAF and they must go to Guam or mainland US instead.

In case of F-15Ks, only the avionics subsystem needed to be returned to the US for repair which took 200~360 days turnaround, but Boeing's promise of building an MRO within Korea near the F-15K base solves this problem.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 22:54
by XanderCrews
Oh it never gets old reporting Slowman.

slowman. wrote:In case of F-15Ks, only the avionics subsystem needed to be returned to the US for repair which took 200~360 days turnaround,.


pathetic if true.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 23:14
by slowman.
XanderCrews wrote:pathetic if true.

Well it is true, and this is what most international F-15/16/35 jet operators face in terms of maintenance and repair.

At least Boeing's trying to do something about it with that local avionics MRO which will carry out the repairs near the F-15K base with a greatly reduced turnaround time, and this is the Silent Eagle's selling point, the best service turnaround time of three with localized repairs.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 23:29
by lookieloo
Anyone care to start a pool on how many posts ^^he^^ lasts this time?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2013, 23:36
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:pathetic if true.

Well it is true, and this is what most international F-15/16/35 jet operators face in terms of maintenance and repair.


sure it is buddy. Your credibility is always so high :lol:

lookieloo wrote:Anyone care to start a pool on how many posts ^^he^^ lasts this time?


5. All new names can only post 5 a day, and he already shot his wad

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 02:16
by SpudmanWP
Ah.... the "F-35 will have to go back to CONUS (or a FACO) for repairs" meme :)

The F-35's global sustainment plan calls for a global family of repair and upgrade sites called Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul & Upgrade (MRO&U). It's up to the partner nations to bid and build these facilities if they want them.

The Global supply chain and maintenance plan comes in 4 basic flavors.
Global MRO&U Capability Will be Sized and Located to Support the Fleet

Warehousing
• Storage and Management of parts
• Global capacity for parts
• Part of F-35 global supply chain system

Airframe MRO&U
• Depot level airframe maintenance capability
• Mods, Retrofits, Upgrades (so no FACO or CONUS for Block upgrades either)

Support Equipment
• Depot level maintenance
• Mods and upgrades
• Maintenance Management

Component MRO&U
• Avionic & System Components
• Maintenance, Repairs and modification

The F-35 Program needs potential suppliers to work with existing suppliers to become licensed/approved bodies.

• Rather than sending equipment back to its OEM on another continent, we want to achieve the global capability to accomplish MRO&U within the deployed aircraft’s region.

• Commercial Depots will act as “sub-suppliers” for the systems they perform services on.
Source1
Source2

The Partners will have the options to cooperate in order to share MRO&U capability with the goal to costs as opposed to each building one of every MRO&U type.
On 30 March 2006 the national armaments directors of Italy and the Netherlands signed an agreement that marks the first significant example of strong European synergy within transatlantic cooperation. The agreement sets out to identify two important areas of cooperation. On one hand “an aircraft Final Assembly & Check Out (Faco) capability, to be established in Italy, in which to build and verify on the ground and in the air the Jsf aircraft that will be acquired by Italy and the Netherlands, as a starting point for a future higher-level maintenance and repair capability for the fighters.”

On the other, “a Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul & Upgrade (Mro&U) capability for the engine and some aircraft equipment, to be established in the Netherlands, which will maintain, repair, overhaul and modify such parts, for those aircraft which will be purchased by the two countries.”
Source3

Turkey has recently signed a contract for the F135
Furthermore, TAI has signed a strategic agreement with Pratt and Whitney and will become the future engine FACO and MRO&U lead in country and in the region.
Source4

Looking at the Canadian docs, we can see that they are being offered to join many parts of the MRO&U.
CanadianIP Opportunities fall into Three Categories
–Products
•Sustainment Hardware Production (SE, ALIS, Training, MRO&U Equipment)
•CA Sustainment Infrastructure Stand-Up

–Processes
•CA Sustainment Integration (with existing systems)
•Sustainment Business Operations

–Services
•CA Sustainment Management(NOC)
•CA Sustainment O&M (Airframe MRO&U, System/Component MRO&U, SE MRO&U, Training O&M, ALIS O&M, Retail Warehouse)
•Sustainment Strategic O&M Capabilities (Global & Regional MRO&U & Warehouse)
Source5

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 18:52
by spazsinbad
Is F-15 Silent Eagle in pole position? 13 Aug 2013 Kang Seung-woo
"With the “final” bidding for Korea’s next-generation fighter program underway, the procurement price of 8.3 trillion won ($7.5 billion) is taking center stage, which puts Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle (SE) in the contender position.

However, military watchers say that a price-focused selection of 60 F-15 SEs may doom the Korean Air force's goal of boosting its strength due to lesser capabilities than those being hyped.

The F-15 is up against Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company’s (EADS) Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon in the Air Force program to buy 60 combat planes to replace its obsolete fleet of F-4s and F-5s.

The three-day bidding started Tuesday and is scheduled to last through Friday.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) carried out a total of 55 bidding sessions for three weeks between June and July, but no offer was within the required budget, with Boeing reportedly being closest to the ceiling price.

“Although price accounts for only 15 percent in the selection process, it completely controls the bidding, which makes no sense,” said Shin In-kyun, president of the Korea Defense Network.

“The defense industry is concerned that the arms procurement agency may pick the F-15 based on just the price rather than performance and other features. Such a selection can turn out to be a typical waste of money,” said Yang Uk, a senior research fellow at the Korea Defense and Security Forum (KDSF).

The Air Force is keen to purchase the F-35 to balance military power across the Asia-Pacific region considering its stealth capability. Currently, China is developing stealth fighters and Japan plans to acquire a total of 42 F-35s...."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 41028.html

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 19:21
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Is F-15 Silent Eagle in pole position? 13 Aug 2013 Kang Seung-woo
"With the “final” bidding for Korea’s next-generation fighter program underway, the procurement price of 8.3 trillion won ($7.5 billion) is taking center stage, which puts Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle (SE) in the contender position.

However, military watchers say that a price-focused selection of 60 F-15 SEs may doom the Korean Air force's goal of boosting its strength due to lesser capabilities than those being hyped.

The F-15 is up against Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company’s (EADS) Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon in the Air Force program to buy 60 combat planes to replace its obsolete fleet of F-4s and F-5s.

The three-day bidding started Tuesday and is scheduled to last through Friday.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) carried out a total of 55 bidding sessions for three weeks between June and July, but no offer was within the required budget, with Boeing reportedly being closest to the ceiling price.

“Although price accounts for only 15 percent in the selection process, it completely controls the bidding, which makes no sense,” said Shin In-kyun, president of the Korea Defense Network.

“The defense industry is concerned that the arms procurement agency may pick the F-15 based on just the price rather than performance and other features. Such a selection can turn out to be a typical waste of money,” said Yang Uk, a senior research fellow at the Korea Defense and Security Forum (KDSF).

The Air Force is keen to purchase the F-35 to balance military power across the Asia-Pacific region considering its stealth capability. Currently, China is developing stealth fighters and Japan plans to acquire a total of 42 F-35s...."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 41028.html
Hoisted by their own petard. LM/DoD saw through this silly game and didn't give them the price-war they wanted. Doing so would have set a bad precedent for the future deals and been a slap in the face to less-spastic customers/partners who've stuck with the program. Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands had best take note; backing out from within the programs means having no input and paying FMS prices... or buying something inferior.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 19:41
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:
lookieloo wrote:Anyone care to start a pool on how many posts ^^he^^ lasts this time?


5. All new names can only post 5 a day, and he already shot his wad
Looks like the janitors are slow this week. The pool idea is still open; winner gets to pick a military charity for participants to send $5.00 American. Wagers must include link to a favorite troll-post (not necessarily one of slowman's).

I'm guessing he lasts 15

As for my favorite troll-post... here's one from rkap (who I suspect is a staff sock-puppet); I picked it because it's dated on Halloween.:devil: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ht=#234199

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 19:52
by gtx
Oh slow man, why don't you go back to sniffing whatever glue it is that you use...

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 19:57
by gtx
surely the mods can simply put a ban in place that prevents this wanker from continually re-entering? After the third time it gets all too boring see ing the same garbage rolled out by this idiot..

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 20:03
by slowman.
lookieloo wrote:Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands had best take note; backing out from within the programs means having no input and paying FMS prices... or buying something inferior.


You can bet that upon the conclusion of the bidding Canadian, Belgian, and Dutch press( on top of Denmark which is already going open bidding) is going to flood with articles comparing Boeing's winning sales terms vs their existing terms of F-35 program participation and urge the government officials to go open bidding, citing the Korean example of how much more value they could get if they did so. That would like half of 8 partner nations that could go open bidding as the result of the Korean F-X's outcome, and this is the situation that Boeing is trying to create with its hard-won victory in the Korean F-X.

Heck, Lockheed even threw in a free military communication satellite in orbit(manufacturing and launching included free of charge) in its Korean offer in addition to a long list of benefits worth 4.8 billion dollars, now how many JSF partner nations were offered free geosynchronous mil-com satellites if they bought F-35?

What's shocking is that even that's considered a poor offset term relative to the other two bidder's terms

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 20:24
by SpudmanWP
Winning Boeing sales terms????

India = nope
Japan = nope
Switzerland = nope
UAE = nope
Brazil = It does not look good (it’s France’s contest to loose)
Canada = Not likely

Remind me again what Boeing has won recently?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 20:32
by spazsinbad
Perhaps this idea will stop the 'SlowmanOfSteal'? NSA leaks make plan for cyberdefense unlikely 13 Aug 2013

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/2013 ... =219354561

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 20:45
by neurotech
@SpudmanWP: Do you have a reference to confirm Brazil favoring the Rafale. Boeing made them a pretty generous offer regarding costs and ToT. I agree that Canada buying Super Hornets is unlikely.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 21:11
by SpudmanWP
Brazil has had an "on again, off again" bidding process with Rafale being announced as the winner several times.

Like I said, it's Rafale's to loose, not Boeing's to win.

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2013, 23:53
by gtx
I agree that in Brazil it is Rafale's to loose. Although the recent reporting that the Mirage 2000s are being retired (replaced by F-5Ms) won't help the cause. Moreover, the apparent reporting of the high maintenance costs of the Dassault product won't help either. Neither will be France's apparent reducing of future Rafale requirements.

Maybe the Indian purchase (if the contract gets signed) will help offset some of this but I wouldn't be too sure there.

Ultimately Brazil might not even decide to buy a new platform and instead just look at second hand or similar deals. A lease option along the lines of some of the Gripen deals would have to be attractive in this case.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 00:10
by hobo
lose
verb (used with object)
1.
to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.
2.
to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.
3.
to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.
4.
to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister.
5.
to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure


loose
adjective
1.
free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end.
2.
free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around in alleyways at night.
3.
uncombined, as a chemical element.
4.
not bound together: to wear one's hair loose.
5.
not put up in a package or other container: loose mushrooms.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 00:14
by neurotech
gtx wrote:I agree that in Brazil it is Rafale's to loose. Although the recent reporting that the Mirage 2000s are being retired (replaced by F-5Ms) won't help the cause. Moreover, the apparent reporting of the high maintenance costs of the Dassault product won't help either. Neither will be France's apparent reducing of future Rafale requirements.

Maybe the Indian purchase (if the contract gets signed) will help offset some of this but I wouldn't be too sure there.

Ultimately Brazil might not even decide to buy a new platform and instead just look at second hand or similar deals. A lease option along the lines of some of the Gripen deals would have to be attractive in this case.

Gripen lease looks attractive on paper, but is more expensive than just buying the jets, especially when service life of 20+ years is involved. F-16 MLU jets are available second hand, but the cost is still somewhat high.

If they wanted to save cash short term, then buying F-5E/Fs second hand might be a viable option as they already fly F-5(E)Ms. They don't seem to be interested in the KAI F/A-50, which is cheaper to buy than the Gripen NG, and has some good performance features.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 01:19
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:
gtx wrote:I agree that in Brazil it is Rafale's to loose. Although the recent reporting that the Mirage 2000s are being retired (replaced by F-5Ms) won't help the cause. Moreover, the apparent reporting of the high maintenance costs of the Dassault product won't help either. Neither will be France's apparent reducing of future Rafale requirements.

Maybe the Indian purchase (if the contract gets signed) will help offset some of this but I wouldn't be too sure there.

Ultimately Brazil might not even decide to buy a new platform and instead just look at second hand or similar deals. A lease option along the lines of some of the Gripen deals would have to be attractive in this case.

Gripen lease looks attractive on paper, but is more expensive than just buying the jets, especially when service life of 20+ years is involved. F-16 MLU jets are available second hand, but the cost is still somewhat high.

If they wanted to save cash short term, then buying F-5E/Fs second hand might be a viable option as they already fly F-5(E)Ms. They don't seem to be interested in the KAI F/A-50, which is cheaper to buy than the Gripen NG, and has some good performance features.


I can't find it, but I think Richard Aboulafia had an excellent paper discussing how the current manufacturers have completely abandoned the low end of the market; basically aircraft under the $70 million dollar mark. The only competitor is the F/A-50, or the second hand market. This is a huge area of potential, as many smaller countries in the second and third world have aging kit that require replacement.

A bit of quick math for you. The Czechs have paid approximately $984USD million between 2004 and 2014 to lease 14 Gripens. They were considering another 10 years of operation at about 717 million. So its 1.7 billion dollars, roughly for 14 aircraft and 20 years. Now Canada will purchase 65 aircraft at about 9 billion. That's 4.3 times the number of aircraft as the Czechs... multiplying it up gets a cost of $7.31 billion... however you're looking at only 20 years (versus 30 or 40 years of ownership) for a vastly improved fighter. There are also costs that don't transfer over: I haven't looked at the Czech agreement too closely, but its possible that an equivalent cost would be around $6 billion dollars for 65 F-35s for Canada as this would only be only unit acquisition. That is because I'm not sure the lease includes set up costs, initial training ect that are included in the Canadian estimates.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 04:59
by neurotech
I still don't really understand how the Czech deal is structured so it actually makes sense for anything more than a stop-gap (5-10 years max.) I think "option to purchase" is included in the 10 year plan. In the Swiss deal the FMS equivalent price seems to be ~$150m to purchase. The Indian MMRCA Gripen was quoted at $48m each vs $55m UFC for the F/A-18IN. The RAAF F/A-18Fs cost about $100m FMS each, so either my math is off, or the Gripen is a really expensive jet.

I'd be interested to read the Richard Aboulafia paper if you do find it somewhere. It's ironic that both the F-16 and F/A-18 were originally planned as LWFs.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 05:58
by lookieloo
hb_pencil wrote:I can't find it, but I think Richard Aboulafia had an excellent paper discussing how the current manufacturers have completely abandoned the low end of the market; basically aircraft under the $70 million dollar mark. The only competitor is the F/A-50, or the second hand market. This is a huge area of potential, as many smaller countries in the second and third world have aging kit that require replacement.
Don't forget the JF-17 and Tejas. Of course, the reality is that such fighters don't do very well on the export market because most turd-world politicians/strongmen don't like being told they'd be better off in the kiddie-pool.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 06:18
by neurotech
lookieloo wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:I can't find it, but I think Richard Aboulafia had an excellent paper discussing how the current manufacturers have completely abandoned the low end of the market; basically aircraft under the $70 million dollar mark. The only competitor is the F/A-50, or the second hand market. This is a huge area of potential, as many smaller countries in the second and third world have aging kit that require replacement.
Don't forget the JF-17 and Tejas. Of course, the reality is that such fighters don't do very well on the export market because most turd-world politicians/strongmen don't like being told they'd be better off in the kiddie-pool.
:lol:

I thought they call them fighter-trainers and keep 6-8 Flankers for the annual flyover events. Besides, are the JF-17 and Teja actually offered for export. Pakistan and China co-developed the JF-17 so that doesn't really count as export.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 07:22
by lookieloo
neurotech wrote:Pakistan and China co-developed the JF-17 so that doesn't really count as export.
Exactly. These F-20 type platforms, are quite popular as local/indigenous programs (F-CK-1, FA-50, JF-17, Tejas, original Gripen); but despite their low costs (well, not so much with Gripen), they have little potential on the 3rd-world market, where politics and presentation matter more than practical military concerns for the most-part. There's also the growing popularity of demanding full technology-transfer/domestic-production, for which these types offer little benefit.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 08:42
by spazsinbad
Brazil may reject US fighter jet deal over NSA spying scandal RT August 13, 2013
"Brazilian officials have expressed reluctance to purchasing dozens of military planes from the US after it was revealed that the NSA not only closely monitored Brazilian energy and military affairs, but also mined for commercial secrets.

The US had planned to sell Brazil – a country in the process of revitalizing its Air Force – 36 fighter jets in a deal worth more than US$4 billion. But when US Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff on Tuesday, the leaders will not discuss the deal, a source near to the situation told Reuters.

Kerry traveled to Colombia before making his way to Brazil in an attempt to repair relations with Latin American nations after NSA leaker Edward Snowden disclosed documents showing that the US spied on communications related to the military, political and terror issues, and energy policies.

“We cannot talk about the fighters now…You cannot give such a contract to a country that you do not trust,” the source said.

Chicago-based Boeing Co. is competing for the $4 billion contract against France’s Rafale and Sweden’s Gripen, although the longer Brazil goes without choosing, the more likely it is that other competitors will enter the fray.

Rousseff delayed a decision on the fighter jets because of budget woes and widespread demonstrations protesting austerity and government corruption.

“I don’t expect the president to decide on the fighter contract this year, and next year is an election year so it might have to wait until 2015,” a Brazilian government source said...."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/brazil-may- ... andal.html

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 09:25
by neurotech
And in other news... "Brazil may reject the Rafale over concerns the bid was adjusted based on information obtained by French intelligence to improve their selection". I would find it hard to believe that the Brazilians didn't have some idea of what the NSA was up to. Just because it wasn't previously on the front page of the NY times, doesn't mean foreign governments weren't aware.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 13:46
by popcorn
What Manning giveth, Snowden taketh away...LOL


http://brazilianbubble.com/wikileaks-ex ... ent-money/

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 14:46
by XanderCrews
I still can't connect, the F-35 losing in Korea suddenly leading to a world wide domino effect. But thats slowman:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... 86.90.html

(watch him try to say that F-16s must be flown back to the states for major maintenance before being told that Korean F-16s are built in Korea)

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 15:13
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:I still can't connect, the F-35 losing in Korea suddenly leading to a world wide domino effect. But thats slowman:


It's the famous Butterfly Effect.LOL

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 15:47
by SpudmanWP
hobo wrote:lose vs. loose


Thanks... auto-correct is a bitch and spelling was never my best subject.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 15:54
by slowman.
neurotech wrote:I thought they call them fighter-trainers and keep 6-8 Flankers for the annual flyover events. Besides, are the JF-17 and Teja actually offered for export. Pakistan and China co-developed the JF-17 so that doesn't really count as export.

Tejas, not yet. JF-17, yes.

XanderCrews wrote:I still can't connect, the F-35 losing in Korea suddenly leading to a world wide domino effect.

This is because the JSF partner nations get to see the terms of F-35 FMS sales term, and then realize that it's much better than what they are getting from the US as JSF partners, so they should too go open bidding because they would get much more even if their preference is still for the F-35.

Lockheed Martin offered five billion dollars worth of offsets all to be delivered before 2021; and these are actual goods and services consisting of milcom satellite in orbit, tons of software and training systems not related to the F-35, engineering services related to KFX on top of parts sourcing, and not some parts sourcing contracts that JSF partner nations get that span over 30 years. And remember, Lockheed's offset offer is supposed to be the worst offer of three bids.

You bet the JSF partner nation's politicians will demand their acquisition programs to go open bidding once they get the chance to compare Lockheed's offer to Korea vs what they currently have.

(watch him try to say that F-16s must be flown back to the states for major maintenance before being told that Korean F-16s are built in Korea)

Can you quote that part?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 15:55
by slowman.
nt

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 16:18
by XanderCrews
This is because the JSF partner nations get to see the terms of F-35 FMS sales term, and then realize that it's much better than what they are getting from the US as JSF partners, so they should too go open bidding because they would get much more even if their preference is still for the F-35.


Not even close to true. and why would 9 partner nations want an FMS? They are getting far better deals and offsets than they would with the FMS after a withdrawal.

If the F-35 wins in Korea, great slowman was wrong. If the F-35 loses in Korea and no one changes Slowman is still wrong.

either way, slowman is wrong. This is they same guy who has been telling us the F-35 is out of the running and the SE is shoe in for years as well. Still waiting for the announcement. This should have been easily decided by now

You bet the JSF partner nation's politicians will demand their acquisition programs to go open bidding once they get the chance to compare Lockheed's offer to Korea vs what they currently have.


You mean that sweet deal that according to you Korea isn't even interested in?

Other countries are suddenly going to launch into open bidding for a deal that was never made? "we want what korea didn't get!!" would be a great rallying cry.

Can you quote that part?


That would be like you providing a source.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 18:02
by neurotech
The problem with the Korean F-35 "bid" is the JSF partner workshare is has been mainly settled. Getting enhanced Lockheed support for the F/A-50 and the KFX program is worth more to the Koreans than any workshare from other F-35 purchasers (partner or FMS).

In my opinion, the F-35 is the best value fighter currently offered for sale. The F/A-18E/F jet has its advantages, but price really isn't one of them, unless compared to the Gripen NG, Eurofighter or Rafale. In FY2018 the F-35 will most likely be cheaper than the F/A-18F due to FRP production volume of the F-35.

We shall see if the JF-17 gets any export orders, but there may be geopolitical complications involved in selection of a Chinese jet over say a F-16 or MiG-29

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2013, 18:43
by SpudmanWP
While it is true that the basic breakdown of the workshare is set, LM & P&W and still offer SK industries the opportunity to bid on its portion of the workshare in addition to the workshare of SK planes. We saw this happen with Israel (400 wing sets) and Japan. This way the partners will still get additional orders for their workshare components and the buying nations gets long-term workshare contracts.

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2013, 15:12
by mk82
Slow brains sure brightens up my day.......such amusing stupidity!!

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 04:10
by slowman.
Multiple newspapers and TV news are now confirming two on-budget bids on the last day of bidding, from Boeing and EADS Cassidian. The F-35 is officially out.

The winner will be picked from the choices of the Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/politics/20 ... 00043.HTML

Google translate

Eurofighter · F-15SE, FX prices to meet present expenses

Expenses exceed 8.3 trillion won virtually eliminated F-35A views

(AP) Kim Ho-jun reporter = next fighter (FX) the last 16 days of the date of the bid price Eurofighter (EADS) and the F-15SE (Boeing) have formulated our government to meet the total project cost was known to be present prices.

The other hand, is an agreement between the government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) method is applied to F-35A (Lockheed Martin) to meet the total project cost can not provide prices that are likely to be virtually eliminated as is observed.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 09:04
by weasel1962
The Typhoon couldn't beat the F-15K. Can't see it getting the contract against the F-15SE. I don't read this as the death knell for the Korean F-35. More like a delay to the introduction.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 09:09
by eagleowl
weasel1962 wrote:The Typhoon couldn't beat the F-15K. Can't see it getting the contract against the F-15SE. I don't read this as the death knell for the Korean F-35. More like a delay to the introduction.

Probably some Bs for a possible future pocket carrier (Power projection eff yea! Maximum e-peen waving potential!) or As for when the KF-X program goes wrong.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 10:14
by spazsinbad
Why the F-35? website: http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... ation.html

Leads to this website which I cannot access on dialup speed: http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8867/B ... an_Fighter

May be interestin' - or not? I'll be bock on broadband speed tomorra. :D

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 10:25
by slowman.
weasel1962 wrote:The Typhoon couldn't beat the F-15K. Can't see it getting the contract against the F-15SE.

EADS Cassidian would not have submitted the on-budget price of $7.5 billion for 60 jets + 67 sets of engines if they weren't confident that they would get a fair evaluation. And they were holding out until the DAPA gave them a hint that the F-35 was out of contest. The reason for this is that the price they submit in the Korean contest is used as a reference price for subsequent contests elsewhere, and $7.5 billion is the price level that BAE quoted to Japan for 42 Typhoons in the Japan F-X contest, so you can see the massive discount that EADS Cassidian applied on its bid.

I don't read this as the death knell for the Korean F-35. More like a delay to the introduction.

That depends on the construction of the next two carriers as 22DDH sized LHDs as currently planned and not as CATOBAR/STOBAR carriers, which is what the ROK Navy is pushing for in the light of enhanced threats from China and Japan.

eagleowl wrote:As for when the KF-X program goes wrong.

In that case, the likely option would be the licensed production of the F-X winning bidder's existing model with local avionics, radar, and RAM coating, not F-35.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 10:33
by slowman.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 0315F.html

S. Korea's fighter jet project becomes two-way race
2013/08/16 16:47

SEOUL, Aug. 16 (Yonhap) -- In a last-ditch effort to win South Korea's fighter jet project, two of the three bidders -- Boeing and EADS -- offered proposals below the state budget of 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) during the final bidding on Friday, government officials and industry sources said.

The third company, Lockheed Martin, selling its F-35 stealth jets through the foreign military sales (FMS) program, offered a price higher than Seoul's budget, according to sources, effectively being eliminated from the race to win the country's largest arms procurement deal.

As the bidding process ended, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the jets and officially announce the winner next month.

"As there were companies that offered price within the program budget, we will proceed to the next step," DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said in a press briefing, without elaborating the names citing the ongoing procedure.

"Although all jets will be evaluated, aircraft exceeding the budget will not be qualified for the contract," Baek said.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 10:44
by haavarla
Interesting.
But i duobt we will ever see an full blod F-15SE on the table.. too costly.
It would be a slightly pimped-up Slammer i'd say.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 20:42
by gtx
My prediction of this should a purchase even go ahead (which is still not guaranteed in this farce of an acquisition program): Even if a platform is selected that is under the price cap, it will come out costing far more at the end of the day. This has certainly happened numerous times before around the world when a platform is selected on price alone. If that is the only sticking pint in negotiations, companies will give a price that suits and then later when the buyer is already committed basically say, "so sorry, price going to be higher...but what you going to do??"

And if either the Typhoon or F-15SE are selected than the South Koreans have just proven themselves idiots as they have selected the second class solutions. they will sit there looking enviously at their US, Japanese and other allies in a few years time as they are flying the F-35 alongside/in front of the South Korean pilots...

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 21:11
by slowman.
gtx wrote:My prediction of this should a purchase even go ahead (which is still not guaranteed in this farce of an acquisition program):

It will go ahead and will have a winner soon, because the ROKAF is desperate for new jets to replace retiring F-4s and will take any new combat-ready jet that could be delivered in the 2017~2021 time period. An ROAKF senior official commented off the record(meaning his name is not disclosed) that his air force was perfectly fine with a possible Typhoon selection and has no issues that. The worst thing that could happen to the ROKAF at this point is a delay.

it will come out costing far more at the end of the day.

Both the Silent Eagle and Typhoon are offered on DCS firm fixed pricing terms; pricing is legally guaranteed.

companies will give a price that suits and then later when the buyer is already committed basically say, "so sorry, price going to be higher...but what you going to do??"

Go to court?

And if either the Typhoon or F-15SE are selected than the South Koreans have just proven themselves idiots as they have selected the second class solutions.

The F-X jet's primary job is to kill Chinese J-20 and Japanese F-35 when necessary. Now which jet makes the best F-35 killer? An F-35?

It is just like how India dropped the F-16 Block 70 in the first round of MMRCA; India will not operate jet also operated by its enemy Pakistan due to IFF issues. The same goes for Korea which would not want to operate a jet also operated by its enemy Japan, because the F-35 vs F-35 WVR dogfight is rather messy and confusing.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 21:17
by lookieloo
lookieloo wrote:I wouldn't start making plans to crow in Slowman's face just yet. The F-35 may be at a disadvantage with a hard cost-ceiling.
^^^ Looks like I was right (my post from two months ago). Even back then it was obvious that the Koreans were painting themselves into a corner. Now we'll just have to see what happens when they eventually decide to replace their older F-16s. In the meantime, just feel sorry for the poor Korean pilots with whom the Japanese/Chinese/Russians will soon be toying.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 21:22
by gtx
slowman. wrote:
it will come out costing far more at the end of the day.

Both the Silent Eagle and Typhoon are offered on DCS firm fixed pricing terms; pricing is legally guaranteed.

companies will give a price that suits and then later when the buyer is already committed basically say, "so sorry, price going to be higher...but what you going to do??"

Go to court?


Oh, the naivety is strong in this one...

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 21:23
by SpudmanWP
slowman. wrote:
it will come out costing far more at the end of the day.

Both the Silent Eagle and Typhoon are offered on DCS firm fixed pricing terms; pricing is legally guaranteed.
Don't forget that 33% of the contract is FMS.

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/3 ... _13-11.pdf

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 21:25
by gtx
slowman. wrote:The F-X jet's primary job is to kill Chinese J-20 and Japanese F-35 when necessary. Now which jet makes the best F-35 killer? An F-35?

It is just like how India dropped the F-16 Block 70 in the first round of MMRCA; India will not operate jet also operated by its enemy Pakistan due to IFF issues. The same goes for Korea which would not want to operate a jet also operated by its enemy Japan, because the F-35 vs F-35 WVR dogfight is rather messy and confusing.


If South Korea and Japan ever come close to going to war I think you will see the world, led by the USA step in to tell them to wake up or they will both be slapped silly.

Mind you, if you really think this is a strong possibility, you have just taken your stupidity to a new level!

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 21:50
by hobo
slowman. wrote:
It is just like how India dropped the F-16 Block 70 in the first round of MMRCA; India will not operate jet also operated by its enemy Pakistan due to IFF issues. The same goes for Korea which would not want to operate a jet also operated by its enemy Japan, because the F-35 vs F-35 WVR dogfight is rather messy and confusing.


Um, F-15, and for that matter F-16/F-2... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 22:16
by popcorn
They will get the capability they pay for. Unfortunately, that may not be the one that best supports their strategic security needs. The ROKAF no doubt believed the F-35 was the best fit for the new doctrine of "tailored deterrence" to counter the North's aggressive behavior, with SOKOR slated to assume wartime operational control of it's armed forces by 2015.


http://www.kpolicy.org/documents/interv ... html#end14


As a key component in the tailored defense plan, South Korea and the United States agreed to cooperate in establishing what they termed a "kill chain," which is to be an integrated system for tracking and striking North Korean missile sites. According to American and South Korean officials, the kill chain will enable them to destroy North Korean missile sites within 30 minutes of detection. The kill chain is in essence a preemptive attack, destroying North Korean missiles before they can be launched. If either the United States or South Korea decides that North Korean missiles may be fired, a strike is launched. The concept presupposes that North Korean intent can be determined with absolute assurance based on the disposition of its missiles. It could even conceivably happen that actual North Korean intent would not matter much to the United States or South Korea if they felt intent on inflicting punishment over some issue. South Korea and the United States want to move forward quickly, and the SCM called for the kill chain system to be implemented by 2015.

The kill chain envisions the capability of not only hitting North Korean missiles that are perceived to have been deployed in a threatening manner. Strikes could potentially be launched before North Korean missiles are even deployed in the first place. South Korea plans to purchase 60 advanced warplanes, most likely from the United States. According to Lt. GeneralJan-Marc Jouas, Commander of the United Nations Command Korea, the F-22 and F-35 warplanes under consideration have "an inherent ISR [Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance] capability that we can exploit. And as our sensors join together to form a common picture, hopefully that would integrate with the ground and naval components' capabilities, so that we can rapidly target the developing threats before they are in position to employ

The kill chain is intended to operate as a partnership, relying on U.S. satellites and drones to detect North Korean missiles on mobile launch pads, after which South Korean missiles and warplanes would strike the missiles on their launch systems

The advanced warplanes that South Korea intends to purchase will, according to the South Korean Ministry of National Defense, allow it "to acquire the capabilities required to covertly infiltrate into North Korean territory and to carry out precision strikes in orderto neutralize the enemy's key nuclear facilities during contingencies."

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 23:03
by HaveVoid
While there is no doubt that the F-35A is the most technologically advanced offering the ROKAF was considering, couldn't the Strike Eagle/Typhoon be seen as a somewhat more prudent move in the short run? They need to replace the F-4s urgently, and the F-4s are already on par with or exceeding the capabilities of almost everything in the KPAF.

The ROKAF was not a particularly early adopter of the F-16, waiting to procure the F-16C Block 32 if memory serves me, could they not make a similar move here? While the F-35 will offer capabilities from day one that the ROKAF presently lacks, is their security situation truly so dire that they cannot wait to receive the F-35 at a later production block, after greater weapons integration has occurred, and once reliability,spares, and support have been demonstrated to be satisfactory (not knocking the F-35, most programs suffer from this towards the beginning it seems)? With suitable upgrades (AESA) to their existing Viper fleet, and with the introduction of AESA and (possibly, if Boeing prevails) some stealth technology through this new procurement, the ROKAF could easily position itself to more quickly and easily integrate the F-35 into it's operations, having had time to gain familiarity with lesser forms of some of the F-35's most cutting edge technology.

It would seem to me that the F-15SE would be the most sensible procurement here, allowing the ROKAF to grow an existing Eagle fleet, and avoiding the complications of introducing a wholly new platform into service, the Eurofighter could certainly be a significant leap forward, especially in the air dominance arena, where it would be unmatched on the peninsula. The ROKAF, and its major allies in the US military, have significant capability to suppress and destroy the North Korean IADS so as to be able to strike nuclear sites beyond the NK border. Besides, if it truly came to that, would it not be more likely that the B-2 would be called upon to make such a deep strike? Additionally, the proliferation of advanced cruise missiles by the ROKN gives South Korea another option to circumvent the no doubt heavy air defences on and around the DMZ.

Just my $0.02 and thoughts,

HV

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 23:10
by hobo
While there is no doubt that the F-35A is the most technologically advanced offering the ROKAF was considering, couldn't the Strike Eagle/Typhoon be seen as a somewhat more prudent move in the short run? They need to replace the F-4s urgently, and the F-4s are already on par with or exceeding the capabilities of almost everything in the KPAF.


The F-15 is a perfectly justifiable choice for Korea. It is a very well established platform that they already operate. With the full suite of available upgrades (as seen most recently in the F-15SA) the F-15 remains an excellent all-around performer with great range, carrying capacity, and sensors. It also offers a second crewman which can be an asset in some scenarios.

The Typhoon would be a frankly idiotic decision for them. It would add a new type to their fleet, would require extensive upgrades and modernization to reach where the latest versions of the F-15 are today and it will never match the F-15's range and carrying capacity. Its one real advantage would be its improved maneuverability over the F-15 and the likely availability of Meteor.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2013, 23:43
by lookieloo
HaveVoid wrote:While there is no doubt that the F-35A is the most technologically advanced offering the ROKAF was considering, couldn't the Strike Eagle/Typhoon be seen as a somewhat more prudent move in the short run? They need to replace the F-4s urgently, and the F-4s are already on par with or exceeding the capabilities of almost everything in the KPAF.

The ROKAF was not a particularly early adopter of the F-16, waiting to procure the F-16C Block 32 if memory serves me, could they not make a similar move here? While the F-35 will offer capabilities from day one that the ROKAF presently lacks, is their security situation truly so dire that they cannot wait to receive the F-35 at a later production block, after greater weapons integration has occurred, and once reliability,spares, and support have been demonstrated to be satisfactory...
Fair enough, but there's no guarantee the F-35 will be available later. Taiwan can't even buy F-16s now.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 00:07
by slowman.
lookieloo wrote:Now we'll just have to see what happens when they eventually decide to replace their older F-16s.

KFX.

SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget that 33% of the contract is FMS.

Those items are already in production, and don't present themselves as pricing uncertainties.

gtx wrote:If South Korea and Japan ever come close to going to war I think you will see the world, led by the USA step in to tell them to wake up or they will both be slapped silly.


popcorn wrote:They will get the capability they pay for. Unfortunately, that may not be the one that best supports their strategic security needs. The ROKAF no doubt believed the F-35 was the best fit for the new doctrine of "tailored deterrence" to counter the North's aggressive behavior, with SOKOR slated to assume wartime operational control of it's armed forces by 2015.


KILLCHAIN involves following two things

1. A network of satellites and long endurance drones for 24/7 surveillance of North Korean positions.
2. A ballistic missile strike to neutralize threats. There is no other weapon that could take out threats in less than 30 minutes.

The F-X jet is not a part of KILLCHAIN.

hobo wrote:The Typhoon would be a frankly idiotic decision for them. It would add a new type to their fleet, would require extensive upgrades and modernization to reach where the latest versions of the F-15 are today and it will never match the F-15's range and carrying capacity. Its one real advantage would be its improved maneuverability over the F-15 and the likely availability of Meteor.

At this point, nothing is certain. Let us recall that the Rafale did beat the F-15K in the overall scoring of first F-X, only to be overturned when the "strategic considerations" are factored in.

Guess what? There is no such thing as "strategic considerations" this time around; you win in overall scoring and then that's it. Whoever offers the best value deal that is on budget wins.

lookieloo wrote:Fair enough, but there's no guarantee the F-35 will be available later. Taiwan can't even buy F-16s now.

Korea isn't Taiwan, and they can buy any US weapon available for export, and are in fact pressured to buy stuffs they don't want, like the SM-3 missile and Global Hawk Block 30.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 00:22
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
HaveVoid wrote:While there is no doubt that the F-35A is the most technologically advanced offering the ROKAF was considering, couldn't the Strike Eagle/Typhoon be seen as a somewhat more prudent move in the short run? They need to replace the F-4s urgently, and the F-4s are already on par with or exceeding the capabilities of almost everything in the KPAF.

The ROKAF was not a particularly early adopter of the F-16, waiting to procure the F-16C Block 32 if memory serves me, could they not make a similar move here? While the F-35 will offer capabilities from day one that the ROKAF presently lacks, is their security situation truly so dire that they cannot wait to receive the F-35 at a later production block, after greater weapons integration has occurred, and once reliability,spares, and support have been demonstrated to be satisfactory...
Fair enough, but there's no guarantee the F-35 will be available later. Taiwan can't even buy F-16s now.


I'm not too concerned about F-35 availability later on for the ROKAF. I just think that the F-35 provides the most bang for the buck (or Won) and investing in a platform that will remain viable with tech refreshes and new capabilities further into the future makes more sense. The F-35 will enable max interoperability within the SOKOR force structure and with that of it's primary ally, the U.S. To cite one example, SK will forego benefit from the USN investment in integrating the F-35 and AEGIS, which would otherwise have application to it's Sejong the Great DDGs.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 00:31
by count_to_10
Frankly, SK would probably be better off scrapping their plans for an indigenous fighter and used the funds to spring for the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 00:51
by hb_pencil
Have Void, Hobo:

Great posts. One thing I think that is important to understand is how the acquisition process was run and how that affected the process.. I'm not clear about the minutia about the process, but this is what I've gathered. The competition was broken up into several different criteria: This is from an article cited earlier:

Under the current criteria for the evaluation, the life cycle cost will be considered 30 percent, suitability for the role 33.61 percent and operational compatibility 17.98 percent. The offset factors would account for the remaining 18.41 percent.

However with everything else, there are mandatory and rated requirements. Acquisition cost seems to be a mandatory one that seems to have tripped up all the manufacturers. In the case of the F-35 it seems to have eliminated it because of another rigid mandatory requirement (date delivered)

There are benefits and shortcomings to this approach IT is much more straightforward to run, and it gives a very easy comparison method. However it is very inflexible as well... one of the biggest problems are pretty evident in regards to the F-35 vs F-15; the costs of the F-35's early adoption would almost certainly be made up by its long term cost savings, as well as putting off obsolescence (which will also increase cost and diminish later efficacy.) Issues like this also can also be correlated to higher cost overruns. There is no free lunches in defence procurement; I would not be surprised if this program incurs a serious cost overrun because it was heavily underbid.... just like the KC-X program in the US.

This isn't a problem just related to South Korea... alot of countries fail due to poor contractual design, Canada included. It is part of the reason why cost as an independent variable (CAIV) has become more common as an approach in the US. Allowing flexibility in criteria allows for true value to be determined, rather than ramrodding through an inflexible process.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 05:54
by popcorn
@hb_pencil,
Was delivery date an issue? IIRC LM was firm on a 2016 delivery schedule. Or was Blk 3F the issue?

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 08:02
by hb_pencil
popcorn wrote:@hb_pencil,
Was delivery date an issue? IIRC LM was firm on a 2016 delivery schedule. Or was Blk 3F the issue?


Neither. The F-35 was bought through the FMS process; ie you pay what the US government pays. You can't buy an equipment any less; that is against US Law. Because ROK was insistent to have most of its jets delivered by 2018, the fighters would be bought in the last LRIP lots before FRP occurred... probably in the $95~105 million range.

Because a significant portion of the F-15SE was done through DCMS, its flyaway might be in the $85 to 95 million range during that time. Really Boeing could (and probably did) severely underbid here. Its possible A: they basically did not put any contingency and if there are cost overruns. It depends on how the contract is set up... fixed cost or fixed cost with penalties. Its possible... but unlikely.

B:they intend to run this as a commercial program. Basically they provide a deep discount on the acquisition price, then inflate the parts. Looking at the previous problem that the ROKAF had with the F-15K and its PBL... I wouldn't be too surprised that this is what Boeing intends to do.

This is also where the ROAKAF will get fleeced because of its mandatory requirements that excluded the F-35. Boeing is now against the Eurofighter, which has exceptionally high maintenence costs related to parts. Also the F-15E probably has significant advantages in interoperability and A2G (something the Eurofighter is very deficient). Consequently Boeing can safely offer a somewhat higher lifecycle cost and recoup the discount on the acquisition price. The F-35 can't do that through FMS... so the ROKAF's best tool for leverage on price gets excluded. Boeing is going to win and do so while making a very tidy profit.

This is an example of bad contract design, or the deficiencies surrounding the F-35's FMS process. Push the contract back by two years, or modify the competition so the mandatory requirement on cost is weakened (and considered together with lifecycle and the F-35 wins.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 08:31
by gtx
hb_pencil wrote:Really Boeing could (and probably did) severely underbid here. Its possible A: they basically did not put any contingency and if there are cost overruns. It depends on how the contract is set up... fixed cost or fixed cost with penalties. Its possible... but unlikely.

B:they intend to run this as a commercial program. Basically they provide a deep discount on the acquisition price, then inflate the parts. Looking at the previous problem that the ROKAF had with the F-15K and its PBL... I wouldn't be too surprised that this is what Boeing intends to do.

This is also where the ROAKAF will get fleeced because of its mandatory requirements that excluded the F-35. Boeing is now against the Eurofighter, which has exceptionally high maintenence costs related to parts. Also the F-15E probably has significant advantages in interoperability and A2G (something the Eurofighter is very deficient). Consequently Boeing can safely offer a somewhat higher lifecycle cost and recoup the discount on the acquisition price. The F-35 can't do that through FMS... so the ROKAF's best tool for leverage on price gets excluded. Boeing is going to win and do so while making a very tidy profit.


This is the type of thing I was referring to when I made my comments above. It happens from time to time in this business whereby someone bids low to win the work but later 'find' that the price is higher . Of course though, by then the buyer is committed....regardless of the naive belief of slowman that this can't happen.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 09:18
by haavarla
Do you have any Clear example which deals ended up in this way.. underbidding?
Something tells me, most contract are within the inked figures..

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 11:07
by lookieloo
Conan wrote:JASSM lost did it? Hmmm. I seem to recall it wasn't even cleared for export to Korea. It didn't "lose" anything, it wasn't even authorised to compete!

Tauras was then selected as the "best of the rest" including in favour of Boeing's SLAM-ER which was already IN the ROK inventory.
Here's a source.
http://defense-update.com/20130405_sout ... ssile.html
South Korea also considered buying the AGM-159 JASSM made in the US by Lockheed Martin, but the export of this missile was not cleared by Congress. The only long-range missiles in the Air Force’s inventory are the SLAM-ER missiles built by Boeing. SLAM-ER was delivered with the recent batch of F-15K Slam Eagle, also built by Boeing.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 11:42
by lookieloo
haavarla wrote:Do you have any Clear example which deals ended up in this way.. underbidding?
INS Vikramaditya: bid at $974 million, actual cost $2.3 billion. The parallels are are uncanny. Disappointing... I would have expected our Russian troll to avoid a question with such an obvious answer.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/russi ... /1140744/0
...As it turned out, the price was deceptive. Now, nine years after the contract, officials in Russia who negotiated it have opened up a bit on how those negotiations were conducted. "The Indian side had been inspecting the ship since 1996 and was very keen on it. The one thing they kept insisting on was price. They wanted the rock-bottom price and they wanted a competition for that," says an official with Rosoboronexport, the prime arms export body of the Russian government.

What ensued was a race for the lowest price to refurbish the carrier. It was a race in which several shipyards of Russia participated, hoping to cash in on the Indian contract. The rule that India applied was L1 — the vendor that bids the lowest wins. However, in a Russia whose economy was then in the doldrums, shipyards were willing to do anything to bag contracts. The original shipyard where the Gorshkov was constructed was not in contention as it is now located in Ukraine, following the USSR breakup.

"The Indian side then was not concerned about the capabilities or expertise of the shipyard to be selected for the work. Price was the only deciding factor," the official said.

The shipyard that quoted the lowest price by far was Sevmash, located in Severodvinsk. A renowned shipyard established in 1937 for the construction of large surface ships, it had one drawback. Since 1953, it had been concentrating mainly on nuclear submarines. Since that year, it has commissioned 129 nuclear submarines for the Russian Navy but not a single surface ship the size of the Gorshkov.

However, by virtue of being L1, Sevmash bagged the contract. Others, such as the St Petersburg-based Admiralty shipyard that had some experience in large surface ships, lost out. "We agree that there was a major fault from our side in estimating the costs," the official says...

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 13:46
by haavarla
Nice OT rant there.
I was ofcourse interested in the fighter market, could we pls keep it within this frame.

And i also would like to know if there has been any recent underbidding done by any western fighter manufactors that would require a re-negotiation of any signed contracts? I can't think of any from the top of my head right now.

what gtx said, -" it happens from time to time"

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 15:40
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:Nice OT rant there.
I was ofcourse interested in the fighter market, could we pls keep it within this frame.

And i also would like to know if there has been any recent underbidding done by any western fighter manufactors that would require a re-negotiation of any signed contracts? I can't think of any from the top of my head right now.

what gtx said, -" it happens from time to time"


It does happen, there is also "frontloading" wherein the price is for the bare minimum of everything and then the gizmos that make them worth having "cost more" or have to be added later. The Aussie Super Hornets ended up being pretty expensive actually, since the aussies decided to rewire them.

Like everyone has said it will be interesting to see what Korea adds or doesn't add and if Boeing can do what they promise within budget. my bet? Its going to end up being an AESA equipped F-15K with FBW.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 15:50
by lookieloo
:: Message removed by moderator ::

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 17:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Hey, lay off the political banter! this is an aviation forum, keep the posts in that line. There is no reason that anyone on this site should be belittled due to their national origin. Does Haavarla troll sometimes? yes. Does he also provide some data, insight, and photos of Russia's latest and greatest? yes. While I disagree with his viewpoint on the effectiveness of VVS Aircraft effectiveness against U.S. 5th gen I do believe that as a whole he brings a positive contribution to the boards.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 18:48
by hb_pencil
haavarla wrote:Nice OT rant there.
I was ofcourse interested in the fighter market, could we pls keep it within this frame.

And i also would like to know if there has been any recent underbidding done by any western fighter manufactors that would require a re-negotiation of any signed contracts? I can't think of any from the top of my head right now.

what gtx said, -" it happens from time to time"


They don't rebid- they often pay the overrun.

I suspect the Rafale program is one good example of this: Rafale gives a claim for its bids, then the customer balks when they go to sign the contract with a much higher price or revised terms. Morocco, maybe Brazil, and possibly UAE. Its not clear because the information is tight lipped. I don't think it matters that much whether its fighter or some other aircraft, so long as it is in aerospace, and there you can point to Boeing KC-X program participation as an example of this.



haavarla wrote:As for Your "Russian troll" comment.. keep it up and you will be reported.


Look Haavara, generally I have respect for you, and you frequently participate and engender good, balanced discussions. At other times you do come off as a blind patriot. I appreciate that you do come in with unique information, however I don't always take it at face value because I question your ability to critically analyze that information. Lets compare you to Hornetfinn: he has a great knowledge of Russian aircraft AND is able to effectively critique that information. I'd just wish you'd do more of than than regurgitating some fantastic claims on russian performance that makes it seem the Russian federation has somehow shortcut multibillion dollar western investments and deployed something that has made western fighters irrelevant.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 20:36
by neurotech
cola wrote:
slowman. wrote:An F-15K pilot shows his determination to sink 22DDH of JMSDF.

And I bet the crew painted that ship right after they wrote "Photo by R.O.K. Airforce" on that F15... :D

I very much doubt that photo is real. South Korea and Japan have an interesting relationship. They face a common potential threat from China, North Korea and Russia, even though there is probably a few relatively minor disputes over territory between Korea and Japan. I would say there is a general order somewhere in the RoKAF against putting nose art like that on a jet, which would be viewed as "insensitive" or "provocative". I've heard of a few cases of the brass objecting to markings on US jets during OEF/OIF as being inappropriate.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 20:53
by gtx
haavarla wrote:Do you have any Clear example which deals ended up in this way.. underbidding?
Something tells me, most contract are within the inked figures..


You will be hard pressed to find any clear reporting of such cases where this has happened since no-one involved will openly admit that it happens (those involved are not stupid!). There are always excuses put forward. As an example though, I do recommend you look into some of the Australian Senate Enquiries into the AIR87 Project, especially in regards to the TLS costs.

As for "most contract are within the inked figures" well, excuse me if I smirk at this comment. In my experience this is rarely the case. Sure, the final delivery might match up with the final contract version. However, have a look at how many CCPs were involved in getting there and how close the final result matches the original promise.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 00:29
by slowman.
neurotech wrote:They face a common potential threat from China, North Korea and Russia, even though there is probably a few relatively minor disputes over territory between Korea and Japan.


http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 583039.xml

If there is one misconception about South Korea's F-X Phase 3 fighter competition, due to be decided this month, it is that the requirement is aimed mainly at bolstering defense against North Korea. On the contrary, say senior government officials in Seoul, at least as strong a reason for buying 60 advanced fighters is South Korea's perceived strategic competition with Japan, China and Russia—probably in that order.

“Our neighbors are upgrading their fighter technology, so we must do so, too,” says one government official. A second official, with deep insight into the country's defense requirements, goes further: The 60 Boeing F-15Ks that South Korea has from the F-X Phase 1 and 2 programs last decade already offer enough aerial strike power for dealing with North Korea. While more big fighters would be useful if war on the peninsula broke out, the real point of the Phase 3 competition is that Japan is buying Lockheed Martin F-35As, China is developing the J-20, and Russia is working on the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA), says that official. Even in F-X Phases 1 and 2, North Korea was considered only part of the problem, he adds.


The question the Korean government officials are asking right now is which jet makes the best F-35 killer; and it surely isn't F-35. While Boeing is quite on that issue(It only advertises for the J-20 kill role), EADS Cassidian is making a big publicity about the Typhoon's ability to kill F-35 in the Korean contest, in both offensive and defensive air combat context.

I would say there is a general order somewhere in the RoKAF against putting nose art like that on a jet, which would be viewed as "insensitive" or "provocative".

There is none. In fact, ROK Navy names its submarines after people who either assassinated or attempted to assassinate the important people of Japan's history, such as the man who assassinated the first prime minister and the father of modern Japan Ito Hirobumi, the man who assasinated the head of the Shanghai division of the Imperial Japanese army, and the man who threw a bomb at Emperor Hirohito and missed, to the outrage of Japanese government, as the ROK Navy makes no attempt to hide the fact that its sub fleet is primarily aimed at Japan.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 02:08
by count_to_10
The question the Korean government officials are asking right now is which jet makes the best F-35 killer; and it surely isn't F-35.

I really can't say much about the rest of your claims, but the F-35 probably is the best option available to South Korea for countering Japanese F-35s (if that is what they are interested in). The F-15SE and Typhoon are going to have the same "getting clubbed like baby seals" problem with the F-35 that they have with the F-22. The two 5th gen aircraft have different tactics for WVR combat, but are qualitatively the same in BVR combat.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 05:40
by gtx
slowman. wrote:It is just like how India dropped the F-16 Block 70 in the first round of MMRCA; India will not operate jet also operated by its enemy Pakistan due to IFF issues. The same goes for Korea which would not want to operate a jet also operated by its enemy Japan, because the F-35 vs F-35 WVR dogfight is rather messy and confusing.


For countries apparently planning to fight each other this activity is odd... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 06:22
by eagleowl
gtx wrote:
slowman. wrote:It is just like how India dropped the F-16 Block 70 in the first round of MMRCA; India will not operate jet also operated by its enemy Pakistan due to IFF issues. The same goes for Korea which would not want to operate a jet also operated by its enemy Japan, because the F-35 vs F-35 WVR dogfight is rather messy and confusing.


For countries apparently planning to fight each other this activity is odd... :roll:


heh

Coalition forces sharpen combat skills

Republic of Korea Air Force F-15K Slam Eagle and Japan Air Self Defense Force F-15 Eagle aircraft park prior to take off during RED FLAG-Alaska 13-3 Aug. 12, 2013, Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. RF-A enables joint and international units to sharpen their combat skills by flying simulated combat sorties in a realistic threat environment. Additionally, the training allows them to exchange tactics, techniques, and procedures and improve interoperability.(U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Miguel Lara/Released)

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 07:33
by popcorn
Le5 me guess.. next he'll argue Turkey will cancel it's F-35 order since Israel will also be operating the jet. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 15:14
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:Le5 me guess.. next he'll argue Turkey will cancel it's F-35 order since Israel will also be operating the jet. :roll:
One can only hope. That's one customer I wouldn't mind losing. http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/tho ... 69544.html

Back to the matter at hand, I'm not understanding why so many here seem surprised with the Korean outcome. It was an oddly contrived contest that the F-35 was bound to lose. More surprising is that the F-15SE won, having not even been developed yet.

Did the Koreans learn nothing from watching the F-2 program in Japan? Trying to develop a new platform based on an old one isn't going to save money when so-few airframes are involved. Perhaps Boeing managed to talk them into merely buying an updated K-model (which actually makes good since), but we'll have to wait a bit to see what the details are.

In any case, there seems to have been little said by the ROKAF-proper throughout this process (entirely a DAPA show), so it will be interesting to see what happens if and when they weigh-in.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 15:31
by haavarla
gtx wrote:
haavarla wrote:Do you have any Clear example which deals ended up in this way.. underbidding?
Something tells me, most contract are within the inked figures..


You will be hard pressed to find any clear reporting of such cases where this has happened since no-one involved will openly admit that it happens (those involved are not stupid!). There are always excuses put forward. As an example though, I do recommend you look into some of the Australian Senate Enquiries into the AIR87 Project, especially in regards to the TLS costs.

As for "most contract are within the inked figures" well, excuse me if I smirk at this comment. In my experience this is rarely the case. Sure, the final delivery might match up with the final contract version. However, have a look at how many CCPs were involved in getting there and how close the final result matches the original promise.


Very well. I can understand if there are some delays from the manufactor which put the buyer in a difficult position, and that this consiquently turn out for the buyer to do an overhaul for their allready existing older jets. Which would mean higher expences.

But i would find it strange if LM goes ahead and underbid just to stay in the SK Tender.
Obvously that hasen't happend. LM must have looked at the SK figures(Requirements including cost) and reported back to SK officials that they can't match the cost figure per Aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 15:38
by slowman.
lookieloo wrote:Did the Koreans learn nothing from watching F-2 program in Japan? Trying to develop a new platform based on an old one isn't going to save money when so-few airframes are involved.


1. Airframe modification(aka CWB) will be developed in Korea. The other modification, the radar blocker(confirmed), will be done in the US, but Boeing will probably take the Super Hornet's radar blocker design and adapt it for the F-15, ensuring minimal development risk. fFurthermore, Saudi Arabia may eventually win the approval to upgrade its 84 F-15SA units to the Silent Eagle standard once Israel has a sufficient number of F-35s in service.

2. In terms of avionics content, it is similar to the USAF F-15E upgrade program.

In any case, there seems to have been little said by the ROKAF-proper throughout this process (entirely a DAPA show), so it will be interesting to see what happens if and when they weigh-in.

The ROKAF has no right to express its preference for certain model; it can spell out what feature it needs, not dictate what models to buy. This is what DAPA is for, a civilian bean counter agency who buy best value product and services regardless of national origin and free of diplomatic lobbying efforts. Accordingly, the DAPA has created many enemies within the ROK military, because the DAPA buys only best value product and not what the military suggests it needs.

haavarla wrote:But i would find it strange if LM goes ahead and underbid just to stay in the SK Tender.
Obvously that hasen't happend. LM must have looked at the SK figures(Requirements including cost) and reported back to SK officials that they can't match the cost figure per Aircraft.


The F-35 is offered on an FMS term, meaning the USAF acts as a middle man in the transaction. The USAF is legally required to offer the price it pays Lockheed Martin for the jets, which removes Lockheed's ability to price negociate.

In return, Lockheed tried to fatten up its offset offer(If our bid costs $1.5 billion more, then we will increase our offset by $1.5 billion more to even things out), because the offset term negociation was under the direct control of Lockheed. But no amount of offset fattening could overcome the price ceiling imposed imposed by current president, who believes in doing things by the letters of law and refused to accept the customary 20% budget increase provision in the arms acquisition law.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 1315F.html

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said that one of the two finalists -- Boeing and EADS -- in the nation's 8.3 trillion won (US$7.2 billion) fighter project has dropped out of the bidding due to problems with their documents.

EADS is known as the company to have stepped out of the race, according to sources in Seoul.

"We disqualified the concerned company and will consider the remaining one firm as a candidate in the committee for defense procurement projects," the DAPA said in a release, citing "flaws found in the bidding documents" as reasons of the elimination.

Although the DAPA required the bidders to submit prices for 15 two-seater jets and 45 single-seat jets, EADS reduced the number of double-seater aircraft to six, and offered prices based on the British pound, according to a company official.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 19:07
by gtx
haavarla wrote:
But i would find it strange if LM goes ahead and underbid just to stay in the SK Tender.
Obvously that hasen't happend. LM must have looked at the SK figures(Requirements including cost) and reported back to SK officials that they can't match the cost figure per Aircraft.


Where have you been all these months? LM did not bid directly. The US Govt did on their behalf essentially.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 19:15
by gtx
Given that EADS have been found out having to juggle the requirements to get under the price I wonder what will be found out about the Boeing bid in the longer run? Given it was only after many, many rounds of pricing that the bid miraculously came in under the cap, I truly suspect there will be some interesting 'fine print' in the details...

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 21:25
by spazsinbad
Lockheed says S. Korea jet fighter contest not over 18 Aug 2013 Reuters
"WASHINGTON Aug 18 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp said on Sunday it would continue to work with the U.S. government on South Korea's huge fighter jet competition, despite reports that the firm's F-35 had been eliminated due to its high cost leaving only Boeing Co's F-15 in the running.

"Lockheed Martin has not received an official notification from the Republic of Korea regarding the results of the price bidding for the F-X Program," the company said in a statement.

"The F-X source selection process has multiple phases and we will continue to work closely with the U.S. government as they offer the F-35 to Korea," it said.

South Korea's F-X program is aimed at buying 60 next-generation fighter jets to replace its current aging fleet.

The country's Defense Acquisition Program Administration resumed the bidding last week for the jets after suspending the process in July because all the bids were too high.

The United States handles foreign military sales on a government-to-government basis, with the companies providing information on price and other details.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported earlier on Sunday that Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle appeared to be the last plane in the running for the $7.2 billion fighter project.

The same report said the Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon made by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company was eliminated because of paperwork problems and the F-35 stealth jet made by Lockheed was priced too high.

Boeing also said it was still waiting to hear the outcome of the competition.

"We believe our F-15 proposal can affordably meet the Republic of Korea's requirements. We await their decision and stand ready to deliver on our commitments," a spokesman for Boeing said.

One industry source said Seoul's decision would be decided on other factors besides cost, including the capabilities of the new fighters.

"It's not going to be decided on cost alone," said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly. The source said cost accounted for 15 percent of the decision.

South Korean officials were expected to examine the capabilities of the proposed aircraft over the next 30 days, the source said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... B720130818

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 21:31
by neurotech
lookieloo wrote:Back to the matter at hand, I'm not understanding why so many here seem surprised with the Korean outcome. It was an oddly contrived contest that the F-35 was bound to lose. More surprising is that the F-15SE won, having not even been developed yet.

Did the Koreans learn nothing from watching the F-2 program in Japan? Trying to develop a new platform based on an old one isn't going to save money when so-few airframes are involved. Perhaps Boeing managed to talk them into merely buying an updated K-model (which actually makes good since), but we'll have to wait a bit to see what the details are.

Thats the whole thing. LM can't risk p***sing off the other JSF partners by somehow lowering the cost of the F-35 for only 60 jets. The F-2 cost ended up with a unit cost of over $127m, although I'm not sure if that is the PUC or the WSUC or Unit Flyaway Cost, I suspect its the UFC. One option to lower the F-35 bid price might be is to co-produce certain components in Korea at a "discount" cost, but that still wouldn't drop the price low enough to be under the bid price specified. The Koreans painted themselves into a corner on this one. I'm thinking there is more than meets the eye, such as second program to buy a smaller number of F-35As in exchange for KAI T-50s, as the trainer question is still unanswered.

@spazsinbad: Sounds about right... not over yet.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 21:34
by spazsinbad
It seems EADS has hit the MERDE....

EADS’ bid to sell fighter jets is thrown out 19 Aug 2013
"Boeing is now final bidder in $7.45 billion deal, Korea’s largest Aug 19,2013 One of the two finalists in a bid to supply Korea with its next generation of advanced fighter jets was eliminated for having submitted “altered bidding documents,” the arms procurement agency said yesterday.

The elimination leaves Boeing as the sole bidder for the 8.3 trillion won ($7.45 billion) project, the nation’s largest procurement project ever. Boeing is proposing to sell 60 F-15 Silent Eagles from 2017 to 2021 to Korea.

The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company was eliminated from the bid yesterday because it unilaterally changed the terms that were previously agreed upon with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the national arms procurement agency. EADS was proposing to sell its Eurofighter Typhoon jet.

“After we analyzed bidding prices [submitted by the contenders], we discovered the concerned company arbitrarily changed the terms agreed to during negotiations conducted from July of last year to early June of this year,” said the state-run agency in a statement released yesterday.

The changes were made to the number of two-seat Eurofighter jets initially agreed by EADS to be supplied to South Korea’s Air Force, an official at the agency said yesterday speaking on the condition of anonymity.

“EADS offered to provide six two-seat fighter jets in its final bidding document to the DAPA, nine jets short of the numbers agreed during the negotiation period. So we removed the Eurofighter model from the bid.”

The contract is for 15 two-seaters and 45 single-seaters, which are cheaper than two-seaters.

The arms procurement agency added that EADS’ proposed bidding price was “based on the [unilateral] changes made to the terms,” and it was able to meet the budget limit set by the government, which was 8.3 trillion won, by reducing the number of two-seaters.

The state-run agency held a final round of bidding from Tuesday through Friday, code-named F-X III. No bids were taken Thursday because it was Liberation Day, a national holiday.

Boeing, EADS and Lockheed Martin were the three bidders.

On the last day of the final round of bidding, Lockheed Martin’s proposed price for its F-35 Lightning II model exceeded the maximum specified by the agency.

Since the government announced its plan to purchase 60 new state-of-the art fighter jets in January 2012, aerospace manufacturers have been vying for the contract.

During President Park Geun-hye’s visit to the United States in May, Boeing pledged to build an avionics maintenance, repair and overhaul center in Korea.

The defense project committee presided over by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin will announce its selection mid-September."

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... id=2976289

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 21:51
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:It seems EADS has hit the MERDE....

EADS’ bid to sell fighter jets is thrown out 19 Aug 2013
http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... id=2976289
Illustrates error of setting up the competition to be lost or won on administrative technicalities. This is what happens when bureaucrats have more input than military professionals.

"May the best paper-pusher win!" :roll:

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 22:01
by spazsinbad
It was more than just paperwork: "...“EADS offered to provide six two-seat fighter jets in its final bidding document to the DAPA, nine jets short of the numbers agreed during the negotiation period. So we removed the Eurofighter model from the bid.”...." See the problem?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 22:25
by bumtish
Yeah like the L-M bid included 15 dual seater F-35s... I doubt these requirements (cost ceiling, 15 dual seaters) are so hard as they are laid out in the reporting. If there are only hard requirements to those two, then a bidder could strip the jets bare for acquisition costs, then get the money back on aftermarket...

My bet is that it will be a more balanced decision than that.

The reporting (leaking) is fishy, with focus on shortcomings to L-M and EADS bids.

F-15 is a possible winner though.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 22:29
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:It was more than just paperwork: "...“EADS offered to provide six two-seat fighter jets in its final bidding document to the DAPA, nine jets short of the numbers agreed during the negotiation period. So we removed the Eurofighter model from the bid.”...." See the problem?
Not sure if that would be a real problem or not for the ROKAF (I rather doubt it). Point is, I suspect that that simply making a change was more of a problem for the mandarins than the actual change itself.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 22:43
by spazsinbad
'lookieloo' probably true. This whole saga looks to be all about some version of "face" and the saving thereof since the beginning. The 'competitors must bend to the will of DAPA or else' runs right through this thread - to me it seems to be all about political considerations - much the same as Canada in some ways and wholly artificial considering the nature of the competition. I'm glad it is not my own country involved in this kind of competition.

ADDITION: I'm not pretending to know - nor do I care about the outcome - except for South Korea's sake I hope they get what they are after - whatever that is. IF they do not want the F-35 - then fine. Purchasing what they can afford seems reasonable. It is all good.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 23:08
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:'lookieloo' probably true. This whole saga looks to be all about some version of "face" and the saving thereof since the beginning. The 'competitors must bend to the will of DAPA or else' runs right through this thread - to me it seems to be all about political considerations - much the same as Canada in some ways and wholly artificial considering the nature of the competition. I'm glad it is not my own country involved in this kind of competition.
Go through the thread and you'll see I've been saying the same thing for months. The competition has been structured in such a manner that lip-service matters more than the contractor's actual ability to follow through. The idea that F-15SEs can be delivered by 2018 for less money than Eurofighters or F-35s is laughable to anyone familiar with the industry.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 23:49
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:Le5 me guess.. next he'll argue Turkey will cancel it's F-35 order since Israel will also be operating the jet. :roll:

Turkey tends to worry more about Greece than Israel.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2013, 23:53
by slowman.
gtx wrote:Given that EADS have been found out having to juggle the requirements to get under the price I wonder what will be found out about the Boeing bid in the longer run? Given it was only after many, many rounds of pricing that the bid miraculously came in under the cap, I truly suspect there will be some interesting 'fine print' in the details...

There is none. Boeing has too much experience in Korean tenders for a mistake like that. Basically Boeing applied a discount of 3% to its July bid price while leaving all other terms intact, while EADS Cassidian changed a significant portion of its terms unilaterally to reach the budget price, and the change of dual seater number wasn't the biggest offense; the biggest one was the elimination of the weapons integration program to make it optional(And this could reach billions in additional expense), and the denomination of price in GBP instead of USD as required to hedge against exchange rate.

bumtish wrote:Yeah like the L-M bid included 15 dual seater F-35s...

Lockheed's arguement was that the F-35 could fly itself during A2G mode so that the pilot could concentrate on ground targetting. Although I do agree that the F-35 should have been disqualified on this ground alone.

lookieloo wrote:The idea that F-15SEs can be delivered by 2018 for less money than Eurofighters or F-35s is laughable to anyone familiar with the industry.

What Boeing offered was a firm fixed price. If there is a cost coverrun, it is none of Korea's problem just like the Wedgetail program. All cost overruns will be absorbed by Boeing.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 00:09
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote: The idea that F-15SEs can be delivered by 2018 for less money than Eurofighters or F-35s is laughable to anyone familiar with the industry.


Its going to be fun to watch. Especially as the F-35 will be 2 years past IOC when Korea is getting their F-15SEs. By 2018 JSFs will be in full swing, with exercises and possibly even real world use under their belts. the F-15SE will probably be an expensive, curious, version of yesterdays aircraft. A lot can change in 5 years. it took less than a few years for word to get out on the F-22s capability, after being in the crosshairs over delays and expense for a long while.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 00:11
by XanderCrews
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Le5 me guess.. next he'll argue Turkey will cancel it's F-35 order since Israel will also be operating the jet. :roll:

Turkey tends to worry more about Greece than Israel.


They all use F-16s :lol:

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 00:36
by lookieloo
Was reply to troll... deleted.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 00:36
by count_to_10
XanderCrews wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Le5 me guess.. next he'll argue Turkey will cancel it's F-35 order since Israel will also be operating the jet. :roll:

Turkey tends to worry more about Greece than Israel.


They all use F-16s :lol:

And in a few years they will all be flying F-35's, unless I'm mistaken.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 00:41
by lookieloo
count_to_10 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Le5 me guess.. next he'll argue Turkey will cancel it's F-35 order since Israel will also be operating the jet. :roll:
Turkey tends to worry more about Greece than Israel.
They all use F-16s :lol:
And in a few years they will all be flying F-35's, unless I'm mistaken.
Not Greece. They're too broke to buy ANYTHING.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 00:44
by count_to_10
Not Greece. They're too broke to buy ANYTHING

Greece's problem isn't that they can't buy anything, it's that it insists on buying too many useless things.
I thought they were in on the F-35, though.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 01:00
by bumtish
slowman. wrote:
bumtish wrote:Yeah like the L-M bid included 15 dual seater F-35s...

Lockheed's arguement was that the F-35 could fly itself during A2G mode so that the pilot could concentrate on ground targetting. Although I do agree that the F-35 should have been disqualified on this ground alone..


No we don't agree. Point was that if DAPA accepted to cede this point then we have one example that hard requirements are not grounds for exclusion.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 01:52
by popcorn
I find the contrast between the conduct of the Japanese and Korean bid processes interesting. Like the difference between an Olympic wrestling event and a WWF cage match :lol: I have to concede though that the latter had more entertainment value.

As I've said before, they'll get what they pay for..

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 01:54
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 02:42
by cola
neurotech wrote:I very much doubt that photo is real.

Of course it isn't...Slowman's just a drama queen.
popcorn wrote:As I've said before, they'll get what they pay for..

Indeed and although I think the F15 is an excellent choice for any airforce in the world, it's gonna be interesting to see what will Korea actually pay their F15SEs, due two reasons.
First, the last batch of F15Ks cost Korea $115m APUC, so how Boeing managed to stay under the EF's APUC of $133m with its SilentE which isn't developed yet, is anyone's guess.
(no idea what was the LM's bid, though)
And second, SilentE's sale is supposed to go through DSC, not FMS, so no gvt. guaranties on anything, an issue that apparently caused Koreans so much problems in the past that some Korean officials recommended avoiding Boeing altogether...really got no idea what happened there, but from what I found on the Internet, Boeing heavily failed on spare parts delivery date and quality, pushing F15K's CPFH through the roof, rendering fleet essentially inoperable.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 05:01
by shingen
Perhaps Boeing lied to undercut the EF and F-35 prices. Kind of like Russian shipbuilders lying about the price of an Indian CV.

Also, EADS pulled out on their own apparently. Why would they do that? Maybe they didn't want the headache of having to lie about a price that they can't meet.

Military power costs what it costs and you either pay up front or later.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 07:58
by gtx
slowman. wrote:
gtx wrote:Given that EADS have been found out having to juggle the requirements to get under the price I wonder what will be found out about the Boeing bid in the longer run? Given it was only after many, many rounds of pricing that the bid miraculously came in under the cap, I truly suspect there will be some interesting 'fine print' in the details...

There is none. Boeing has too much experience in Korean tenders for a mistake like that. Basically Boeing applied a discount of 3% to its July bid price while leaving all other terms intact,
.


Oh, the niavity is STRONG in this one... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 08:55
by geogen
slowman. wrote:What Boeing offered was a firm fixed price... All cost overruns will be absorbed by Boeing.


Do you know off hand if Boeing's fixed price bid also included the weapons bay (once it's developed), as well as other 'F-15SE specific' components, such as the anticipated 'intake blockers' and leading edge RCS reduction?

Or will these future F-15 add-ons be 'optional', thus = cost extra...perhaps a little similar to to say how EADS offered an 'optional' weapons integration cost framework?

That said, I'd personally see a mix of F-15SE-lite pathway + FA-50+ + UAV surveillance/recon as likely being the optimal strategy to fulfill a restructured F-X3 requirements and within budget.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 14:37
by haavarla
It is still not clear what the SK F-15SE will include in term of systems and capability.
My safe bet is New FBW, Improved Radar, and internal W-bay CFT.

I mean SK AF officials would know, but its not yet official..

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 15:17
by cola
shingen wrote:Perhaps Boeing lied to undercut the EF and F-35 prices.

I wouldn't think that Boeing lied, but I'm not sure whether the plane the Korea will receive at the current bid price, will be the same one that has been evaluated in the tender.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 15:27
by slowman.
cola wrote:And second, SilentE's sale is supposed to go through DSC, not FMS, so no gvt. guaranties on anything,

Actually it DCS is better because it comes with firm fixed pricing and a penalty schedule for non-compliance. The USAF initially wanted to offer the Silent Eagle as FMS in order to control its pricing and give an edge to the F-35 FMS, but the DAPA threatened to disqualify both unless the Silent Eagle was offered on an DCS term, and the DAPA got what it wanted(DCS).

shingen wrote:Perhaps Boeing lied to undercut the EF and F-35 prices.

Nope. Too experienced in winning Korean tenders(a 80%+ win ratio) for a screw up like that. And this is only another one of a long list of near future tenders that Boeing is expected win, why would Boeing blow that up. The list of near future tenders in which Boeing is expected to win

- 20 EW jets <= This is now a go because F-35 didn't win.
- 4 Tankers
- 4 Additional Wedgetails
- KFX program <= Boeing wins this automatically because of the F-X winner gets it
- 6 C-17 class strategic cargo jets

Like I said, Boeing applied a 3% price discount to the July price to reach on budget without changing anything.

geogen wrote:[Do you know off hand if Boeing's fixed price bid also included the weapons bay (once it's developed), as well as other 'F-15SE specific' components, such as the anticipated 'intake blockers' and leading edge RCS reduction?


Following are included in the price

- AN/APG-82 radars
- CWB development and production in Korea
- RAM treatment
- Radar blocker

Not included

- 12 degree canted vertical tails

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 15:58
by slowman.
EADS Cassidian is demanding a renegotiation with the DAPA for the scope of supply. Not sure if the DAPA would renegotiate.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 16:20
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:
shingen wrote:Perhaps Boeing lied to undercut the EF and F-35 prices.

Nope. Too experienced in winning Korean tenders(a 80%+ win ratio) for a screw up like that.


It has nothing to do with experience. :lol:

We know precisely zero about what this entails, what the prices was, and other important fine print like options and overages and penalties.

And no, don't waste our time with rumour and other bullshit that you don't know and are taking guesses on as you constantly try and tie correlation with causation. The winner hasn't even been officially picked, Boeing has never built an F-15SE (whatever the hell that turns out to be) and what is inked in the accepted deal is bound to be extremely complicated and filled with clauses and loopholes and exceptions.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 16:29
by slowman.
XanderCrews wrote:
slowman. wrote:It has nothing to do with experience.

Sure it has. No bidding mistakes from an experienced bidder. EADS Cassidian showed its inexperience; the problem was made worse because the DAPA banned the use of local agents for the bidding.


And no, don't waste our time with rumour and other bullshit

I am amazed that you claim this even after things have turned out exactly the way I have predicted. And guess how I was being so accurate all along? I was simply relaying the news report of local press coverage as is.

The winner hasn't even been officially picked,

There is only one candidate left(The Silent Eagle), and the ROKAF says they will accept the Silent Eagle selection and vote YES in the final committee vote.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 16:31
by slowman.
NT. double posting.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 19:23
by gtx
slowman. wrote:The USAF initially wanted to offer the Silent Eagle as FMS in order to control its pricing and give an edge to the F-35 FMS


Sounds like you have gone full tilt into conspiracy theory land... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 19:39
by gtx
slowman. wrote:I am amazed that you claim this even after things have turned out exactly the way I have predicted.


Oh, maybe because you were wrong so many other times. According to you for instance, the frontal RCS of the F-35 and the Silent Eagle are about the same...the ROKAF doesn't want the F-35 simply because it has ordered the JDAM-ER...or my favourite; that the F-35 was not even going to be included in the competition since it was deemed an illegal entrant.

As for your other oft repeated BS of the apparent Korean decision being the start of a domino effect leading to the end of the F-35 program...warning: Reality bubble burst ahead!!!

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 20:06
by SpudmanWP
slowman. wrote:I am amazed that you claim this even after things have turned out exactly the way I have predicted.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day :)

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 20:25
by geogen
slowman. wrote:Following are included in the price

- AN/APG-82 radars


Slowman, can you verify/confirm APG-82 as the set being included in this deal? I had read (V)3 was the proposed set?

Also, you imply that F-15SE's 'bid' stipulates that the CWB will the responsibility of RoK to develop and produce in Korea? That's interesting too. If so, then said component could be interpreted as an 'option' and hence an additional add-on cost per unit to the base price bid by Boeing.

Furthermore, I guess, can it be assumed that F-15SE's passive sensors (e.g., IRST and FLIR pod) are also included in the per unit 'complete' Weapon System bid price? I mean, in all fairness, F-35's bid probably included the EOTS and EODAS as well?

That said, overall; if Boeing can truly offer what amounts to an F-15SA baseline, albeit upgraded with APG-82, blockers and reduced-RCS treatments (plus standard passive optical/ir sensors to complete the Weapon system), all for around $122-$123m per total Weapon System Unit Cost...then that's arguably one helluva deal, even if 'CWB' will be an optional 'special-missions' component add-on down the road for F-15SE. IMHO.

In fact, that might even be something that various other Air Forces might feel worthwhile to evaluate as a potential option, or Plan B contingency, etc, too.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 20:54
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:I am amazed that you claim this even after things have turned out exactly the way I have predicted. And guess how I was being so accurate all along? I was simply relaying the news report of local press coverage as is.



Exactly as you predicted? you "predicted" there would be a separate round of bidding after everyone went over the first time? You predicted that Boeing would have to keep knocking the price down to barely get within the cap on the second try? You predicted all that?

Because as I recall you said Boeing would win in a walk on the first day ...

You relayed the news? So why are you taking any credit at all?

You have also been wrong on countless other issues, large and small. Details are not your strong area.

I'm still waiting for the all the countries to bail out of the F-35 program as you predicted as well. As far as I'm concerned you made a dual prediction, and only half of that has come true...

I have no idea where the mods are, and how you havn't been banned for a sixth time

Now to get back to what I said and I want to state this clearly so there is no confusion:

You regurgitating the news does not make you a contract expert.

I will wait and see exactly what the agreement is when it is official in September. I want to see what is offered, and at what price, with more detail than you can provide.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 21:22
by slowman.
geogen wrote:Slowman, can you verify/confirm APG-82 as the set being included in this deal? I had read (V)3 was the proposed set?

It was the issue of export clearance, not cost. Boeing managed to get an export license for AN/APG-82 only a few months ago and swapped the radar model, and agreed to eat the integration cost.

Also, you imply that F-15SE's 'bid' stipulates that the CWB will the responsibility of RoK to develop and produce in Korea? That's interesting too. If so, then said component could be interpreted as an 'option' and hence an additional add-on cost per unit to the base price bid by Boeing.

Boeing is the prime contractor of the CWB system, which will then outsource the CWB design, testing, and manufacturing to KAI. Boeing takes the responsibility for the CWB as the prime contractor, but Boeing has been outsourcing parts to KAI for decades and knows what to expect.

This is the way to transfer the internal weapons carry and launch system technology, because the US DoD was blocking this technology transfer for like 5 years now.

Furthermore, I guess, can it be assumed that F-15SE's passive sensors (e.g., IRST and FLIR pod) are also included in the per unit 'complete' Weapon System bid price?

That is unknown. The price bidding was for 60 airframes with all internal avionics + 67 sets of engines, and the price cap was $7.3 billion. Weapons and external systems fall into separate FMS contracts to be negotiated with the US DoD for all three, because the EADS Cassidian cannot supply AMRAAMs and AIM-9X.

I mean, in all fairness, F-35's bid probably included the EOTS and EODAS as well?

Yes, but it doesn't have the back seat either. Given how the DAPA works, they probably excluded EO/DAS from the scope of supply from the $7.3 billion bidding, to be included in the $400 million FMS contract portion.

That said, overall; if Boeing can truly offer what amounts to an F-15SA baseline, albeit upgraded with APG-82, blockers and reduced-RCS treatments (plus standard passive optical/ir sensors to complete the Weapon system), all for around $122-$123m per total Weapon System Unit Cost...then that's arguably one helluva deal, even if 'CWB' will be an optional 'special-missions' component add-on down the road for F-15SE.


CWB is included in the deal.

IRST and SniperXR, probably not. This will probably be covered by a separate $400 million FMS contract with the US DoD.

In fact, that might even be something that various other Air Forces might feel worthwhile to evaluate as a potential option, or Plan B contingency, etc, too.

Boeing hopes to sell the Silent Eagle upgrade kit to Saudi Arabia when it can get the export license.

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 23:31
by spazsinbad
Unsurprisingly.... This South Korean Competition has more twists and turns than a bad soap opera.

EADS refutes breach of agreement allegations By Kang Seung-woo 19 Aug 2013
"A senior official of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) said Monday that the four-nation consortium did not breach any agreement with the nation’s arms procurement office in Korea’s next-generation fighter jet program.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) announced Sunday that EADS, touting its Eurofighter Tranche 3 Typhoon, promised to offer 15 two-seat jets and 45 single-seat jets during negotiations, but reduced the number of twin-seat aircraft to six to meet the procurement price of 8.3 trillion won ($7.5 billion)....

..."We have repeatedly explained to DAPA why there was no operational rationale to opt for the number of twin-seat planes requested to Eurofighter. Thanks to the present state of the art of the Eurofighter simulators, the twin-seater need is minimal, if any, as already proven by the Eurofighter operating air forces,” said Christian Scherer, chief sales officer of EADS Cassidian, in a statement.

He added that there was no agreement between the two sides on the number of the twin-seat jets.

“We do not see any promises made but only different scenarios with preferences which have been discussed respectfully by the parties all along the negotiation process,” he said.

EADS is now ineligible to secure the contract in accordance with what DAPA calls a breach of contract. According to DAPA, any bidder whose bid exceeds the budget is not eligible for signing regardless of comprehensive assessment.

In addition, the procurement agency said that the European side did not present the additional development cost related to additional capabilities requested by DAPA...."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 41362.html

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 23:39
by gtx
Ever note how often slowman avoids answering direct questions or requests for proof?

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2013, 23:52
by shingen
Ever notice how he's been banned from every board he's been on?

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 00:00
by XanderCrews
Ever notice how he is quick to take responsibility for being right once, but never for the many times he has been wrong?

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 00:12
by cola
slowman. wrote:Actually it DCS is better because it comes with firm fixed pricing and a penalty schedule for non-compliance...blah, blah, blah...

I suppose this is why DAPA tried to negotiate acquisition replacement of faulty EW gear through FMS, after DCS failed miserably.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2853370/posts
The official noted the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) is negotiating with the U.S. government for possible sales of ALQ-135s through Foreign Military Sales.

http://www.socialphy.com/posts/news-pol ... years.html
She said the rate rose to 83 percent in 2009 and 86 percent in 2010 before dropping to 84 percent in the first half of 2011 due largely to constant delays in the supply of spare parts from Boeing.

Looks to me the only thing Korea can afford, is some sort of DCSed F15K+ and keep its fingers crossed that the issues like the ones in the article above, don't occur again.

Btw, how's Korean led anti-JSF revolution going on? :D

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 00:31
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
slowman. wrote:I am amazed that you claim this even after things have turned out exactly the way I have predicted.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day :)


Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn one in a while :)

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 02:45
by geogen
slowman. wrote:Boeing is the prime contractor of the CWB system, which will then outsource the CWB design, testing, and manufacturing to KAI.


Thanks for reply, slowman. Very interesting input.

OK, so, I guess I'm still a little confused with the above quote though. That is, if Boeing is the prime contractor of the CWB...then, who is the customer who pays for the contract work? Boeing? RoKAF? DoD?

If you're saying that RoK is getting external funding to design, test and manufacture the CWB, which will ultimately contribute to a final product F-15SE (complete with CWB), for a mere $124m 'fixed' unit Weapon System Cost...then I'll still say that is one helluva deal.

And if you can verify that all other required integrated avionics/sensor systems (external and internal, including IRST and SNIPER) to fulfill a complete weapon system requirement, including an internal MAWS/MLD system as found on both F-15SG/SA, could equate to a total (complete) F-15SE-lite Unit Weapon System Cost of say, $133m, fixed (in then year dollars), then I would still go out on a limb and accept that as a cost-effective and prudent deal (especially given a renegotiated APG-82).

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 04:15
by slowman.
geogen wrote:OK, so, I guess I'm still a little confused with the above quote though. That is, if Boeing is the prime contractor of the CWB...then, who is the customer who pays for the contract work? Boeing? RoKAF? DoD?

It's included in the price, but the actual development cost will be split between the Korean F-X contract, Boeing and KAI which is putting its own money down in exchange for exclusive supply rightes. ie, KAI will supply the CWB should Saudi Arabia or the USAF adopts it.

And if you can verify that all other required integrated avionics/sensor systems (external and internal, including IRST and SNIPER) to fulfill a complete weapon system requirement, including an internal MAWS/MLD system as found on both F-15SG/SA, could equate to a total (complete) F-15SE-lite Unit Weapon System Cost of say, $133m, fixed (in then year dollars), then I would still go out on a limb and accept that as a cost-effective and prudent deal (especially given a renegotiated APG-82).


It is more complicated than that. I don't know about IRST, but the SniperXR is not the part of Boeing's scope of supply as it is an FMS item which the ROKAF must buy from the US government via a separate FMS with a $400 million budget. However, the ROKAF may decide to skip the SniperXR as the precision bombing is not the job of the F-X 3 jet; it is primarily intended to a SEAD machine with the secondary role of JASDF F-35 and PLAAF J-20 supppression.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 04:21
by slowman.
gtx wrote:As for your other oft repeated BS of the apparent Korean decision being the start of a domino effect leading to the end of the F-35 program...warning: Reality bubble burst ahead!!!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-h ... 81321.html

South Korea Stumble Threatens Lockheed's 'Super Jet'
Posted: 08/19/2013 3:48 pm

This second line of argument - that we can't let down our allies who are chomping at the bit to get their hands on the F-35 - suffered a major setback this week when South Korea announced that Lockheed Martin's bid for that nation's 60-plane "F-X" fighter purchase exceeded the price Seoul is willing to pay for new combat aircraft.

It was widely assumed that the F-35 - the aircraft of the future! - would win the South Korean competition hands down. But recent developments should have tipped Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon off to the fact that this would not necessarily be the case. Canada has already talked about backing off of their prospective F-35 purchase and putting their fighter plane deal back out for competitive bidding. Italy can't afford to buy F-35s in the numbers originally envisioned. Norway is dramatically slowing down its F-35 buy, and Australia has delayed its purchase as well.

So, if a major reason for building the F-35 is to help out U.S. allies, we should think again as a growing number of U.S. allies are saying "thanks, but no thanks" to these immensely costly aircraft.

The tactic of last resort in trying to save some of Lockheed Martin's big foreign deals will be to boost the economic benefits promised to the purchasing country, in a practice referred to as "offsets." Offsets are quid pro quos in which a company like Lockheed Martin promises to kick back part of the price of a plane to the purchasing country. For example, in the case of South Korea it has promised to help Seoul to develop and build its own military communications satellite, and to develop a simulation system for use by Korean pilots. In addition, Korean companies would be offered the chance to build parts of the F-35.

All of this offset activity will come at the expense of U.S. jobs. Once similar offset deals are provided to Norway, Australia, Italy, Turkey, Israel, the United Kingdom, Japan and other current or prospective F-35 purchasers, the job benefits to the United States will be whittled away even further. And because some of the offset deals call for companies in the recipient countries to become ongoing suppliers for all F-35s, not just the ones purchased for their own countries, some of the job losses from offsets will be permanent.

The Korean case shows that time is running out on the argument that F-35s are being built to help out our allies. And Lockheed Martin's response in Korea and elsewhere - offering them jobs and technology if they stay the course and buy the F-35 - shows yet again that the company cares more about making a buck than preserving U.S. jobs. Keep that in mind the next time Lockheed and the Air Force try to use the jobs argument as their trump card in debates over whether to keep funding the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 04:40
by XanderCrews
I bet you had to look pretty hard to find something and finally came up with a leftist political opinion piece from huffington post :lol: Wow. anything credible?

Also according to the article that talks about the evil outsourcing of US jobs by LM as a quid pro quo for business... Am I to understand Boeing offered no offsets in its Korean win? ...Sure seems biased and uninformed to me.

FTFA:

William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy and the author of Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Nation Books).

Oh not biased at all.

Can you tell us when a Government actually does something, instead someone trying to sell a book writing about how the governments might do something?
8)

So, if a major reason for building the F-35 is to help out U.S. allies, we should think again as a growing number of U.S. allies are saying "thanks, but no thanks" to these immensely costly aircraft


who?

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 04:50
by neurotech
I came across this article from the usual suspects.
KAI Publishes Small KF-X Concept
By Bradley Perrett, Bill Sweetman

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has published a drawing of a moderately stealthy fighter concept based on its T-50 series of supersonic trainers and light-attack aircraft. The concept aircraft is far smaller and less ambitious than the all-new, twin-engine KF-X designs promoted by the Agency for Defense Development, the leading proponent of building an indigenous South Korea fighter.

...

The T-50 and its FA-50 light fighter derivative are themselves based on the F-16 and were developed with help from Lockheed Martin, but the stealthy concept, called KF-X-E, departs from the F-16 planform used for the earlier aircraft. Some wing and fuselage edges are parallel, and the trailing edges of the main and tail planes are swept forward. The fuselage sides have chines. Nose volume of the KF-X-E appears to be small, limiting the size of the radar antenna, but the airframe seems to have more volume overall than the T-50, offering more space for internal fuel and thereby minimizing the need for external tanks and their radar reflections.

Retention of the single tail on the KF-X-E is emblematic of the limited ambition of the designers, who appear to have aimed at achieving a level of stealth above that of the Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet but well below that of the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35..

..the air inlets of the KF-X-E have boundary-layer diverters; recent stealth aircraft handle the boundary layer with aerodynamic shaping and no diverters. The KF-X-E may be too small for internal weapons stowage. No engine details are known, but South Korea may want to replace the T-50's General Electric F404, whose future application appears limited to the T-50 series, with another probably more powerful type. Candidates would include the GE F414 and Eurojet EJ200.

...

A key issue in developing the KF-X-E might be obtaining permission from Lockheed Martin, which presumably has intellectual property in the T-50 design or at least contractual rights to ensure that it does not become an F-16 competitor. Another obstacle is that the South Korean air force prefers twin-engine aircraft for the medium-fighter category that the KF-X would fill.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 90.xml&p=1

As noted previously, the F-16 production line has slowed down and the F-16V seems more of an upgrade plan, not new built jets. This should be interesting to watch.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 04:51
by slowman.
XanderCrews wrote:who?


UK : 130 -> 45
Australia : 100 -> 75
Italy : 130 -> 90 -> In talks for a further reduction
Canada : 65 -> 20 + 45 unit open bid contest in which the F-35 is invited to compete in but is unlikely to win

neurotech wrote:I came across this article from the usual suspects.
KAI Publishes Small KF-X Concept


Well, if you scrolled down below, then you may have seen my explanation on what it is.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 04:59
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:who?


UK : 130 -> 45
Australia : 100 -> 75
Italy : 130 -> 90 -> In talks for a further reduction
Canada : 65 -> 20 + 45 unit open bid contest in which the F-35 is invited to compete in but is unlikely to win



And all of that is in response to the F-15 coming out ahead in the competition just 2 days ago? because last I checked you were beating that drum months ago. and now you are saying its a response to the last 48 hours?

Remember slowman, you are trying to prove that the F-15SE winning in Korea is directly leading to fewer orders, not bringing up any old news that happened before that. :wink: pay attention buddy.

20 + 45 unit open bid contest in which the F-35 is invited to compete in but is unlikely to win


Bullshit. Is there anything OFFICIAL on this? not what some political analyst wrote. Something from the Canadian Government. We covered this in another thread already, and operating a mixed fleet is more expensive

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 05:14
by XanderCrews
slowman. wrote:Well, if you scrolled down below, then you may have seen my explanation on what it is.


Yes neurotech, scroll down and learn from the expert. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 05:32
by spazsinbad
People can speculate whereas LM responds to Governments of Countries when they make up their minds to change what orders they have indicated in the past. This is where it stands as far as LM is concerned as of:

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts July 10, 2013
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/down ... ly2013.pdf
"Current as of July 10, 2013
Produced by Lockheed Martin F-35 Communications Team Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Planned Quantities*
USAF 1,763 F-35As
USN 260 F-35Cs
USMC 340 F-35Bs/80 F-35Cs
U.K. RAF/RN 138 F-35Bs
Italy 60 F-35As/30 F-35Bs
Netherlands 85 F-35As
Turkey 100 F-35As
Australia 100 F-35As
Norway 52 F-35As
Denmark 30 F-35As
Canada 65 F-35As
Israel 19 F-35As
Japan 42 F-35As
* Based on current programs of record."


A few months back the Australian Government confirmed interest in buying 100 F-35As but do not know when the final order will be made. Further initial order soonish.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 05:47
by disconnectedradical
Is this the same Slowman that got banned from Secret Projects?

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 06:10
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
slowman. wrote:Well, if you scrolled down below, then you may have seen my explanation on what it is.


Yes neurotech, scroll down and learn from the expert. :lol:

I thought we already have the "5th generation" Gripen NG. That is a LWF powered by a single F414, and priced to include a Space Shuttle External Tank to extend the range for only $120m each.

Isn't it obvious that a F/A-50 derived stealth jet, although interesting, couldn't really match a F-15SE or F-35 on payload or range. KAI would be insane not to plan a stealth F/A-50 follow-on to the baseline F/A-50 program if they expect to keep the jet in production for very long.
disconnectedradical wrote:Is this the same Slowman that got banned from Secret Projects?

And how many other forums?

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 09:32
by gtx
slowman. wrote:UK : 130 -> 45
Australia : 100 -> 75
Italy : 130 -> 90 -> In talks for a further reduction
Canada : 65 -> 20 + 45 unit open bid contest in which the F-35 is invited to compete in but is unlikely to win


Blatant lies! What next are you going to make up? Maybe the USAF is going to restart the F-108 program as a new fighter? UK restart the TSR.2? Canada the CF-105? Russia restart their manned moon program?

What does it take to have this idiot banned? He is just making sh*t up now!

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 09:38
by gtx
disconnectedradical wrote:Is this the same Slowman that got banned from Secret Projects?


Yep. And multiple other forums where people get sick of his bigoted, racist views and the utter bullshit he continually shovels out (just do a google search on "slowman Korea" to see what I mean). He rarely deals with facts and constantly avoids answering direct challenges of what he says or requests for proof. The fact that he may have got a strike here is just adding fuel to the fire.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 10:53
by stobiewan
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
slowman. wrote:Well, if you scrolled down below, then you may have seen my explanation on what it is.


Yes neurotech, scroll down and learn from the expert. :lol:

I thought we already have the "5th generation" Gripen NG. That is a LWF powered by a single F414, and priced to include a Space Shuttle External Tank to extend the range for only $120m each.

Isn't it obvious that a F/A-50 derived stealth jet, although interesting, couldn't really match a F-15SE or F-35 on payload or range. KAI would be insane not to plan a stealth F/A-50 follow-on to the baseline F/A-50 program if they expect to keep the jet in production for very long.
disconnectedradical wrote:Is this the same Slowman that got banned from Secret Projects?

And how many other forums?


He's been banned from StrategyPage - that's kind of like getting a speeding ticket at the Indy 500...

He's been banned from here under three or four ID's.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 12:42
by cantaz
XanderCrews wrote:
20 + 45 unit open bid contest in which the F-35 is invited to compete in but is unlikely to win


Bullshit. Is there anything OFFICIAL on this? not what some political analyst wrote. Something from the Canadian Government. We covered this in another thread already, and operating a mixed fleet is more expensive


If it were remotely official, the RCAF brass in Ottawa would be marching on Parliament Hill with torches and pitchforks.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 15:35
by slowman.
neurotech wrote:Isn't it obvious that a F/A-50 derived stealth jet, although interesting, couldn't really match a F-15SE or F-35 on payload or range. KAI would be insane not to plan a stealth F/A-50 follow-on to the baseline F/A-50 program if they expect to keep the jet in production for very long.

Well, like I explained it was the worst case contingency plan, which is unneeded at this time because of the ROKAF opposition which insists on a twin-engine supercruiser.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... media.html

EDITOR’S NOTE 2: By eliminating the unproven and unaffordable F-35, and choosing a more capable competitor of known performance and price, South Korea has demonstrated a very mature approach to defense procurement.
It applied some very elementary rules: If you exceed budget, you’re out; if you don’t comply with our requirements, you’re also out.
And, by holding fast through 55 bidding sessions, Korea finally obtained a price that was within its budget – something that seemed absolutely unachievable two weeks earlier.
If Western defense procurement agencies applied similar rules, their armed forces would not be in such a parlous operational and financial state.

EDITOR’S NOTE 3: By selecting the F-15SE, a variant of the F-15E Eagle made stealthier by the retrofitting of weapons bays, South Korea has also shown the sensible way forward for the US and those of its allies that plan to buy the F-35.
The F-15SE will offer broadly comparable stealth to the F-35, but also offers two engines, two pilots, longer range, and a broad range of weapons – at a far lower price.
South Korea, which faces a hostile North Korea and an assertive China just over its borders, obviously thinks the capabilities of the F-15 are worth more than the marketing promises about the F-35.)

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 16:18
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
20 + 45 unit open bid contest in which the F-35 is invited to compete in but is unlikely to win


Bullshit. Is there anything OFFICIAL on this? not what some political analyst wrote. Something from the Canadian Government. We covered this in another thread already, and operating a mixed fleet is more expensive


If it were remotely official, the RCAF brass in Ottawa would be marching on Parliament Hill with torches and pitchforks.


LOL oh its not. He posted 2 articles here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

unfortunately for him those two articles contradicted each other. which started to blow holes in all the theories and postulation that followed. In typical slowman fashion he simply cherry picked what he liked and ignored the rest. Right down to the article he posted saying that a mixed fleet would cost more!

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 16:37
by XanderCrews
Did this guy forget the Eurofighter was involved in there somewhere too?

I wouldn't call the F-15SE a huge victory for Korea, The ROKAF seemed to heavily favor the F-35 but the government wouldn't shell out the money.

For all we know, the F-15SE won for two reasons. It was the right price, and fleet commonality according to slowman they won because Korea just like Boeing. For countries without F-15s, and those who have been with the JSF for sometime and are getting wonderful offsets the F-35 still makes more sense than buying F-15SEs out of nowhere.

In typical slowman fashion we are given a dozen reasons why Korea would favor Boeing right down to a special relationship and great working history. And then in the next breath Boeing wasn't picked because of its special relationship with Korea and is a pure indictment on the F-35, and this is soon to be an international trend that extends everywhere, because Boeing. :lol:

Basically proving that what happens in Korea, stays in Korea. and more to the point, This hasn't been officially announced, we don't know exactly what has been promised when and for how much, and Boeing still has to come through on its promises. So before we go cheerleading the ROKAF for such brilliant prudence in defense matters, lets wait and see what an F-15SE is exactly and what it can do, again the year 2018 will look very different than the year 2013.

In the end its just going to be an improved F-15K. In which case, they overspent. as they got 40 F-15Ks for $3.6 bllion in 2002. Now its 7.4 billion for 60 F-15K+? They probably could have got 100 F-15Ks back then for 7.4 billion.

I am going to try and ignore Slowman until he can be banned again. I hope others join me in this. There is no need to engage this idiot directly and give him any credibility. He has been banned everywhere. and will be again here soon enough

So allow to me to say exactly what transpired big picture. Korea picked the F-15SE there will be many governments and air arms that don't care. there will be a few that think its interesting, and there will be many that know Korea (including the ROKAF) that know they just lost a great chance at getting something better. If Slowman is to be believed and the rivalry between SK and Japan is as real as he claims, Japan is laughing their tails off as we speak, and they realize SK just set themselves back 20 years, so they could have improved strike eagles.

So the governments and air arms that spend billions of dollars on warplanes aren't going to change their minds. Experts with the information on the F-35 are going to stay with the F-35 and with their air force's support at that. Governments continue to vote with their wallets, and they are voting big time for the JSF. That is in a wonderful place I like to call "reality" where real people, spend real money, on real things, using real expertise, and real information to guide them. But stand by, because there is a place where reality means nothing, and that place is:

The anti-F-35 corners of the internet, where the Korean competition will make a huge splash. Not in a way that changes any minds, just in a way that reinforces what they thought a long time ago anyway. In this land of amateur experts, who's sole qualification is the ability to read and repost, Korea is huge news. There will be a million reason why the SE won, and a million reasons why the F-35 lost, depending on who you ask. The fun thing about the Anti F-35 internet world is the only thing they can agree on is they don't like the JSF. Even the reasons are myriad, and of course what they think should do the job instead of the F-35 is even more varied. everything from modernized Super Arrows to Super F-111s, and yes even the F-15SE has been suggested over the years! In this place, with no expertise, or money, or power, they will froth at the mouth and continue punching the keys making sure to find others who think the same way and posting their articles as "proof" that they are right.

It sounds impossible, but the F-35 can actually "lose" on the internet and still "win" in real life. because these people on the internet have no power, and no money, no title or position. and their thoughts are not the same thing as reality. I have no doubt in 10 years people will still be pounding on key boards crying about the JSF, and it will be flying all over the world, I bet a few of them will still call for cancellation too, bless their hearts.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 19:20
by gtx
Interesting thought...


Fighter Project In Limbo Government Needs to Reexamine Plan from Square One
(Source: Korea Times; published Aug. 20, 2013)

The nation’s next-generation fighter project is in limbo because the Eurofighter Typhoon touted by EADS, a European defense consortium, has been eliminated from the bid. This left Boeing of the United States as the sole bidder for the 8.3 trillion won procurement project. Boeing is proposing to sell 60 F-15 Silent Eagles to Seoul. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 had already been eliminated from the competition because its proposed price exceeded Seoul’s budget.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the arms procurement agency, disqualified EADS on grounds that the European consortium’s proposal failed to meet South Korea’s key demands. Specifically, EADS arbitrarily cut the number of two-seater aircraft to six in its final bidding document after promising to supply 15 two-seaters to South Korea’s Air Force during the negotiation period, according to DAPA.

On Monday, EADS reacted angrily to DAPA’s decision, saying its proposal is best optimized for Seoul’s budget and efficient flight operations. Christian Scherer, chief sales officer of EADS Cassidian, said in a statement that there was no agreement between the two sides on the number of two-seater jets. "We do not see any promises made but only different scenarios with preferences which have been discussed respectfully by the parties all along the negotiation process,’’ he said.

For now, Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle appears to be in a favorable position to be chosen as the final bidder for the F-X project at a meeting of top military brass to be held in mid-September. Yet it remains to be seen whether Boeing, which won Seoul’s previous fighter jet contract, will be the winner again owing to deep-seated doubts about the American defense company and its aircraft.

Most problematic is that the F-15 SE, which is based on the F-15 developed first in the 1970s, is only on the drawing board without even a prototype in existence yet. Furthermore, the two-seat, two-engine F-15 SE has allegedly vulnerable radar-evading stealth features, a function the Air Force sees as one of the most important factors in selecting the next-generation fighter jet.

The Air Force says that South Korea needs jets with increased stealth features, given the necessity to counter North Korea’s nuclear threat. There is also a growing need to rival its neighboring countries to be armed with stealth aircraft in a few years ? Japan already signed a contract to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35 that excels other aircraft when it comes to stealth features.

Boeing is also offering an unfavorable technology transfer deal to Seoul, apparently bound by the U.S. administration’s rigid control on aircraft technologies. In contrast, EADS has offered an attractive offset deal, including a bold transfer of key technologies. The European consortium, in particular, proposed assembling 53 planes in local factories to help boost the country’s aerospace industry.

DAPA is reportedly in a dilemma. At a time when it’s all but impossible to raise the budget for the fighter project due to looming fiscal constraints, Seoul may fail to attain its goal of reinforcing the Air Force significantly even at the expense of huge taxpayer money. Now is the time for the government to make a bold decision, including reexamining the fighter project from square one.

-ends-


Personally, I believe the underlying problem is Seoul's wanting to 'have their cake and eat it too' - i.e. insisting on a set of high end capabilities, insisting on 60 aircraft (in a certain mix too it appears) AND insisting on a price cap. Out of these three, you can only have two! Something has to give.

I also still believe that Boeing's offer might have some interesting 'fine print' in it - the company does not simply accept the risk of a possible loss.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:08
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:There will be a million reason why the SE won, and a million reasons why the F-35 lost, depending on who you ask. The fun thing about the Anti F-35 internet world is the only thing they can agree on is they don't like the JSF. Even the reasons are myriad, and of course what they think should do the job instead of the F-35 is even more varied.



Not a million reasons..
In the MMRCA there was some 700-800 different requirements Points of which all the jets competed on. One would think SK AF did something similar in this tender.
It would indeed be interesting to know how much the one vs two crew requirements did weight in..

But requirements can only take you so far, finding enough funding for the AF Brass to toy around With in times like this is a seriously challange. Goverments around the world tends to spend less money on Defence.

So moving on, what will the Brasil Tender look like after the Goveremnts has finaly decided upon how much funding they will allocate?

You spend a lot of time posting how wrong the anti F-35 crowd are and how right the Pro F-35 crowd are..
Personaly i think the hurdle of F-35 will still be cost, whenever it compete in any Tender or that different AF around the world might have to settle for fewer units due to lack of funding(additional funding)..

If a given goverment choose to spend only so much $ on such fighter Tender, well then you folks should respect this and stop posting nonsens about how flawed their decissions were..

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:15
by XanderCrews
Yet it remains to be seen whether Boeing, which won Seoul’s previous fighter jet contract, will be the winner again owing to deep-seated doubts about the American defense company and its aircraft...Boeing is also offering an unfavorable technology transfer deal to Seoul, apparently bound by the U.S. administration’s rigid control on aircraft technologies.
.


But, but, but Boeing is so trusted with Korea, and their offsets are superior. Slowman, and details once again. :roll:

Lets see much of a stink EADs makes.

Remember, when an F-35 wins its because of a corrupt process, and when an F-15 wins its as honest as apple pie and grandma. Double standards are fun.

Sure would be interesting to see the Koreans hold the SEs and kick the can down the road. a few years.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:26
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:There will be a million reason why the SE won, and a million reasons why the F-35 lost, depending on who you ask. The fun thing about the Anti F-35 internet world is the only thing they can agree on is they don't like the JSF. Even the reasons are myriad, and of course what they think should do the job instead of the F-35 is even more varied.



Not a million reasons..
In the MMRCA there was some 700-800 different requirements Points of which all the jets competed on. One would think SK AF did something similar in this tender.
It would indeed be interesting to know how much the one vs two crew requirements did weight in..
.


No Haav, I'm not talking abou actual factual measurable reasons. in the anti-F-35 corners of the internet conspiracy theories abound. Right now there are people theorizing that the F-35 lost because the F-15 brought more suitcases full of money.

When you are not tied to reality, you can come up with all kinds of wacky crap, like taking an F-111 and throwing some F119s in it and turning it into a 21st century super fighter.

Or like Slowman, posting photoshopped versions of JASDF and ROKAF fighters with fake kill markings. If Peter Goon proposed that the F-35 is a martian war machine built by the a aliens who live on Phobos to overthrow the evil oppressive government of venus, It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. He's that nuts. facts and standards and documented proof mean zip.

There are people out there that are allergic to any kind of fact, and are only interested in things that prove their side of an agenda, no matter the lack of credibility of the sources. for people this crazy, millions of reasons is not a bad estimate. Slowman has already posted mulitiple stories that are heavy on opinion, like huffington post, hell the author wrote a book about LM's evil, and in the article completely neglected to mention that the Boeing bid promised offsets. its not a story, its an editorial. Its just the author's opinion. then others lock onto that and add their own conspiracy to it, and before you know it these nuts are debating about whether F-35s are a martian war machine, or if its a conspiracy from Jupiter.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 20:42
by hb_pencil
haavarla wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:There will be a million reason why the SE won, and a million reasons why the F-35 lost, depending on who you ask. The fun thing about the Anti F-35 internet world is the only thing they can agree on is they don't like the JSF. Even the reasons are myriad, and of course what they think should do the job instead of the F-35 is even more varied.



Not a million reasons..
In the MMRCA there was some 700-800 different requirements Points of which all the jets competed on. One would think SK AF did something similar in this tender.
It would indeed be interesting to know how much the one vs two crew requirements did weight in..

But requirements can only take you so far, finding enough funding for the AF Brass to toy around With in times like this is a seriously challange. Goverments around the world tends to spend less mony on Defence.

So moving on, what will the Brasil Tender look like after the Goveremnts has finaly decided upon how much funding they will allocate..

You spend a lot of time posting how wrong the anti F-35 crowd are and how right the Pro F-35 crowd are..
Personaly i think the hurdle of F-35 will still be cost, whenever it compete in any Tender or that different AF around the world might have to settle for fewer units due to lack of funding(attitional funding)..

If a given goverment choose to spend only so much on such fighter Tender, well then you folks should respect this and stop posting nonsens about how flawed their decissions were..


That's the thing... the F-35 was designed with this in mind and generally wins on price. Basically LM took systems currently in place in the public sector (mostly in airlines) and applied them to a military capability. That 3000+ units produced is going to have a tremendous pressure on the operational costs. Within five years you're going to see significant changes due to data-driven analysis, like what's been going on with the F-16 (but on a much much larger scale due to the sheer amount of data). Getting a custom developed F-15SE/K+ is going to drive up your costs due to low commonality, fewer units produced, (as well as the inherent nature of the F-15- twin engine twin crew, older system.)

The problem in the korean competition is that F-35 was run as an FMS where there is a pretty firm cost and date delivered, which the inflexibility of the process worked against it. Those two features turned an aircraft that will be cheaper to purchase and operate into a more expensive aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 21:15
by geogen
I concur with GTX. For some time now, I've been assessing that 'something will likely need to give'. I've also assessed that DAPA should/will likely decide to re-evaluate FX-3 and restructure the requirements.

Personally, I've thought they could go with a mix of say, 35-40x or so F-15K++/F-15SE-lite (pathway) + new stand-off munitions procurement + FA-50+ (with AESA) + UAV for recon/surveillance.

FX-3 could arguably be more about 'stopgap' and gap-filler now, rather than a definitive 'strategic' counter-balance and deterrence, etc. Besides, RoK has most recently begun a path to procure cruise missiles, Air Defense missile systems and even Tactical Ballistic missiles. All of which are nothing to sneeze at, 'strategically'.

Thus, the longer-term 'strategic' modernization and recap component of RoKAF's requirements could then be given more focus in terms of PROPERLY identifying and studying a reliable and 'cost-effective' KF-X 'mix' acquisition plan. Whether that could include procuring custom-configured block 5 F-35A in the mid-20s, e.g., or jointly-developed concepts (including unmanned) from scratch, it (KF-X) could become the more relevant RoKAF investment focus factoring in 'lessons learned'. In my humble opinion.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 21:24
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:
You spend a lot of time posting how wrong the anti F-35 crowd are and how right the Pro F-35 crowd are..
Personaly i think the hurdle of F-35 will still be cost, whenever it compete in any Tender or that different AF around the world might have to settle for fewer units due to lack of funding(attitional funding)..

If a given goverment choose to spend only so much on such fighter Tender, well then you folks should respect this and stop posting nonsens about how flawed their decissions were..


I like to think my reasons for being "pro F-35" are grounded in reality:

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/F-35_Case_Study.pdf

Not some fantasy land where the RAAF discovers a magical money tree and starts buying F-22s, Super F-111s, and full scale AWACs in order to fight China single-handedly. Whats happened with the anti crowd is that ANY press is that is bad no matter the source is happily reposted. At no point does someone say "boy I don't like the F-35, but man I don't think this is factual... I shouldn't repost this, as it hurts my credibility if I do"

Believe it or not if there is a pro F-35 source that doesn't seem to make sense I tend to ignore it, rather than hold it up as bright shining example of how right I am, regardless of validity.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 22:47
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:For all we know, the F-15SE won for two reasons. It was the right price, and fleet commonality...
To be strict, the *bid* was right. Even geogen seems confused as to how Boeing plans to pull the SE off by 2018 within the Korean's budget.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 22:51
by haavarla
hb_pencil wrote:
haavarla wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:There will be a million reason why the SE won, and a million reasons why the F-35 lost, depending on who you ask. The fun thing about the Anti F-35 internet world is the only thing they can agree on is they don't like the JSF. Even the reasons are myriad, and of course what they think should do the job instead of the F-35 is even more varied.



Not a million reasons..
In the MMRCA there was some 700-800 different requirements Points of which all the jets competed on. One would think SK AF did something similar in this tender.
It would indeed be interesting to know how much the one vs two crew requirements did weight in..

But requirements can only take you so far, finding enough funding for the AF Brass to toy around With in times like this is a seriously challange. Goverments around the world tends to spend less mony on Defence.

So moving on, what will the Brasil Tender look like after the Goveremnts has finaly decided upon how much funding they will allocate..

You spend a lot of time posting how wrong the anti F-35 crowd are and how right the Pro F-35 crowd are..
Personaly i think the hurdle of F-35 will still be cost, whenever it compete in any Tender or that different AF around the world might have to settle for fewer units due to lack of funding(attitional funding)..

If a given goverment choose to spend only so much on such fighter Tender, well then you folks should respect this and stop posting nonsens about how flawed their decissions were..


That's the thing... the F-35 was designed with this in mind and generally wins on price. Basically LM took systems currently in place in the public sector (mostly in airlines) and applied them to a military capability. That 3000+ units produced is going to have a tremendous pressure on the operational costs. Within five years you're going to see significant changes due to data-driven analysis, like what's been going on with the F-16 (but on a much much larger scale due to the sheer amount of data). Getting a custom developed F-15SE/K+ is going to drive up your costs due to low commonality, fewer units produced, (as well as the inherent nature of the F-15- twin engine twin crew, older system.)

The problem in the korean competition is that F-35 was run as an FMS where there is a pretty firm cost and date delivered, which the inflexibility of the process worked against it. Those two features turned an aircraft that will be cheaper to purchase and operate into a more expensive aircraft.


Its funny Reading that the F-15SE is not developed yet.. and that this will cost so much more funding.
Have anyone of you considered that the proposed F-15SE to SK AF is In Fact finnished developed?

We know the canted Stabz will never happend. We know alot of work has allready been done on the CFT With W-bays on.
We know there is an improved FBW system allready tested. We know the AN/APG-63v3 is allready operational. What can possibly not yet be developed on the F-15SE(slammer) ??

You guys can't produce any material on this issues, yet you still keep posting stuff like but but the F-15SE is not yet developed.

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 23:26
by spazsinbad
Here's some "HOPE & CHANGE"....

F-15 Beating Out F-35, Typhoon in Competition for South Korea's Next Fighter 20 Aug 2013 By Dan Parsons
"...All is not lost for Lockheed and the F-35. South Korea also flies the F-16 and is in the process of upgrading about 130 of those aircraft with modern avionics, sensors and weapons. But the Korean Air Force will eventually need to replace that aircraft, which is a 1970s-era design.

“At some point, they probably will buy F-35s,” Jaworowski said. Anyone who flies the F-16, as South Korea does, is a serious customer for the F-35 down the road.”"

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1239

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2013, 23:59
by Prinz_Eugn
haavarla wrote:You guys can't produce any material on this issues, yet you still keep posting stuff like but but the F-15SE is not yet developed.


Well, there's not an actual F-15SE flying, so there's that. Do we know how different the Korean offer was from the F-15SA? I think the big unknown so far is the RCS reductions they're going to try.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:05
by XanderCrews
Its funny Reading that the F-15SE is not developed yet.. and that this will cost so much more funding.
Have anyone of you considered that the proposed F-15SE to SK AF is In Fact finnished developed?


No. because it isn't and Boeing knows it too.

We know the canted Stabz will never happend. We know alot of work has allready been done on the CFT With W-bays on.
We know there is an improved FBW system allready tested. We know the AN/APG-63v3 is allready operational. What can possibly not yet be developed on the F-15SE(slammer) ??

You guys can't produce any material on this issues, yet you still keep posting stuff like but but the F-15SE is not yet developed.


I know what you are trying to say that its all set and just a matter of "glueing the pieces together" and sending the bill to SK. We are talking about an F-15 variant that has never been built before, Boeing has been talking about RAM, and radar blockers, it may look externally similar to an F-15K, but be very different (You often remind us of the same things with Flankers...) We don't know what structural issues may crop up. Everything has to be integrated and tested, and it all has to come in under budget for what will essentially be a low production run of 60 aircraft. If things become more expensive than planned or delayed (imagine that) things get tougher still.

If an F-15SE needs Needs a new RAM Panel, its going to have to get it from Boeing as a previous Strike Eagle series panel will not due, unless you want to lose RCS. So the more rare panel from the limited production will end up costing more.

Boeing is going to have to take all these promised features and keep them affordable. and in the contract budget. It may end up being some very small margins. Even then logistics and affordability may be issues, in which case the aircraft may become "white elephants" in service. I assume the F110s are being kept which is good news for ROKAF logistics, but those could be some of the few common items, depending on what gets replaced and what doesn't.

There is a reason Boeing nixed the canted fins, everything new costs money to develop, test and integrate. even stuff that has been previously "done" or appears easy.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:20
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Here's some "HOPE & CHANGE"....

F-15 Beating Out F-35, Typhoon in Competition for South Korea's Next Fighter 20 Aug 2013 By Dan Parsons
"...All is not lost for Lockheed and the F-35. South Korea also flies the F-16 and is in the process of upgrading about 130 of those aircraft with modern avionics, sensors and weapons. But the Korean Air Force will eventually need to replace that aircraft, which is a 1970s-era design.

“At some point, they probably will buy F-35s,” Jaworowski said. Anyone who flies the F-16, as South Korea does, is a serious customer for the F-35 down the road.”"

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1239


A reasonable assumption but if an indigenous SK Gen 4++ jet actually rises from the ooze at some indeterminate point in the future, it would have the homefield advantage.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 00:33
by count_to_10
Does the SE do anything with the F-15's squared off intakes?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 10:56
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
Its funny Reading that the F-15SE is not developed yet.. and that this will cost so much more funding.
Have anyone of you considered that the proposed F-15SE to SK AF is In Fact finnished developed?


No. because it isn't and Boeing knows it too.

We know the canted Stabz will never happend. We know alot of work has allready been done on the CFT With W-bays on.
We know there is an improved FBW system allready tested. We know the AN/APG-63v3 is allready operational. What can possibly not yet be developed on the F-15SE(slammer) ??

You guys can't produce any material on this issues, yet you still keep posting stuff like but but the F-15SE is not yet developed.


I know what you are trying to say that its all set and just a matter of "glueing the pieces together" and sending the bill to SK. We are talking about an F-15 variant that has never been built before, Boeing has been talking about RAM, and radar blockers, it may look externally similar to an F-15K, but be very different (You often remind us of the same things with Flankers...) We don't know what structural issues may crop up. Everything has to be integrated and tested, and it all has to come in under budget for what will essentially be a low production run of 60 aircraft. If things become more expensive than planned or delayed (imagine that) things get tougher still.

If an F-15SE needs Needs a new RAM Panel, its going to have to get it from Boeing as a previous Strike Eagle series panel will not due, unless you want to lose RCS. So the more rare panel from the limited production will end up costing more.

Boeing is going to have to take all these promised features and keep them affordable. and in the contract budget. It may end up being some very small margins. Even then logistics and affordability may be issues, in which case the aircraft may become "white elephants" in service. I assume the F110s are being kept which is good news for ROKAF logistics, but those could be some of the few common items, depending on what gets replaced and what doesn't.

There is a reason Boeing nixed the canted fins, everything new costs money to develop, test and integrate. even stuff that has been previously "done" or appears easy.


Then pls explain to me what difference there is between the SK F-15SE and the F-15K?
Why should there be som much difference in the internal structure between those two.
What RAM panel are you talking about??
Afaik, Boeing opted for Canted wings and Internal W-bays in the CTF. I can't remember they stated the F-15SE will be saturated With RAM coating all over..
The Empty and NTOW weight should be indentical. The CFT is the exact same in size and shape externaly. Same Engines, Same Cockpit section. Same wings. In fact, same fuselage.
Glueing together the pieces is exactly what Boeing need to do here. They allready have their Assembly lines going.

The major difference should be some additional cable/wirening for the F-15SE otherwise its pretty much the same.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 14:23
by cantaz
haavarla wrote:The major difference should be some additional cable/wirening for the F-15SE otherwise its pretty much the same.


So what you're suggesting is that SK went through all that hassle just to purchase more F-15Ks with the most minor of changes, and no meaningful RCS reduction. Essentially, that there's nothing "Silent" about the Silent Eagle SK bought? Interesting position.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 17:13
by geogen
cantaz wrote:
haavarla wrote:The major difference should be some additional cable/wirening for the F-15SE otherwise its pretty much the same.


So what you're suggesting is that SK went through all that hassle just to purchase more F-15Ks with the most minor of changes, and no meaningful RCS reduction. Essentially, that there's nothing "Silent" about the Silent Eagle SK bought? Interesting position.


It would indeed be an interesting all-aspect RCS comparison to make between say, the final F-15SE product (armed w/ 4 internal AAM), plus external IRST in a2a configuration, vs Typhoon armed w/ 4 semi-recessed AAM. Endurance might be similar in both otherwise clean configurations (i.e., neither carrying EFT)?

Of course, when re-equipping the platform to more of an F-15K+ configuration w/ standard CFT, 4-6x external AAM and perhaps a centerline tank, it would greatly extend endurance (reportedly an important RoKAF requirement), but at obvious cost to RCS.

Although, it's probably Not accurate to describe the proposed F-15SE-lite/F-15K+ (minus the canted tail and even when configured with standard CFT) as a 'hassle' with the 'most minor of changes' and as you do. The non-RCS-related 'changes' are fairly significant actually to include; enhanced displays, FBW, enhanced digital EW suite/self-protection, MAWS (?), enhanced AESA radar and activated outside wing station. So in retrospect, the combined 'enhancements' would arguably offer a fairly substantial 'next-gen' upgrade and allow for further incremental systems growth.

Furthermore, it's been mentioned that another force-multiplying advantage would be to retrofit some of the RCS-reducing applications (CWB, inlet blockers and possible coatings) to existing F-15K platforms. Hence, a justified 'hassle' afterall.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:15
by haavarla
cantaz wrote:
haavarla wrote:The major difference should be some additional cable/wirening for the F-15SE otherwise its pretty much the same.


So what you're suggesting is that SK went through all that hassle just to purchase more F-15Ks with the most minor of changes, and no meaningful RCS reduction. Essentially, that there's nothing "Silent" about the Silent Eagle SK bought? Interesting position.


Six month ago i read that the F-15SE would cost more than $ 100 mil each unit, In Fact some posters claimed the F-15SE would be more expensive vs F-35A.

So what gives.. The F-35A flunged out on cost among other issues..

How much "Silent" will the F-15SE come for SK and their Limited funding on this Tender?

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:40
by Prinz_Eugn
Everyone needs to read this: http://www.flightglobal.com/cutaways/mi ... eing-f-15/ especially under the "Needing More" section:

The F-15SE would be equipped with the BAE digital electronic warfare suite (DEWS), described as being derived from technologies carried by the F-35 and F-22. Perhaps significantly, Boeing is to add a Raytheon AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) to the weapons package. There are no plans to add a jamming pod, but in other respects the combination of the DEWS and the HARM capability resemble the mission once performed by the USAF's EF-111 Raven.

Since the unveiling nearly three years ago, Boeing has added a couple of major upgrades to the cockpit. Large-area, touchscreen displays are now offered for the Silent Eagle configuration. Boeing has also started testing a second-generation joint helmet-mounted cueing system featuring integrated night-vision and lighter-weight cables.

Within the aircraft is another unseen but meaningful upgrade. Boeing is converting the flight controls to fly-by-wire, a technology for which the original F-15 was too early. This is where the Saudi order is so important. Riyadh has agreed to be the launch customer for the fly-by-wire and DEWS upgrades. With Singapore funding the radar upgrade, South Korea's only major investment - and development risk - would be integrating the conformal weapons bays, although Boeing has already test-fired a prototype system in flight. Korea Aerospace Industries has been selected to design and produce the weapons bays.

Boeing has not finished tinkering with the configuration. It confirms that one upgrade being considered is the integration of an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor inside the fuselage. An IRST is essentially a miniature telescope scanning for targets by heat emissions. It is helpful when an onboard radar cannot be used, as the electronic emission can be detected and pinpointed by enemies in the air or on the ground. An IRST is a passive sensor, so it only receives infrared energy.

Today, the F-15E already includes an IRST pod, carried in a wing pylon above the navigation pod. That placement is impossible when the F-15SE operates in "silent" configuration, but Boeing could install an IRST sensor into a faceted, low-observable chamber blended into the fuselage. This would resemble the electro-optical targeting system installed in the fuselage beneath the F-35's cockpit.


More at the jump, as Spaz says.

So more than the F-15K obviously (DEWS and FBW paid for by the Saudis, bless their oil-filled hearts), so it's more a question of how much integration is left on the conformal bays and what, exactly, they plan to do about RCS reduction.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:08
by neurotech
haavarla wrote:
cantaz wrote:
haavarla wrote:The major difference should be some additional cable/wirening for the F-15SE otherwise its pretty much the same.


So what you're suggesting is that SK went through all that hassle just to purchase more F-15Ks with the most minor of changes, and no meaningful RCS reduction. Essentially, that there's nothing "Silent" about the Silent Eagle SK bought? Interesting position.


Six month ago i read that the F-15SE would cost more than $ 100 mil each unit, In Fact some posters claimed the F-15SE would be more expensive vs F-35A.

So what gives.. The F-35A flunged out on cost among other issues..

How much "Silent" will the F-15SE come for SK and their Limited funding on this Tender?

@haavaria: I think there is some structural changes to both reduce airframe weight, along with electrical system changes for serviceability. Some of these changes, like FBW, are also being included on the F-15S/F-15SA and F-15SG versions.

The claim about cost of a F-15SE vs F-35 can be confusing for two reasons. The F-15K is in RoKAF service, so support costs are reduced compared to a new jet such as a F/A-18F Super Hornet. Both the F100-PW-22x and the F110-GE-129 are in RoKAF but not the F414 engine (yet? See F/A-50)

The F-35 will likely be cheaper in FRP (~$95m FY2018 Unit Cost) than the F-15SE but the cost of introducing a new type into RoKAF service significantly increased Program Cost above limits.

@Prinz_Eugn: Yes, FBW, DEWS (F-35 derived) and APG-82 AESA (F/A-18E/F APG-79 derived) systems have provided obvious benefits. It would however be misguided to say all these systems would be in a F-15SE variant at similar costs without the other programs.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:31
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:
Six month ago i read that the F-15SE would cost more than $ 100 mil each unit, In Fact some posters claimed the F-15SE would be more expensive vs F-35A.


That's not much a stretch considering an F-15K in FY 2008 was $105 million.

As for the other stuff we are going to have to wait and see exactly what is or is not included in whatever an F-15SE turns out to be. And just how different it is from F-15Ks. If something starts to become more expensive than previously thought, adjustments in contracts may be required, or additional funds secured.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 21:12
by Prinz_Eugn
neurotech wrote:@Prinz_Eugn: Yes, FBW, DEWS (F-35 derived) and APG-82 AESA (F/A-18E/F APG-79 derived) systems have provided obvious benefits. It would however be misguided to say all these systems would be in a F-15SE variant at similar costs without the other programs.


Um, I didn't say that...

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 23:19
by neurotech
Prinz_Eugn wrote:So more than the F-15K obviously (DEWS and FBW paid for by the Saudis, bless their oil-filled hearts),
I was concurring, not directly quoting you in my previous post.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 23:26
by Prinz_Eugn
Ah, I thought you were saying I was misguided. Boeing definitely lucked out in getting those features payed for, I am really curious if anyone knows what exactly they offered in their bid.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2013, 23:49
by discofishing
Well, if Boeing gets this deal for South Korea, things will be VERY exciting. I'm losing more faith in the F-35 program as time moves on. In the near future air defense networks will be distributed multi-spectral target nodes. Not sure the VLO designs are going to be as safe as everything thinks.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:03
by geogen
First off, Fwiw, It's probably inaccurate to say 'DEWS and FBW' were fully funded by SA alone.

And secondly...

@ neuro-

There is no evidence whatsoever that an FY18 F-35A total weapon system cost will be $95m! (maybe an URF cost, minus the engine?)

Moreover, there is unfortunately little evidence to give confidence for FY18 in fact constituting the starting 'FRP' production year either.

That said, the uncertainty revolving around a mature, reliable block 3F F-35A being actually available to RoKAF when they apparently require it, (not starting deliveries in late 2020) is unfortunately compounded by the fact that the estimated unit Weapon System Cost reportedly does not fit within RoK's procurement budget.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:11
by lookieloo
Prinz_Eugn wrote:I am really curious if anyone knows what exactly they offered in their bid.
Only DAPA at this point I expect. I can hardly wait for details to be pridefully announced: "Look Ma, magic beans!"

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 00:12
by lookieloo
deleted

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 03:36
by neurotech
geogen wrote:First off, Fwiw, It's probably inaccurate to say 'DEWS and FBW' were fully funded by SA alone.
I was suggesting these systems benefited from earlier programs.
geogen wrote:There is no evidence whatsoever that an FY18 F-35A total weapon system cost will be $95m! (maybe an URF cost, minus the engine?)
Unit Flyaway cost, Including engine.

geogen wrote:That said, the uncertainty revolving around a mature, reliable block 3F F-35A being actually available to RoKAF when they apparently require it, (not starting deliveries in late 2020) is unfortunately compounded by the fact that the estimated unit Weapon System Cost reportedly does not fit within RoK's procurement budget.
Korea could get the jets earlier than "late 2020s", but not starting deliveries in 2018. I suspect we'll see a second program to replace the F-16s, which may be favorable to the F-35 cost and schedule.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:22
by SpudmanWP
geogen wrote:There is no evidence whatsoever that an FY18 F-35A total weapon system cost will be $95m! (maybe an URF cost, minus the engine?)

That is what is in the FY2018 budget for "Flyaway Unit Cost". The key question is will Congress grow a spine and support the program.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 06:54
by lookieloo
SpudmanWP wrote:That is what is in the FY2018 budget for "Flyaway Unit Cost". The key question is will Congress grow a spine and support the program.
Let's see... LRIP-7 F-35As are already under $100 milion w/o engine...

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 08:11
by XanderCrews
discofishing wrote:Well, if Boeing gets this deal for South Korea, things will be VERY exciting.


why?


I'm losing more faith in the F-35 program as time moves on. In the near future air defense networks will be distributed multi-spectral target nodes. Not sure the VLO designs are going to be as safe as everything thinks.


Why, again?

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 08:26
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Furthermore, it's been mentioned that another force-multiplying advantage would be to retrofit some of the RCS-reducing applications (CWB, inlet blockers and possible coatings) to existing F-15K platforms. Hence, a justified 'hassle' afterall.


I guess we differ on if that "justifies the hassle" I think our definitions of "force multiplier" also differ. Hard to imagine that the only way SK could get a CWB and an inlet blocker is to spend 7.4 billion with Boeing. I'm sure that was a "force multiplying advantage" they could have developed themselves.

There is no evidence whatsoever that an FY18 F-35A total weapon system cost will be $95m! (maybe an URF cost, minus the engine?)


You might want to sit down then.

We also have yet to see exactly what an F-15SE costs in 4 years and its features, and you are already promoting it as "justified" and a "force multiplier" double standards are fun.

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 09:42
by spazsinbad
Coupla stories about 'doubts' about 'F-15whatchamecallit stelph'. Read 'em if ya got 'em....

Controversy escalates over purchase of new jet fighters:
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130820000865
&
The fighter jet puzzle: http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... id=2976483

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2013, 11:01
by geogen
F414euro,

Rest assured, I've been critical of the F-15SE-lite/F-15K++ path as well. I'm more in the camp of purely wanting RoK et al of simply getting the best possible, cost-effective and reliable deal overall to fill their respective requirements. As such, I'm truly not loyal to one platform or the other in their case and have also been saying it's probably wise to consider a total FX-3 review of specifications and requirements.

Yep, probably start over, untimely and undesirable as it is - perhaps delaying for a max of 6-9 months (i.e., first delivery in early 2018). And who knows, perhaps it might even end up involving a 'mix' of platforms, e.g., perhaps an advanced FA-50+ to augment the contract and keep costs down...and maybe even to include an unmanned component??

Regardless, something will seemingly still need to give with the current $7.5B 'bid' process vis-a-vis F-15K++/SE and it being sufficient to fulfill requirements as is. Don't get me wrong, the F-15K+ which is essentially a baseline F-15SA avionics-wise, but with upgraded radar set, would likely be a fine 'high-end' next-gen platform for any customer fortunate enough to acquire (sure, even USAF). However, it just seems as if there might be some discrepancies with this particular deal, in the form of whether they come with ANY eo/ir or IRST type apertures (as Typhoon and F-35 employ) and whether or not the CWB is actually included in this otherwise acceptably priced $124m per unit buy, or merely the R&D? e.g., I'd personally assume that the 'complete' F-15 weapon system offering was going to come equipped with at least some basic MAWS system and the external IRST piece (even if not included on a 1:1 ratio of jet platforms), to fulfill the requirement of for a credible a2a role. in my humble opinion.

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2013, 13:38
by spazsinbad
Korea Favors F-15 Silent Eagle Fighter Over F-35, Typhoon 22 Aug 2013 Chris Pocock AINonline
"The Republic of Korea seems set to launch the F-15SE Silent Eagle, by confirming Boeing as winner of the F-X III contest for 60 more combat aircraft....

...Boeing, Eurofighter and Lockheed Martin all said this week that they had received no official notification on the outcome of the F-X III contest. Yonhap said that “a final decision on whether to accept or reject the sole (remaining) candidate” will be made in mid-September....

...Compared with the F-15K, the F-15SE has stealth features such as conformal weapons bays that can be converted to carry fuel, and surface treatments. It also has the Raytheon APG-63 (V)3 AESA radar, a digital flight control system and a new digital electronic warfare system (DEWS).

Boeing flew a development aircraft with some of these features in 2010 and was bullish about the Silent Eagle’s prospects in the Korean competition last year. According to Yonhap, Boeing dropped one of the Silent Eagle features–canted tails for reduced radar cross-section–“to meet Seoul’s tight budget and delivery schedule.”...

...Boeing is offering the Silent Eagle as a direct commercial sale at an undisclosed price. But the aircraft’s radar, DEWS and various other avionics are being offered under FMS terms, at a cost of $2.4 billion. Boeing told AIN that it had offered “an extremely capable, low-risk and price-competitive solution that can be delivered on a schedule that meets Korean requirements, (including) a comprehensive offset program.”

If the deal is confirmed, the 60 Silent Eagles will be delivered between 2017 and 2021."

http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/2013 ... 35-typhoon

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 07:08
by popcorn
Warfighters vs. Beancounters... what are the chances they push the reset button? Nothing would surprise at this point..

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 91.xml&p=2

South Korean Fighter Order: AF Backs F-35
By Bradley Perrett, Bill Sweetman, Amy Butler

August 26, 2013


Boeing's F-15SE Silent Eagle has been selected as the only qualified bidder in South Korea's F-X Phase 3 competition for 60 fighters—but the country's air force is lobbying to overturn the decision in favor of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

A win in South Korea would extend the F-15 production line into the next decade and launch an improved version that could compete for future fighter requirements in the 2020s. That outcome seems likely following the decision of the South Korean purchasing authority, the Defense Acquisition Program Agency (DAPA), to eliminate first the F-35 as too costly and then the Eurofighter Typhoon for a bidding irregularity—although EADS, representing the consortium in the South Korean deal, disputes DAPA's decision.

A cross-government committee chaired by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin will meet next month to rule on DAPA's decision. The review group will include air force officers, a member of the parliament's defense committee, an official from the finance ministry and the heads of DAPA and the Agency for Defense Development, which wants to lead indigenous industry in the development of its own stealthy fighter, the KF-X (AW&ST April 29, p. 46).

The finance ministry may back DAPA's fiscally conservative choice, but the air force has already shown its colors in fighting for the F-35...

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 07:37
by XanderCrews
Wow. Thanks for sharing, I avoid Avweek unless its posted here

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 07:49
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:Warfighters vs. Beancounters... what are the chances they push the reset button? Nothing would surprise at this point...
As I predicted earlier, the ROKAF is unhappy that DAPA came back with "magic beans," but what else could they have expected? The inane rules of the competition were obviously a crudely-disguised attempt to bring down the F-35's price, and LM/DoD didn't fall for it. Unfortunately, the Koreans neglected to leave themselves an honorable way out; and now Boeing has them by the shorthairs. Their only options now are: (1) Pay top dollar for another F-15 and accept inferiority to their neighbors, (2) Break their own rules and look foolish, or (3) cancel the whole thing and face a long delay.

Given the Asian necessity for saving-face and the fact that they really need to replace some very old planes, I'm guessing they'll still buy the F-15.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 07:54
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:Wow. Thanks for sharing, I avoid Avweek unless its posted here
Why?

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 12:33
by popcorn
It doesn't get any simpler.



http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -F-35.aspx

The Future Fight and the F-35

As Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh visited airmen in Hawaii and at Kadena AB, Japan, this week, he emphasized that the service is committed to seeing the F-35 program to fruition, as the fifth generation fighter's success has great implications for the Air Force's role in future conflicts. "The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real," he said. Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he said, and even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to others. Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation "4.5" fighters, does not solve the problem. "When a fifth generation fighter meets a fourth generation fighter—[the latter] dies," said Welsh. "We can't just dress up a fourth generation fighter as a fifth generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation," he said.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 12:52
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:As Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh visited airmen in Hawaii and at Kadena AB, Japan, this week, he emphasized that the service is committed to seeing the F-35 program to fruition, as the fifth generation fighter's success has great implications for the Air Force's role in future conflicts. "The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real," he said. Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he said, and even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to others. Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation "4.5" fighters, does not solve the problem. "When a fifth generation fighter meets a fourth generation fighter—[the latter] dies," said Welsh. "We can't just dress up a fourth generation fighter as a fifth generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation," he said.
Well, Boeing's management would be criminally negligent if they didn't at least try; and FWIW, upgrades for F-15s and Superhornets are still a good idea.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 13:01
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
popcorn wrote:As Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh visited airmen in Hawaii and at Kadena AB, Japan, this week, he emphasized that the service is committed to seeing the F-35 program to fruition, as the fifth generation fighter's success has great implications for the Air Force's role in future conflicts. "The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real," he said. Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he said, and even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to others. Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation "4.5" fighters, does not solve the problem. "When a fifth generation fighter meets a fourth generation fighter—[the latter] dies," said Welsh. "We can't just dress up a fourth generation fighter as a fifth generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation," he said.
Well, Boeing's management would be criminally negligent if they didn't at least try; and FWIW, upgrades for F-15s and Superhornets are still a good idea.


Maybe it will carry more weight translated into Korean. :)

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 15:22
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Wow. Thanks for sharing, I avoid Avweek unless its posted here
Why?


http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... makes.html

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 15:29
by count_to_10
South Korea would be better off to cancel the KF-X project entirely and use it's budget to spring for enough F-35s to cover both requirements. There is little chance that the KF-X will do anything better than the F-35 or cost less.

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2013, 19:59
by gtx
If the ROFAK were to get their way and the F-35 is selected, I vote we bring slowman back here just to laugh at him... :lol:

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2013, 21:59
by spazsinbad
Will Lockheed Martin Cuts [ALIS] Boost F-35 Sales Overseas? 24 Aug 2013
"In the world of high-tech fighter planes, operating costs for the long term have to be considered by officials in the Pentagon and defense departments everywhere. For that reason, Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) went back to the drawing board and came up with a more affordable version of its F-35 logistics and operations system, Reuters reports. The plane could bring Lockheed more contracts that were expected to go to rival aircraft manufacturers.

The solution Lockheed Martin came up with was nearly 40 percent less expensive than the previous model for the F-35 logistics and operation, the news outlet reports. Pentagon officials were able to reduce their estimates from more than $1 trillion to $857 billion as a result of the development. Because the high costs put some of the fighter jet business in jeopardy, Lockheed Martin had gone back to the workshop in hopes of developing a more viable system.

The effort paid off, leading to the thought that the deal Boeing (NYSE:BA) made with the South Korean government for F-15 fighters could be brought back under the magnifying glass. Lockheed Martin’s ability to save the Pentagon hundreds of millions in operating costs could prompt South Korea to reconsider the $7.4-billion bid it is said to have accepted in a contract for Boeing military aircraft earlier in the week, according to separate Reuters reports...."

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/will ... seas.html/

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 05:45
by KamenRiderBlade
I hope they don't cut ALIS.

That kind of tech needs to be on all fighter planes or retro fitted if possible.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 06:23
by SpudmanWP
They are cutting the cost to produce ALIS, not cutting the program capabilities or quantities.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 07:37
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Wow. Thanks for sharing, I avoid Avweek unless its posted here
Why?
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/08/f-35-cost-estimates-drop-avweek-makes.html
That still doesn't explain why you wouldn't at least read EADS-Weeky. It's not as if you're required to agree with their editorial content.

@gtx: That's just silly. If the Koreans changed their mind tomorrow and joined JSF, he still wouldn't be the least-bit embarrassed by anything he said. In any case, be careful what you wish for as I suspect the mods let him in on purpose and will probably do it again if Canada (or some other customer) jumps ship.

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 09:07
by Corsair1963
In the end South Korea will very likely purchase the F-35. As it really has little option if it wants a 5th Generation Fighter. Clearly, it isn't going to purchase one from China or Russia. So, this is all just politics and trying to get a better price...........

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 15:44
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Wow. Thanks for sharing, I avoid Avweek unless its posted here
Why?
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/08/f-35-cost-estimates-drop-avweek-makes.html
That still doesn't explain why you wouldn't at least read EADS-Weeky. It's not as if you're required to agree with their editorial content.


Websites generate advertising revenue based on "Mouse clicks" Which is why trolly headlines/ trolly articles are so popular. and could be a great indicator of why QC has fallen there. "Who cares if its biased or wrong? Its generating traffic!"

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/i ... t_4800.jpg

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2013, 18:59
by lookieloo
Corsair1963 wrote:In the end South Korea will very likely purchase the F-35. As it really has little option if it wants a 5th Generation Fighter. Clearly, it isn't going to purchase one from China or Russia. So, this is all just politics and trying to get a better price...........
I'm not convinced, While it's obvious the ROKAF wanted F-35s all along, Boeing won fair and square according to the rules (odd as they were); and if the Koreans don't follow through, they might find themselves short of bidders willing to waste time/money on future tenders.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 01:19
by southernphantom
Corsair1963 wrote:In the end South Korea will very likely purchase the F-35. As it really has little option if it wants a 5th Generation Fighter. Clearly, it isn't going to purchase one from China or Russia.


PAK FA was one of the original contenders.

I'd expect at least one more F-15 buy, followed by cancellation of the KF-X program and purchase of F-35s. KF-X has gone through so many revisions that expecting an actual product strikes me as overly-optimistic.

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 04:10
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:, Boeing won fair and square according to the rules (odd as they were); and if the Koreans don't follow through, they might find themselves short of bidders willing to waste time/money on future tenders.


Just to play the devils advocate: Not all the bidders on this go round feel they were treated fairly though already. France wouldn't touch it, EADs feels they were knocked out on a BS Technicality...

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2013, 07:08
by hb_pencil
lookieloo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:In the end South Korea will very likely purchase the F-35. As it really has little option if it wants a 5th Generation Fighter. Clearly, it isn't going to purchase one from China or Russia. So, this is all just politics and trying to get a better price...........
I'm not convinced, While it's obvious the ROKAF wanted F-35s all along, Boeing won fair and square according to the rules (odd as they were); and if the Koreans don't follow through, they might find themselves short of bidders willing to waste time/money on future tenders.


Ah, looking at the saga of the KC-X program, Boeing has been on the other side of a similar situation. It is not an ideal, but companies do get over it.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 01:41
by discofishing
Geez! Just pick the F-15SE and get on with things. F-35s can be for FX-IV or something.

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2013, 07:01
by XanderCrews
discofishing wrote:Geez! Just pick the F-15SE and get on with things. F-35s can be for FX-IV or something.


Why should they spend billions of fighters on an aircraft their Air Force isn't interested in because they set a completely arbitrary number early on?

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2013, 19:26
by discofishing
Well, the F-15SE is based on proven technology and has a proven combat record. What are F-35s going to do when more modern sensor technology renders their VLO design useless. They already build components for various F-15 programs and going with the F-15SE would continue that industrial cooperation. If I were South Korea, I would wait until the F-35 is done testing and has been flying a few years worth of Red Flag missions. The F-35 isn't going anywhere.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 01:04
by count_to_10
discofishing wrote:Well, the F-15SE is based on proven technology and has a proven combat record. What are F-35s going to do when more modern sensor technology renders their VLO design useless. They already build components for various F-15 programs and going with the F-15SE would continue that industrial cooperation. If I were South Korea, I would wait until the F-35 is done testing and has been flying a few years worth of Red Flag missions. The F-35 isn't going anywhere.

VLO is never going to be useless -- though countermeasures are going to be developed, they aren't costless, and will not be deployable everywhere. Moreover, by that point you may well find that non-VLO may as well not take off at all, as they will be detected and attacked almost immediately.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 05:05
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:
discofishing wrote:Well, the F-15SE is based on proven technology and has a proven combat record. What are F-35s going to do when more modern sensor technology renders their VLO design useless. They already build components for various F-15 programs and going with the F-15SE would continue that industrial cooperation. If I were South Korea, I would wait until the F-35 is done testing and has been flying a few years worth of Red Flag missions. The F-35 isn't going anywhere.

VLO is never going to be useless -- though countermeasures are going to be developed, they aren't costless, and will not be deployable everywhere. Moreover, by that point you may well find that non-VLO may as well not take off at all, as they will be detected and attacked almost immediately.


Also, why assume the F-35 tech is static and won't evolve to address emerging threats? Obviously not the Russians and Chinese who have tossed their hats into the Stealth ring.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 05:08
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 06:30
by discofishing
For what South Korea needs, I think it is over kill. In the not too distant future, I think multi-spectrum targeting systems will be able to easily find an F-35 at great range, be it in the IR, UV, RF, or visible spectrums. I'm not assuming the F-35 tech is static, because it's a system of systems. However, the shape of the airframe IS static, so we'll be stuck with it for the next 40-50 years. The major avionics in this aircraft can be put into something less expensive. Look at EPAWSS. It's basically taking F-22/F-35 technology and injecting it into F-15C/D aircraft. I'm sure the F-35 will be a great plane, one day, (minus the F-35B), I just think it's too expensive for the ROKAF. It's not just planes that fight wars.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 07:40
by lookieloo
discofishing wrote:For what South Korea needs, I think it is over kill. In the not too distant future, I think multi-spectrum targeting systems will be able to easily find an F-35 at great range...
:lmao: "Dradis contact!"

Image

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 10:24
by popcorn
discofishing wrote:For what South Korea needs, I think it is over kill. In the not too distant future, I think multi-spectrum targeting systems will be able to easily find an F-35 at great range, be it in the IR, UV, RF, or visible spectrums. I'm not assuming the F-35 tech is static, because it's a system of systems. However, the shape of the airframe IS static, so we'll be stuck with it for the next 40-50 years. The major avionics in this aircraft can be put into something less expensive. Look at EPAWSS. It's basically taking F-22/F-35 technology and injecting it into F-15C/D aircraft. I'm sure the F-35 will be a great plane, one day, (minus the F-35B), I just think it's too expensive for the ROKAF. It's not just planes that fight wars.


Everything has a shelf life and the F-35 will remain more viable far longer than any warmed over 4Gen jet. The shape may be fixed but much thought has been given to shape it from the start for stealth complemented by the judicious use of RAM. I don't think the jet is at it's stealth limit.. certainly new materials are being explored. Case in point, the F-22 is benefiting from LO tech developed for the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 15:45
by lookieloo
I'm gonna pull a "maus" and focus in my favorite part at the end. :)

Boeing Close to Winning S. Korean Fighter Deal
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... ghter-Deal
... skepticism remains high here [Korea] about the F-15SE’s performances since the aircraft is still in development.

“The F-15SE is not the best choice. There is not even a prototype of the aircraft,” Lee Hee-woo, head of a logistics support research institute at Chungnam National University. “Stealth functions are not featured only by painting the aircraft and fitting the jet with an internal weapons bay. It is much better to buy more F-15Ks, not the F-15SE, which critics call a paper aircraft.”

The DAPA has been criticized for its zigzag stance on the F-X requirements.

This third phase of F-X, in fact, was launched to procure the so-called fifth-generation stealth aircraft. To promote competition, however, DAPA eased the required operational capability, including the level of radar cross section. As a result, the Silent Eagle and the Typhoon were invited to the contest.

“The [competition] has lost its original purpose to buy stealth fighters,” said Shin In-kyun, head of the Korea Defense Network, a civic group for defense affairs. “It seems like a boxer in the ring was knocked out by his sparring partner.”

Han Sung-joo, a former commander of the Air Force Logistics Command, is worried F-15SEs would lose an air superiority battle against neighboring countries.

“Japan will introduce 42 F-35 stealth aircraft and is expected to get more up to 200 eventually. China’s J-20 stealth jet is likely to enter service by 2016,” the retired three-star general said. “Then why do we have to choose fighter aircraft falling behind those of the neighboring countries?”

DAPA’s stringent cost evaluation is also at the heart of debate here.

The aircraft acquisition cost only accounts for about 15 percent of the total evaluation. Mission capability takes up the largest portion with 35 percent, while compatibility accounts for nearly 18 percent, operational costs, 15 percent. The remainder is about technology transfer and offset programs.

DAPA had sought to increase the third F-X budget by 20 percent this year, but the budget authorities rejected the request, according to DAPA officials.

Critics say DAPA was easygoing about the budget issue. Rejected by the Finance Ministry, DAPA was upset and offered the 15-percent acquisition cost as an absolute condition to sway all other evaluation results.

“Certainly, it’s not reasonable that the whole evaluation is swayed by a 15-percent element,” said Kim Dae-young, a researcher at the Korea Defense & Security Forum, a Seoul-based private defense think tank. “In terms of regulations, there is no fault with the DAPA, but the acquisition process is too stringent to shop the best-performance product.”
Nice to have a little context for that "knocked-out by sparring partner" remark that keeps getting ballyhooed.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2013, 16:26
by popcorn
What I would be interested in is a comparison of the 30-year O&S costs for the competing platforms. LM's advanced sustainment model vs. Boeing's PBL..

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 06:12
by geogen
pop,

There's no reliable date yet from which to make a reliable assessment as to eventual, operational F-35 O&S costs. The current estimate for the F-35B though, is around $37k per CPFH and around $30k for the CTOL variant. But it's truly too early to tell, as nobody knows what sort of maintenance costs and spares costs will be incurred just 10 years into the operational life cycle of an F-35 variant. Therein is part of the risk-factor and gamble (not to mention higher costs to operate and maintain than current day existing platforms the F-35 is intended to replace).

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 07:37
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:pop,

There's no reliable date yet from which to make a reliable assessment as to eventual, operational F-35 O&S costs. The current estimate for the F-35B though, is around $37k per CPFH and around $30k for the CTOL variant. But it's truly too early to tell, as nobody knows what sort of maintenance costs and spares costs will be incurred just 10 years into the operational life cycle of an F-35 variant. Therein is part of the risk-factor and gamble (not to mention higher costs to operate and maintain than current day existing platforms the F-35 is intended to replace).


And F-15SE costs?

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2013, 23:39
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:pop,

There's no reliable date yet from which to make a reliable assessment as to eventual, operational F-35 O&S costs. The current estimate for the F-35B though, is around $37k per CPFH and around $30k for the CTOL variant. But it's truly too early to tell, as nobody knows what sort of maintenance costs and spares costs will be incurred just 10 years into the operational life cycle of an F-35 variant. Therein is part of the risk-factor and gamble (not to mention higher costs to operate and maintain than current day existing platforms the F-35 is intended to replace).


And F-15SE costs?

Exactly, ROKAF's F-15K isn't exactly cheap to operate as they are learning. The F-35 is the first jet to be designed from the start to benefit from cradle-to-grave sustainment model, leveraging economies of scale. As with all proposals, it will naturally be LM projections vs. Boeing projections.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 00:06
by neurotech
geogen wrote:pop,

There's no reliable date yet from which to make a reliable assessment as to eventual, operational F-35 O&S costs. The current estimate for the F-35B though, is around $37k per CPFH and around $30k for the CTOL variant. But it's truly too early to tell, as nobody knows what sort of maintenance costs and spares costs will be incurred just 10 years into the operational life cycle of an F-35 variant. Therein is part of the risk-factor and gamble (not to mention higher costs to operate and maintain than current day existing platforms the F-35 is intended to replace).

The $30k figure could be total O&S CPFH, perhaps based on the small number of F-35Cs currently flying. I'd be curious what the Comptroller F-35 CPFH would actually be. My guess, less than half that. The Comptroller figures are good for relative comparison.

Does anyone seriously think a F-15E/SE would actually be cheaper to fly? The O&M cost of a F-15E is $19,550. About double that of a F-16.

Also, the closest figure for the F-35B O&M Consumables cost is $7,425 per flying hour. The equivalent figure for the F/A-18 series is $11,300 per flying hour. Part of the discrepancy is the F/A-18 has more service hours limited parts than the F-35B apparently. The DoD Comptroller puts the cost between $10,309 and $12,898 per flying hour for a F/A-18. Based on previous reports, the F-35A is usually less than 15-20% more expensive than a F-16C. Not 2-3x like some media suggest.

Note that O&S isn't the same as O&M costs.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2013, 01:05
by USMilFan
geogen wrote:nobody knows...


Indeed, geogen, for you and I and for the rest of us outsiders here, nobody knows. However, it doesn’t apply to the professionals at Lockheed-Martin or within DOD. Fortunately, the program has been producing a steady flow of relevant, timely data for several years now that the pros undoubtedly are studying carefully as they formulate ever more reliable cost estimates. Naturally, there is no way that learning rates within the outsider class can match those of the professional class, who are eminently better informed and qualified than we are.

geogen wrote:...not to mention higher costs to operate and maintain than current day existing platforms the F-35 is intended to replace.


Undoubtedly, a military force foregoing F-35 and selecting some alternative must operate several times more aircraft than an F-35-equipped force if it ever hopes to achieve total combat capability equivalent to the F-35-equipped force. An alternatively equipped force matching or beating total operating costs of the F-35-equipped force is sheer fantasy. The link below shows why:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=258028&highlight=#258028

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 02:27
by southernphantom
discofishing wrote:Geez! Just pick the F-15SE and get on with things. F-35s can be for FX-IV or something.


This. The Eagle frame is combat-proven and doesn't have serious instrumentation kinks. The same cannot be said for the F-35.

Will the F-35 be bought later to replace the (K)F-16s? Absolutely. Should the ROKAF wait until the platform has matured? Absolutely.

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2013, 16:33
by popcorn
southernphantom wrote:
This. The Eagle frame is combat-proven and doesn't have serious instrumentation kinks. The same cannot be said for the F-35.


I must have missed the memo.." instrumentation kinks"?

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2013, 19:28
by southernphantom
popcorn wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
This. The Eagle frame is combat-proven and doesn't have serious instrumentation kinks. The same cannot be said for the F-35.


I must have missed the memo.." instrumentation kinks"?


Helmet and DAS problems, as-of-yet the system does not deliver the stated capability.

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2013, 23:26
by popcorn
southernphantom wrote:
popcorn wrote:
southernphantom wrote:
This. The Eagle frame is combat-proven and doesn't have serious instrumentation kinks. The same cannot be said for the F-35.


I must have missed the memo.." instrumentation kinks"?


Helmet and DAS problems, as-of-yet the system does not deliver the stated capability.


Oh those.. both seem to be progressing nicely based on reports. Will SE's new avionics package be gremlin free?

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2013, 03:39
by SpudmanWP
There has not been a problem with the EODAS units themselves, or the processing of that data by the mission computer.

The problem has been almost entirely isolated to the display of video data at night in the helmet.

That's why there is a secondary (read backup) helmet in the works but no replacement of the EODAS units.

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2013, 06:57
by popcorn
ROKAF delegation visit to Eglin last year.

http://www.sldinfo.com/south-korean-air ... -facility/

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2013, 15:57
by XanderCrews
southernphantom wrote: the system does not deliver the stated capability.


An excellent future description of the F-15SE unless the koreans pay more :lol:

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2013, 18:48
by spazsinbad
Can F-15 clinch FX program? 11 Sep 2013 Kang Seung-woo
"...However, there is speculation that DAPA’s decision-making committee, presided over by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, might not come up with a winner should the Silent Eagle remain in the cellar in the comprehensive evaluation. Although the F-35 and the Eurofighter have been deemed ineligible, DAPA has included them in the “final” evaluation.

In a flurry of questions about reconsidering the F-X program, the defense minister said the defense decision-making committee will discuss the issue in depth...."

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 42651.html

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2013, 19:32
by gtx
Ah, the acquisition program that just keeps giving... :lol:

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2013, 22:32
by popcorn
A "1970s aircraft" still under development.. I can see where many in Korea may be perplexed. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 19:54
by spazsinbad
We should consider South Koreans to be honorary canuckians considering the toing and froing about all of the above....:D

S. Korea's ex-air force chiefs slam Boeing choice in fighter deal 12 Sep 2013 Ju-min Park and Joyce Lee
"SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea's 15 former air force chiefs have signed a petition opposing the selection of Boeing Co's (BA) F-15 Silent Eagle for the country's 8.3 trillion won ($7.64 billion) fighter jet program, one former chief said on Thursday, saying the plane lacked the cutting-edge stealth capabilities of more modern fighters....

...The petition, which people knowledgeable about the content said was sent to the presidential office and to parliament in late August, adds to the unease among some defense experts that the selection of the Boeing aircraft may sacrifice air defense capabilities because of cost concerns.

"We can't just choose minicars over sedans because they are cheap," said Kim Hong-rae who served as the air force chief of staff in 1994 and 1995.

"Like the United States and Japan, we need F-35s as fifth-generation aircraft. We can wait another one or two years, looking ahead 40 years, with the finally selected fighter jets," Kim told Reuters, referring to any delay if the current process is cancelled....

...The 19-member committee had been scheduled to meet this week, but that has been postponed, sources with direct knowledge told Reuters. It is unclear why the meeting was delayed.

The petition was also sent to the arms procurement agency - the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) - another source with direct knowledge of the matter said. The agency declined to comment on the petition.

The current air force chief of staff, Sung Il-hwan, told lawmakers last week that no matter what model is chosen, the current tender should be honored....

..."This could end up having crucial influence. Not only do these former chiefs have the most knowledge about the air force, at least two had directly overseen this project during their time as chief. The presidential office has to take note," said Shin In-kyun, president of the Korea Defence Network, an alliance of defence experts based in Seoul...."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/koreas-ex ... 35069.html

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 23:07
by popcorn
Never thought I'd see the day when the venerable Eagle would be compared to a minicar :D

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2013, 23:08
by popcorn
Never thought I'd see the day when the venerable Eagle would be compared to a minicar :D

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 01:18
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:Never thought I'd see the day when the venerable Eagle would be compared to a minicar :D

Considering the nickname "Galactica"...

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 02:05
by neurotech
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Never thought I'd see the day when the venerable Eagle would be compared to a minicar :D

Considering the nickname "Galactica"...

Maybe Korean Former Chiefs club are having size envy issues, and Boeing should sell a few B-1-R+ bombers to the RoKAF. Upgraded Low RCS, Supercruise and large internal payload. Base the avionics from F/A-18F with a larger AESA dish and it'll be an extended range interceptor as well.

Each B-ONE-R would probably cost $500m+ each, but sure gets noticed by the neighbors.

Note: Any research organizations do not have the right to reproduce my sarcasm as actual analysis.

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2013, 19:12
by cantaz
Channeling Dale Brown, are we?

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2013, 07:11
by popcorn
More of the same. Will the SK President see merit in the generals' petition and intervene on such a strategic security issue? Or will bureaucracy triumph? Stay tuned the next episode in this riveting drama. LOL.

ttp://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_e ... 03343.html

The “counsel for national security” released on Sept. 12 by the former chiefs cited questions that have been raised about the F-15SE.

“The core next-generation fighter capability originally cited by the Air Force was stealth capability, which would allow the aircraft to respond to the North Korean threat, as well as potential threats from neighboring countries,” the statement read...

The former chiefs stressed the importance of stealth capability against the North Korean nuclear threat, as it would allow the Air Force to break through North Korea’s tight anti-aircraft network without being detected. They also noted that Russia, China, and Japan either are developing or have decided to purchase stealth aircraft.

Analysts took this as a sign that they favor purchasing Lockheed Martin’s F-35A, which emphasizes stealth capabilities...

“If the President takes special measures in the interest of national security, we can obtain next-generation fighters equipped with stealth capabilities by adjusting other project funding within the national defense budget,” the statement said.

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2013, 15:45
by cantaz
How would any purchase of F-35s mesh with SK's KF-X ambitions? I'd imagine that they'd want some tech transfer in a F-35 deal to KF-X's benefit, but having F-35s in the fleet might also diminish the urgency and support of a domestic next gen fighter program.

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2013, 03:53
by popcorn
cantaz wrote:How would any purchase of F-35s mesh with SK's KF-X ambitions? I'd imagine that they'd want some tech transfer in a F-35 deal to KF-X's benefit, but having F-35s in the fleet might also diminish the urgency and support of a domestic next gen fighter program.




http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 35642.html

Lockheed Martin ready to commit to help KFX project
...
However, Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin’s director of the Korea F-35 campaign, says Lockheed Martin is open to technology transfer and willing to make strong and solid commitments to help Korea with the project on the back of its track record.

“Lockheed is offering a robust industrial participation, offset, and technology transfer program. The offer includes the opportunity for the Korean industry to participate as a best value global supplier in the F-35 program, manufacturing the center wing and horizontal and vertical tails of the plane,” the American told The Korea Times.

“We’re also offering a robust technology transfer program for Korea’s KF-X indigenous fighter program. This offer includes a large contingent of Lockheed Martin engineers to assist in the design and development of the aircraft as well as an extensive amount of technical data drawn from the company’s existing fighter aircraft programs.”

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2013, 03:53
by popcorn
cantaz wrote:How would any purchase of F-35s mesh with SK's KF-X ambitions? I'd imagine that they'd want some tech transfer in a F-35 deal to KF-X's benefit, but having F-35s in the fleet might also diminish the urgency and support of a domestic next gen fighter program.




http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 35642.html

Lockheed Martin ready to commit to help KFX project
...
However, Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin’s director of the Korea F-35 campaign, says Lockheed Martin is open to technology transfer and willing to make strong and solid commitments to help Korea with the project on the back of its track record.

“Lockheed is offering a robust industrial participation, offset, and technology transfer program. The offer includes the opportunity for the Korean industry to participate as a best value global supplier in the F-35 program, manufacturing the center wing and horizontal and vertical tails of the plane,” the American told The Korea Times.

“We’re also offering a robust technology transfer program for Korea’s KF-X indigenous fighter program. This offer includes a large contingent of Lockheed Martin engineers to assist in the design and development of the aircraft as well as an extensive amount of technical data drawn from the company’s existing fighter aircraft programs.”

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2013, 23:09
by count_to_10
Still not seeing any real possibility of the KFX being better at anything than the F-35 or coming in at a lower price.

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2013, 23:59
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:Still not seeing any real possibility of the KFX being better at anything than the F-35 or coming is at a lower price.


IIRC, the SOKORs have lowered their sights from a 5Gen KFX to a more achievable and less risky Gen4+ F-16 replacement.

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 00:43
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Still not seeing any real possibility of the KFX being better at anything than the F-35 or coming is at a lower price.


IIRC, the SOKORs have lowered their sights from a 5Gen KFX to a more achievable and less risky Gen4+ F-16 replacement.

...which won't be able to do anything more effectively than the F-35, and will cost more.
Is there any point to it? Is it a way to get around having the US tell them what they can do with it?

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 03:09
by XanderCrews
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Still not seeing any real possibility of the KFX being better at anything than the F-35 or coming is at a lower price.


IIRC, the SOKORs have lowered their sights from a 5Gen KFX to a more achievable and less risky Gen4+ F-16 replacement.

...which won't be able to do anything more effectively than the F-35, and will cost more.
Is there any point to it? Is it a way to get around having the US tell them what they can do with it?


Its about fostering local industry basically. But yes you are correct, ROK will be getting their 4.5 aircraft a good decade after F-35s are the norm. Its going to be costly, and more than a few talking heads in Korea have already asked if its justified.

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 09:38
by popcorn
I'm just wondering if the proponents of the F-15SE were counting on a 5Gen KF-X as it had originally been envisioned? That could possibly explain why they watered down the specs, negating the F-35s strengths and why they insisted on a low price ceiling, so more funds would be availabke for it's next generation jet. In their mind, buying the SE would bolster their argument to build a 5Gen KF-X to ensure ROKAF remains competitive going forward.
Now, they may have gotten what they wished for only to have a 5Gen future looking to be yanked away by fiscal pressures. Instead, they face the prospect of fielding a Gen4+ fleet in regional skies teeming with Gen5 aircraft for the next 3-4 decades.

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2013, 12:56
by cantaz
XanderCrews wrote:Its about fostering local industry basically. But yes you are correct, ROK will be getting their 4.5 aircraft a good decade after F-35s are the norm. Its going to be costly, and more than a few talking heads in Korea have already asked if its justified.


Cue flashback to Mitsubishi F-2.

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 01:22
by discofishing
which won't be able to do anything more effectively than the F-35, and will cost more.


May I ask where you are getting your cost figures? How much is it going to cost per aircraft? What development work and testing remains on the F-15SE? I think the Silent Eagle may be able to beat the F-35 in overall range, flight safety, overall payload, and achieve parity in AA internal weapons load. Additionally, you'll have two pilots which I believe would make it better for FAC and CAS missions. I think the APG-63V3 and APG-82 are better radars than the APG-77 and APG-81. All of the avionics technology of the F-22/F-35 are going to make it into the F-15. Korea is already involved in the CWBs and other F-15 unique items. The Saudis are going to pay for all the development for FBW FLCS in the F-15S upgrades and their new F-15SAs, which is a huge part of the risk on the SE. I think the F-15SE route would be better right now and the South Koreans can buy F-35s later down the line, perhaps with more industrial cooperation.

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 01:25
by count_to_10
Not talking about the F-15SE, but about the "indigenous" fighter project that is supposed to follow.

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2013, 01:55
by discofishing
Well, yeah I guess it would go the way of the F-2. Japan should've just built their own F-16s.

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2013, 02:57
by popcorn
The letter from the retired ROKAF Generals to their President. Plus interviews with a couple of them and why they wrote said letter.
The decision is expected this coming week.. suspense ..

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_posting- ... 19506.html

Text of the Former Chiefs of Staff to the President of South Korea

‘Proposition for National Security’ to President Park, Gune-hye

Dear Honorable President Park, Geun-hye

We here by express our wholehearted respect for your work in establishing economic prosperity, national welfare, and foundation for peace and prosperity.

This is our proposal about the F-X project that also is gaining increasing attention nationwide.

The F-X project is the national business to supplement the combat power gap caused by retiring Air Force aircrafts, deter North Korean provocation, and respond to the potential threat in the surrounding countries.

People are interested in the fighter project because it is the central combat force that will protect our sovereign airspace for the next 40 years in such fast-forwarding security environment, prepare for the unification and the threat from surrounding countries after the unification.

The initial core capability the Air Force proposed was the stealth technology that can respond to North Korean threat and potential threat from the surrounding countries. Only the stealth technology can eliminate North Korean nuclear threat by infiltrating North Korea’s dense air defense network, while prepare for the threat made by the surrounding countries.

Surrounding countries like Russia and China are currently pursuing stealth fighter development and Japan confirmed its order for 42 F-35s. Stealth fighter is the main weapons system that can deter the threat made by North Korea with nuclear power.

However, the project alleviated the stealth technology condition twice in 2011 to induce price competition since there is no contender available if stealth technology is required operation condition. As a result, the competition formed amongst the F-15SE and the Eurofighter, which are 4th-generation fighters, and the F-35 5th-generation fighter with stealth technology.

No doubt there is a difference in capabilities and cost between an aircraft that was produced 40 years ago and a plane that applied high-end technology and material.

Thus, DAPA established a rule to select a fighter through comprehensive evaluation based on the evaluation factors such as life-cycle cost, which accounts for 30%, mission execution capability for 33.61%, military operation adequacy for 17.98%, and economic and technological benefits for 18.41%. The Air Force, national defense researchers, and DAPA conducted the evaluation for each category.

Unfortunately, even before DAPA started the comprehensive evaluation, the F-35 and the Eurofighter out of three contenders were viewed as ‘inadequate’ as it exceeded the KRW 8.3 trillion budget. DAPA announced that only the F-15SE will be evaluated for the final project fighter selection process.

Meanwhile, the F-15SE is based on a model that was first produced in 1970s and has not been built into an actual tangible figure. Thus, doubts rise on the possibility of remodeling the fuselage.

Dear Honorable President Park, Geun-hye

Stealth fighter is known to have deterrence feared by enemy as it can secretly infiltrate enemy territory. Many people still remember the time when the US calmed the provocation threat made by North Korea with nuclear experiment and long-range missile launch with the B-2 and F-22 stealth fighter.

However, it is not guaranteed that the US will support us when there is a weapon conflict with the surrounding countries. Especially with Japan turning rightist and increasing its military force by founding Marine Corps, and reinforcing its dominium on Dokdo.

If the sky is absent against surrounding countries’ threat, the sea is absent as well. To be prepared against the threat made by the surrounding countries that are also arming themselves with stealth fighters, we must acquire stealth fighter as a strategic weapon.

President Park, Jung-hee established the foundation for independent national defense capability and in 1969 when per capita income was USD 210, he introduced the Phantom F-4D, the high-end all-weather fighter-bomber at that time, as the 3rd country in the world after the US and England.

We spent 64million dollars to procure these aircraft, which is 64 % of the 100 million dollars that we received as a special military aid from sending third troops to Vietnam War.

Until then, North Korea Air Force had more advanced air assets, both in terms of quality and quantity. North Korea frequently threatened us with aerial provocation, but such behavior was put to stop after we introduced phantoms to our air force.
In 1974 citizens made donations to the national defense fund and we procured additional F-4D. These fighters guarded our sky for 41 years and retired honorably in 2010. Considering economic hardship, such political decision was a groundbreaking and strategically farsighted.

Dear Honorable President Park, Geun-hye

If the F-X project proceeds as is, we will be getting a fighter with weak stealth capabilities. It is difficult for our citizens to understand the rationale behind spending KRW 8.3 trillion of budget to buy 4th generation fighters that does not really exist yet. They will not tolerate it well knowing that its capabilities are not adequate to guard our national security.

As you are well aware, air power is critical for war deterrence and victory. Our Air Force who wished for stealth fighter for strategic weapon is in dilemma.

The reasons are that force vacuum is expected for significant period of time and it will be difficult to secure budget if the project is to be reevaluated from the beginning.

However, we have faith, that our brilliant president can implement special measurements to modify other defense project budgets in the total defense budget which will allocate enough fund for our nation can obtain stealthy fighter in scheduled time.

We, as a former Air Force Chief of Staffs, who have dedicated the entire life to guard our skies, are asking earnestly that the decision is made based on the long-range national security plan. The fighter should be able to defend our nation against North Korea’s nuclear threat and potential threats from other surrounding nations. Please do not base the decision solely on the price factor, but consider the results of the comprehensive evaluation of the three models, which will include the life-cycle cost, operational capability, operational suitability, technological/economic benefits. Even if this means to go over the budget, we sincerely ask you to make the adequate arrangements.

We wish for the eternal growth and victory of our proud Nation

August 27, 2013

Former Air Force Chief of Staffs

KIM Chang-gyu, PARK Won-seok, KIM Shin,
KIM Du-man, YOON Ja-jung, KIM, Sang-tae,
SEO Dong-yul, HAN Ju-seok, KIM, Hong-rae,
LEE Kwang-hak, PARK Chun-taek, LEE Uk-su,
LEE Han-ho, LEE Gye-hoon, PARK Jong-hun

YTN Interview with former AF Chief of Staff Lee, Han-ho

Q: Why did you and the other Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force decide to step forward on the FX program?

General Lee, Han-ho: We were reluctant to speak out. However, we observed how performance of the aircraft was disregarded and price became the only relevant issue for the FX program. I felt that this was a serious problem.

Q: Is DAPA’s current plan to procure 60 4th gen fighters for KRW 8.3 trillion?

LHH: Yes.

Q: DAPA is being focused on price.

LHH: Yes, and they are insisting that it does not go over the budget.

Q: Strategically, you believe that F-15SE is not the right choice, but rather stealth is required.

LHH: In consideration of the situations we have with North Korea and the surrounding regions, stealth is the only option. However, a competitive selection program was needed to promote lower price of the aircraft. We don’t have a problem with a competitive procurement program. We simply believe that all the relevant elements should be taken into consideration for the source selection, and are pointing out that price deciding the selection is a problem.

Q: F-15SE is looking very likely for the selection, but you appear to support the F-35. What are the F-35’s advantages?

LHH: We do not have any particular favored platform, and we do not intend to promote or denigrate a particular platform. We have no desire to become involved in that.

Q: Are F-35’s stealth capabilities better?

LHH: Eurofighter and F-15 are not designed with stealth from the beginning. F-35 is the only platform which was designed for stealth from the inception.

Q: F-35’s price is known to be high, and MND is saying that any delays would be problematic, so at this point they need to select 4th gen fighters. What do you think should happen?

LHH: I understand that the price difference between the F-35 and the total program cost is about KRW 1-2 trillion. I think that this is well within the range for budget adjustment, bearing in mind the total defense budget of KRW 34 trillion, of which KRW 10 or 11 trillion is allocated for improvement of defense capabilities. Plus, the budget will be expended over a ten-year period. This means a yearly addition of KRW 0.1 trillion, which is well within the range for adjustment.

Q (surprised): Is the cost difference that small?

LHH: Nothing’s been clearly disclosed, so I don’t know exactly. But I believe that it is roughly around that range.

Q: We heard that F-35 was twice as expensive.

LHH: That is not quite the case.

Q: What are the criteria for source selection?

LHH: Provides an overview of the source selection criteria

Q: Was there a problem with how the total program cost was estimated?

LHH: Yes. The total program cost was estimated back in 2009-10, and it does not take into consideration the fact that the price has decreased since then.

Q: Some are advocating the acquisition of the F-15SE for the current FX program, and then procuring F-35s as additions down the line.

LHH: Again, why are we making a decision based on price alone? The results of a comprehensive evaluation should be the basis for selection.

Q: But would it not necessitate additional cost?

LHH: Yes, but that’s why I said that the budget can be adjusted.

Q: Korea’s neighboring countries have plans with stealth fighters. Japan has signed a contract for F-35s, Russia and China are developing stealth fighters of their own. So is this why you believe that we also need to have stealth fighters?

LHH: Yes. The Air Force needs to have stealth fighters not just for itself to protect the airspace, but also to allow the Korean Navy to operate properly in the sea.

Q: There is a line of argument which believes that F-35 with its stealth capabilities will be useful for infiltrating and striking enemy targets, but that F-15 with its greater munitions carriage is more suitable for the Korean theatre and terrain.

LHH: That argument lacks understanding of Air Force strategy. Ever since the Korean War North Korea has constructed the most densely defended air defense system in the world. F-15 with all its armament will be easily caught out by NK radar and will be destroyed. Stealth is necessary in this situation.

Q: Why did you not come forward and speak about this earlier in the FX program? Why are you saying this so late in the program schedule?

LHH: The need for stealth is felt not just by us Air Force chiefs, but also by active Air Force pilots and defense staff. Like I mentioned earlier, I don’t have a problem with the fact that a competitive acquisition program is being conducted. I believed that the competition would lead to a comprehensive evaluation in which all relevant factors are considered. However, now I see that price is the only thing that seems to matter – this is why I have come forward at this time.

Q: MND and DAPA are mainly composed of ROK Army personnel. Perhaps the Army is driving the decision for the F-15SE?

LHH: Like in any sphere where the three services work together, there is friendly competition among them when it comes to the weapons systems being procured and used. However, in this case the need for asymmetric power is clear, and is understood by all services.

Q: If the decision is indeed made on price alone, and the F-15SE ends up being selected, what will you do?

LHH: If the government makes the decision, what can anybody do? However, if it happens, I think that a procurement process for at least 20 stealth fighters must be initiated immediately afterwards.

Q: Have you received any response from the Blue House and the National Assembly to your letter?

LHH: I think that the letter is still being reviewed.

Channel A telephone interview with former AF Chief of Staff Park, Chun-taek

Q: Could you summarize your views on the F-15SE?General Park, Chun-taek: F-15SE is an F-15K that has been partially modified to fit some external weapons in internal bays, and to apparently offer limited stealth capabilities.

Q: So it is similar to what the Air Force is already operating.

PCT: Yes, it is claimed that F-15SE has limited stealth capabilities, but the aircraft currently does not exist.

Q: The former Air Force Chiefs have all said that F-15SE is not the right choice. Why?

PCT: The core capability which was the goal of the FX next gen fighter was stealth. Stealth fighters are not caught on radar, and can strike enemy targets without being detected.

Q: And the F-15SE doesn’t have it (stealth capability)?

PCT: They say that it has limited stealth, but the aircraft doesn’t actually exist, so we can’t rely on such claims.

Q: What do you think we should do? Should we restart the whole program?

PCT: We need stealth. If we don’t have this capability, and with other countries getting stealth, we will not be able to protect our airspace. If we don’t have stealth our pilots will not be able to safely return to base from missions.

Q: One candidate platform is very expensive, while another platform we were not able to test by actually flying it. What should we do?

PCT: The insistence on KRW 8.3 trillion restricts our ability to make a choice. DAPA’s such insistence is not acceptable. We can’t simply keep doing these programs, because the budget is a lot of money.

We need to make the right choice here.

We need to have the stealth capability, either by reducing the quantity of aircraft, or adding more budget. We have to have stealth capability. I am deeply concerned about Korea’s security. Stealth is very important and necessary for this.


The following link explains the whole convoluted process which resulted in the present sad state of affairs.
... http://www.sldforum.com/2013/09/in-the- ... f-defense/

And one South Korean source asked the simple question: Is the Ministry of Finance Now the Ministry of Defense?



Or as the article puts it: “One hawk is stronger than 1oo sparrows.”

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 10:58
by spazsinbad
More of the same - I like the headline....

Korea trapped in $7.5 billion catch-22 23 Sep 2013 Kang Seung-woo

Help him - Help WHO? Help South Korea - but I am South Korea. Then HELP HIM! [SKor have to help themselves eh.]

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 43074.html

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 20:15
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:More of the same - I like the headline....

Korea trapped in $7.5 billion catch-22 23 Sep 2013 Kang Seung-woo

Help him - Help WHO? Help South Korea - but I am South Korea. Then HELP HIM! [SKor have to help themselves eh.]

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 43074.html


There seems to be come circular logic among some posters here and on other forums as well. The idea of "its the right plane, because that is what they picked" seems to apply to every aircraft except the F-35 :lol:

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2013, 20:43
by spazsinbad
Tuesday (today my time) is apparently the time we find out - who helped whom. :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 06:54
by spazsinbad
Must be NOT Tuesday. Is it Shrove Tuesday they speak of? I dunno but GMT is GMT....

Boeing top bidder for South Korea jet tender, but delay possible 24 Sep 2013 By Joyce Lee and Ju-min Park
"..."It looks like a 50/50 chance (for Boeing)... There is strong opposition (for the F-15SE) from the military establishment, experts and conservatives," said the source, who declined to be named due to sensitivity of the subject.

Fifteen former air force chiefs and some lawmakers have opposed the selection of Boeing's F-15SE.

Sources say the F-35A scored highest score out the three bids in a comprehensive evaluation carried out earlier this month.

If a decision is postponed, the committee might delay deliberations on the programme until its next meeting about a month from now, the source with direct knowledge of the deliberations said.

The committee is expected to announce its decision after 4 p.m. (0700 GMT)...."

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing ... 31983.html

($1 = 1084.0250 Korean won) See Korean WON! :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 07:46
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:Must be NOT Tuesday. Is it Shrove Tuesday they speak of? I dunno but GMT is GMT....

Boeing top bidder for South Korea jet tender, but delay possible 24 Sep 2013 By Joyce Lee and Ju-min Park
"..."It looks like a 50/50 chance (for Boeing)... There is strong opposition (for the F-15SE) from the military establishment, experts and conservatives," said the source, who declined to be named due to sensitivity of the subject.

Fifteen former air force chiefs and some lawmakers have opposed the selection of Boeing's F-15SE.

Sources say the F-35A scored highest score out the three bids in a comprehensive evaluation carried out earlier this month.

If a decision is postponed, the committee might delay deliberations on the programme until its next meeting about a month from now, the source with direct knowledge of the deliberations said.

The committee is expected to announce its decision after 4 p.m. (0700 GMT)...."

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing ... 31983.html

($1 = 1084.0250 Korean won) See Korean WON! :D


Honestly, with Russia and China both developing Stealthy 5th Generation Fighters. I don't see the case for the F-15SE. Plus, I have a hard time believing the latter is more economical either........

So, it hardly seem to be a better choice. If, the F-15SE only real advantage is a slightly lower Unit Price. Compare to a more capable F-35 with a lower cost of ownership long-term.... :idea:

Just saying....... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 08:34
by weasel1962
If one considers a dynamic environment, then the F-15SE might make sense. The F-35, at this time, is not fully mature whereas the F-15 is. The stealth additions of the SE is not imho high risk to produce and principally what Korea is getting is an F-15K+. Neither Russia and China have mass produced stealth fighters to date (prototype stage) and even by 2020 it would not be in significant numbers. Acquisition of the F-15SE does not exclude Korea from procuring F-35s later (when costs are lower and reliability higher without risk of significant retrofit costs). The real risk to Korea is still from NK and the F-15K is already more than adequate in handling that situation.

ROKAF still has plenty of F-4s, F-5s and F-16s to eventually replace. Even though the T-50/FA-50 programme is supposed to be the low-cost variant, the likelihood of ROK adopting the F-35 to me is a matter of time. I think Korea would benefit more from a larger fleet of F-15s at this time (economies of scale plus a very hungry Boeing). The US would of course prefer ROK to adopt the F-35 early as this would reduce USAF upfront costs at a time of sequestration and tightening belts/budgets. This is also unlike Japan where they have been operating F-15s for decades and getting more F-15s would not be a step-up.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 09:46
by joost
Oh yeah! 8)

South Korea backs down from F-15 Silent Eagle selection: report
PrintBy: Greg Waldron Singapore 49 minutes ago Source:
South Korea appears set to re-tender its F-X III competition for 60 fighter aircraft after deciding against the selection of the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle, which had been tipped to win the competition.

Although the F-15SE was the only aircraft to come in below the Defense Acquisition Program Administration’s (DAPA) budget of won (W) 8.3 trillion won ($7.73 billion), concerns about its stealth characteristics have apparently prompted the decision to re-start the acquisition process, according to a report by Seoul’s official Yonhap news agency, citing a DAPA statement.

The decision was reportedly made today at a DAPA meeting presided over by defence minister Kim Kwan-Jin.

The three contenders for the requirement were the F-15SE, Lockheed Martin F-35, and Eurofighter Typhoon.

Industry observers have consistently viewed the competition as a two way battle between the two American aircraft given Seoul’s extremely close ties to Washington. Moreover, observers close to the South Korean defence establishment have observed the air force’s preference for the F-35.

A re-tendering of the competition could prove challenging for Seoul. Industry sources have said that DAPA loosened the stealth requirement of F-X III to allow fairer competition between the three aircraft. Placing too much emphasis on stealth in a new competition, however, could be seen as undermining a fair competition.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 09:55
by joost
More confirmation on this:

South Korea rejects Boeing in $7.7 billion fighter jet deal

(Reuters) - South Korea voted against Boeing's (BA.N) F-15 Silent Eagle in its 8.3 trillion won ($7.7 billion) tender for 60 fighter jets, the country's arms procurement agency said on Tuesday, saying it will restart the project.

"DAPA...will swiftly pursue the program again in order to minimize the vacuum in combat capabilities," South Korea's Defense Acquistion Program Administration (DAPA) said in a statement.

Boeing's F-15 had been the only bid out of three that was under-budget and eligible to win the country's largest-ever defense import deal under South Korean law.

(Reporting by Ju-min Park and Joyce Lee; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)





http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... 7C20130924

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 10:00
by spazsinbad
:-) :D :twisted: :devil:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 10:20
by weasel1962
It would be interesting to see what excuse they will come up this time to drop the Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 10:31
by lookieloo
weasel1962 wrote:It would be interesting to see what excuse they will come up this time to drop the Typhoon.
That assumes Airbus-Military cares to waste their time again. I wonder of Boeing will push the Queenhornet this time around.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 10:34
by popcorn
Tough luck, Boeing. If they couldn't clinch the win now, what makes them think they will fare better the next time around.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 13:08
by bigjku
weasel1962 wrote:It would be interesting to see what excuse they will come up this time to drop the Typhoon.


That it combines the worst feature of the F-35 (high price) and the worst features of the F-15 (not a stealth fighter)? Is any more reason really needed? The Eurofighter is a good airframe it just suffers from really poor market timing. Almost all the purchases of it in my view have been political to this point (Saudi purchases of weapons are incredibly political in nature). It just does not offer a lot that would appeal to those with other options.

In all honesty if the Eurofighter could not win in Japan, who mostly has the mission of air defense which the Eurofighter was pretty much built for, it is in trouble.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 14:31
by popcorn
lookieloo wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:It would be interesting to see what excuse they will come up this time to drop the Typhoon.
That assumes Airbus-Military cares to waste their time again. I wonder of Boeing will push the Queenhornet this time around.


One news report said Typhoon would be entered in a new bidding.
I don't see the Advanced SH faring any better.. it would suffer from the same fatal defect that afflicts the SE i.e. inferior bolt-on stealth on a legacy design. Additionally, it loses any commonality advantage the SE enjoyed with the ROKAF's current Eagle fleet.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 15:54
by XanderCrews
edited to follow my own advice

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 16:02
by SpudmanWP
L
M
A
O


As each month passes the F-35 gets cheaper and more "proven".

Best of luck to Boeing on the next go around :)

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 16:38
by bumtish
There is no money for a new F-X. That money will be reborn as new locally made warships, SAMs, and cruise missiles, but not as imported fighter jets.

A new F-X will have to wait until the next administration.

Hmmmm.

"The committee made the decision through in-depth discussions on the security situation and the combat environment based on assessments of the jets' mission capabilities and prices," DAPA spokesman Baek Yoon-hyung said in a briefing. "The DAPA will promptly restart the project to minimize the security vacuum by consulting related organizations to revise the total budget and requirements."

A team of officials from the defense ministry, Air Force and acquisition agency will consider various alternatives, including changing the number of jets, extending the funding and combining different types of aircraft, Kim said.

It is expected to take about one year to select the next fighter jet, he added, without giving details on a specific timeframe.


http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/nationa ... 1315F.html

Much more details at link.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 16:50
by XanderCrews
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/09/24/15/0301000000AEN20130924005551315F.html

Much more details at link.

Thanks for the link!

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 17:45
by hb_pencil
popcorn wrote:It would be interesting to see what excuse they will come up this time to drop the Typhoon.

The F-X III is terminated with no winner; the money will be returned to the treasury, and the rival services will get piece of the money to fund their "domestic" arms program, which are always favored over "imported" arms. This put the air force at a great disadvantage over rival services because the majority of the air force's systems are imported unlike the Navy, Marines, and the Army whose weapons are primarily domestic, and would only strengthen the air force's resolve to have a domestic fighter jet(ie KFX).

This means the air force too must push for domestic weapons program to reclaim a piece of the money, including F/A-50, domestic ballistic and cruise missiles, etc.
]

Considering just how wrong you have been at every single stage of this discussion, I'm frankly surprised that you even have the temerity to come back on here to post your views. If I were to flip a coin to determine answers to questions, I would have better record of than you do right now... because you haven't been right about anything at all. This part is the one that just gets me;

The air force, which voted for the Silent Eagle, is furious, but the civilian panel members revolted, swayed by Lockheed Martin's massive publicity campaign. This is the danger of sitting clueless civilians in the arms acquisition committee.


15 former AF chiefs of staff protested the F-15SE decision. When you have 15 senior staff say they think the civilian decision is wrong, thats about the clearest indication the military disagreed with the process. Stating the exact opposite is ridiculous and absurd to the extreme.

So its clear that you bring NOTHING to these discussions. Quite simply the only truth you have revealed in your posting is just how little you know, and that you're a troll. If I were in your position I'd be supremely embarrassed about just how ignorant my previous posts were and never return.

That's all I'm going to say. I'll follow f414's advice and not respond to you until you get banned again. Enjoy the silence because your credibility on these issues is non-existent.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 20:19
by XanderCrews
hb_pencil wrote:
So its clear that you bring NOTHING to these discussions. Quite simply the only truth you have revealed in your posting is just how little you know, and that you're a troll. If I were in your position I'd be supremely embarrassed about just how ignorant my previous posts were and never return.


I'm honestly amazed he returned, I thought this would have shamed him :oops: for good.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 21:26
by disconnectedradical
If this article is to be trusted, then I don't see how the Typhoon can even compete, given that the F-15SE placed second.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 43074.html

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 21:31
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:It would be interesting to see what excuse they will come up this time to drop the Typhoon.
That assumes Airbus-Military cares to waste their time again. I wonder of Boeing will push the Queenhornet this time around.


One news report said Typhoon would be entered in a new bidding.
I don't see the Advanced SH faring any better.. it would suffer from the same fatal defect that afflicts the SE i.e. inferior bolt-on stealth on a legacy design. Additionally, it loses any commonality advantage the SE enjoyed with the ROKAF's current Eagle fleet.


Clearly, the F-35 is going to be South Korea's next New Fighter. :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 21:34
by bigjku
disconnectedradical wrote:If this article is to be trusted, then I don't see how the Typhoon can even compete, given that the F-15SE placed second.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 43074.html


That is embarrassing for the Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 21:54
by disconnectedradical
bigjku wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:If this article is to be trusted, then I don't see how the Typhoon can even compete, given that the F-15SE placed second.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 43074.html


That is embarrassing for the Typhoon.


Given that the Typhoon is probably the best in terms of raw aerodynamic performance, you gotta wonder how bad the Typhoon's alleged stealth treatments are to let it place last. Its avionics probably can't even begin to compete with the F-35's.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 21:55
by spazsinbad
Top of previous page with first pointer to the 'Catch22' article at bottom of the next previous page - so old embarrassing news. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 43074.html

Go here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-585.html

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:01
by lookieloo
lookieloo wrote:Can't wait for SlowMan's Ares comments.
The air force, which voted for the Silent Eagle, is furious, but the civilian panel members revolted, swayed by Lockheed Martin's massive publicity campaign. This is the danger of sitting clueless civilians in the arms acquisition committee.
An imaginary parallel universe? Is that really the best you could come up with?

Oh well, we wanted a show and you gave us one. I salute you and your kind. :salute: You'd be well-worth keeping around if there was a way for the mods to confine you to this thread.
Image

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:07
by luke_sandoz
Is that Sweetman or Kopp?

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:12
by spazsinbad
Youse better add ELP and SOLOMON to that list.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:19
by gtx
XanderCrews wrote:
I'm honestly amazed he returned, I thought this would have shamed him :oops: for good.


Well he showed no grasp of reality beforehand, so why should he suddenly start? :lol:

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:23
by maus92
Korea could cut their order to make the F-35 fit its budget - you know, like the Dutch :) What the re-compete effectively does is it gives LM / Pratt another year or so to become more efficient and lower its pricing - which cannot be any lower than what is offered to the USG - although 4%/year isn't going to make that much difference. Therefore the Koreans should also add money to the program to avoid a similar outcome.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:26
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:It would be interesting to see what excuse they will come up this time to drop the Typhoon.
That assumes Airbus-Military cares to waste their time again. I wonder of Boeing will push the Queenhornet this time around.
One news report said Typhoon would be entered in a new bidding.
I don't see the Advanced SH faring any better.. it would suffer from the same fatal defect that afflicts the SE i.e. inferior bolt-on stealth on a legacy design. Additionally, it loses any commonality advantage the SE enjoyed with the ROKAF's current Eagle fleet.
Well, I didn't say the QH was shoe-in, but it could have some advantages over the SE. Unlike the SE, the QH has US interest and at least some organic LO capability already flying. If coupled with EPE development (a viable option for K-FX also), it might have a shot if the price is kept low. Then again, it's kinda hard to have a stealth-fighter competition when there's only one stealth-fighter available; perhaps Russia would like to provide the next "sparring partner."

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:41
by disconnectedradical
Slowman has the audacity to return? :?

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:44
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:
lookieloo wrote:Can't wait for SlowMan's Ares comments.
The air force, which voted for the Silent Eagle, is furious, but the civilian panel members revolted, swayed by Lockheed Martin's massive publicity campaign. This is the danger of sitting clueless civilians in the arms acquisition committee.
An imaginary parallel universe? Is that really the best you could come up with?

Oh well, we wanted a show and you gave us one. I salute you and your kind. :salute: You'd be well-worth keeping around if there was a way for the mods to confine you to this thread.
Image


Isn't funny that the "clueless civilians" only appeared after the\ competition was shelved? before that these same civilians were hailed as brilliant :lol: It gets even better when you look through all of slowman's posts where he claimed "Lockheed Martin's massive publicity campaign." fell well short, and the contest was a formality. When you make things up as you go its hard to keep track.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 22:48
by gtx
maus92 wrote:Korea could cut their order to make the F-35 fit its budget - you know, like the Dutch :) What the re-compete effectively does is it gives LM / Pratt another year or so to become more efficient and lower its pricing - which cannot be any lower than what is offered to the USG - although 4%/year isn't going to make that much difference. Therefore the Koreans should also add money to the program to avoid a similar outcome.


As I said elsewhere:

They can only have two of the three options: Quality, Quantity or Cost. This leads you to the following:

If Quality and Quantity...then be prepared to pay a lot!
If Quality and Cost...then be prepared to buy less then you would have preferred!
If Quantity and Cost...then be prepared to buy the second rate selection!

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 23:03
by lookieloo
gtx wrote:
maus92 wrote:Korea could cut their order to make the F-35 fit its budget - you know, like the Dutch :) What the re-compete effectively does is it gives LM / Pratt another year or so to become more efficient and lower its pricing - which cannot be any lower than what is offered to the USG - although 4%/year isn't going to make that much difference. Therefore the Koreans should also add money to the program to avoid a similar outcome.
As I said elsewhere:

They can only have two of the three options: Quality, Quantity or Cost. This leads you to the following:

If Quality and Quantity...then be prepared to pay a lot!
If Quality and Cost...then be prepared to buy less then you would have preferred!
If Quantity and Cost...then be prepared to buy the second rate selection!
Replacing the F-4 and F-5 with a single, high-end type was a dumb idea anyways. Look for a mixed F-35/FA-50 buy if they aren't willing to increase their budget significantly.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 23:04
by hb_pencil
maus92 wrote:Korea could cut their order to make the F-35 fit its budget - you know, like the Dutch :) What the re-compete effectively does is it gives LM / Pratt another year or so to become more efficient and lower its pricing - which cannot be any lower than what is offered to the USG - although 4%/year isn't going to make that much difference. Therefore the Koreans should also add money to the program to avoid a similar outcome.



Beat you to the punch here:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 209#260209

I don't have the calculations I made but I think the difference in the 2016~2018 timeframe to 2018 to 2020 timeframe are significantly more than 4% a year. Its during that period you see the ramp up from ~30 a year aircraft to over 90+. When you calculate in the FMS fees it was after 2018 that the F-35 was a lower cost bidder.

Also the only other qualification I'd add is that the F-15 price is not constant either: DMS issues and inefficient production sizes basically will increase unit costs year after year.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 23:18
by neurotech
One thing about the Swiss, Koreans and others I can't figure out. They are replacing an affordable, but old F-5E with a F-15SE / F/A-18ASH / F-35 and then having sticker shock that they cost more to operate. If the F/A-50 can stay affordable, It'll have a bright future if politics don't scuttle it.

I personally think there is a market for a 5th gen LWF (AESA, LO, Internal Weapons Bay) if people don't call it a F-35 killer design and go crazy. Perhaps do a UCAV & LWF parallel development to save avionics costs and boost commonality. I suspect if Boeing goes for a clean sheet T-X design, it'll use technology developed for the UCAVs they are now testing.

@hb_pencil: I agree that production lots of the F-35, vs F/A-18 or F-15SE push the balance towards the F-35. That pretty much scuttles anything that isn't a F-35 from being the best value fighter.

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2013, 23:44
by spazsinbad
Get the right fighter 25 Sept 2013 KOREA JOONGANG DAILY
"Korea’s ambitious fighter jet procurement project, known as F-X III, is being delayed again. A special committee for national defense has decided not to choose Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle - the only bidder that met our government’s price cap - after considering comprehensive aspects of security on the Korean Peninsula. Accordingly, the F-X program is expected to be postponed for at least another year, causing concerns about our Air Force’s capability to confront North Korea’s worsening military threats. But the decision by the committee seems an inevitable choice as seen by committee members’ overwhelming opposition to the purchase of the F-15SEs.

The Ministry of National Defense cited a need to build a “kill chain” aimed at launching a preemptive strike at the North’s asymmetric warfare capabilities and effectively retaliate against its small-scale provocations as major reasons for the delay. The two goals call for fifth generation fighter jets equipped with stealth capability. The ministry pointed out that our Air Force cannot be an exception when our neighbors - China, Japan and Russia - all press ahead with highly sophisticated jets with strong stealth capabilities. Under such circumstances, it would be naive to introduce less qualified aircraft due to predetermined budget caps.

The latest development in the F-X program suggests the likelihood that Lockheed Martin’s F-35A - a bidder with stronger stealth capabilities that had to drop out because it failed to meet predetermined budget requirements - will eventually be selected. Of course, the government can consider a mixed purchase of F-35As and F-15SEs...."

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/new ... id=2977957

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 00:03
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Youse better add ELP and SOLOMON to that list.
ELP is apparently pouting and hasn't said anything on his blog (I've never seen him at such a loss for words); but get a load of this childish reaction to the news. http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... alled.html

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 00:24
by geogen
This 'delay' was fairly well predicted as a likely possibility by many assessments. I personally assessed the likely decision for F-X3 to be rebid.

The numbers just didn't add up and there were uncertainties as to what exactly would be included in the F-15SE-lite proposal: e.g., would the procurement of leading-edge RCS-reduction treatments and engine blockers be included in the Procurement cost estimate? Would procurement of CWB be included in the Procurement cost (or merely the option to procure)? Would any eo/ir sensors at all be included in the listed procurement estimate provided for the F-15SE-lite proposal??

I still assess that an F-15K++ w/ APG-82, off-the-shelf IRST and integrated MAWS would be the superior selection for an FY16-FY19 procurement and would still be cheaper to procure than the F-35.

And one must not be fooled either, into assuming that hypothetical 90 or so F-35 orders by around FY19 or FY20 will enable a 'cheap' Total Weapon unit System Cost. Flat out, the long-anticipated FRP will most likely be radically altered in scope and in it's ultimate annual rate. Adjustments to F-35's total Procurement Cost will be affected in kind. There's simply no evidence to show any such track record or trend towards achieving such advertised unit costs down the road...sad to say.

But what I don't understand the most about the reported reasoning behind the decided delay, is the need to identify the 'kill chain' required to deter NK's asymmetrical/WMD capabilities via capacity for preemptive strike option.

That would seem to imply more along the lines of requiring ground based tactical ballistic and cruise missile capacity, and air-launched stand-off or prompt-strike munition. Neither of those capabilities would be negated by operating an F-15SE-lite instead of F-35. And if anything, such stand-off and future prompt-strike munitions might be more reliably employed by said F-15 platform. Or heck, even an advanced Super Hornet platform for that matter.

That said, I'd ponder an eventual F-X3+ 'mix' to include stand-off munitions, FA-50, and possibly even a few LO UCAV platforms?

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 00:24
by hb_pencil
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Youse better add ELP and SOLOMON to that list.
ELP is apparently pouting and hasn't said anything on his blog (I've never seen him at such a loss for words); but get a load of this childish reaction to the news. http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... alled.html



Wow.... just wow. If ever you could disqualify yourself as being a serious analyst in under 500 words, that's it right there.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 00:41
by popcorn
Amy just couldn't resist the play on words..

So C-17 line closes in 2015. Barring new orders, SH follows in 2016 and Eagle in 2018 or thereabouts. Some money to be made in upgrades and support.
On the other side of the ledger, Boeing has the KC-46A to look forward to but T-X, UCLASS, LRS-B, etc. are uncertain.



http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... db6c5cd817

Will Silent Eagle Pass Silently into the Waste Bin?
Posted by Amy Butler 3:50 PM on Sep 24, 2013

..Boeing's Saudi Arabia orders will carry the F-15 line through until 2018, but the blow from South Korea will prompt the company to review its strategy for the continuation of the product line, according to an industry source. Though Seoul's rebuffing of the Silent Eagle could put the last nail in its coffin, the individual upgrades could still be of interest to some customers. They include the fly-by-wire and digital electronic warfare systems; these can be purchased as upgrades without committing to the stealthy items.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 00:46
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:
And one must not be fooled either, into assuming that hypothetical 90 or so F-35 orders by around FY19 or FY20 will enable a 'cheap' Total Weapon unit System Cost. Flat out, the long-anticipated FRP will most likely be radically altered in scope and in it's ultimate annual rate.



That's a pretty bold statement in the face of nearly two months of statements from DOD and the AF about how its basically going to defend the F-35 program at all costs, even sacrificing its the KC-10 and A-10 fleets to pay for it. What I see is a pretty clear effort to maintain the current FRP plan at all costs, which is widely supported within the USG. "Radically altering" the annual rate will also seriously damage Allies's recapitalization plans and costs, not just Korea but every single other state. That's a huge consideration within the government.

While yes it is possible that it might be altered, claiming that it is "likely" in the face of all of this evidence is just not credible in the least by any benchmark.

geogen wrote:Adjustments to F-35's total Procurement Cost will be affected in kind. There's simply no evidence to show any such track record or trend towards achieving such advertised unit costs down the road...sad to say.


That's just flat out an incorrect statement on your part. Costs have been declining according to estimates, and the JSF program has been improving its performance, which is even stated by the GAO:

Production Costs Are Trending Toward Targets
and Aircraft Deliveries Are Accelerating


As discussed earlier, aircraft labor hours to build aircraft are decreasing
with more experience and the program is moving down the learning curve
as projected. The fifth annual low rate initial production (LRIP) contract
was recently negotiated with cost targets reflecting additional gains in
efficiency. DOD and contractor officials also expressed confidence that
contracts for the 6th and 7th annual buys will be negotiated by this
summer and reflect similar performance. The first four LRIP contracts,
however, over-ran their target costs, in total by $1.2 billion. According to
program documentation, the government’s share of the total overrun is
about $756 million under the sharing incentive provisions in these
contracts. Cost increases range from 6.5 percent to 16.1 percent more
than negotiated costs. LRIP 4, the largest by dollar and number of
aircraft, had the smallest percent increase in cost, indicating better
performance.


If I had some time I'd create a nice graph to show you how the contract costs have been tracked according to previous estimates, which I've seen them to be fairly close in initial estimates and actual costs. But I don't and as the above comment makes clear, the program is hitting its estimates.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 01:06
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 01:22
by popcorn
geogen wrote:But what I don't understand the most about the reported reasoning behind the decided delay, is the need to identify the 'kill chain' required to deter NK's asymmetrical/WMD capabilities via capacity for preemptive strike option.

That would seem to imply more along the lines of requiring ground based tactical ballistic and cruise missile capacity, and air-launched stand-off or prompt-strike munition. Neither of those capabilities would be negated by operating an F-15SE-lite instead of F-35. And if anything, such stand-off and future prompt-strike munitions might be more reliably employed by said F-15 platform. Or heck, even an advanced Super Hornet platform for that matter.


Consider the following:
1. NOKOR will eventually emplace its missiles in hardened silos. Standoff weapons won't have the precision and punch to take them out. A stealthy F-35 armed with internal HVPWs would be the most effective tool to get the job done.

2. NOKOR will eventually field a mobile BM force. A stealthy F-35 that can linger over hostile airspace to employ its advanced sensors offers the best likelihood of success.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 02:27
by discofishing
I still assess that an F-15K++ w/ APG-82, off-the-shelf IRST and integrated MAWS would be the superior selection for an FY16-FY19 procurement and would still be cheaper to procure than the F-35.


Google EPAWSS and you'll see there is more than just IRST and MAWS coming to the F-15 as there will be a lot of F-35/F-22 ASE technology as well. I would go with the massive APG-82 built by the most experienced AESA supplier than that little APG-81 in the small nose of the F-35 built by a lesser company that still has to have Raytheon's help to build radars.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 02:36
by weasel1962
Looking at the Korean economic situation, they have a budget surplus (driven in part by the success of Samsung), relatively low debt, someone must have asked why are they saving money on fighter jets? The F-15SE, imho, may be more cost effective at this time where Korea is concerned but maybe the F-35 has become the "status symbol" to airforce heads. "The Japanese are going to have it, why not me" syndrome = fighter envy. Agree it doesn't bode well for Boeing but its been coming since they lost the F-35 comp.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 02:45
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Looking at the Korean economic situation, they have a budget surplus (driven in part by the success of Samsung), relatively low debt, someone must have asked why are they saving money on fighter jets? The F-15SE, imho, may be more cost effective at this time where Korea is concerned but maybe the F-35 has become the "status symbol" to airforce heads. "The Japanese are going to have it, why not me" syndrome = fighter envy. Agree it doesn't bode well for Boeing but its been coming since they lost the F-35 comp.



I think South Korea is far more interested in the F-35 than just an expensive "Status Symbol". Maybe like a counter to North Korea and forthcoming 5th Generation Fighters for China and Russia. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 02:56
by popcorn
weasel1962 wrote:Looking at the Korean economic situation, they have a budget surplus (driven in part by the success of Samsung), relatively low debt, someone must have asked why are they saving money on fighter jets? The F-15SE, imho, may be more cost effective at this time where Korea is concerned but maybe the F-35 has become the "status symbol" to airforce heads. "The Japanese are going to have it, why not me" syndrome = fighter envy. Agree it doesn't bode well for Boeing but its been coming since they lost the F-35 comp.

How best to defend against a openly hostile neighbor armed with nukes and a huge conventional armed forces would trump ego.,That, and remaining viable and competitive with other regional rivals for decades to come. The retired generals' letter says it all.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 03:53
by XanderCrews
hb_pencil wrote:
lookieloo wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Youse better add ELP and SOLOMON to that list.
ELP is apparently pouting and hasn't said anything on his blog (I've never seen him at such a loss for words); but get a load of this childish reaction to the news. http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... alled.html



Wow.... just wow. If ever you could disqualify yourself as being a serious analyst in under 500 words, that's it right there.


Its even funnier when you remember Soloman spent two years cheerleading the F-35 and lockheed martin while insulting anyone who disagreed: Now suddenly nothing will stop evil LM and their lies:

The testing is a wrap and no matter what lies Winslow Wheeler comes up with, its been successful.

Lastly, Mabus is onboard the JSF program, Penetta is onboard the program, Senators that matter are onboard as are House members.

The Anti-JSF insurgency has been crushed.

Its forces routed.

Its leaders forced to admit failure.

I LUV IT!


http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2011/ ... sting.html

Is the wannabe Marine just off his meds? :lol:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:06
by XanderCrews
I still assess that an F-15K++ w/ APG-82, off-the-shelf IRST and integrated MAWS would be the superior selection for an FY16-FY19 procurement and would still be cheaper to procure than the F-35.


Of course you assess that, almost all of your posts are about some new paper variant of a teen fighter that will be better and cheaper and "good enough" rather than the F-35.

Why not an F-15K+++ block IV Mark 3-2b?? as long as we are just kind of making things up?

And one must not be fooled either, into assuming that hypothetical 90 or so F-35 orders by around FY19 or FY20 will enable a 'cheap' Total Weapon unit System Cost. Flat out, the long-anticipated FRP will most likely be radically altered in scope and in it's ultimate annual rate. Adjustments to F-35's total Procurement Cost will be affected in kind. There's simply no evidence to show any such track record or trend towards achieving such advertised unit costs down the road...sad to say.


Such a wild imagination you have.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:27
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote: I still assess that an F-15K++ w/ APG-82, off-the-shelf IRST and integrated MAWS would be the superior selection for an FY16-FY19 procurement and would still be cheaper to procure than the F-35.


Quote:


Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:28
by Corsair1963
geogen wrote: I still assess that an F-15K++ w/ APG-82, off-the-shelf IRST and integrated MAWS would be the superior selection for an FY16-FY19 procurement and would still be cheaper to procure than the F-35.


Quote:


Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:28
by Corsair1963
I still assess that an F-15K++ w/ APG-82, off-the-shelf IRST and integrated MAWS would be the superior selection for an FY16-FY19 procurement and would still be cheaper to procure than the F-35.[/quote]

Quote:


Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:30
by Corsair1963
Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.[/b]

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:38
by Corsair1963
Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.[/b]

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:38
by Corsair1963
Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.[/b]

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:40
by Corsair1963
Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.[/b]

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:41
by Corsair1963
Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.[/b]

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:42
by Corsair1963
Corsair1963 wrote:Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.[/b]
Shaping New Combat Instincts: Prepping for 5th Generation Warfare

By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on September 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM


The F-35 is flying, it is a real thing, and progress is real,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh recently said in Japan.

Fly Navy 8)

Several countries, including Russia and China, are working on fifth generation fighters, he noted. Even if the United States does not go to war with these countries, it will inevitably have to confront the military technology they sell to other countries.

Extending the service lives of fourth generation aircraft, and even supplanting the force structure with generation “4.5? fighters, does not solve the problem caused by these new fighters.

“When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—[the latter] dies,” said Welsh. “We can’t just dress up a fourth-generation fighter as a fifth-generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation,” he said.[/b]

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 04:58
by SpudmanWP
Holy Multipost Batman ;)

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 05:40
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:Holy Multipost Batman ;)



I don't know what happened??? Plus, it won't let me delete them either??? :?:

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 06:24
by spazsinbad
Korea Dumps Boeing F-15 For Stealth; F-35 Pacific Sweep Likely 24 Sep 2013 Colin Clark
"...“This outcome is no surprise (I predicted it in the Financial Times on September 17). Boeing didn’t make any mistakes, but it lacked an offering that could match the F-35 in survivability, situational awareness and other key performance parameters,” Loren Thompson, member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors and top defense consultant, writes in an email. “South Korea’s decision indicates that Seoul valued combat performance more highly than price in its evaluation.”

And the likely choice of Lockheed Martin’s F-35A — that may well be supplemented by F-35Bs — will place another chain in the long link of F-35 countries in the Pacific: Japan, Singapore and Australia. Add to those the American F-35s at bases throughout the Pacific. Air Force F-35s probably will head to four bases: Misawa, Japan; Kadena, Japan; Osan Air Base, Korea; and Kunsan Air Base, Korea. And F-35Cs will fly from carriers and F-35Bs from other Navy ships and Marine bases in the region.

To get some idea as to why capabilities trumped price — something Reuters and other news agencies said yesterday was not likely to happen because of South Korea’s fiscal situation — consider that 15 former South Korean Air Force chiefs of staff publicly argued that their country must buy a stealth aircraft.

Below are some excerpts from two interviews with them. Note the comments that DAPA must take stealth into account and not focus solely on price.

The first is an interview of former Chief of Staff Lee Han-ho by South Korea’s YTN network.

Q: Why did you and the other Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force decide to step forward on the FX program?

General Lee, Han-ho: We were reluctant to speak out. However, we observed how performance of the aircraft was disregarded and price became the only relevant issue for the FX program. I felt that this was a serious problem….

Q: Strategically, you believe that F-15SE is not the right choice, but rather stealth is required.

LHH: In consideration of the situations we have with North Korea and the surrounding regions, stealth is the only option. However, a competitive selection program was needed to promote lower price of the aircraft. We don’t have a problem with a competitive procurement program. We simply believe that all the relevant elements should be taken into consideration for the source selection, and are pointing out that price deciding the selection is a problem.

Q: F-15SE is looking very likely for the selection, but you appear to support the F-35. What are the F-35’s advantages?

LHH: We do not have any particular favored platform, and we do not intend to promote or denigrate a particular platform. We have no desire to become involved in that.

Q: Are F-35’s stealth capabilities better?

LHH: Eurofighter and F-15 are not designed with stealth from the beginning. F-35 is the only platform which was designed for stealth from the inception.

Q: F-35’s price is known to be high, and MND is saying that any delays would be problematic, so at this point they need to select 4th gen fighters. What do you think should happen?

LHH: I understand that the price difference between the F-35 and the total program cost is about KRW 1-2 trillion. I think that this is well within the range for budget adjustment, bearing in mind the total defense budget of KRW 34 trillion, of which KRW 10 or 11 trillion is allocated for improvement of defense capabilities. Plus, the budget will be expended over a ten-year period. This means a yearly addition of KRW 0.1 trillion, which is well within the range for adjustment.

Q (surprised): Is the cost difference that small?

LHH: Nothing’s been clearly disclosed, so I don’t know exactly. But I believe that it is roughly around that range.

Q: We heard that F-35 was twice as expensive.

LHH: That is not quite the case….

Q: Was there a problem with how the total program cost was estimated?

LHH: Yes. The total program cost was estimated back in 2009-10, and it does not take into consideration the fact that the price has decreased since then.

And here is a telephone interview of former AF Chief of Staff Park Chun-taek with Channel A:

Q: Could you summarize your views on the F-15SE?

General Park, Chun-taek: F-15SE is an F-15K that has been partially modified to fit some external weapons in internal bays, and to apparently offer limited stealth capabilities.

Q: So it is similar to what the Air Force is already operating.

PCT: Yes, it is claimed that F-15SE has limited stealth capabilities, but the aircraft currently does not exist.

Q: The former Air Force Chiefs have all said that F-15SE is not the right choice. Why?

PCT: The core capability which was the goal of the FX next gen fighter was stealth. Stealth fighters are not caught on radar, and can strike enemy targets without being detected.

Q: And the F-15SE doesn’t have it (stealth capability)?

PCT: They say that it has limited stealth, but the aircraft doesn’t actually exist, so we can’t rely on such claims.

Q: What do you think we should do? Should we restart the whole program?

PCT: We need stealth. If we don’t have this capability, and with other countries getting stealth, we will not be able to protect our airspace. If we don’t have stealth our pilots will not be able to safely return to base from missions.

Q: One candidate platform is very expensive, while another platform we were not able to test by actually flying it. What should we do?

PCT: The insistence on KRW 8.3 trillion restricts our ability to make a choice. DAPA’s such insistence is not acceptable. We can’t simply keep doing these programs, because the budget is a lot of money. We need to make the right choice here. We need to have the stealth capability, either by reducing the quantity of aircraft, or adding more budget. We have to have stealth capability. I am deeply concerned about Korea’s security. Stealth is very important and necessary for this."

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/24/k ... ep-likely/

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 07:25
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 07:44
by XanderCrews
Everyone go laugh at solomon he is having a meltdown.

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 08:50
by popcorn
XanderCrews wrote:Everyone go laugh at solomon he is having a meltdown.

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/


Wow.. almost makes Slowman sound reasonable. :)

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 09:20
by Conan
XanderCrews wrote:Everyone go laugh at solomon he is having a meltdown.

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/


Yeah he's lost the plot lately. He's jumped on the ELP bandwagon and now that he is starting to realise how big a hole he has dug himself into he's furiously trying to dig himself out, instead of climbing out.

Witness his crazy 'Pak-Fa' with 'South Korean engines' idea, never minding two articles earlier he's posted how even China are struggling to build a modern fighter engine, yet SK can just whip one up...

Apparently he forgot they had to buy F404 engines even for the T/A-50...


I never used to think Soloman was a complete moron.

I was wrong.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 09:32
by Corsair1963
I think the odds are far better that the US could pay off its National Debt in 5 years. Than South Korea purchasing the PAK-FA. As a matter of fact its down right laughable........


Plus, PAK-FA is very likely inferior to the F-35 in many respects.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 12:40
by geogen
Hb_Pencil: Negative on that, imho.

While there is finally some evidence to show that the latest lots 5, 6 and 7 are trending towards costing what their 'Production' costs were targeted to cost at the time of Buy year, or maybe 1-year before, (compared to say their Weapon System Unit Cost vs original official estimates from FY09, e.g.), there is unfortunately very little (near zero) credible evidence to show that currently expected FRP rates will be sustainable by say, FY19-FY20, or that even FY18 Weapon System Unit Costs will be 'on target' as currently estimated. They are merely futuristic, 'pre-conceived' estimates which seem to be set mostly for marketing purposes, as the Program would likely be cancelled point blank, if not for such seemingly affordable estimates being currently estimated and advertised.

But no, I'm sorry, there is little to no current evidence to show that US Congress is committing today, or Partner governments are committing today, to the extremely high 150-200 units per year produced currently being assumed in official estimates. And without said extreme annual FRP rates, it is being implied by the manufacturer themselves (in addition to GAO) that PROCUREMENT costs will increase in kind. Truly, it would be surprising if the majority of US Congress is even aware of the combined annual F-35 orders they are expected to be buying by FY18, FY19 and FY20, etc.

So I feel you are confusing 'trending' to current 'target' production cost analysis, with any actual evidenced 'trend' to hitting eventual late-LRIP and FRP rates and Unit Costs.

No one should doubt that USAF is willing to reduce it's tanker fleet size and overall Tacair force structure (as has been predicted/expected by critics for years) as a means to maximize F-35A procurement in relative terms... but that's a wide margin from implying USAF will have the budgets by FY16-FY20+, during increasingly austere budget environments (and trends of lost buying power) ahead, to Procure the expected extreme annual rates.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 12:59
by geogen
Consider the following:
1. NOKOR will eventually emplace its missiles in hardened silos. Standoff weapons won't have the precision and punch to take them out. A stealthy F-35 armed with internal HVPWs would be the most effective tool to get the job done.

2. NOKOR will eventually field a mobile BM force. A stealthy F-35 that can linger over hostile airspace to employ its advanced sensors offers the best likelihood of success.


Popcorn:

It's worth considering, but one can disagree with that assessment too. Firstly, there are apparently stand-off munitions which can likely penetrate a missile silo. They can be further designed too, as are other next-gen specialized munitions being considered such as the HVPW noted. An extended range and supersonic speed would also enable quicker engagement time.

2. Consider a potential requirement to fulfill such 'long-endurance' mobile-hunting capabilities via employing semi-autonomous VLO-type UCAV, rather than a relatively short-endurance fighter performing such a specialized role.

Personally though, I would not be surprised to see the 'rebid' process to include a bigger acquisition budget -- not only to actually be able to afford the number of mature F-35A outright as an option...but also to possibly include a contingency for a mix of stealthy UCAV 'hunters'. Stand-off munitions (to complement deterrence) could conceivably also be added into an increased F-X3+ acquisition budget?

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 15:07
by weasel1962
F-35 is restricted by weight to 2000lb class weapons for internal carriage. External stand-off already has 2000lb class weapons e.g. JASSM but more importantly has a higher weight limit e.g. what some F-15 pylons can carry = 5000 lbs. I think there's an edge for the F-35 in that by being able to penetrate NK airspace, it can observe in depth what an F-15 can't from afar even with sniper pods. That makes target ID more difficult. That can be resolved by UAVs e.g. global hawk (costly but less risk as unmanned). If time sensitive target, a standoff weapon can take longer to reach. Having said that, it is unlikely an F-35 will loiter deep in NK airspace for long even with stealth so there is still time to target added for an F-35.

Reading the SK top brass comments still imho reaffirms a little "fighter envy". Others have (or actually going to have) stealth so its important to have stealth even though in reality the others are many years away from operationalisation. Gone is any thought about what an F-15 payload brings to the fight (though the F-35 is no slouch).

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 15:39
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Hb_Pencil: Negative on that, imho.

While there is finally some evidence to show that the latest lots 5, 6 and 7 are trending towards costing what their 'Production' costs were targeted to cost at the time of Buy year, or maybe 1-year before, (compared to say their Weapon System Unit Cost vs original official estimates from FY09, e.g.), there is unfortunately very little (near zero) credible evidence to show that currently expected FRP rates will be sustainable by say, FY19-FY20, or that even FY18 Weapon System Unit Costs will be 'on target' as currently estimated. They are merely futuristic, 'pre-conceived' estimates which seem to be set mostly for marketing purposes, as the Program would likely be cancelled point blank, if not for such seemingly affordable estimates being currently estimated and advertised.


So very interesting marketing by the GAO to avoid point blank cancellation?

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 15:42
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:Korea Dumps Boeing F-15 For Stealth; F-35 Pacific Sweep Likely 24 Sep 2013 Colin Clark
"...“This outcome is no surprise (I predicted it in the Financial Times on September 17). Boeing didn’t make any mistakes, but it lacked an offering that could match the F-35 in survivability, situational awareness and other key performance parameters,” Loren Thompson, member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors and top defense consultant, writes in an email. “South Korea’s decision indicates that Seoul valued combat performance more highly than price in its evaluation.”

And the likely choice of Lockheed Martin’s F-35A — that may well be supplemented by F-35Bs — will place another chain in the long link of F-35 countries in the Pacific: Japan, Singapore and Australia. Add to those the American F-35s at bases throughout the Pacific. Air Force F-35s probably will head to four bases: Misawa, Japan; Kadena, Japan; Osan Air Base, Korea; and Kunsan Air Base, Korea. And F-35Cs will fly from carriers and F-35Bs from other Navy ships and Marine bases in the region.

To get some idea as to why capabilities trumped price — something Reuters and other news agencies said yesterday was not likely to happen because of South Korea’s fiscal situation — consider that 15 former South Korean Air Force chiefs of staff publicly argued that their country must buy a stealth aircraft.

Below are some excerpts from two interviews with them. Note the comments that DAPA must take stealth into account and not focus solely on price.

The first is an interview of former Chief of Staff Lee Han-ho by South Korea’s YTN network.

Q: Why did you and the other Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force decide to step forward on the FX program?

General Lee, Han-ho: We were reluctant to speak out. However, we observed how performance of the aircraft was disregarded and price became the only relevant issue for the FX program. I felt that this was a serious problem….

Q: Strategically, you believe that F-15SE is not the right choice, but rather stealth is required.

LHH: In consideration of the situations we have with North Korea and the surrounding regions, stealth is the only option. However, a competitive selection program was needed to promote lower price of the aircraft. We don’t have a problem with a competitive procurement program. We simply believe that all the relevant elements should be taken into consideration for the source selection, and are pointing out that price deciding the selection is a problem.

Q: F-15SE is looking very likely for the selection, but you appear to support the F-35. What are the F-35’s advantages?

LHH: We do not have any particular favored platform, and we do not intend to promote or denigrate a particular platform. We have no desire to become involved in that.

Q: Are F-35’s stealth capabilities better?

LHH: Eurofighter and F-15 are not designed with stealth from the beginning. F-35 is the only platform which was designed for stealth from the inception.

Q: F-35’s price is known to be high, and MND is saying that any delays would be problematic, so at this point they need to select 4th gen fighters. What do you think should happen?

LHH: I understand that the price difference between the F-35 and the total program cost is about KRW 1-2 trillion. I think that this is well within the range for budget adjustment, bearing in mind the total defense budget of KRW 34 trillion, of which KRW 10 or 11 trillion is allocated for improvement of defense capabilities. Plus, the budget will be expended over a ten-year period. This means a yearly addition of KRW 0.1 trillion, which is well within the range for adjustment.

Q (surprised): Is the cost difference that small?

LHH: Nothing’s been clearly disclosed, so I don’t know exactly. But I believe that it is roughly around that range.

Q: We heard that F-35 was twice as expensive.

LHH: That is not quite the case….

Q: Was there a problem with how the total program cost was estimated?

LHH: Yes. The total program cost was estimated back in 2009-10, and it does not take into consideration the fact that the price has decreased since then.

And here is a telephone interview of former AF Chief of Staff Park Chun-taek with Channel A:

Q: Could you summarize your views on the F-15SE?

General Park, Chun-taek: F-15SE is an F-15K that has been partially modified to fit some external weapons in internal bays, and to apparently offer limited stealth capabilities.

Q: So it is similar to what the Air Force is already operating.

PCT: Yes, it is claimed that F-15SE has limited stealth capabilities, but the aircraft currently does not exist.

Q: The former Air Force Chiefs have all said that F-15SE is not the right choice. Why?

PCT: The core capability which was the goal of the FX next gen fighter was stealth. Stealth fighters are not caught on radar, and can strike enemy targets without being detected.

Q: And the F-15SE doesn’t have it (stealth capability)?

PCT: They say that it has limited stealth, but the aircraft doesn’t actually exist, so we can’t rely on such claims.

Q: What do you think we should do? Should we restart the whole program?

PCT: We need stealth. If we don’t have this capability, and with other countries getting stealth, we will not be able to protect our airspace. If we don’t have stealth our pilots will not be able to safely return to base from missions.

Q: One candidate platform is very expensive, while another platform we were not able to test by actually flying it. What should we do?

PCT: The insistence on KRW 8.3 trillion restricts our ability to make a choice. DAPA’s such insistence is not acceptable. We can’t simply keep doing these programs, because the budget is a lot of money. We need to make the right choice here. We need to have the stealth capability, either by reducing the quantity of aircraft, or adding more budget. We have to have stealth capability. I am deeply concerned about Korea’s security. Stealth is very important and necessary for this."

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/24/k ... ep-likely/


Yes, Colin Clark is gloating, but then again check out the background of Breaking Defense and its board of contributors.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 15:51
by popcorn
HVPW is a 2000lb-class weapon with the destructive power of a 5000lb GBU-28. It is designed for internal carriage on the F-35 which makes it ideal for surprise strikes against high-value, hardened targets. The tactical surprise afforded by the F-35 LO is what the ROKAF prizes so highly as evidenced in the recent bidding. It's not so much envy as it is being pragmatic and appreciating that the ROKAF cannot afford to fall behind regional rivals.

As for UAVs, the USAF has already stated that the current generation are not viable in A2/ AD battlespace. The F-35 is designed to do so as a Sensor/Shooter. A UCAV that can do so does not exist. Based on recent reports, even UCLASS is being slanted towards the ISR role and its strike capability is being downplayed as it's effectivity and survivability in denied airspace is questionnable.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 17:17
by weasel1962
popcorn wrote:HVPW is a 2000lb-class weapon with the destructive power of a 5000lb GBU-28. It is designed for internal carriage on the F-35 which makes it ideal for surprise strikes against high-value, hardened targets. The tactical surprise afforded by the F-35 LO is what the ROKAF prizes so highly as evidenced in the recent bidding.


The HVPW is an hypothetical weapon that hasn't even reached a demonstrator phase. Such proposed weapons are not new (remember hystrike?). The programme does not have target dates beyond reaching demonstrator phase and also comes at a time of limited budgets. For the ROK to rely upon it would be high risk and that's being kind. If the HVPW doesn't go beyond the concept phase, what is the F-35 going to rely on? JASSM? a total waste of the F-35 since F-15 can do the job better in many scenarios.

All F-15 variants can carry the GBU-28. Not surprisingly the Koreans are the primary partners for the 2000lb JDAM wingkits. What is also real is the Koreans planning to buy (as announced in July 2013) the Taurus KEPD which is a 3000lb class weapon with the mephisto penetrator for bunker busting and a 500km range almost double that of the length of North Korea. Fighter envy.

Taurus brochure:
http://www.taurus-systems.de/tsg/brocs/ ... %20350.pdf

popcorn wrote:As for UAVs, the USAF has already stated that the current generation are not viable in A2/ AD battlespace.


Somehow I don't think that's what the USAF states when they are pushing ROK and Japan to buy the global hawks. More importantly, the GH has a LOS of >500km so it doesn't even have to go into NK.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 17:23
by XanderCrews
Conan wrote:
I never used to think Soloman was a complete moron.

I was wrong.


At least you can admit that, he seems to have a hard time with that. When you make bold predictions based on your guts instead of evidence, and then take an extreme position based on that hunch, while bashing anyone who disagrees or even sees a middle ground, you will paint yourself into a corner pretty quickly, and be wrong on a lot of things.

Luckily he is taking it like a man... just kidding he is whining and deleting everyone's posts, and once again making even crazier claims based on imagination rather than reality. Total nutter.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 19:03
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:Everyone go laugh at solomon he is having a meltdown.
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... ed-as.html Delusions of persecution and grandeur in the same short blurb (google the bold).

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 19:59
by cantaz
I like the part where one of the posters suggests that LM's been assassinating people involved in the SK bid.

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2013, 20:49
by XanderCrews
cantaz wrote:I like the part where one of the posters suggests that LM's been assassinating people involved in the SK bid.


Its just logical really. Or have they gotten to you too? :lol:

It wouldn't be nearly as funny if Sol wasn't one of the people he is now relentlessly accusing. The irony seems lost on him, that and a 5th grade education.

lookieloo wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Everyone go laugh at solomon he is having a meltdown.
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... ed-as.html Delusions of persecution and grandeur in the same short blurb (google the bold).


Oh my.

http://imgflip.com/i/3uce1

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 00:03
by newmanfrigan
Wow. The guys a moron on a mission. The most dangerous kind of moron is a motivated one and this guy has a motivation to look like hes been correct. That is starting to require a certain amount of mental gymnastics. The critics will never acknowledge they were wrong. They just find new non-scandals to make hay with. This guy seems to be a bit off his rocker honestly. Slowman too....its not healthy to become so emotionally involved in issues like procurement. Cognitive dissonance between that identity and reality will take a toll if things don't go your way! This is not much more logical than 9/11 conspiracy theory. LM has suckered all these countries into betting their security on a defective product. Funny how a few bloggers, a few "journalists" and a group of uninformed or selectively informed enthusiasts all know better than the premier air forces of the World and people with actual experience in military aerospace. These fellows need an Aurora to chase. LM? You got anything black, fast and loud?

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 00:46
by count_to_10
Wait, wait. He thinks LM has been paying for propaganda, and poor little Boeing hasn't?
Really?

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 04:25
by popcorn
weasel1962 wrote:
popcorn wrote:HVPW is a 2000lb-class weapon with the destructive power of a 5000lb GBU-28. It is designed for internal carriage on the F-35 which makes it ideal for surprise strikes against high-value, hardened targets. The tactical surprise afforded by the F-35 LO is what the ROKAF prizes so highly as evidenced in the recent bidding.


The HVPW is an hypothetical weapon that hasn't even reached a demonstrator phase. Such proposed weapons are not new (remember hystrike?). The programme does not have target dates beyond reaching demonstrator phase and also comes at a time of limited budgets. For the ROK to rely upon it would be high risk and that's being kind. If the HVPW doesn't go beyond the concept phase, what is the F-35 going to rely on? JASSM? a total waste of the F-35 since F-15 can do the job better in many scenarios.

All F-15 variants can carry the GBU-28. Not surprisingly the Koreans are the primary partners for the 2000lb JDAM wingkits. What is also real is the Koreans planning to buy (as announced in July 2013) the Taurus KEPD which is a 3000lb class weapon with the mephisto penetrator for bunker busting and a 500km range almost double that of the length of North Korea. Fighter envy.

Taurus brochure:
http://www.taurus-systems.de/tsg/brocs/ ... %20350.pdf

popcorn wrote:As for UAVs, the USAF has already stated that the current generation are not viable in A2/ AD battlespace.


Somehow I don't think that's what the USAF states when they are pushing ROK and Japan to buy the global hawks. More importantly, the GH has a LOS of >500km so it doesn't even have to go into NK.


Yes, HVPW is in the early stages of development, an inevitable step for all such systems. BUT it has gone beyond "hypothetical". It enjoys a high priority, with $35M additional funding infused into it's budget so I wouldn't bet against it becoming reality, the case for it in the USAF doctrine is so compelling. Obviously, ROKAFwon't be limited to any single weapon to execute any strike in the face of NK's IADS. Cruise missiles are nice but warplanners must consider what a massive EW measures will do to it's CEP; a degradation of just a few meters could make a huge difference in success or failure. A HVPW will likely include laser-guidance as one of it's targeting mode so it works well with F-35 EOTS. HVPW also aims to provide a lethality against hardened targets exceeding that of Taurus based on specs. Additionally, a F-35 can immediately launch additional strikes if needed.
It doesn't matter how many bunkerbusters a strikefighter can carry under its wing if it gets stymied by the IADS. The F-15SE simply can't cut it according to the professionals, past and present, in the ROKAF.

As for envy, no one can deny nationalism plays a role in many decisions, specially in the case of SK and its regional rivals. But I would hope we can concede these are professional air staffs with their National Security interests as their primary concern. Otherwise, one could just as easily say that the RSAF will be buying F-35s because the green-eyed monster won't let them be in a position of flying "last year's model" when participating in exercises with the RAAF, JASDF, and USAF/USN/USMC.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 06:00
by geogen
Popcorn - a UCLASS-type platform could indeed be sufficiently ISR-based, at least in fulfilling it's primary mission requirement. And yes, that (eg, an Avenger-type system) is what I was referring to as part of an hypothetical 'rebid' mix -- NOT procurement of a current day Reaper-type UAV system.

Such an Avenger/Global Hawk-type, e.g., inked into an extended-endurance F-15+ class platform being armed with stand-off, or prompt-strike munitions, would definitely seem to be a credible alternative to counter 'mobile' threats, vs say, sending out F-35s 'hunting' around for 20 minutes per sortie behind enemy lines. Please consider that aspect.

Furthermore, one doesn't need to drop a 5k-equivalent bunker buster on a missile silo to counter that threat either.

But this brings to point the greater philosophical issue with respect to the decision to 'rebid' Korea's F-X3 recap process.

Perhaps there is a changing goal-post with respect to requirements -- e.g., possibly to include a redesign of the inherent recap strategy? It is RoK's prerogative. Regardless, perhaps there is an evolving assessment to require a more blended F-X3 + KF-X combined strategy (depending more on an absolute futuristic, strategic deterrence mix), rather on a definitive F-X3, followed by a definitive KF-X in orderly procession. We'll have to see.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 07:44
by weasel1962
As of today, the HVPW exists only on paper. That's hypothetical by definition. There is research to justify a demonstrator programme in 2014 but that's pre-demonstrator. The classification of early development is irrelevant. Its exactly the same stage that Boeing was when they got awarded to "develop" the JDRADM. Look where that went....and imho a JDRADM could have better justification than HVPW to move to the next stage.

With that in mind, if the nuclear bunker busting mission is the real reason for rejecting the F-15 for the F-35, I think that seems a little unfair to the F-15K+. I'm just addressing that rationale. I agree with Geogen that its ROK's perogative what they choose but we should separate fact from fiction.

popcorn wrote:Otherwise, one could just as easily say that the RSAF will be buying F-35s because the green-eyed monster won't let them be in a position of flying "last year's model" when participating in exercises with the RAAF, JASDF, and USAF/USN/USMC.


Definitely agree one could easily say it, except that the RSAF hasn't used the rationale that the ROK (or at least the media) has used to justify their buying F-35s. From my experience dealing with Koreans, translation is often an issue. What they say may not be exactly what they mean. btw, I think the Koreans will get a good plane with the F-35. The only question is whether its the best bang for the buck at this time. What hurts the ROK is that the way this tender has been portrayed to be handled appears to justify perceptions that the end-result drives the tender i.e. the result is pre-determined. Not uncommon but can be a PR nightmare for those in procurement.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 08:29
by popcorn
geogen wrote:Popcorn - a UCLASS-type platform could indeed be sufficiently ISR-based, at least in fulfilling it's primary mission requirement. And yes, that (eg, an Avenger-type system) is what I was referring to as part of an hypothetical 'rebid' mix -- NOT procurement of a current day Reaper-type UAV system.

Such an Avenger/Global Hawk-type, e.g., inked into an extended-endurance F-15+ class platform being armed with stand-off, or prompt-strike munitions, would definitely seem to be a credible alternative to counter 'mobile' threats, vs say, sending out F-35s 'hunting' around for 20 minutes per sortie behind enemy lines. 9Please consider that aspect.

Furthermore, one doesn't need to drop a 5k-equivalent bunker buster on a missile silo to counter that threat either.

But this brings to point the greater philosophical issue with respect to the decision to 'rebid' Korea's F-X3 recap process.

Perhaps there is a changing goal-post with respect to requirements -- e.g., possibly to include a redesign of the inherent recap strategy? It is RoK's prerogative. Regardless, perhaps there is an evolving assessment to require a more blended F-X3 + KF-X combined strategy (depending more on an absolute futuristic, strategic deterrence mix), rather on a definitive F-X3, followed by a definitive KF-X in orderly procession. We'll have to see.


Sea Avenger is the least stealthy of the UCLASS contenders, far-fetched to think it would approach 5Gen LO standards so ability to operate in hostile airspace is doubtful.
What happens when it runs into,a MiG? Partnered with F-15K launching standoff weapons must factor in GPS denial and other EW effects. Even a small degradation in navigation accuracy and you miss the target. And how secure and reliable is the data link between UAV and jet in an intense EW environment?
How confident are you in you intelligence re the specifications of the NOKOR structural designs? Why, in heaven's name, not play it safe,,specially when neutralizing nukes? Trying to save a few bucks? A HVPW is more than justified in such a scenario if it increases assurance of target neutralization. I don't think,some,beancounter is going to insist on using a cheaper, lower-yield weapon when the objective is taking out a BM silo..heck! Drop two for good measure.. and it's not just silos..,there are those superbunkers to take out also. No one has more experience building hardened structures than the NKs.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 08:50
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:Hb_Pencil: Negative on that, imho.

While there is finally some evidence to show that the latest lots 5, 6 and 7 are trending towards costing what their 'Production' costs were targeted to cost at the time of Buy year, or maybe 1-year before, (compared to say their Weapon System Unit Cost vs original official estimates from FY09, e.g.), there is unfortunately very little (near zero) credible evidence to show that currently expected FRP rates will be sustainable by say, FY19-FY20, or that even FY18 Weapon System Unit Costs will be 'on target' as currently estimated. They are merely futuristic, 'pre-conceived' estimates which seem to be set mostly for marketing purposes, as the Program would likely be cancelled point blank, if not for such seemingly affordable estimates being currently estimated and advertised.


So basically you're saying that almost all the partner's countries estimates are wrong? This program is by far the most heavily scrutinized/audited projects I've ever seen. In addition to the usual budgeting process there are the "should cost" efforts, GAO, CBO and other national government analysis and audits ect... all basically are covering the same program. Yet you, Geogen, claim have better knowledge than all of this collected expertise. I guess you know better than the premier accounting firm KPMG, the masters and PhD trained individuals in DoD, USG and everywhere else.


Want a concrete example? Lets take the 2010 SAR for LRIP Lot 6 for 18 aircraft. Its the first after the replan as was written while the project was in a major state of flux. Its estimate is 102.18 in 2002 dollars for 19 units. Calculating the FY2013 DoD indices that $127.01 million in 2012 dollars. The actual from this year's AF Budget is $130.268 million for 18 aircraft... or a variance of under 3%.

LRIP lot 5 with actual costs? 108.33 with inflation indicies is 130.10 compared to 135.152 actual cost... a variance of 4%.

So yes, the predictions are roughly accurate two to three years after they were made. The program now has relatively stable funding and numbers until 2016. that actually means cost stability and greater accuracy going forward, which negates what you're trying to claim.

geogen wrote:But no, I'm sorry, there is little to no current evidence to show that US Congress is committing today, or Partner governments are committing today, to the extremely high 150-200 units per year produced currently being assumed in official estimates.


No evidence is only possible if you ignore every major statement, document and decision of future force structure for the past decade. The AF and DoD have made repeated clear statements that it intends to purchase the F-35 at the current rates. That extends from statements like that from SECDEF, SECAF, Acquisitions undersecretary, ect; various planning documents that envision a F-35 based force structure.Then there are the ancillary force decisions occurring right now... like to only upgrade 300 some F-16s...which will mostly go to reserve units until they are replaced by F-35s. The current statements about how DoD will cut
F-15Cs, A-10s and KC-10s to protect the F-35 procurement accounts.

You'd have to be completely ignorant of this evidence, which comes from all levels of the USG, to state that there is no current evidence.


geogen wrote: And without said extreme annual FRP rates, it is being implied by the manufacturer themselves (in addition to GAO) that PROCUREMENT costs will increase in kind. Truly, it would be surprising if the majority of US Congress is even aware of the combined annual F-35 orders they are expected to be buying by FY18, FY19 and FY20, etc.


Really? This is one of the most ridiculous statements you've ever made. Are you claiming that the members of the senate and house armed service committees (and their staffs) don't actually look over future budget documents?

And even if they didn't they are very keen on basing and economic benefits aka jobs. No F-35s means no jobs or basing... that's not good for reelection either.

geogen wrote:So I feel you are confusing 'trending' to current 'target' production cost analysis, with any actual evidenced 'trend' to hitting eventual late-LRIP and FRP rates and Unit Costs.


No no, I don't "feel" anything. I don't need to... I have facts and numbers behind me and the skill to assess them.

geogen wrote:No one should doubt that USAF is willing to reduce it's tanker fleet size and overall Tacair force structure (as has been predicted/expected by critics for years) as a means to maximize F-35A procurement in relative terms... but that's a wide margin from implying USAF will have the budgets by FY16-FY20+, during increasingly austere budget environments (and trends of lost buying power) ahead, to Procure the expected extreme annual rates.


Or it can have no fighters at all. DOD is already well ahead of you on this. The whole reason why the force structure is getting cut is to bring major savings on the Personnel and O&M accounts so that more of the defence budget can be allocated to acquisitions for the big three projects. Moreover the


I'm going to leave you with something you need to really think about. For years you've been dreaming about various alternatives based on upgraded F/A-18s and F-15. The Silent Eagle was representative of your dream... stealthy features and new avionics. Consequently, you should realize the significance of what just happened in Korea. Basically the ROKAF's military establishment looked at the proposal and rejected it flat out in the most clearest terms. They stated in almost no uncertain terms that the updated F-15 is not a viable alternative for their security. Moreover its only cheaper if you slap on some pretty restrictive terms for the sales. This is a country that lives on the front line of what the military establishment of the US and the western world consider the next great powers fault-line. So basically in their professional assessment, the alternative you have been pushing isn't even a credible.

Now I see you're claiming that UAVs, some cheap lightweight fighters and stand-off missiles will be adequate.I know for our government's analysts would regard that as a ridiculous assertion, as would the US government. Yet somehow you constantly come on here and claim to know better than the experts. From my view the only continuity between all your posting is not that its informed, its just that its horribly biased and misinformed in order to fit your preconcevied conclusion: no F-35.

So I ask you, in all seriousness; do you want to actually know and understand what is going on with the US military, or do you want to live in your fantasy land. Because if you want to have a serious informed discussion about future fighter capabilities and force structures, then you should drop this ******** you've been posting for the past several years. Its been basically discredited through and through at this point.

So what will it be: a quack or serious analyst?

We await your decision.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 10:15
by spazsinbad
South Korea seeks stealth jet edge while North's MiGs age 25 Sep 2013 By Joyce Lee and Ju-min Park
"...Lockheed Martin, the current favorite, said the company can deliver a jet about two years after receiving an order, which would dispel most concerns about a shortage of jets....

...South Korea said on Tuesday it would consider all options, including buying a mix of different models when reframing the tender, in order to minimize the gap in combat capabilities.

U.S. and European industry executives took heart as a mixed fleet could afford Boeing or the Eurofighter consortium - the third bidder in the scrapped tender - a chance to sell a smaller number of jets to Seoul, in addition to likely F-35 sales.

"The fact is that the South Koreans are facing a defense gap unless they can replace their aging F-4s very soon," said one industry official. "Buying a mixed fleet would allow them to close that gap more quickly, and probably at a lower cost."

Such a move would also give Seoul some added resources if the F-35 program, which is running about three years behind schedule, hits further delays, the official said...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... 4220130926

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 13:51
by weasel1962
Funnily enough, before the F-35 was available, the F-15 was more than adequate. Suddenly with the F-35, every other plane is useless? That clearly is a marketing comment. What I can accept is perhaps the ROK saying that adequate is no longer enough. That's a fair statement, as long as one can afford it. It gets tricky when one has to borrow money to fund it.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 15:05
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:Funnily enough, before the F-35 was available, the F-15 was more than adequate. Suddenly with the F-35, every other plane is useless?


Its not that it useless, its just not worth spending billions of dollars on for what you get, and billions more to support it for decades. We also aren't talking about the F-15. We are talking about a very unique Silent Eagle, one that would be a very small fleet (thus expensive) and would be hard to support. and one that though not obsolete, will be inferior in many respects to what can be purchased from LM for a little more, and F-35 will be cheaper to operate in the long run, and will have more front line service time as its more advanced and currently state of the art.

Simply put the juice isn't worth the squeeze on the F-15SE. Its the perfect VCR in an era of DVDs. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 19:03
by sferrin
If Boeing had been willing to self-fund the F-15 MANX they might have actually sold some.

And Solomon? Dude needs to get back on his meds.

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 19:32
by gtx
cantaz wrote:I like the part where one of the posters suggests that LM's been assassinating people involved in the SK bid.


Oh you mean we're allowed to do that again? Great! It has been such a pain not being able to utilise that little tool in my Business Development toolbox these last few years...click, click! :lol:

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2013, 20:11
by spazsinbad
I thought it was politely put as: "Terminate with extreme prejudice"?

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 02:38
by spazsinbad
Pentagon, Lockheed in $7.8bn deal 29 Sep 2013 REUTERS
"...The F-35 remains in the running for a 60-jet South Korean fighter competition after Seoul this week rejected a bid by Boeing Co involving its F-15 Silent Eagle fighter jet.

South Korea would have to make a commitment by the end of 2013 to secure a place in the ninth low-rate production contract for F-35 jets and ensure delivery of the first planes in 2017, said one source familiar with the program.

The overall contract won’t be negotiated for some time, but the Pentagon plans to award a contract for early procurement of materials for the jet in coming months, said the source.

South Korean officials have been in touch informally with the US military to understand the timing question, said the source, who was not authorised to speak on the record.

A second source familiar with the F-35 programme said it typically takes about two years to build a jet, and there might be ways to accommodate Seoul if it decided to order jets after initial “advanced procurement” funds were awarded to start ordering parts for the ninth batch of jets. Lockheed’s main subcontractors on the programme are Northrop Grumman Corp and Britain’s BAE Systems Plc...."

http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/business/2 ... -deal.html

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 10:21
by popcorn
EF still not certain to re-bid, Boeing won't sue.
Do SK procurement rules allow sole-source, negotiated purchases? That would seem to be the logical route, specially if EF and Boeing decline to participate leading to another failure of bidding and even more wasted time.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... er-Contest

F-35 Back in S. Korea Fighter Contest

SEOUL — After it was dropped from consideration in South Korea’s fighter competition, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter appears to be back in the running after a Defense Ministry source cited the need to counter North Korea with a fifth-generation fighter...

The source added that South Korea and Lockheed are hoping to sign a letter of agreement in the next six to nine months, to meet South Korea’s deadline of receiving its first fighter by the end of 2017...


One potential solution that could salvage the Korean situation for Boeing — offering up another order of F-15Ks to the South Korean government as a stopgap before the country purchases the F-35. Australia has done something similar, with an announced plan to buy 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets as a hedge against further JSF delays.

However, the source with knowledge of the situation said the South Korean Air Force has already considered, and rejected, the idea of splitting the buy.

“They just don’t want it,” the source said.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2013, 10:25
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2013, 02:19
by spazsinbad
Re-Visiting the South Korean Decision on the Silent Eagle 28 Sep 2013 SLDinfo
"...Now the South Korean government when announcing its decision highlighted the importance of the F-35 and its combat systems for shaping a new kill chain to deal with the threats of the Second Nuclear Age:

Briefing on the DAPEC’s decision regarding the F-X program will begin.

First, Baek Yoon-hyung DAPA spokesperson will announce the DAPEC decision

Baek Yoon-hyung
70th DAEPC, chaired by the MND minister Kim Kwan-jin, was held today at 1400 at the conference room at MND.

I will announce the decision for the F-X program.

“F-X program is a national weapon acquisition program to introduce fighters with high quality capabilities from overseas to prepare to deal with North Korean asymmetric combat power and seize the war initiative

Amongst three fighters including the F-15SE, F-35A, and Eurofighter, Boeing’s F-15SE was reported as the F-X project fighter candidate on the final selection candidate. However, the proposal was rejected after thorough discussion by DAPEC

DAPEC decided to reject the final project proposal after profound discussion about security circumstance and operation condition of Korea, based on the evaluation results on various categories such as mission execution capability and cost.

Going forward, MND and DAPA will collaborate with related agencies to re-execute the project as fast as possible to minimize the force vacuum. Suggested methods include quantity adjustment or total project budget modification.

This is all for the DAPEC decision on the F-X program

Kim Min-seok
The background for such decision is because majority of the DAPEC members agreed to reject it. Comprehensive evaluation result showed that, we need to consider north Korea’s asymmetric combat power like the nuclear weapons, recent security circumstances and global aerospace technology development trend and have decided to recommence the program

Especially we need to build kill chain as a key strategic power as a retaliation measure against ground provocation. Also we assessed that our Air Force should rise along with the global aerospace technology transition to the 5th generation.

Therefore, as mentioned before, we will re-execute the program while keeping in mind of following factors: Partial order adjustment, total project budget modification, minimize force vacuum, regulations and legislatures on the project re-execution.

For that, head of the MND strategic resources will be appointed as the T/F leader, and he will be working closely with the Chief of staff, Air Force, DAPA and associated parties to try to execute the program in the shortest time possible to avoid force gap.

The kill chain they have in mind is connecting the F-35 with ground assets — including missile defense — and could include sea-based Aegis systems to provide a comprehensive attack and defense enterprise against North Korean systems.

The South Korean government has decided to move forward towards this future.
"

http://www.sldinfo.com/re-visiting-the- ... ent-eagle/