Korea threatens to disqualify F-35

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post22 Jun 2013, 23:36

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?
Offline

slowman5

Banned

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2013, 23:04

Unread post22 Jun 2013, 23:52

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 01:15

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.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 03:18

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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 04:05

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.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 04:08

[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."
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 04:34

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?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6019
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 05:18

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?
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 07:11

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).
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 08:14

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.
Offline

slowman5

Banned

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2013, 23:04

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 11:40

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%.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 12:06

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.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 15:37

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.
Offline
User avatar

Lieven

F-16.net Webmaster

F-16.net Webmaster

  • Posts: 3656
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 15:44

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 16:47

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post23 Jun 2013, 16:53

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.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests