South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

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

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post24 Mar 2014, 19:26

XanderCrews wrote:Eric just had a doozy of a "free thought" post where he basically wrote sentence fragments about how to "solve" problems with the JSF that are already fixed or only existed in his imagination in the first place. :doh:



Yeah, that is a real laugh, especially the comments too ( quick, we need to fit a mirror to the F-35 :D ). See it here: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... -f-35.html
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post24 Mar 2014, 21:12

My god, I don't even... REALLY? YF-35D?

The deep end just keeps getting deeper.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 00:07

$6.79B/40= $169.75M APUC, vice an URF of "$80-85M." The RoKs must be buying lots of ancillary items, considering the the contracted price is about double the predicted URF in 2019.
Offline

coldman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2013, 21:32

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 00:54

maus92 wrote:$6.79B/40= $169.75M APUC, vice an URF of "$80-85M." The RoKs must be buying lots of ancillary items, considering the the contracted price is about double the predicted URF in 2019.

Same thing is happening with the Australians, there is no pre-established network for supporting the 35 in any of these countries. However when one considers this is going to be the mainstay fighter of the west for the next 50 years, it's probably a wise investment.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1054
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 01:24

XanderCrews wrote:
Conan wrote:Slow man was wrong again? Who'd have thought?

Can't wait for Soloman and Eric's respective meltdowns...


Eric just had a doozy of a "free thought" post where he basically wrote sentence fragments about how to "solve" problems with the JSF that are already fixed or only existed in his imagination in the first place. :doh:

Oh to be an imaginneer! Free of the burder of reality, and things are made up so you can solve them with your brain.

Thanks for the post that once again clarified price, including what that 85 million buys. I think if you beat people in the head enough with it, some of it might actually start to sink in. In a few years we will get rants from drooling idiots ( :drool: ) that are only about how "it sucks" rather than the current "it sucks and its too expensive"

I keep waiting for the big melt down from these guys instead of the daily ZOMG meltdown we have been getting, but they are steering clear of good news lately and just seem to pretend it doesn't exist.


My goodness. So F-35 is too expensive. Let's therefore use it's established tech (but downgraded from intended spec) to create no less than 3 new designs and bring them into service in the same numbers as F-35.

Yes, that should save an absolute packet!

I know batsh*t crazy is the principal selection criteria to post in that place but that is just about taking the cake...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24752
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 03:14

Sheesh 'maus92' 'slowman' over at SNAFU knows... I won't link though. :doh:
"1. US DoD made a deep price discount of $6.8 billion for 40 units...."
:D :devil:

EDIT: JUST to be clear a smiley has been added and a devily for good/bad measure to indicate JOKE. :drool:
Last edited by spazsinbad on 25 Mar 2014, 23:04, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6442
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 03:32

spazsinbad wrote:Sheesh 'maus92' 'slowman' over at SNAFU knows... I won't link though. :doh:
"1. US DoD made a deep price discount of $6.8 billion for 40 units...."


I don't know who "jason simmons" is over there, I am shocked ol' sol hasn't deleted him already.

Oh slowman. Deep discount? even if it was true who cares? he was dead freaking wrong, and now he is trying to spin it like it was rigged after spending literally years and dozens of bans skunking up threads all over the net to preach that the F-35 was DOA. lol wow.

But Sol deletes sferrin's posts? :doh: pathetic.
Choose Crews
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 03:45

IIRC discounting FMS sales is illegal.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6442
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 03:49

SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC discounting FMS sales is illegal.


don't think Slowman actually knows the difference. everytime he talks about cost its "LM did" or "LM said"
Choose Crews
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 06:40

maus92 wrote:$6.79B/40= $169.75M APUC, vice an URF of "$80-85M." The RoKs must be buying lots of ancillary items, considering the the contracted price is about double the predicted URF in 2019.


That isn't the APUC. The FMS contract includes a lot of other line items that are not considered APUC like in-service logistical support, repair parts, ferry costs. That's evident in last year's DSCA request for 60 aircraft, which is for $10.8 billion and includes, "U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support." It includes a substantial portion of O&M (often up to and exceeding twenty years) that would not be included in APUC calculations. Canada's purchase of C-17 included 20 years of support as part of the FMS contract, you can read it here and see the similarities with the ROKAF's DSCA notice.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 06:42

SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC discounting FMS sales is illegal.


Yes. Basically a firm cannot sell a product cheaper than what it is selling it to the US government.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5599
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 13:19

XanderCrews wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Sheesh 'maus92' 'slowman' over at SNAFU knows... I won't link though. :doh:
"1. US DoD made a deep price discount of $6.8 billion for 40 units...."


I don't know who "jason simmons" is over there, I am shocked ol' sol hasn't deleted him already.

Oh slowman. Deep discount? even if it was true who cares? he was dead freaking wrong, and now he is trying to spin it like it was rigged after spending literally years and dozens of bans skunking up threads all over the net to preach that the F-35 was DOA. lol wow.

But Sol deletes sferrin's posts? :doh: pathetic.


He deletes them because I committed the cardinal sin of correcting him a few too many times. :lol: When he started his tough-guy routine and I laughed at him it drove him over the edge. Seriously, check this out:

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... errin.html

How's that for deranged? :lmao: Then I asked him how that worked out for Bain. :P
"There I was. . ."
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6442
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 17:10

sferrin wrote:
He deletes them because I committed the cardinal sin of correcting him a few too many times. :lol: When he started his tough-guy routine and I laughed at him it drove him over the edge. Seriously, check this out:

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/ ... errin.html

How's that for deranged? :lmao: Then I asked him how that worked out for Bain. :P


You weren't scared of his inability to form a coherent argument and ability to post a gif that sends the wrong message?


Only "marine" I have ever met that says the USMC is no longer amphibious-capable as china, because China hovered an attack helo over the back of a frigate.

Dammit sferrin I forgot how stupid that guy is and now I'm clicking back there and just wasting my time laughing. My jaw and ribs hurt too, so thanks. :P


I remember the good old slowman days when Korea would NEVER get the F-35, now its but they are getting it at "deep discount" I bet Korea is fine with that too. apparently that is a problem

(i know SK isn;t getting a discount, but its funny to watch slowman constantly "evolve" his position") he needs to get into politics or law. he has a kind of "shameless moral flexibility" and short memory that would serve him well in a lot of professions.

All things being equal It wouldn't surprise if he showed up here yet again...
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post25 Mar 2014, 22:26

cantaz wrote:My god, I don't even... REALLY? YF-35D?

The deep end just keeps getting deeper.


What in the ever-loving hell...

Does this guy have any concept of procurement, development, funding & timeline, etc.? So we're supposed to scrap the F-35C and build another carrier strike aircraft with its avionics? I...I just don't...

About the only modestly sensible idea here is the suggestion for an IR-seeking AIM-120 variant. If it could accept mid-course guidance (or even just use an INS) to get it within IR seeker range of the target, the idea could actually be sound as far as throwing two threat types at the enemy. Of course, how that relates to the post topic of 'Fixing the F-35' is anybody's guess.

And what's this nonsense about allowing FMS? What do you call the ROKAF and JASDF orders, then- Asian takeout?

Don't even get me started on the YF-39. This guy has absolutely no idea what platforms are out there- KF-50 comes to mind as being exactly what he just described, without getting our pork-laden development cycles involved. :doh: :doh:
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post26 Mar 2014, 20:47

About the only modestly sensible idea here is the suggestion for an IR-seeking AIM-120 variant.


Which makes me wonder if he's just parroting the idea thrown around here of migrating USN's -9X Block 3 requirement into an AMRAAM instead.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests