South Korea resets Fighter Jet bidding

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

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post03 Jan 2018, 22:05

sferrin wrote:....And South Korea's ship-building capability is nothing to sneeze at.


Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering in Okpo, South Korea

- 1,500ft. long at 450,000 dwt. tankers
- the largest and most complex mechanical/ hydraulic/ electrical/ electronic/ computer; semi-submersible oil exploration/ production platforms built. Control I/Os of over 100,000 pts.
:)
Last edited by neptune on 04 Jan 2018, 05:57, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 01:37

Well, the biggest cargo ship was build in S.Korea, isn't it?

It was commissioned by Maersk. Built really, really quickly considering it's a mammoth of a vessel.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 03:47

loke wrote:No I was not referring to the F-22.... I was referring to something highly classified (although I do not know for how long it will remain highly classified, I guess it may actually depend on Kim...) 'Nuff said.


If it's highly classified shouldn't you not be talking about it? :doh: :doh: :doh:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 04:35

loke wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:The F-35 is also not the most advanced military flying machine in the US inventory.... At the end of the day it is a replacement mainly for F-16/F-18 (etc.).


If the F-35 is not the most advanced military flying machine in the US inventory (fighter aircraft wise) than what is? The F-22? Well, I would have to completely disagree with you this since the only thing where the F-22 is more advanced than the F-35 is kinematics, everywhere else and "advanced=Sensors+EW+Stealth+Weapons_Capabilities" the F-35 is hands down much more advanced than the F-22.

Regarding your question about if Turkey will get F-35 why won't India get it as well, I believe it can be easily answered not only once but twice:
1- Turkey is a NATO member, India is not.
2- Turkey is a JSF member, India is not.

No I was not referring to the F-22.... I was referring to something highly classified (although I do not know for how long it will remain highly classified, I guess it may actually depend on Kim...) 'Nuff said.

Turkey is a NATO member however there are already several non-NATO members lining up to buy the F-35, and more to come. The only thing stopping several ME countries from getting the F-35 is that Israel (which has a very strong lobby in the US) is denying other ME countries to obtain the F-35.



Honestly, I believe the "odds" are in fact good. That India will acquire the F-35 in the coming years. As it really has no other options to counter China in the near to mid term. (maybe longer) :wink:
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 06:24

spazsinbad wrote:... other Korean reports suggested the additional order could be for 26 jets, including six F-35B STOVL versions for operation from a Korean Navy assault ship that is now under construction. The Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) ordered 40 F-35As in 2014, and the first airframe is expected to roll out this year....


....lest I forget! Regardless of how the "Bee" is to be deployed on ships, it has to be accounted for by their adversaries with the ability to remote locate to FOBs and that alone, should complicate the response scenarios; ie: Israel, Singapore, Japan, US, UK, Australia, etc. (others with remote island options).

Anywhere (postage stamp) a MV-22B can land is a location for a "Bee" refuel/ rearm site (CVN? Hee!, Hee! :twisted: ).
:)
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 07:44

Busan to Seoul is 325km. Seoul to Dandong is 353km. That's 175-370 nm combat radius max from edge of Korea. There is no need for distributed ops as NK can't interdict SK airfields, SK already has multiple hardened airbases with strong air and possibly CRAM defenses and its far more efficient logistically to support operations from the existing large airbases than FARPs. The combat radius is too short for FARPs to materially affect turnaround times (though useful for ROK helos which has substantially less endurance).

The F-35A will have better time on station, carry more 2000lb bombs per sortie than the B which is probably more important than what the B can offer the ROK. What the ROK needs is more bombs on target which means bomb trucks. That's why the F-15K is such a good fit for the ROK. They might as well just use the money for the 6 Bs to buy a whole sh*tload (probably as many as 20,000) of SDBs, BLU109s and a few more Taurus. That will scare Kim more than the 6 Bs would as that's probably enough to flatten every building in Pyongyang and then some....
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 543
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 13:28

weasel1962 wrote:What the ROK needs is more bombs on target which means bomb trucks. That's why the F-15K is such a good fit for the ROK. They might as well just use the money for the 6 Bs to buy a whole sh*tload (probably as many as 20,000) of SDBs, BLU109s and a few more Taurus. That will scare Kim more than the 6 Bs would as that's probably enough to flatten every building in Pyongyang and then some....


@weasel1962, why do you so vehemently oppose the idea of ROK having STOVL aircraft? Especially if they don't have to choose "either or" - this news are just in:

Air Force taps Boeing to build additional 6,000 GBU-39 ... the new order involves foreign military sales of the SDB to Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Singapore.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... tions.html

Here's some fresh Navy news too:
Navy Recognition learned that Raytheon is currently discussing with the ROK Navy and South Korea ministry of national defense procurement of additional SM-2s as well as SM-6 and SM-3. Raytheon didn't want to discuss specific programs but it seems clear to us that SM-6 and SM-3 procurement would be linked to the KDX-III Batch II (and potentialy the follow on KDDX program as well).

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... oyers.html

SM-6 and JSF pair very well, as has already been demonstrated.

6 Bees (if the news reports turn out to be correct) operating from their modified Dokdo-class might only be a beginning to build experise of ship-bourne operations. Neither China nor NK are going to curb their enthusiasm, and we response from the neighbours (Japan getting JASSM and JSM and stating it wants to get into naval fixed-wing aircraft). There's no reason why ROK couldn't build a proper light carrier that can operate larger amount of F-35Bs.

One could say that getting more F-35As to perform the same task would be cheaper, but it seems to me that having a fleet air arm that is under Navy's command and operates & trains for maritime tasks is more effective.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 13:38

weasel1962 wrote:Busan to Seoul is 325km. Seoul to Dandong is 353km. That's 175-370 nm combat radius max from edge of Korea. There is no need for distributed ops as NK can't interdict SK airfields, SK already has multiple hardened airbases with strong air and possibly CRAM defenses and its far more efficient logistically to support operations from the existing large airbases than FARPs. The combat radius is too short for FARPs to materially affect turnaround times (though useful for ROK helos which has substantially less endurance).

The F-35A will have better time on station, carry more 2000lb bombs per sortie than the B which is probably more important than what the B can offer the ROK. What the ROK needs is more bombs on target which means bomb trucks. That's why the F-15K is such a good fit for the ROK. They might as well just use the money for the 6 Bs to buy a whole sh*tload (probably as many as 20,000) of SDBs, BLU109s and a few more Taurus. That will scare Kim more than the 6 Bs would as that's probably enough to flatten every building in Pyongyang and then some....


If we think about the Korean peninsula scenario alone or the RoK (South Korea) Armed Forces having to engage North Korean forces than I would say that your assessment would be about right.

However the RoK Armed Forces don't solely exist to protect South Korea from any potential North Korean aggression (although I get the impression that many/most people trend to think this way).
Like I previously said, the RoK Armed Forces usually participate on overseas deployments together with other international partners/allies and in this regard I believe that the F-35B (onboard Assault Ships) would/could be extremely useful.

Resuming, I believe that the South Korean plans to purchase the F-35B (six you say?) are not intended to somehow deter North Korea or to have North Korea in mind but instead they might be mainly intended for overseas deployments.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 14:10

You are right. South Koreans have been involved in multiple adventures with Vietnam in particular where the Korean division was particularly effective. Doesnt mean the As cant deploy in the expeditionary role. The dokdos are not big like the wasp lhds where the Bs can operate with helos. Its either all Bs in which case the expeditionary capability disappears or helos.

I'm not questioning the B's capabilities. I'm questioning the cost effectiveness when the As can do the job.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 16:07

Yes, you are correct when you say that the F-35As can also be deployed in an expeditionary role. However the F-35Bs give more options compared to the As.
For example if for some reason it's not desirable to operate over land, the Bs give this option since they can operate from the Dokdo-class ships (or from other allied Assault ships).
Or for some reason if it's desirable or even needed to operate from semi-prepared runways (on land obviously) - all of this and again, in an overseas deployment - than in this case the Bs certainly have a clear advantage over the As.

With the Bs the issue/advantage is not economical but instead having more options and depending of the service (such as the RoK Armed Forces), having these extra options will/would/could outweigh the extra costs.

About the Dokdo-class ships not being able to operate in Assault roles if it carries the F-35Bs, are you sure of this?
Well, I'm asking this because it seems that the Dokdo-class ships will be able to carry Helicopters and Vehicles at the same time (please correct me, if I'm wrong) so and if this is the case, why wouldn't it be able to carry Helicopters, Vehicles and F-35Bs at the same time? This of course at the expense of considerable number of Helicopters and/or Vehicles, of course...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2151
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 16:25

ricnunes wrote:About the Dokdo-class ships not being able to operate in Assault roles if it carries the F-35Bs, are you sure of this?
Well, I'm asking this because it seems that the Dokdo-class ships will be able to carry Helicopters and Vehicles at the same time (please correct me, if I'm wrong) so and if this is the case, why wouldn't it be able to carry Helicopters, Vehicles and F-35Bs at the same time? This of course at the expense of considerable number of Helicopters and/or Vehicles, of course...


I surmise it is a a matter of size. At 14,300 tons, she is half the displacement of the Juan Carlos I, upon which the RAN Canberra-class is based. The Juan Carlos I can carry 10-12 Harriers / Lightnings and 10-12 helos at the same time. Cut the size of the ship in half and there may only be room for helos or Lightnings, but not both. According to Wikipedia, "She [i.e. the Dokdo-class] can also carry 10 helicopters when there are no ground vehicles on her hangar deck," the ROK already have to choose between helos or ground vehicles. Equipped with a well deck and two LCACs, the Dokdo-class seems to be a fine light amphib assault ship designed to land ground troops and vehicles (e.g. tanks).

Remove the well deck, and the Dokdo might make a fine light carrier able to carry a dozen Lightnings. Whether ROK wants to do that is another matter.
Last edited by steve2267 on 04 Jan 2018, 17:38, edited 1 time in total.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 17:05

Ok, I see. Thanks for the heads up steve2267
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 19:24

....sorry to bring out the numbers but;

Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship/ LHD-1 USS Wasp
Type: Landing Platform Helicopter/ Type: Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD)
Displacement: 14,300t(empty) / 18,800t(full)/ Displacement: 40,500t/ 41,150t full load
Length: 653 ft/ Length: 843 ft
Beam: 102 ft/ Beam: 104 ft
Draught: 23 ft/ Draft: 27 ft

The ship can carry 720 marines (+300 crew members), 10 tanks, 10 trucks, 7 AAVs, three field artillery pieces, and two LCAC hovercraft capable of landing on enemy shores doing 40 knots (74 km/h)—a mix that enables it to launch troop landings from both sea and air. She can also carry 10 helicopters when there are no ground vehicles on her hangar deck.

...all as mentioned by others;

The Dokdo could carry numerous (6+) F-35Bs and could probably operate (fuel and rearm) 2-4 F-35Bs with the SK A-330. It will not operate a squadron of F-35Bs. Whether the mission is ISR and/ or stealth strike, the Dokda flexibility/ maneuverability with the F-35B support would add great complexity to the adversaries defense requirements.
IMHO
:)
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post05 Jan 2018, 10:20

I surmise it is a a matter of size. At 14,300 tons, she is half the displacement of the Juan Carlos I, upon which the RAN Canberra-class is based. The Juan Carlos I can carry 10-12 Harriers / Lightnings and 10-12 helos at the same time. Cut the size of the ship in half and there may only be room for helos or Lightnings, but not both. According to Wikipedia, "She [i.e. the Dokdo-class] can also carry 10 helicopters when there are no ground vehicles on her hangar deck," the ROK already have to choose between helos or ground vehicles. Equipped with a well deck and two LCACs, the Dokdo-class seems to be a fine light amphib assault ship designed to land ground troops and vehicles (e.g. tanks).

Remove the well deck, and the Dokdo might make a fine light carrier able to carry a dozen Lightnings. Whether ROK wants to do that is another matter.

[/quote]

There are other factors to be considered in modifying the Dokdo's for F-35B service. First is the overhead on the Hanger Deck. The America Class are huge ships, but they had to have their Hanger Decks modified to accommodate F-35Bs. Second is the size, and weight limits of the ships elevators. If their too small you'd need a major redesign of the Flight Deck, to replace them with bigger, stronger ones. Third the whole flight deck might need to be strengthened to handle the added weight of the F-35B. All that added weight might raise the center of gravity of the ship making it top heavy, and a less stable sea platform.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23098
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2018, 10:41

I'm guessing you did not read or ignored this article posted earlier - on another thread - a plague upon multiple threads:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=384490&hilit=employment#p384490
"...A bolt-on 45’ ski jump is under development, and the flight deck is coated with ablative urethane. Both features have no other use than V/STOL aircraft employment. Both elevators are sized to handle F-35-sized planes. None the less, the South Korean government continues to deny that it is interested in the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. If it were equipped with a ski jump board module, 15-17 meters in length, it could operate short-range and vertical landing/take-off aircraft such as the Harrier or F-35B. Ships of this type are sometimes called a semi-aircraft carrier. The flight deck is coated with special Urethane to resist heat generated from aircraft. However, Korean military authorities have made it clear that they have no plan to convert the LPX into such a semi-aircraft carrier...." https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... k/lp-x.htm
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests